Infinite gravity and time on the uncertainty principle

[vespera]

This is my first post here, and I just want to add the following disclaimers: I'm not in university, and I have never taken a physics class proper in my life. xD I want to say I understand quantum mechanics in principle, as while I think I understand many of the concepts I do not know it mathematically nor practically.

I had a moment of insight like ten minutes ago concerning entropy and superposition, trying to figure out a solution as to how an object could travel superluminally or at least cross light-years.
My question is as follows: if an object is traveling around a source or trapped in a source of infinite gravitational pull for an infinite or large amount of time, would the object eventually be dislocated due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, or since all available paths lead to the singularity, would superposition have no effect? While it seems as plausible as a million monkeys trying to make the Great American Novel, if you could suspend an object in a closed pocket of time, would it eventually end up elsewhere in reality?

 

[zhermes]

Welcome to PF vespera. There are lots of problems with your question that make it unanswerable.
You can't have 'infinite gravity' without a singularity (i.e. without all of the rules breaking down). Your reference to the uncertainty principle is valid, and one of the big uncertainties in how gravity combined with quantum mechanics (something we don't know). According to general relativity, no force or effect can halt the collapse of a strong enough gravitational force. According to quantum mechanics, you can never perfectly constrain the position of a particle. What really happens, we have no idea.
This doesn't really involve superpositions, however.
Finally, what is a 'closed pocket of time' ?

 

[DrFurious]

I think the main problem with your argument is you are trying to understand the implications of physics through logical reasoning. You do not want to go down this path. I urge you to learn the math first, and then try and make deductions based on what you think the math is telling you. Otherwise it's just speculation that doesn't make a lot of sense.

But to answer your question, you've brought up something called "Hawking radiation". Look it up.

I wouldn't try and worry so much about how to make something travel faster than the speed of light though. You got to look at the math and see how this could (never) happen.