Does the uncertainty principle mean that black hole has to become a big bang?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of the uncertainty principle regarding black holes and whether their mass must disperse, potentially leading to a slow-motion big bang scenario. It highlights the conflict between general relativity, which suggests mass is concentrated at a singularity, and quantum theory, which remains unresolved in this context. Questions arise about the nature of energy distribution in the universe and the validity of the singularity principle, especially concerning supermassive black holes consuming entire galaxies. The preference for a dispersion principle over the singularity principle is expressed, suggesting a need for reevaluation of current theories. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the complexities and uncertainties in understanding black holes within the framework of existing physics.
TCS
Messages
84
Reaction score
1
If we've perfectly located all of that mass, doesn't its momentum have to be infinetly or maximally dispersed. It would be a slow motion big bang from our frame because of space and time contraction and we couldn't even see it, but it seems like the mass should disperse in some diffraction pattern.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
TCS said:
If we've perfectly located all of that mass, doesn't its momentum have to be infinetly or maximally dispersed. It would be a slow motion big bang from our frame because of space and time contraction and we couldn't even see it, but it seems like the mass should disperse in some diffraction pattern.
Current theory about what is going on inside a black hole is very fuzzy. The idea that all the mass is at one point is a prediction of general relativity, but it contradicts quantum theory. The two theories have not been reconciled for black holes.
 
mathman said:
Current theory about what is going on inside a black hole is very fuzzy. The idea that all the mass is at one point is a prediction of general relativity, but it contradicts quantum theory. The two theories have not been reconciled for black holes.


It makes me wonder if energy is distributed in the universe in a diffraction pattern.
 
Is the singularity principle still accepted?

If so, why is it so accepted? What if you have a super massive black hole that swallows 1 whole galaxy, where would the mass transfer? Wouldn't the singularity principle break down at a finite point?

I prefer the dispersion principle.
 
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Back
Top