A Units of Kerr Understanding Mass & Angular Momentum

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter swampwiz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kerr Units
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the Kerr solution in black hole mechanics, specifically regarding the relationship between mass (M) and angular momentum (J) in the context of their units. It highlights confusion over the units of angular momentum, which are typically expressed as {M L² T⁻¹}, suggesting that mass should correspond to {L² T⁻¹}. Participants clarify that the paper likely employs natural or geometric units, where mass, length, and time are treated equivalently, leading to the conclusion that in these units, mass can be represented as a length. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding unit conversions in general relativity, particularly how constants like G and c influence these relationships. Overall, the discussion resolves around the interpretation of units in the context of the Kerr solution and black hole mechanics.
swampwiz
Messages
567
Reaction score
83
I was reading this paper, and I got confused:

https://projecteuclid.org/journals/...ws-of-black-hole-mechanics/cmp/1103858973.pdf

It discusses the Kerr solution for the case of { M4 > J2 } where M is mass & J is angular momentum. However it seems that angular momentum should have the units { M L2 T-1 }, which would means that M is equivalent to { L2 T-1 }. I could see how M is equivalent to { L2 T-2 }.

What am I missing here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
swampwiz said:
I was reading this paper, and I got confused:

https://projecteuclid.org/journals/...ws-of-black-hole-mechanics/cmp/1103858973.pdf

It discusses the Kerr solution for the case of { M4 > J2 } where M is mass & J is angular momentum. However it seems that angular momentum should have the units { M L2 T-1 }, which would means that M is equivalent to { L2 T-1 }. I could see how M is equivalent to { L2 T-2 }.

What am I missing here?
I assume the paper is using natural units, where mass length and time all have the same dimension of length.
 
PeroK said:
I assume the paper is using natural units, where mass length and time all have the same dimension of length.
OK, so it seems that you are saying that the constants c & G are to be used in order to get the units to match up?
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn
swampwiz said:
it seems that angular momentum should have the units { M L2 T-1 }, which would means that M is equivalent to { L2 T-1 }.
In the "geometric units" commonly used in GR, where ##G = c = 1##, this is true, because mass ##M## has units of length (the conversion factor is ##G / c^2## in conventional units) and so does time ##T## (the conversion factor is just ##c## in conventional units). So angular momentum ##J## has units of ##M L^2 T^{-1} = L L^2 L^{-1} = L^2##, i.e., the square of the unit of mass.
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...