Does the mass of a spinning object twist spacetime?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of frame-dragging, which describes how the mass of a spinning object, such as a planet or star, influences the curvature of spacetime. This effect contributes to the directionality of natural satellites' orbits, aligning them with the spin of the parent body. The conservation of angular momentum is emphasized, indicating that any initial angular momentum present in a gas cloud will persist in the resulting planetary systems. The conversation also touches on the negligible impact of frame-dragging in practical scenarios involving celestial mechanics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of frame-dragging in general relativity
  • Knowledge of angular momentum conservation principles
  • Familiarity with celestial mechanics and orbital dynamics
  • Basic concepts of inelastic collisions in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of frame-dragging on satellite orbits
  • Study the principles of angular momentum in astrophysics
  • Explore the formation of planetary systems from gas clouds
  • Investigate the effects of inelastic collisions in celestial bodies
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, astrophysicists, and students of physics interested in the dynamics of celestial bodies and the effects of angular momentum on orbital mechanics.

quincy harman
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Does the mass of a spinning object twist space time? If so is this why all natural satellites orbit in the same direction as the spin of the said object?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
quincy harman said:
Does the mass of a spinning object twist space time?

Not sure if that's what you mean by "twisting":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

quincy harman said:
If so is this why all natural satellites orbit in the same direction as the spin of the said object?

This has to do with how solar systems are created:

 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: quincy harman
quincy harman said:
The cloud has to have some angular momentum first?
Angular momentum is conserved. If it has it now, than it had it back then.
 
A.T. said:
Angular momentum is conserved. If it has it now, than it had it back then.
where does it come from?
 
quincy harman said:
where does it come from?
From probability. Zero total angular momentum is one among infinitely many other possible values.
 
A.T. said:
From probability. Zero total angular momentum is one among infinitely many other possible values.
I don't understand. It's more likely to have some angular momentum than none? But it still had to come from somewhere right?
 
quincy harman said:
I don't understand. It's more likely to have some angular momentum than none? But it still had to come from somewhere right?
No it doesn't. A conserved quantity can never "come from somewhere", else it is not conserved. (There is more to the issue, but first I want to push on this first - if it's conserved, not only doesn't it need to come from somewhere, it can't come from somewhere.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: quincy harman
PAllen said:
No it doesn't. A conserved quantity can never "come from somewhere", else it is not conserved. (There is more to the issue, but first I want to push on this first - if it's conserved, not only doesn't it need to come from somewhere, it can't come from somewhere.)
So it is a form of potential or stored energy? and the direction is random? You got me interested. Tell me more! :D
 
Last edited:
  • #10
quincy harman said:
So it is a form of potential or stored energy? and the direction is random? You got me interested. Tell me more! :D
One point is that if there is one isolated gas cloud in the universe, the total angular momentum of any future state (e.g. planetary system) will be the same as the initial angular momentum. Then, the angular momentum is just an initial condition, no different than the initial mass (would you wonder so much where that came from?).

The 'more to it' comment is that if you were to imagine a cloud that happened to have zero total angular momentum, that ultimately split, the probability that each would have zero angular momentum is zero. It would be analogous to two billiard balls colliding such that they hit dead center and ricocheted with zero spin. Instead, each would have nonzero angular momentum (such that the total of both is zero), and each would form planetary systems with non-zero angular momentum.

Thus, whatever you consider about initial conditions, the collapse of clouds to bodies or systems has basically zero chance producing non-spinning bodies.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: quincy harman
  • #11
PAllen said:
No it doesn't. A conserved quantity can never "come from somewhere", else it is not conserved. (There is more to the issue, but first I want to push on this first - if it's conserved, not only doesn't it need to come from somewhere, it can't come from somewhere.)
PAllen said:
One point is that if there is one isolated gas cloud in the universe, the total angular momentum of any future state (e.g. planetary system) will be the same as the initial angular momentum. Then, the angular momentum is just an initial condition, no different than the initial mass (would you wonder so much where that came from?).

The 'more to it' comment is that if you were to imagine a cloud that happened to have zero total angular momentum, that ultimately split, the probability that each would have zero angular momentum is zero. It would be analogous to two billiard balls colliding such that they hit dead center and ricocheted with zero spin. Instead, each would have nonzero angular momentum (such that the total of both is zero), and each would form planetary systems with non-zero angular momentum.

Thus, whatever you consider about initial conditions, the collapse of clouds to bodies or systems has basically zero chance producing non-spinning bodies.
So it's essentially just a consequence of inertia and gravity? How do the up and down motions cancel out over time?
 
Last edited:
  • #12
quincy harman said:
is this why all natural satellites orbit in the same direction as the spin of the said object?

The frame dragging effect is far too small to matter for situations like this.
 
  • #13
quincy harman said:
How do the up and down motions cancel out over time?
Inelastic collisions.
 
  • #14
I don't understand how this cancels out the up and down motions over time.
 
  • #15
If there is no total up and down movement, then you have a situation like two balls moving towards each other - each is moving, but the center of mass is not moving. What happens when the balls collide? Perfectly elastic ones bounce off each other, possibly even keeping the same speeds in the opposite directions, and leaving the center of mass still not moving. Generally speaking, though, lumps of rock aren't particularly elastic, and will generally either stick together or shatter - and in either case some of the kinetic energy is lost (or, more precisely, converted to some other form - mostly heat). Any inelasticity in collisions steals a bit of kinetic energy, so the mean speed will tend slowly downwards.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K