black holes can't be made of matter (off-topic from Quantum Fluctuations/Foam)

[MarkE]

45 minutes ago, swansont said:

Dark matter is still matter (hint: it's in the name), but that's not part of this particular discussion.

Are you’re referring to MACHOs and WIMPs? These hypothetical particles have never been proven to exist. 

54 minutes ago, swansont said:

You have asserted this, but have not supported the assertion. Repeating it is not support.

And you have provided zero physics to back you up.

There’s a term in astrophysics called ‘degeneracy pressure’, which sets a limit to which matter particles can be clumped together inside of a body. The addition of one single neutron would make a neutron star collapse into a black hole (link - link - link).

I'd like to see physics which shows that dark matter must be SM matter.

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Are you’re referring to MACHOs and WIMPs? These hypothetical particles have never been proven to exist. 

I will point out once again that the discussion is about black holes, not dark matter.

But it's ironic that you object that the particles have never been proven to exist, when your own argument is based on particles that have been never proven to exist. At least be consistent.

Quote

There’s a term in astrophysics called ‘degeneracy pressure’, which sets a limit to which matter particles can be clumped together inside of a body. The addition of one single neutron would make a neutron star collapse into a black hole (link - link - link).

Bingo!

Quote

I'd like to see physics which shows that dark matter must be SM matter.

And I am asking for the physics that tells us it can't be, since that is your claim and you own the burden of proof for it. That someone can't prove you wrong does not mean that you are right. (that's the appeal to ignorance fallacy)

[MarkE]

59 minutes ago, swansont said:

your own argument is based on particles that have been never proven to exist

? 

What particles? Where did I mention that a particle is responsible for mass?

59 minutes ago, swansont said:

And I am asking for the physics that tells us it can't be, since that is your claim and you own the burden of proof for it. That someone can't prove you wrong does not mean that you are right. (that's the appeal to ignorance fallacy)

You're absolutely right, that someone can't prove me wrong does not mean that I am right, but I'm merely applying Occam's razor whenever there are two mutually exclusive arguments. I always tend to support the most plausible explanation. I've tried to explain to you why there are more reasons (supported by observations and the laws of physics) in advantage of BHs not existing of SM particles than against it, and you've tried to explain to me why BHs do exist of SM particles. We both lack irrefutable evidence, so I guess we both see no reason to change or adjust any of our personal opinions. So let's just agree to disagree. Just to be clear, to suggest that BHs are made of SM particles (described above in detail) is in my opinion not wrong, only less plausible.

Edited May 17, 2018 by MarkE

[swansont]

43 minutes ago, MarkE said:

? 

What particles? Where did I mention that a particle is responsible for mass?

"a black hole therefore can't be an object (made of Standard Model "stuff")"

So sure, you didn't say particles. But it's something, whatever it is, that's not in the SM. So it's just as hypothetical as dark matter candidates.

43 minutes ago, MarkE said:

You're absolutely right, that someone can't prove me wrong does not mean that I am right, but I'm merely applying Occam's razor whenever there are two mutually exclusive arguments. I always tend to support the most plausible explanation. I've tried to explain to you why there are more reasons (supported by observations and the laws of physics) in advantage of BHs not existing of SM particles than against it

I've missed these. Where did you make these arguments? Neutron degeneracy is not an argument against SM particles, since neutrons are composite particles. You argued something about photons being attracted to BHs, but that seems to be a matter of not understanding GR.

43 minutes ago, MarkE said:

and you've tried to explain to me why BHs do exist of SM particles. We both lack irrefutable evidence, so I guess we both see no reason to change or adjust any of our personal opinions. So let's just agree to disagree. Just to be clear, to suggest that BHs are made of SM particles (described above in detail) is in my opinion not wrong, only less plausible.

I have objected to your certainty of the situation, and to your "less plausible" conclusion. You lack a mechanism for a conversion to "something else" and have no theory that valid in the relevant scale that demands it.

[beecee]

Again I'm at a total loss how anyone can claim that BH's are not made of anything in the standard model, if that is what is being suggested. eg: The star Betelgeuse is a normal standard red giant star that may become a BH. How does that align with any claim that BH's are not made of normal every day  SM matter?  Sure, while there is much more DM in the universe, and DM only interacting gravitationally with normal SM matter, means that BH's can and probably do contain some DM, again how can anyone conclude a BH does not consist of matter as per the SM? And again while we have no evidence as to what is inside a BH, or what is happening inside a BH, we do know that GR tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory at least up to the quantum/Planck level, and the fact that tidal gravitational effects will see matter ultimately being torn asunder into its most basic components which are a part of the SM.

Are there any errors in the above? I see it as reasonably logical and in line with what we already know.

[MigL]

Are we sure there is a denser form of matter than a neutron star , Mordred ?

Take an electron and place it in a box. Now start shrinking the box.
Once the box has shrunk enough, the position of the electron is 'fixed' enough that its momentum would be so great that it would need to exceed the speed of light. The effect that keeps this from happening is electron degeneracy pressure not allowing you to fix, or compress, the electron's position that far.

If the pressure increases past this point, as in a larger star than a white dwarf, electrons and protons are forced together to form neutrons, in which case the 'box' around the neutron can be three orders of magnitude smaller ( since a neutron is three orders of magnitude heavier ) before the HUP limitation  makes the neutron's speed unphysical. This is neutron degeneracy pressure.

This is the argument S Chandrasekhar used in the paper on the degenerate electron gas in white dwarf stars. He wrote it in the 30s, on the boat ride to England to study under Sir  A Eddington at Cambridge, and it can be easily looked up.

I don't see how going back to a particle that is slightly heavier than an electron would help 'resist' higher pressures than neutron degeneracy.
Please elaborate.

[MarkE]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

So sure, you didn't say particles. But it's something, whatever it is, that's not in the SM. So it's just as hypothetical as dark matter candidates

It doesn’t have to be something (“something” meaning “stuff”), this would only be the case if you assume that a particle by itself can “have” mass. I don't think that this has to be the only possibility.

A black hole may quite literally be a black hole, a gap, which exerts an attractive force onto energy and matter because of this counter-nature, even though it’s not a body, it's not stuff, nothing at all, an empty hole in space. If you assume that only SM particles are able to have mass, how then would you explain the existence of dark matter? How would you explain the additional mass if you can't include any more additional matter? Dark matter isn’t showing any signs of a normal SM particle nature, so why would you assume it must have one, only because the SM is the only model we are allowed to use? What is "mass" anyway? Perhaps the term "dark matter" should be "dark attraction".

If there are only two possibilities, and one of them is ruled out, then the second possibility must be the answer. In other words: if it can't be something, it must be nothing, according to the proof by contradiction. But I don't claim to understand the nature of "nothing", and perhaps I'm totally wrong, so yes, you could argue of course that a BH must be a body, an object, made of SM particles, indeed, because it seems to be the most probable and logical candidate, and you can wrap your brains around that more easily. But then the question remains: what kind of matter? And in what composition? What dense form of matter did you have in mind?

Edited May 18, 2018 by MarkE

[Mordred]

How can nothing cause mass? that makes no sense whatsoever.  You need some form of energy density to have a resistance to inertia change (mass) 

 

Edited May 18, 2018 by Mordred

[beecee]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Are we sure there is a denser form of matter than a neutron star , Mordred ?

Apologies, I'm not Mordred, but pretty sure I suggest....Cygnus X1: We literally see matter disappearing into what we determine as a BH......The template model of gravitational waves based  on GR type BH's   and what that entails, that has now been verified 5 times. by aLIGO.

 

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

If there are only two possibilities, and one of them is ruled out, then the second possibility must be the answer. In other words: if it can't be something, it must be nothing, according to the proof by contradiction. But I don't claim to understand the nature of "nothing", and perhaps I'm totally wrong, so yes, you could argue of course that a BH must be a body, an object, made of SM particles, indeed, because it seems to be the most probable and logical candidate, and you can wrap your brains around that more easily. But then the question remains: what kind of matter? And in what composition? What dense form of matter did you have in mind?

Just me again, not Mordred.....what kind of matter? matter that has been broken down into its most fundamental parts via tidal gravitational effects...quarks etc. It's something that originated from matter in an as yet unknown state....While GR predicts its own downfall at the quantum/Planck level, and the subsequent singularity, that singularity need not be infinite, in fact most now don't believe it is....so a surface of sorts, composed of free quarks and other fundamentals. At least that's my take on it.  And of course DM may also be the cause of part of the mass of a BH.

Edited May 18, 2018 by beecee

[MigL]

I don't doubt the existence of Black Holes, BeeCee.
I just don't see any evidence of something 'stronger' than neutron degeneracy, able to resist gravitational collapse.
And I've given my argument  ( actually S Chandrsekhar's argument ) in my previous post.

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Are we sure there is a denser form of matter than a neutron star , Mordred ?

Take an electron and place it in a box. Now start shrinking the box.
Once the box has shrunk enough, the position of the electron is 'fixed' enough that its momentum would be so great that it would need to exceed the speed of light. The effect that keeps this from happening is electron degeneracy pressure not allowing you to fix, or compress, the electron's position that far.

If the pressure increases past this point, as in a larger star than a white dwarf, electrons and protons are forced together to form neutrons, in which case the 'box' around the neutron can be three orders of magnitude smaller ( since a neutron is three orders of magnitude heavier ) before the HUP limitation  makes the neutron's speed unphysical. This is neutron degeneracy pressure.

This is the argument S Chandrasekhar used in the paper on the degenerate electron gas in white dwarf stars. He wrote it in the 30s, on the boat ride to England to study under Sir  A Eddington at Cambridge, and it can be easily looked up.

I don't see how going back to a particle that is slightly heavier than an electron would help 'resist' higher pressures than neutron degeneracy.
Please elaborate.

 

There is a set of theories that takes this further on fermionic gases. As far as I know its still in thee strictly theoretical stages however here is a relevant MIT paper discussing quark degeneracy with the relevant formulas. Whether or not the theory borne's out to be accurate is AFIAK anyone's guess t this stage.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi6zvDpm47bAhUl_IMKHTnFCRAQFggpMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.mit.edu%2F8.322%2FSpring%202007%2Fnotes%2FDFSCropped.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3xFAlu3VlZabJSB4sAsFt_

the relevancy is a few years ago I came across a series of papers describing Strange quark matter production in the cores of Neutron stars and began chasing down the theory which is how I became familiar somewhat with the theory. Its also the same set of theories in support of possible quark stars.

Here is a relevant arxiv on the quark stars.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1910

I haven't heard much recently on the topic so have little idea where thee research stands today. unfortunately the first article is one of the better quality I could locate on the web today on the topic.

PS at the very least thee first article is excellent for understanding electron and neutron degeneracy so even if quark degeneracy turns out to be false its still a good article

Edited May 18, 2018 by Mordred

[MigL]

Thanks Mordred.

A quick perusal of the paper you provided indicates that quark matter,
" a degenerate Fermi gas of quarks held together either by the strong chromodynamic forces "
may be a denser form of matter. In effect, matter at the same density as a proton or neutron, both composed of quarks held together by the color force.
However the cores of neutron stars are already thought to be composed of quark matter, and since BHs collapse from neutron stars, I don't see quark matter as being  present in the center of a BH.

[Mordred]

Well on that I tend to agree which is why I considered the possibility of a bosonic condensate. Assuming further collapse of the theoretical quark matter which is the last possible stage for fermionic matter. Bosonic matter becomes a possibility. At such extreme densities I cannot see how one can avoid a high temperature Bose Einstein  condensate however high temperature Einstein Bosonic condensates are also relatively new in physics research. Relevant example paper on previous thread page.

 As stated however my suggestion is speculative at best and not to be taken as anything beyond a hypothetical thought experiment.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Mordred

[MigL]

Thanks again.
Gives me something to read at work tomorrow night.

[Mordred]

Your welcome I've lost plenty of sleep over the years on BH singularities and the possible connections and similarities to BB nucleosynthesis over the years though there is numerous significant differences between the two lol. Its been an off and on subject of study to try and piece together a viable process that applies to both topics. How much can be safely applied from BB nucleosynthesis to thermodynamic reversibility has been a tricky subject of study. LOL also full of crackpot articles I've read over the years on the two topics roflmao.

A little side note I once asked a similar question on physicsforum and Space.com when it had a forum and on both forums they suggested the possibility of bosons I haven't stopped looking into the possibility since lol so thanks may be premature

Edited May 18, 2018 by Mordred

[swansont]

8 hours ago, MarkE said:

It doesn’t have to be something (“something” meaning “stuff”), this would only be the case if you assume that a particle by itself can “have” mass. I don't think that this has to be the only possibility.

A black hole may quite literally be a black hole, a gap, which exerts an attractive force onto energy and matter because of this counter-nature, even though it’s not a body, it's not stuff, nothing at all, an empty hole in space.

If that's your position, then work up a model on how this works.

8 hours ago, MarkE said:

If you assume that only SM particles are able to have mass, how then would you explain the existence of dark matter?

Indeed. It's not a reasonable assumption, since physics has already taken the position that it's not true.

8 hours ago, MarkE said:

How would you explain the additional mass if you can't include any more additional matter? 

What additional mass?

8 hours ago, MarkE said:

Dark matter isn’t showing any signs of a normal SM particle nature, so why would you assume it must have one, only because the SM is the only model we are allowed to use? What is "mass" anyway? Perhaps the term "dark matter" should be "dark attraction".

I don't see where I have assumed this.

8 hours ago, MarkE said:

If there are only two possibilities, and one of them is ruled out, then the second possibility must be the answer.

What do you think has been ruled out, and why are there only two possibilities?

8 hours ago, MarkE said:

In other words: if it can't be something, it must be nothing, according to the proof by contradiction.

That's the fuzzy part here. I don't see where you've shown that it can't be something. Nor that there is only one option for something, since you have spent considerable effort pointing out that there are likely particles not included in the SM.

8 hours ago, MarkE said:

But I don't claim to understand the nature of "nothing", and perhaps I'm totally wrong, so yes, you could argue of course that a BH must be a body, an object, made of SM particles, indeed, because it seems to be the most probable and logical candidate, and you can wrap your brains around that more easily. But then the question remains: what kind of matter? And in what composition? What dense form of matter did you have in mind?

Why do I have to have something in mind in order to point out that your assertion is seriously flawed?

[MarkE]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

If that's your position, then work up a model on how this works.

I’m already working on it, you’re all actually a great help in the process!

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What additional mass?

I was referring to the surplus of mass that has been measured in the Milky Way, which has to be accounted for (in order to explain the trajectory of all celestial bodies orbiting the BH). We have coined this additional mass the term “dark matter” because it can’t be caused by the mass of the total amount of matter objects in the Milky Way (since all celestial bodies are made up of SM particles). If this can't be explained by normal matter, we're forced to divert to other explanations.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What do you think has been ruled out, and why are there only two possibilities?

It looks like the densest form of SM matter can’t be at the center of a BH (but I haven’t considered Fermi gas yet, as pointed out by @Mordred). However, so far SM particles have been ruled out as an explanation for all the mass we measure. This means that if “something” ("stuff", SM particles) can’t be the cause of mass, it must be “nothing” (whatever that means, I don’t claim to understand the physics of “nothing”), but the point is that there’s no option c, it’s either “stuff” or “not stuff”, so if it can't be A, it has to be B.

10 hours ago, Mordred said:

How can nothing cause mass? that makes no sense whatsoever.  You need some form of energy density to have a resistance to inertia change (mass) 

There’s a difference between “nothing”, meaning a gap/hole in spacetime, and the vacuum in between celestial bodies. The vacuum itself has some kind of neutrality, whereas an actual hole has an attractive force, because of its negative characteristic. Once again, what is mass anyway? The Higgs, the graviton, dark matter, aren’t they all just different forms of attraction? Why would anybody argue that mass must be caused by a SM particle?

[Strange]

1 minute ago, MarkE said:

This means that if “something” ("stuff", SM particles) can’t be the cause of mass, it must be “nothing” (whatever that means, I don’t claim to understand the physics of “nothing”), but the point is that there’s no option c, it’s either “stuff” or “not stuff”, so if it can't be A, it has to be B.

It doesn't mean it must be "nothing", it probably just means it is "something else"; i.e. not something in the known family of particles. The problem is we have no good evidence for anything beyond the standard model, yet.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

 

I was referring to the surplus of mass that has been measured in the Milky Way, which has to be accounted for (in order to explain the trajectory of all celestial bodies orbiting the BH). We have coined this additional mass the term “dark matter” because it can’t be caused by the mass of the total amount of matter objects in the Milky Way (since all celestial bodies are made up of SM particles). If this can't be explained by normal matter, we're forced to divert to other explanations.

Which has nothing to do with black holes, i.e. the topic of the discussion. 

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

It looks like the densest form of SM matter can’t be at the center of a BH (but I haven’t considered Fermi gas yet, as pointed out by @Mordred). However, so far SM particles have been ruled out as an explanation for all the mass we measure.

You've claimed this several time, with no explanation or justification whatsoever.

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

This means that if “something” ("stuff", SM particles) can’t be the cause of mass, it must be “nothing” (whatever that means, I don’t claim to understand the physics of “nothing”), but the point is that there’s no option c, it’s either “stuff” or “not stuff”, so if it can't be A, it has to be B.

But since you haven't actually ruled out anything, this conclusion is bogus.

 

[MarkE]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which has nothing to do with black holes, i.e. the topic of the discussion. 

You've claimed this several time, with no explanation or justification whatsoever.

But since you haven't actually ruled out anything, this conclusion is bogus.

Thanks for your contribution anyway swansont, you’re saying credible things to ponder, and I really think I have to take your viewpoint on the matter seriously, and I will, so thanks for sharing your thoughts on the subject!

[YaDinghus]

Black holes are highly confusing even to the sharpest scientific minds, so I won't go and claim that I know all about them. I recently read an article in my google feed claiming that two mathematicians have disproved the cosmic censorship, but at the same time let GR and Penrose of the hook because SpaceTime inside a Black Hole was not continuous and therefore could not be described by GR (alone). As to what Black Holes are made of: How the hell should I know? Because of the unsmootheness of SpaceTime inside a Black Hole, it might very well be possible that fermions can't exist in a black hole. But there is no reason to assume that MUST be the case, because, well, we can't exactly reproduce unsmoothe Spacetime to observe it. We would have to be incredibly lucky to observe a naked singularity, which *might* exist somewhere in the universe.

 

The reason why we believe that we need GUT to understand what goes on inside Black Holes is because the energy ought to be so densely packed - even if it's not a true singularity - that there would be a state of matter equivalent to the time before the first Planck Time of the universe elapsed, all forces joined in perfect symmetry. I think it's a pretty good approach, but Black Holes aren't symmetrical. They preserve Angular Momentum and Charge, so there's a chance that fermions do continue to exist beyond the Event Horizon, without the force merge.

Black Holes clearly ARE objects, albeit very obscure objects. They even have a temperature: Hawking radiation is a radiation with a thermal distribution. The more massive a Black Hole is, the colder it gets (but their accretion disks tend to be hotter).

 

I also read something about more massive Black Holes, while they have a larger Event Horizon, actually being smaller than less massive Black Holes. The more confined the mass inside them is, the more uncertain the momentum of the particles inside them, and because momentum has more degrees of freedom than location, this results in a higher energy on average per particle - hence more mass. This seems to contradict the prior statement of more massive Black Holes being cooler than less massive ones, but we can only measure the temperature at the Event Horizon, which still is bigger for more massive Black Holes, thus radiating over a much larger area. Also this at least would infer that there are particles inside the Black Hole with individual mass and momentum, though they could be purely virtual particles - emphasis on could. 

Now that I've condensed a few things of what we don't know about Black Holes, I think I'll go to bed. My head hurts...

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, YaDinghus said:

Black holes are highly confusing even to the sharpest scientific minds, so I won't go and claim that I know all about them. I recently read an article in my google feed claiming that two mathematicians have disproved the cosmic censorship, but at the same time let GR and Penrose of the hook because SpaceTime inside a Black Hole was not continuous and therefore could not be described by GR (alone). As to what Black Holes are made of: How the hell should I know? Because of the unsmootheness of SpaceTime inside a Black Hole, it might very well be possible that fermions can't exist in a black hole. But there is no reason to assume that MUST be the case, because, well, we can't exactly reproduce unsmoothe Spacetime to observe it. We would have to be incredibly lucky to observe a naked singularity, which *might* exist somewhere in the universe.

 

The reason why we believe that we need GUT to understand what goes on inside Black Holes is because the energy ought to be so densely packed - even if it's not a true singularity - that there would be a state of matter equivalent to the time before the first Planck Time of the universe elapsed, all forces joined in perfect symmetry. I think it's a pretty good approach, but Black Holes aren't symmetrical. They preserve Angular Momentum and Charge, so there's a chance that fermions do continue to exist beyond the Event Horizon, without the force merge.

Black Holes clearly ARE objects, albeit very obscure objects. They even have a temperature: Hawking radiation is a radiation with a thermal distribution. The more massive a Black Hole is, the colder it gets (but their accretion disks tend to be hotter).

 

I also read something about more massive Black Holes, while they have a larger Event Horizon, actually being smaller than less massive Black Holes. The more confined the mass inside them is, the more uncertain the momentum of the particles inside them, and because momentum has more degrees of freedom than location, this results in a higher energy on average per particle - hence more mass. This seems to contradict the prior statement of more massive Black Holes being cooler than less massive ones, but we can only measure the temperature at the Event Horizon, which still is bigger for more massive Black Holes, thus radiating over a much larger area. Also this at least would infer that there are particles inside the Black Hole with individual mass and momentum, though they could be purely virtual particles - emphasis on could. 

Now that I've condensed a few things of what we don't know about Black Holes, I think I'll go to bed. My head hurts...

 

 Not a bad summary +1 though I would probably describe unsmoothness as anistropic.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Mordred

[MarkE]

 

On 5/22/2018 at 3:24 AM, YaDinghus said:

SpaceTime inside a Black Hole was not continuous and therefore could not be described by GR (alone)

This is another reason to add to my list why black holes can't possibly be made of Standard Model matter.

On 5/22/2018 at 4:42 AM, Mordred said:

that there would be a state of matter equivalent to the time before the first Planck Time of the universe elapsed, all forces joined in perfect symmetry

Would this particle be a particle on the SM, or a different/new kind of particle that doesn't exist today (as mentioned by Strange in another topic):

On 4/22/2018 at 9:52 PM, Strange said:

On 4/22/2018 at 9:33 PM, MarkE said:

Are you implying that, during this hot dense state, there must have been a non-Standard Model particle which wasn’t involved with any of these three forces of nature whatsoever?

Not really. Just that in the grand unification epoch, the particles that existed would have behaved differently than they do now. This is not something I now much about but if the forces were unified, then perhaps the distinct particles we see now were not distinguished. But it probably needs someone like Mordred to comment further

Mass/attraction isn't necessarily inherently connected with matter. On the list of unsolved problems in physics can be read: Dark matter: What is the identity of dark matter?[17] Is it a particle?

On 5/22/2018 at 4:42 AM, Mordred said:

but Black Holes aren't symmetrical. They preserve Angular Momentum and charge

Are you sure that black holes preserve charge? That would mean they have to be made of SM matter, but as far as I know charged black holes only exist in theory. 

On 5/22/2018 at 4:42 AM, Mordred said:

Black Holes clearly ARE objects, albeit very obscure objects. They even have a temperature: Hawking radiation is a radiation with a thermal distribution

Keep in mind that Hawking radiation is describing the vicinity of a BH, the event horizon (where matter resides), not the center of it. The same accounts for jet plumes. In artistic drawings you often see a jet plume coming from the center of a BH, but in reality the jet plume is formed only in the vicinity of a black hole, near the event horizon, it isn't ejected from the center. Black body radiation therefore doesn’t necessarily mean that an actual body/object (made of SM matter) is emitting radiation, since mass and energy are interchangeable, and mass doesn't necessarily have to be made of SM particles.

I'm still not convinced that BHs, mass, dark matter, and attraction in general are characteristics of SM matter exclusively, are you?

Edited May 24, 2018 by MarkE

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Mass/attraction isn't necessarily inherently connected with matter. On the list of unsolved problems in physics can be read: Dark matter: What is the identity of dark matter?[17] Is it a particle?

The evidence is pretty strongly in favour of dark matter being some form of matter. Whether it is a particle yet to be detected or something else is unknown.

But, certainly, there are non-matter particles with mass; W, Z and Higgs bosons.

20 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Are you sure that black holes preserve charge? That would mean they have to be made of SM matter,

Well, unless there is some alternative theory that says they can't have charge...

But I can't see how that would mean they would have to be made of known type of matter.

Quote

but as far as I know charged black holes only exist in theory. 

The same is true of Schwarzschild black holes.

21 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Keep in mind that Hawking radiation is describing the vicinity of a BH, the event horizon (where matter resides), not the center of it. The same accounts for jet plumes. In artistic drawings you often see a jet plume coming from the center of a BH, but in reality the jet plume is formed only in the vicinity of a black hole, near the event horizon, it isn't ejected from the center. 

No. These are completely different things. Hawking radiation is created at the event horizon. It exists even in the absence of matter around the black hole; it is purely a function of the existence of the event horizon. In fact, our only chance of detecting it would be if there was a small and almost completely isolated black hole close enough to make detailed measurements of.

Polar jets on the other hand come from the accretion disk outside (quite a long way outside) the black hole. 

25 minutes ago, MarkE said:

I'm still not convinced that BHs, mass, dark matter, and attraction in general are characteristics of exclusively SM matter. Are you?

Well, dark matter obviously isn't.

As to what happens inside a black hole; we don't know. You might be interested in this, though, as an alternative: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-fuzzballs-solve-the-black-hole-firewall-paradox-20150623/

[YaDinghus]

40 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Mass/attraction isn't necessarily inherently connected with matter. On the list of unsolved problems in physics can be read: Dark matter: What is the identity of dark matter?[17] Is it a particle?

Ok, tell me about something that isn't matter but attracts. And don't say Black Hole because we haven't established that they aren't made of matter.

Even if the content of a Black Hole isn't covered by SM, why should that mean it isn't matter? We don't know if dark matter is covered by the standard model, but we know it's matter. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charged_black_hole

Black Holes aren't expected to carry a significant amount of net charge, but it is one of the three observable properties of Black Holes. 

37 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Would this particle be a particle on the SM, or a different/new kind of particle that doesn't exist today

Well since Black Holes exist today anything inside a Black Hole 'exists' today, even if it weren't described by SM. I, personally, do think that matter undergoes a dramatic change at the subatomic level when it enters a Black Hole. It might however still be a Quark-Gluon Plasma inside the Black Hole, and that's covered by SM. 

 

@MarkE I'm not saying Black Holes can't consist exclusively of 'stuff' that isn't in SM, but that we can't say that they MUST be exclusively non-SM 'stuff'