# Rotating Black Hole: Is it Logical?

• cbd1
In summary: I mean a spinning black hole. The ring singularity of a rotating black hole is not a point. It's a ring.
cbd1
Okay, I am somewhat perplexed by the theory of a rotating black hole.
I know that there is a solution of Einstein's equations that shows a black hole can be rotating mathematically, but I find it highly likely that this is a non-real solution.
Think about it. A black hole is a singularity, the tiniest point possible, surrounded by only a hollow area out to a radius which borders the edge, the event horizon. It seems to me that to say a black hole is rotating is to say that an empty area of space can be rotating.
A black hole is not like a body, say a star or planet, that has materials in motion spinning through inertia. With a black hole, there are no materials to have angular momentum. Even if you tried to say that the singularity is spinning (as that is where the mass is) it occupies zero space, so it is equally illogical to say that it can have angular momentum.

Further, the indirect evidence used to support rotating black holes, accretion disks and jets, seem to me just as likely that the materials are spinning around the black hole, not that the black hole is rotating.

I'm not quite sure why you say it's a hollow area. "Hollow" suggests you are referencing empty space. A black hole is highly compressed mass...compressed to a point of zero volume and infinite density. So, theoreticaly, that mass can still rotate.

Actually, the singularity of a rotating black hole is a ring, not a point.

And electrons are points with zero space that have angular momentum.

ZikZak:

*If* a rotating black hole were possible, its singularity's wavefunction would be a ring. This is much different than a ring-shaped singularity.

And the electron *might* have zero size. It does not have to be so. On the other hand, the very definition of a singularity requires it to occupy zero space.

So what, throw conservation of angular momentum out the window then? Claim it's somehow "expelled" during the collapse of a star? I think you'd be hard pressed to find such a mechanism.

In contrast to what you say, where kerr black holes are "non-physical", it's actually quite the opposite: a schwarzschild black hole is non-physical, whereas all black holes are kerr (since all stars have some angular momentum).

I know why it was presumed that a black hole would have to rotate if it was formed from a rotating star.
I'm talking about the actual mechanism by which the rotation could be possible. How can something with zero dimension have angular momentum?

Again, consider an electron.

If you want to argue "perhaps an electron doesn't really have zero size..." then you have to admit that GR is probably not fully qualified to describe spacetime at extremely high densities and small length scales. A full quantum gravity is needed, and perhaps such a theory does not predict the existence of a singularity.

cbd1 said:
*If* a rotating black hole were possible, its singularity's wavefunction would be a ring. This is much different than a ring-shaped singularity.

That is not what GR predicts. GR is a classical theory that has nothing to say about wave functions at all. No GR prediction ever contains the word "wavefunction." The singularity of a Kerr black hole is a ring. Not a wavefunction. A ring.
And the electron *might* have zero size. It does not have to be so. On the other hand, the very definition of a singularity requires it to occupy zero space.

Measured the electron's size, have you?

Last edited:
The rotation of a black hole is more about the rotation of space (i.e. frame dragging) though the ring singularity is considered to spin at c. This is backed up to some extent when you consider the equation for the spin parameter $a$ (which is in units of length) which is $a=J/mc$ which is basically a rearrangement of the equation for angular momentum, $J=vmr$ where v=c and r=a. I have seen papers show the ring singularity at this radius between the event and Cauchy horizon (though how that would be possible when in this shallow region space is temporal isn't explained, also, in Kerr metric, r=0 at the singularity edge)- http://www.lsw.uni-heidelberg.de/users/mcamenzi/GR_07.pdf" page 35. There's also the suggestion that length contraction comes into play which reduces the coordinate radius of the ring singularity to within the Cauchy horizon so that the event horizons stay more or less spherical, this might suggest that while the ring singularity isn't spinning at exactly c, it's spinning very close to the speed of light.

Last edited by a moderator:
cbd1 said:
How can something with zero dimension have angular momentum?

It's easy to write down pointlike stress-energy tensors with nonzero spin angular momentum in special relativity. You just introduce a term involving the angular momentum tensor contracted into a derivative of a delta function.

This is not a good model for a Kerr black hole, but it's an easy example that illustrates how objects confined to a point even in a very simple (flat!) spacetime can still have angular momentum.

cbd1 said:
*If* a rotating black hole were possible, its singularity's wavefunction would be a ring. This is much different than a ring-shaped singularity.
ZikZak is correct. GR is a classical theory, and since we don't have a quantum theory of gravity it doesn't make much sense to talk about a singularity's wavefunction. The singularity of a Kerr black hole is indeed a "ring singularity" which has a finite radius and infinitesimal thickness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_singularity

## 1. What is a rotating black hole?

A rotating black hole is a type of black hole that is characterized by its angular momentum or spin. It is formed when a massive star collapses under its own gravity, causing it to spin faster and faster until it becomes a black hole.

## 2. How does a rotating black hole differ from a non-rotating black hole?

A rotating black hole has angular momentum, while a non-rotating black hole does not. This means that a rotating black hole has a measurable spin, while a non-rotating black hole does not. Additionally, the event horizon of a rotating black hole is oblate (flattened at the poles), while the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole is spherical.

## 3. Is a rotating black hole logical?

Yes, a rotating black hole is logical. It is a predicted consequence of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which has been supported by numerous observations and experiments. Additionally, the laws of physics apply to rotating black holes just as they do to non-rotating black holes.

## 4. Can a rotating black hole stop spinning?

No, a rotating black hole cannot stop spinning. According to the laws of physics, an object with angular momentum will continue to spin unless acted upon by an external force. Since a black hole has an infinite density at its center, there is no external force that can stop its rotation.

## 5. What happens if an object falls into a rotating black hole?

If an object falls into a rotating black hole, it will be subjected to intense gravitational forces and tidal forces. As it gets closer to the event horizon, it will experience extreme stretching and compression, known as spaghettification. Once it passes the event horizon, the object will be pulled towards the center of the black hole, known as the singularity, where it will be crushed to an infinitely small size.

Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
910
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
260
Replies
2
Views
945
Replies
16
Views
678
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K