Angular momentum of a singularity?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the conservation of angular momentum in the context of collapsing stars and black holes. It highlights that as large stars collapse into black holes, angular momentum is conserved, leading to the formation of Kerr black holes, which have a ring-shaped singularity. The complexities of defining angular momentum in curved spacetime are acknowledged, suggesting it may be better understood as being "stored" in spacetime rather than in matter itself. Additionally, the example of an ice skater spinning in space illustrates that angular momentum principles apply universally, as the skater would speed up by pulling their arms in. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the conservation of angular momentum across different scenarios in astrophysics.
Adrian Baker
Messages
378
Reaction score
2
We know that an ice skater pulling her arms in and spinning faster is an example of the conservation of angular momentum.

As stars collapse to become Neutron stars, the rotational period can be as low as 0.001 seconds, again to conserve angular momentum.

So what happens to this angular momentum when a very large star collapses to a black hole - ie a singularity? How can a dimensionless point have angular momentum?
Is it conserved?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well you could ask the same thing of electrons. Yes angular momentum is conserved a black hole with angular momentum is called a Kerr black hole and is no longer spherically symetric. In this situation the singuularity becomes a ring:

http://www.physics.ubc.ca/~psih/kerr-metric/node5.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The definition of angular momentum in curved spacetime is very dicey, and cannot be made in general. With that warning, its probably best to consider the angular momentum "stored" in spacetime itself, not the underlying matter.
 
To all

Just a question:

If the ice skater was spinning in outer space
with arms straight out and the skater started
to bring in the arms towards himself or herself,
would angular momentum still apply in this case?
or are there other factors to be considered?
 
Thanks for the replys jcsd and stingray... I'm not sure I fully understand the answer, but at least I now know that it was a sensible question... :wink:

Poorichard2 - It would be just the same in space - the skater would speed up as they moved their arms in - angular momentum would still apply in this case. (in fact, without friction it would be a great example of angular momentum being consered)
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top