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)
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top