[D (OP)]

I mean is everything that gets inside the black hole turns in to energy or stays in the matter form? Because of gravity constantly smashing particles together inside the black hole the matter changes from matter to energy and back to matter in an endless circle or the gravity creates a hole new particles that do not decay because of strong gravity? or that matter just goes to black hole and out in the other sight of space and time, something like a white hole, just curious what are the leading theories on this particular issue?

[evan_au]

I think it's fair to say that nobody really knows.

There are still significant theoretical arguments about what happens just outside the event horizon - and that is (at least in theory) accessible to astronomers.

What happens just inside the event horizon is inaccessible without going there - and you can't send a message back.

Inside the event horizon, all light cones point toward the center. Since nothing can exceed the speed of light, all matter must also move towards the center. It is thought that all matter mashes in the center in a singularity of infinite density.

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole

[jeffreyH]

If inside the event horizon the Higgs field can no longer give mass to particles then everything will move at exactly the speed of light. Thus there will be no violation of light speed for particles that cross the horizon. This then gets rid of some of the issues.

[JoeBrown]

I*think* it's very cold inside a black hole.  It goes against all reason that a super nova star would produces a cold body.  But if you think about it, cold mass sinks (is heavier) than hot mass in its environment.

Stars radiate heat, not cold.  e=mc^2 doesn't say anything about cold...  But when the energy all leaves at speed of light, what's left over is very heavy cold mass and it will sink deeper toward hole formation.  This goes against most of Lambda-CDM beliefs, where a star makes iron and explodes. 

Bah..  There's too much we don't know about inside a star to make a blanket statement like that, in my opinion.

I believe once enough cold mass collects into the center, the hole starts radiating space and the star turns supernova, not by choice, but because no more mass can enter the hole at the event horizon.  The supernova event is the last chance the star has to force the issue until the hole fully stabilizes.

But I'm pushing my beliefs, not accepted science.  Accepted science doesn't know what happens inside a hole.  I think I understand, but haven't put forth a complete thesis, because there are many changes in accepted belief that need to occur before I can be proven right/wrong.  I think I can formulate a grand unified theory, but...  I haven't figured out the best approach, because many understandings need to be modified.

[Arthur Geddes]

Kinda makes sense: the surface area of the black hole is supposed to represent the entropy; anything inside would "leave" its energy here as the size of the black hole.  Time doesn't make sense here; a supra-temporal (read "static, ...") perspective is appropriate.

[evan_au]

Stars radiate heat, not cold.  e=mc^2 doesn't say anything about cold...  But when the energy all leaves at speed of light, what's left over is very heavy cold mass and it will sink deeper toward hole formation.

Neutron stars are formed by some of the same processes as create black holes - just in less massive stars.
Young Neutron stars have a temperature around 1 million degrees (and billions at first formation). They are not formed by a blob of cold sinking to the center of the star!
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star#Mass_and_temperature

The difference with a black hole is that the gravity is so intense that even the light and heat from the initial fireball can't escape from the black hole.

The exterior of quiescent black holes do have a temperature, due to Hawking radiation, but for stellar-mass black holes it is incredibly close to absolute zero (nanoKelvins). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Overview

[JoeBrown]

Neutron stars are formed by some of the same processes as create black holes - just in less massive stars.
Young Neutron stars have a temperature around 1 million degrees (and billions at first formation). They are not formed by a blob of cold sinking to the center of the star!
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star#Mass_and_temperature

We have no means to "know" what's going on inside such massive objects.  Comparing Quantum Mechanics which works on pressures we experience on Earth is a long shot.  Quantum Gravity isn't well understood. 
If heat rises from the depths of pressure, how can we know they're not cold inside?

The difference with a black hole is that the gravity is so intense that even the light and heat from the initial fireball can't escape from the black hole.

I did state my opinion as mine alone. We don't know much of a thing about black holes except that they seem to exist.  Our mathematical models are broken with the event horizon.  QM views/analysis are mere possibilities, until we understand the "force of gravity" well, these models are prone to error.

The periodic table of elements is quite limited and atomic decay, occurs for all elements heavier than lead at increasing rates the heavier the element is...  This is all highly dependent on the pressures we experience.   

Inside stars, there is likely a lot more pressure than we're accustom.  The heavy elements may last a lot longer.  Lead is the most stable heavy element on our charts.  Inside a star...  Atomic weight is probably stable at higher values.  A neutron star might be made of a few very massive atoms.  We surely don't know...  I've been thinking there is probability we're off by a few factors.

The exterior of quiescent black holes do have a temperature, due to Hawking radiation, but for stellar-mass black holes it is incredibly close to absolute zero (nanoKelvins). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Overview

Hawking did a good job working with QM and probabilities.  His postulation isn't testable, so that kinda makes it hard to agree as to right or wrong.

Photons most likely cool on approach to a hole, due to the density of space.  We don't have a testable theory for the composition of space, other that postulating gravity is space density.  If a photon slows toward stopping with space-time/gravity density, it's likely also cooling (my assertion, not science).  If it's cool enough it will likely be able to enter the hole, if not, it will likely reflect.  That's the hypothesis I've been working on.

GR doesn't account for heat of a photon...  It makes assertions that speed C is constant, but we know C isn't quite constant, depending on medium thru which a photon travels.  Until we define space as a medium for which we know EM disturbances propagate, we are left with a wealth of ignorance about space...  That needs to change, IMO.