Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Black hole accretion: angular momentum loss

  1. Nov 27, 2012 #1
    Why exactly is it necessary for angular momentum to be lost by a mass if it is to accrete around a black hole? the mass is decreasing its radius, so it speeds up: thus angular mometum is conserved. But everywhere it is saying that 99.99% of the angular momentum must be shed for accretion to occur. Exactly why is this the case?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 27, 2012 #2

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    In order to fall into the black hole the mass must decrease it's orbital radius. To do this it is required that it shed momentum and energy, otherwise it's orbit would remain the same and it would not fall in. This is similar to spacecraft having to fire retrorockets in order to start reentry into Earths atmosphere. The infalling material is moving faster, but the total angular momentum is less. This is compensated by having the lost momentum transferred to material that doesn't fall in.
     
  4. Nov 27, 2012 #3
    ohh right! But now why is it necessary for objects to actually fall in? Maybe they just spin around the hole without ever falling in, thus no need for angular momentum loss?
     
  5. Nov 27, 2012 #4

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It's not necessary. If it doesn't happen then nothing falls in. However when material such as a gas or dust cloud falls into the black hole, it's not all falling in at the same speed and radius and stuff. As it orbits around the black hole the material nearer to the black hole is moving faster, and the end result is lots of friction that transfers orbital energy into heat and radiation, with the particles that lose energy falling further towards the black hole.
     
  6. Nov 27, 2012 #5

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It is true that a particle can orbit, or even a bunch of non-interacting particles, can orbit a black hole.

    Suppose that the particle density is high enough that the particles can interact. Dissipative interactions ("friction", radiated "heat") between the particles can rob the particles of energy and angular momentum.

    [edit]Drakkith beat me to it![/edit]
     
  7. Nov 27, 2012 #6
    So then why do we need models such as magnetorotational instability to explain loss of angular momentum? Cant we just attribute it to frictional energy loss/radiation? Also why do we say that the agn jets are possibly carrying away the angular momentum?
     
  8. Nov 27, 2012 #7

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'd guess that friction in this manner isn't the ONLY way to lose angular momentum.
     
  9. Nov 27, 2012 #8
    Yea i guess, from what I am reading it seems that most ppl agree that magnetic field plays stronger role because the particles arent actually that close together to exert significant hydrodynamic pressure on each other, so magnetic pressure is important.

    I have another kind of related question: how is it possible for an object emit radiation above its Eddington limit? Wikipedia vaguely says that stars can do this by emission of stellar winds. A study is showing that the higher the redshift of a quasar, the higher is its super-Eddington luminosity...how is this possible? Is this by any chance related to angular momentum transport?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Black hole accretion: angular momentum loss
Loading...