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

[TCS]

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.

 

[mathman]

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.

 

[TCS]

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.

 

[nkt]

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.