What is the mass of a black hole made of?

[kent davidge]

As the tittle says, what is the mass of a black hole made of? Would it be made of the neutrons (and protons, electrons) that formed the earlier star? If no, what happens to those particles? Where do they go to after the black hole is formed?

 

[Dale]

What is the mass of an electron made of?

 

[kent davidge]

What is the mass of an electron made of?

Maybe I did not put the right words to describe my question. I think mass is not made of anything, but instead it's a mathematical property that particles have when interacting with the Higgs field.

 

[martinbn]

May be you meant to ask what is the mass of i.e. what does the system with said mass consist of. The answer is that the mass is of the space-time, it can be vacuum no matter is needed. As to the question what happens to the particles, I don't think one can say much i.e. we don't know. By which I mean we don't know (except possibly for conjectures) what the consequences of the theory are. Singularities will form (i.e. there will be geodesicaly incomplete worldlines), but what type they are we don't know. We also don't know which particles will have such worldlines.

 

[PeroK]

As the tittle says, what is the mass of a black hole made of? Would it be made of the neutrons (and protons, electrons) that formed the earlier star? If no, what happens to those particles? Where do they go to after the black hole is formed?

It's tempting to say that all the particles disappear down a black hole!

 

[kent davidge]

May be you meant to ask what is the mass of i.e. what does the system with said mass consist of. The answer is that the mass is of the space-time, it can be vacuum no matter is needed. As to the question what happens to the particles, I don't think one can say much i.e. we don't know. By which I mean we don't know (except possibly for conjectures) what the consequences of the theory are. Singularities will form (i.e. there will be geodesicaly incomplete worldlines), but what type they are we don't know. We also don't know which particles will have such worldlines.

Oh Ok. What is the singularity from a math point of view? Metric assuming the value infinity?

It's tempting to say that all the particles disappear down a black hole!

In violation of several laws of physics?

 

[PeterDonis]

1what is the mass of a black hole made of? Would it be made of the neutrons (and protons, electrons) that formed the earlier star?

I think mass is not made of anything, but instead it's a mathematical property that particles have when interacting with the Higgs field.

The second statement of yours quoted above is easier to answer, so I'll start with that. "Mass" in the sense of what particles get via interaction with the Higgs field is not the same concept as "mass" in the sense of what appears as the constant $M$ in the spacetime metric of a black hole. The first concept is a property of particle interactions. The second concept is a property of the spacetime geometry. So it's important to keep the two concepts separate.

Given that, it should now be easier to see the answer to your first question. The mass of the black hole is a property of the spacetime geometry of the hole. It is not "made of" anything other than that. A better question would be, what causes that property of the spacetime geometry to be what it is? The answer to that question is: the matter and energy that formed the object that originally collapsed to form the hole.

what happens to those particles? Where do they go to after the black hole is formed?

According to classical GR, they hit the singularity at the center of the hole and are destroyed. Most physicists believe that is not what actually happens, because the laws of classical GR no longer work when the spacetime curvature gets strong enough, as it does close to the singularity. But we are not sure at this time what actually does happen in this regime.

 

[kent davidge]

The second statement of yours quoted above is easier to answer, so I'll start with that. "Mass" in the sense of what particles get via interaction with the Higgs field is not the same concept as "mass" in the sense of what appears as the constant $M$ in the spacetime metric of a black hole. The first concept is a property of particle interactions. The second concept is a property of the spacetime geometry. So it's important to keep the two concepts separate.

Ok. So is it more correct to say that the Earth's mass, say, is a property of the ST geometry while our own mass is due particle interactions?

According to classical GR, [the particles] hit the singularity at the center of the hole and are destroyed

In this case, the Pauli Exclusion Principle would certainly be violated, no? Dont we can use Quantum Mechanics to try to get an idea of what happens there in the singularity?

 

[Nugatory]

In this case, the Pauli Exclusion Principle would certainly be violated, no? Dont we can use Quantum Mechanics to try to get an idea of what happens there in the singularity?

Why would you think that the exclusion principle might be violated?

 

[kent davidge]

Why would you think that the exclusion principle might be violated?

Because in this case two fermions would occupy the same state... but by Peter Donis,

According to classical GR, they hit the singularity at the center of the hole and are destroyed

so, maybe, they are destroyed before occupying the same state?

 

[PeterDonis]

So is it more correct to say that the Earth's mass, say, is a property of the ST geometry while our own mass is due particle interactions?

You're still using a single word "mass" when you should be distinguishing different concepts. If by the Earth's mass you mean, for example, the $M$ that we deduce from measuring the orbital parameters of satellites, the Moon, etc., that is a property of the spacetime geometry. You and I also, in principle, affect the spacetime geometry around us, so we also have a mass in that sense, but it's much, much harder to detect.

If, OTOH, by the Earth's mass you mean the stress-energy associated with all the particles that compose it, that is due to particle interactions--at least, much of it is. There are also contributions from, for example, the kinetic energy of the Earth's atoms, because it is at a finite temperature, the pressure and stresses in the materials that compose the Earth, etc. You and I also have mass in this sense, of course.

So the simple answer to your question is that all objects have mass in both senses; it isn't a question of some having one and some having the other.

 

[PeterDonis]

In this case, the Pauli Exclusion Principle would certainly be violated, no?

GR is a classical theory so it doesn't treat these aspects at all. Matter is treated as a continuous substance.

Dont we can use Quantum Mechanics to try to get an idea of what happens there in the singularity?

We could if we had a theory of quantum gravity. At this point we don't. We only have various speculative candidates.

 

[kent davidge]

GR is a classical theory so it doesn't treat these aspects at all. Matter is treated as a continuous substance.
We could if we had a theory of quantum gravity. At this point we don't. We only have various speculative candidates.

Thank you

 

[smodak]

As the tittle says, what is the mass of a black hole made of? Would it be made of the neutrons (and protons, electrons) that formed the earlier star? If no, what happens to those particles? Where do they go to after the black hole is formed?

I think what you may have meant is what matter black hole is made of, just as Earth is made of several things as described here. I think it is a very interesting question one that I don't believe is so far answered in this thread but I am also curious.

 

[Stella.Physics]

Maybe one should ask where does the mass of a black hole lie. Of course black holes are made of pure spacetime and nothing else; but where exactly does this mass lie, since the matter from the progenitor star is gone and all is left is the singularity and other than that the properties of the spacetime geometry as driven by this new stellar object.

 

[Stella.Physics]

Oh Ok. What is the singularity from a math point of view? Metric assuming the value infinity?

a singularity is the point where all physics laws break down.
For example in the Schwarzschild metric, there are 2 anomalies in the radial coordinate $r=0$ as a pure singularity and another one $r=2M$ but that's just a coordinate singularity.
The Schwarzschild metric is given by
$ds^2 = - \bigg(1- \frac{2M}{r} \bigg) dt^2 + \bigg( 1-\frac{2M}{r} \bigg)^{-1} dr^2 + r^2 d\theta ^2 + r^2 sin^2\theta d\phi^2$

 

[kent davidge]

a singularity is the point where all physics laws break down.
For example in the Schwarzschild metric, there are 2 anomalies in the radial coordinate $r=0$ as a pure singularity and another one $r=2M$ but that's just a coordinate singularity.
The Schwarzschild metric is given by
$ds^2 = - \bigg(1- \frac{2M}{r} \bigg) dt^2 + \bigg( 1-\frac{2M}{r} \bigg)^{-1} dr^2 + r^2 d\theta ^2 + r^2 sin^2\theta d\phi^2$

Very interesting, so the only true singularity occurs at r = 0, but there are more than one coordinate singularity. What happens at these coordinate singularities? (Is it also unknown?)

 

[Ibix]

A coordinate singularity just means you made a bad choice of coordinates for that region. There are coordinate singularities at the north and south poles, but there's nothing odd there in reality.

 

[phinds]

As the tittle says, what is the mass of a black hole made of? Would it be made of the neutrons (and protons, electrons) that formed the earlier star? If no, what happens to those particles? Where do they go to after the black hole is formed?

What is at the center of a black hole is called a "singularity" which means "the place where the math model breaks down and we don't know WHAT is going on". It certainly seems likely that whatever is there is broken down into elementary particles but we don't know that and likely won't until there evolves a provable theory of quantum gravity that may (or may not) let us figure out what is likely to be happening at the quantum level.

EDIT: OOPS. For some reason I thought I was responding to a new post and managed to miss the subsequent posts, so I've just duplicated what's already been said.

 

[kent davidge]

What is at the center of a black hole is called a "singularity" which means "the place where the math model breaks down and we don't know WHAT is going on". It certainly seems likely that whatever is there is broken down into elementary particles but we don't know that and likely won't until there evolves a provable theory of quantum gravity that may (or may not) let us figure out what is likely to be happening at the quantum level.

EDIT: OOPS. For some reason I thought I was responding to a new post and managed to miss the subsequent posts, so I've just duplicated what's already been said.

I appreciate your post indeed

 

[Narasoma]

The second statement of yours quoted above is easier to answer, so I'll start with that. "Mass" in the sense of what particles get via interaction with the Higgs field is not the same concept as "mass" in the sense of what appears as the constant $M$ in the spacetime metric of a black hole. The first concept is a property of particle interactions. The second concept is a property of the spacetime geometry. So it's important to keep the two concepts separate.

Given that, it should now be easier to see the answer to your first question. The mass of the black hole is a property of the spacetime geometry of the hole. It is not "made of" anything other than that.

Why don't we aswer the question by "The mass of a black hole is made of matter-energy compounds that formed it, whatever the matter made of due to particle physics"?

 

[PeterDonis]

Why don't we aswer the question by "The mass of a black hole is made of matter-energy compounds that formed it, whatever the matter made of due to particle physics"?

Because that doesn't address the issue of the multiple possible meanings of the term "mass". Nor does it address the fact that the black hole is vacuum.

 

[Stella.Physics]

Very interesting, so the only true singularity occurs at r = 0, but there are more than one coordinate singularity. What happens at these coordinate singularities? (Is it also unknown?)

Like Ibix said a coordinate singularity is just a bad choice we made.

But for the Schwarzschild metric which is a solution to the Einstein field equations and describes the vacuum outside of spherical mass distributions, the metric element contains two singularities $r=0$ which is an essential singularity like I said and $r=R_{sch}= 2M$ which is a coordinate singularity, where the escape velocity is that of light. Now this radius $R_{sch}= 2MG/c^2$ is called the Schwarzschild radius, but we often talk in geometrized units so $G=c=1$ and it becomes $R_{sch}= 2M$.
This point is also known as the event horizon and it is what gives the term "black" in the name of the black holes. Since nothing can escape from that surface these objects appear black, because nothing is emitted. Later on Steven Hawking talked about the phenomenon where in the vacuum outside the black hole pair production happens, when a particle and its antiparticle are "born", so one of these particles gets sucked by the black hole and the other manages to escape and that is like the black hole emits radiation.

 

[kent davidge]

Like Ibix said a coordinate singularity is just a bad choice we made.

But for the Schwarzschild metric which is a solution to the Einstein field equations and describes the vacuum outside of spherical mass distributions, the metric element contains two singularities $r=0$ which is an essential singularity like I said and $r=R_{sch}= 2M$ which is a coordinate singularity, where the escape velocity is that of light. Now this radius $R_{sch}= 2MG/c^2$ is called the Schwarzschild radius, but we often talk in geometrized units so $G=c=1$ and it becomes $R_{sch}= 2M$.
This point is also known as the event horizon and it is what gives the term "black" in the name of the black holes. Since nothing can escape from that surface these objects appear black, because nothing is emitted. Later on Steven Hawking talked about the phenomenon where in the vacuum outside the black hole pair production happens, when a particle and its antiparticle are "born", so one of these particles gets sucked by the black hole and the other manages to escape and that is like the black hole emits radiation.

Oh ok. Thank you.

 

[martinbn]

A comment about the "central singularity". One has to understand that it is a vague statement based on one particular case. The geometry inside the event horizon is very different from what euclidean intuition may suggests. So wording as the singularity at the centre may be misleading. The image it may bring, a point at the centre where something strange happens, is inaccurate. Also this is based on the Schwartzshild solution, in general the situation can be different. Even for the Kerr solution phrase "the singularity at the centre" is not just misleading it is wrong. In general, as far as I know and I might be wrong so if someone has references it would be great, very little is known. Penrose's theorem guaranties geodesic incompleteness if there is a trapped surface, but what kind the incompleteness it is no one knows.

 

[anorlunda]

It certainly seems likely that whatever is there is broken down into elementary particles but we don't know that and likely won't until there evolves a provable theory of quantum gravity that may (or may not) let us figure out what is likely to be happening at the quantum level.

Do the possibilities include the matter being converted to massless particles such as photons? Or perhaps that the energy is stored in a field with no particles at all? Perhaps other types of conservation (charge?, baryon number? ...) forbids those scenarios.

It always seemed to me that science should discuss the energy inside the BH based on the observation that it gravitates, and avoid any presumption about the form of that energy since we don't know for sure.

 

[PeterDonis]

Do the possibilities include the matter being converted to massless particles such as photons? Or perhaps that the energy is stored in a field with no particles at all?

Classically, whatever falls into the singularity at $r = 0$ just disappears; it doesn't get converted to something else. The mass (meaning the $M$ that appears in the Schwarzschild line element) is not "stored" anywhere except in the geometry of the spacetime as a whole.

When we add quantum gravity to the mix, our current best guess is probably that whatever falls into the black hole eventually gets converted into Hawking radiation and is radiated back out. But that's only a best guess; we won't know until we have a good theory of quantum gravity. And even the best guess I just described isn't backed up by anything very strong; there are plenty of speculations in this area that can't be tested against each other experimentally, now or in the foreseeable future.

Perhaps other types of conservation (charge?, baryon number? ...) forbids those scenarios.

If the best guess I gave above is correct, then baryon number isn't actually conserved; it's only approximately conserved, and deep inside a black hole is one of the places the approximation breaks down. (Actually, it probably breaks down in the early universe as well; the fact that our universe contains more matter than antimatter, when it probably started from a state at the very end of inflation that was matter-antimatter symmetric, indicates that baryon number was not conserved back then. But that's another area where we don't really understand what's going on.)

Charge is conserved, but any black hole of significant size is probably going to be electrically neutral, just because if it happens to get some charge, by having charged matter fall into it, it will attract opposite charges which will fall in and neutralize it again.

 

[smodak]

Classically, whatever falls into the singularity at $r = 0$ just disappears; it doesn't get converted to something else. The mass (meaning the $M$ that appears in the Schwarzschild line element) is not "stored" anywhere except in the geometry of the spacetime as a whole.

When we add quantum gravity to the mix, our current best guess is probably that whatever falls into the black hole eventually gets converted into Hawking radiation and is radiated back out. But that's only a best guess; we won't know until we have a good theory of quantum gravity. And even the best guess I just described isn't backed up by anything very strong; there are plenty of speculations in this area that can't be tested against each other experimentally, now or in the foreseeable future.
If the best guess I gave above is correct, then baryon number isn't actually conserved; it's only approximately conserved, and deep inside a black hole is one of the places the approximation breaks down. (Actually, it probably breaks down in the early universe as well; the fact that our universe contains more matter than antimatter, when it probably started from a state at the very end of inflation that was matter-antimatter symmetric, indicates that baryon number was not conserved back then. But that's another area where we don't really understand what's going on.)

Charge is conserved, but any black hole of significant size is probably going to be electrically neutral, just because if it happens to get some charge, by having charged matter fall into it, it will attract opposite charges which will fall in and neutralize it again.

An interesting popular physics account dealing with this phenomena

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316016411/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Qiao]

I we can only guess right? Since it's impossible/hard(maybe hawing radiation?) to get any information from a black hole.

 

[phinds]

I we can only guess right? Since it's impossible/hard(maybe hawing radiation?) to get any information from a black hole.

Hawking radiation doesn't tell you anything about what the stuff inside the BH looks like.

 

[Stella.Physics]

An interesting popular physics account dealing with this phenomena

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316016411/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I was thinking of buying this book. Is it good? Has anyone of you read it?

Hawking radiation doesn't tell you anything about what the stuff inside the BH looks like.

Maybe just what has been "added" to the black hole.

 

[Phil Lawless]

The second statement of yours quoted above is easier to answer, so I'll start with that. "Mass" in the sense of what particles get via interaction with the Higgs field is not the same concept as "mass" in the sense of what appears as the constant $M$ in the spacetime metric of a black hole. The first concept is a property of particle interactions. The second concept is a property of the spacetime geometry. So it's important to keep the two concepts separate.

Given that, it should now be easier to see the answer to your first question. The mass of the black hole is a property of the spacetime geometry of the hole. It is not "made of" anything other than that. A better question would be, what causes that property of the spacetime geometry to be what it is? The answer to that question is: the matter and energy that formed the object that originally collapsed to form the hole.
According to classical GR, they hit the singularity at the center of the hole and are destroyed. Most physicists believe that is not what actually happens, because the laws of classical GR no longer work when the spacetime curvature gets strong enough, as it does close to the singularity. But we are not sure at this time what actually does happen in this regime.

It is possible to extrapolate some classical behaviors into the boundary of a black hole. In the case of supermassive black holes, the event horizon is so far from the center of mass that the gradient of the gravitational field is relatively small, A human astronaut could cross that boundary without being aware of the difference of gravitational attraction between his head and his feet. Near a much smaller black hole, the tidal effects could pull him apart. The same processes would hold for smaller objects, even down to the size of atoms. Eventually, the gradient approaching the singularity would pull everything apart. The question remains: how long does an astronaut have until that happens? With his speed of approach to the singularity increasing all the time, it should be expected that his perception of time, relative to an outside observer, should be decreasing. The details may be impossible to work out with confidence, but he could quite possibly spend a subjective eternity approaching the singularity. This is essentially the premise of Tipler's book, The Physics of Immortality.

 

[Ibix]

The question remains: how long does an astronaut have until that happens? With his speed of approach to the singularity increasing all the time, it should be expected that his perception of time, relative to an outside observer, should be decreasing. The details may be impossible to work out with confidence, but he could quite possibly spend a subjective eternity approaching the singularity. This is essentially the premise of Tipler's book, The Physics of Immortality.

I think you've misunderstood something, or I've misunderstood you. The infalling astronaut has a very short lifetime after crossing the horizon - less than a second, if memory serves. Viewed from a distance, though, the astronaut never reaches the horizon. She can exploit this to return in the far future by dropping arbitrarily close to the horizon and spending a short (to her) time there then returning (assuming a impossibly powerful rocket to hover and return).

Edit: also, you appear to be invoking special relativity's concept of kinematic time dilation, which isn't appropriate here. You need to look at spacetime intervals to get the elapsed times for two observers.

 

[StandardsGuy]

As the tittle says, what is the mass of a black hole made of? Would it be made of the neutrons (and protons, electrons) that formed the earlier star? If no, what happens to those particles? Where do they go to after the black hole is formed?

The question of the mass has been adequately answered, but maybe not the matter. Current thinking says a star of 10 to 29 solar masses will collapse into a neutron star, with protons and electrons compressed into neutrons, and the neutrons closely packed. Larger stars with more gravity become black holes. The neutrons may become crushed, so that the quarks are then packed closely. This is all conjecture, but someone said that the matter was destroyed. We don't know if the quarks are destroyed too. Maybe someone with high math skills could answer that. We know that black hole temperatures are on the order of a millionth of a degree. There seem to be different laws of physics for things this cold. Anyone want to elaborate?

 

[PeterDonis]

With his speed of approach to the singularity increasing all the time, it should be expected that his perception of time, relative to an outside observer, should be decreasing.

No. First, the concept of "speed of approach to the singularity" has no meaning. The singularity is a moment of time, not a place in space. Spacetime geometry inside the horizon does not work the way you are thinking it does.

Second, there is no way to compare the "rate of time flow" of an astronaut inside the horizon with that of an outside observer. So the intuitive reasoning you are using here simply doesn't work for this case.

The details may be impossible to work out with confidence, but he could quite possibly spend a subjective eternity approaching the singularity.

No, that's not correct. The astronaut's experienced time from horizon to singularity is of the same order of magnitude as the time it would take light to travel a distance equal to the hole's Schwarzschild radius, i.e., $2 GM / c^3$.

This is essentially the premise of Tipler's book, The Physics of Immortality.

Tipler was talking about a "Big Crunch" singularity in a closed universe (and his own particular kind of closed universe, too, not the standard kind that you see in cosmology textbooks), not a black hole singularity. These are very different spacetime geometries.