<p>The mass (equivalently energy) is radiated away as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hawking radiation</a>. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-06T16:28:47.500Z
But what happens with the matter from the singularity?
user30007
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-06T16:50:22.920Z
@user30007 Hypothetically, it's converted to energy and radiated away, as this answer says. I wrote "hypothetically" because Hawking radiation has never been observed.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-06T18:18:08.833Z
@DavidHammen, shouldn't that be, "Theoretically,...?"
Solomon Slow
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-06T23:54:59.097Z
@user30007 The black hole singularity is also theoretical, and (hopefully) a quantum gravity theory will replace it. But in standard GR, a black hole singularity isn't like an object in space. Firstly, a singularity *never* exists in the past of any observer. And as described [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/144458/123208) "A singularity in GR is like a piece that has been cut out of the manifold. It's not a point or point-set at all".
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-07T04:31:22.257Z
@SolomonSlow - No, it should not. People abuse the word theory so much that it now has come to mean "a wild guess made after having chugged one too many margaritas." A scientific theory is the pinnacle of science. A hypothesis: Not so much, and least not yet. Hawking radiation is a scientific hypothesis rather than a scientific theory. This hypothesis that has a solid basis in both general relativity and quantum mechanics, but it remains hypothetical.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-07T13:07:19.810Z
@DavidHammen, I'd have thought that in this forum at least, people would use "theory" in the sense that you mentioned; "pinnacle of science, etc." And, I'd have thought that "hypothesis" would be an idea, suggested by a theory, with consequences that either could be confirmed or invalidated by performing an experiment. I know language changes, and it's hard to fight that, but we _should_ fight it. It doesn't help science (or any other endeavor), when there's nobody left who understands the true meaning of things that were written a generation or more ago.
Solomon Slow
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-06T16:24:23.250Z
2020-02-06T16:24:23.250Z
Steve Linton
<p>If a black hole isn't "fed" by attracted matter, it disappears someday. But how is that even possible? What happens with the mass at its singularity? It can't just disappear or am I wrong with something? Where does the mass disappear to and how is it possible?</p>

<black-hole><stellar-evolution><singularity>
What happens with the black hole's mass when a black hole disappears?
user30007
# What happens with the black hole's mass when a black hole disappears?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-02-06)

If a black hole isn't "fed" by attracted matter, it disappears someday. But how is that even possible? What happens with the mass at its singularity? It can't just disappear or am I wrong with something? Where does the mass disappear to and how is it possible?

**Tags:** black-hole, stellar-evolution, singularity

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-02-06. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

The mass (equivalently energy) is radiated away as [Hawking radiation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: But what happens with the matter from the singularity?  
> **username_2**: @user30007 Hypothetically, it's converted to energy and radiated away, as this answer says. I wrote "hypothetically" because Hawking radiation has never been observed.  
> **username_3**: @DavidHammen, shouldn't that be, "Theoretically,...?"  
> **username_4**: @user30007 The black hole singularity is also theoretical, and (hopefully) a quantum gravity theory will replace it. But in standard GR, a black hole singularity isn't like an object in space. Firstly, a singularity *never* exists in the past of any observer. And as described [here](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/144458/123208) "A singularity in GR is like a piece that has been cut out of the manifold. It's not a point or point-set at all".  
> **username_2**: @SolomonSlow - No, it should not. People abuse the word theory so much that it now has come to mean "a wild guess made after having chugged one too many margaritas." A scientific theory is the pinnacle of science. A hypothesis: Not so much, and least not yet. Hawking radiation is a scientific hypothesis rather than a scientific theory. This hypothesis that has a solid basis in both general relativity and quantum mechanics, but it remains hypothetical.  
> **username_3**: @DavidHammen, I'd have thought that in this forum at least, people would use "theory" in the sense that you mentioned; "pinnacle of science, etc." And, I'd have thought that "hypothesis" would be an idea, suggested by a theory, with consequences that either could be confirmed or invalidated by performing an experiment. I know language changes, and it's hard to fight that, but we _should_ fight it. It doesn't help science (or any other endeavor), when there's nobody left who understands the true meaning of things that were written a generation or more ago.  

---

