As an object falls into the gravity well of a black hole, extreme tidal forces can tear apart the object…even down to the quantum level.
As you pull a quark from the pair or triple it is bound to, the energy pulling it away only creates a new quark in it’s place.
Does this mean, by the time it reaches the quantum singularity, a single pair or triple of quarks can multiply into many, many quarks?
One thing to keep in mind is that small black holes have hotter Hawking radiation. So, while a big black hole cannot radiate anything besides photons, gravitons, etc., a really, really small black hole could radiate multi-quark particles like hadrons.
It’s a good question; it would seem to imply an unbounded number of quarks made at the event horizon.
I would think that the newly minted quarks would be heading into the black hole though, and so making no net difference to the mass energy of the black hole. Unlike the mechanism behind Hawking radiation.
Indeed.
As quarks are pulled apart, the energy used up in their creation is pulled from the system.
Since the system is enclosed, the total net mass-energy is unchanged.
Apart from Hawking Radiation, that is. 
I wondered about an exponential expansion of the universe in a “Big Rip” scenario, one where the rate of expansion becomes infinite in a finite amount of time. Would this lead to the production of quark-antiquark pairs that immediately recombined into radiation, and would this in fact be identical to the inflationary epoch at the start of our universe?
So I guess the broader question is “what happens when quarks get pulled apart by a really strong source of gravity?”
For ordinary gravitational phenomena like a black hole, the short answer with quarks is that it takes energy to pull quarks apart (and hence to create new quarks between them), and that energy has to come from somewhere. If you try to pull one quark with a gravity, you’ll just end up pulling both quarks. You need something else pulling the other way on the other quark, and that something else would have to provide energy.
For the Big Rip (if that’s even a thing, which I must emphasize we don’t know), notions like conservation of energy become very difficult to even define, and we don’t know how to do most of the calculations. There are some handwavy back-of-the-envelope estimates that suggest that not only does quark separation happen in a Big Rip, but that it makes the Rip even more extreme.
The OP is hypothesizing tidal effects for the pulling. I’m wondering if the quarks would be within the event horizon before the the tidal effects are strong enough to pull them apart.
For me, it pretty much doesn’t matter what happens there. So much of known Physics doesn’t apply.
Black holes are like Las Vegas: what happens within the event horizon stays within the event horizon.
That is what I was suggesting: that for astronomical-sized black holes the whole thing will get sucked in; no massive particles will be emitted as Hawking radiation. Naturally, this requires some level of proof.
Update:
Neil Degrasse Tyson weighs in.
what happens if a quark fell inside a black hole? 
w/ Neil Degrasse Tyson
That video is just awful. Why the heck do otherwise intelligent people insist on producing such visually assaulting crap. The musings on the question don’t inspire much confidence either. It seems they just don’t care but are in it for the clicks.
The description seems to insist on talking about black holes of a form where the derivative of gravity is strong enough to separate quarks at the event horizon. That is going to be a very tiny black hole. It might work for some forms of primordial black holes, but we don’t even know if they exist.
Some back of the envelope calculations that are almost certainly wrong in significant ways. (But in the spirit of cosmology, the error bars are hopefully only on the exponent.)
Take a basic pion, mass of roughly 140 Mev = 2.4 \times 10^{-28} kg (Being very generous and including the binding energy, not just the bare quarks.)
Pion exists over a distance of about one fempto-metre - 10^{-15} m before becoming unhappy, so assume our initial pair of quarks are about that far apart. Binding force is about 10,000 N, so we need to exceed that in order to have the pion split into two new particles.
Assume about half the mass of the pion at each end, so 10^{-28} kg over 10^{-15} m to yield 10^4N. The tidal force will need to be (10^4 / 10^{-28})/10^{-15} = 10^{47} m/s^2/m
Which is insane by any standards.
Worse, if we work out the size of black hole we need to get that magnitude of gravitational tide, we find it has a radius of about one fempto-meter. So the black hole that can eat pions by tidal disruption is about the same size as a pion itself. Which makes the whole thing slightly weird, and certainly suggests that it is going to be a lot more complicated than the above rough order of magnitude suggests. What is still slightly sobering is that a black hole this tiny still weighs close to 10^{12} kg.
Most of these discussions really assume what one might call a Newtonian black hole. Given the quark flux tube is mediated by gluons, it isn’t apparent how this is supposed to work in an extreme gravitational field both apparently crossing the event horizon, but also subject extreme time dilation.
The whole discussion about standing outside the event horizon and doing stuff is also just plain stupid. The only way you are not going to fall in in a very few moments is if you are already travelling at relativistic speeds which is hardy going to let you dawdle to hang random quarks over the event horizon. You are going to have other problems pretty soon anyway. Such as avoiding becoming the next gamma ray burst.
“Newtonian”, to physicists, usually means “neither quantum nor relativistic”, which is of course meaningless for a black hole. “Classical” means “non-quantum”, and all of our descriptions of black holes are classical, or at least what’s called “semi-classical” (where the particles in space are quantized, but the space itself isn’t), which is probably a bad approximation for a black hole that small.
Yeah, OTOH, the idea of a black hole preceded relativity, which is why I used the term. (At least as far back as 1783, and John Michell.) If all you want is something with a gravitational field that traps light, you don’t really need relativity. We understand a black hole in terms of GR, but so much of the popular discussions seem to ignore GR once past the most basic idea that they seem to be a Newtonian black hole.
IMHO this gets to be close to the point in another thread - what if this situation violates physics - what then happens? Well it violates physics so doesn’t happen. So much of these popularising discussions of black holes violate physics in fundamental ways, and we have professional physicists who for the most part are talking a hybrid of GR and Newtonian physics wrt black holes.
The above video discusses tidal forces splitting pions across the event horizon as if you could somehow stand outside a black hole and dangle the raw quarks across the event horizon and carefully use the splitting to force the black hole to slowly give up its mass. This becomes a matter of the deeper you look the more fundamental problems you find.
You can come up with something vaguely resembling a black hole using entirely Newtonian physics, but any similarity to a relativistic black hole will be coincidental, so you don’t want to rely on such a model for much, even conceptually. Doing so leads to questions like “Well, if the escape velocity is more than light, why can’t you just gradually move away from the black hole until you’re past the horizon?”, which completely misses the real reasons why black holes behave the way they do.
What if you use Lagrangian or Hamiltonian physics?
Lagrangian mechanics - Wikipedia
Hamiltonian (quantum mechanics) - Wikipedia
Those aren’t kinds of physics; they’re ways to do calculations within some kind of physics. You can do Lagrangian mechanics for classical or quantum physics.