3

It's usually stated that "astrophysical black holes are expected to have non-zero angular momentum, due to their formation via collapse of rotating stellar objects". In other words: rotating stellar objects carry orbital angular momentum, which is expected to be in the final black hole configuration.

However, the Kerr solution doesn't carry an orbital angular momentum, but the computation of the ADM angular momentum only provides a Pauli-Lubanski contribution, which is supposed to represent the intrinsic angular momentum of a system in General Relativity:

$W_\mu=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}J^{\nu\rho}P^{\sigma}$

Where is the orbital angular momentum in the astrophysical black hole created after the collapse? If the astrophysical object only has orbital angular momentum in the collapse, where does the intrinsic angular momentum of the Kerr black hole come from? Or is the usual interpretation of the Pauli-Lubanski contribution in General Relativity wrong?

  • Where does "orbital" angular momentum come into this? A black hole can have angular momentum because its progenitor spins. – ProfRob Aug 10 '22 at 07:01
  • The difference between orbital and intrinsic angular momentum is obviously very important in Physics. We know rotating regular stellar objects have orbital angular momentum (and it's very important not to confuse this orbital angular momentum with an intrinsic angular momentum), which means the final black hole configuation should carry orbital angular momentum. But if the Kerr solution represents an astrophysical black hole, the problem is its ADM angular momentum is a Pauli-Lubanski type, therefore the initial orbital angular momentum is lost (and it only has intrinsic one). Why? Any answer? – Albert_RD Aug 10 '22 at 14:30
  • 1
    I don't understand what "orbital angular momentum" an isolated, spinning star has. – ProfRob Aug 10 '22 at 14:32
  • Spin is related to the intrinsic angular momentum of fundamental particles, such as electrons or quarks. Earth's rotation or (regular) star's rotation is not due to the intrinsic rotation of their fundamental particles, but it's described by the orbital angular momentum.

    Therefore, if a stellar object has orbital angular momentum (and obviously we know they do), does the resulting astrophysical black hole have orbital angular momentum? It's a very clear question.

    – Albert_RD Aug 10 '22 at 14:48
  • " It's a very clear question." Clearly, it is not (otherwise you would have an answer). Even in particle physics, it is clear that intrinsic and orbital angular momentum are not independently conserved. So, why would one surprised of one being converted into the other? – TimRias Aug 10 '22 at 15:11
  • I didn't say it's an easy question but clear. And that kind of "surprise", where all the orbital angular momentum of a system is converted to an intrinsic one would be totally surprising, since there's no any scientific observation of an astrophysical system which demonstrates that all its orbital angular momentum is converted to an intrinsic one. – Albert_RD Aug 10 '22 at 15:33
  • And furthermore, that kind of "surprise" also leads to another very clear question: if the resulting astrophysical black hole only has intrinsic angular momentum, what are their constituents? a system of electrons or quarks without orbital angular momentum? This would also be totally surprising since there's no any scientific observation of a system composed by a system of interacting electrons and quarks like that.

    I'm sorry but obviously all those implications would be totally surprising, as you can see.

    – Albert_RD Aug 10 '22 at 15:37
  • No part of the Earth is orbiting the Earth. It rotates for the most part as a solid body. But I suppose I understand the distinction you wish to make. Isn't the Kerr metric stationary and eternal? It can therefore only approximate an astrophysical black hole. – ProfRob Aug 10 '22 at 16:30
  • The rotation of the Earth as a solid body is described by an orbital angular momentum. I assume you know the total angular momentum of a system can be decomposed into orbital and intrinsic parts, the intrinsic parts are given by the spin of electrons, quarks, photons, etc., and the corresponding system is either a fermion or a boson.

    The Earth rotation is not due to the fermionic or bosonic nature of the Earth, but to the orbital angular momentum.

    On the other hand, it's usually accepted that Kerr metric describes astrophysical black holes, but all this looks a big problem. Any answer?

    – Albert_RD Aug 10 '22 at 17:21
  • Related: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/649035/226902 and https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/277073/226902. The orbital spin is transferred to the intrinsic spin of the singularity (something like the Kerr singularity). – Quillo Feb 20 '23 at 19:24

2 Answers2

0

Albert_RD asked: "Where is the orbital angular momentum in the astrophysical black hole created after the collapse?"

If an orbiting body plunges into a black hole its orbital angular momentum $L$ and intrinsic angular momentum $J$ get converted into the intrinsic angular momentum $J$ of the BH, so it isn't lost.

If a body with a prograde orbit (positive $L$) gets swallowed by the BH that increases the BH's $J$, and if it had a retrograde orbit (negative $L$) it will decrease the BH's $J$.

If the orbiting body collapses on its own without plunging into the BH, its intrinsic angular momentum $J$ will also be conserved, as is the orbital angular momentum $L$.

If the earth became a BH on it's own, its path around the sun (which gives you the $L$) would not change because of it, and neither would it if the sun became a BH.

If two BHs orbit each other and then plunge into each other to form a bigger black hole, their orbital angular momentum $L$ will be converted into the new BH's intrinsic angular momentum $J$.

Some parts of $L$ and $J$ may radiate away via gravitational waves in the process if you leave the test particle regime, but to first order the sum $J+L$ is conserved and they all go into the new BH's $J$.

Yukterez
  • 11,553
  • About notation: in my question J describes the total angular momentum. If you say J=L+S, where L represents the angular momentum of an object with respect to another one (like the Earth around the Sun) and S the angular momentum of this object with respect to its own rotational axis (like the spin of the Earth, which is not the same type of spin as the spin of an electron), in such a way that the intrinsic spin of the object (the same type of spin as an electron) is always 0, then I agree with you.

    But in my question I consider intrinsic spin as the spin of an electron.

    – Albert_RD Aug 13 '22 at 01:54
  • Then: does the Pauli-Lubanski angular momentum describe such a type of spin for an electron? or is that interpretation for the Pauli-Lubanski angular momentum wrong? Note there's no any problem to define that type of spin of matter in General Relativity. For example, the Dirac equation is totally consistent and defined with a spin connection (i.e. any problem with quantum physics is not related to the spin of matter but to the gravitational field). – Albert_RD Aug 13 '22 at 01:59
0

The decomposition of angular momentum into orbital and instrinsic depends on the point about which we compute the angular momentum. The Earth has orbital angular momentum about the sun and "instrinsic" angular momentum about its center of mass. In a relativistic theory $$ M^{\mu\nu}= x^\mu p^\nu - x^\nu p^\mu+ S^{\mu\nu} $$ The skew-symmetric tensor $M^{\mu\nu}$ is the total angular momentum, $x^\mu p^\nu - x^\nu p^\mu=L^{\mu\nu}$ is the orbital part, and $S^{\mu\nu}$ is the intrinsic angular momentum. The vector $x^\mu$ is the position (usually, but not always, the center of mass in the body's rest frame) of the object with respect to the point about which we are computing $M$, and $p$ is the linear 4-momentum.

The Pauli-Lubanski vector (which was, I believe, discovered by Myron Mathisson) is derived by dualizing the totally antisymmetric P-L tensor $$ P^{\lambda\mu\nu}= p^\lambda M^{\mu\nu}+p^\mu M^{\nu\lambda}+p^\nu M^{\lambda\mu}. $$ The advantage of the P-L tensor (or vector) is that arbitrary-chosen $x$'s cancel and $$ P^{\lambda\mu\nu}= p^\lambda S^{\mu\nu}+p^\mu S^{\nu\lambda}+p^\nu S^{\lambda\mu}. $$ The $S$ tensor is still not unique. One must impose conditions such as $p_\mu S^{\mu\nu}=0$ decide "where" in the body are we considering to be its position.

For a massless object there is no frame-independent notion of "center of mass" and the decomposition is necessily frame dependent. Even for spinning Black holes there are effects such as bobbing due the ambiguity of the decomposition.

mike stone
  • 52,996
  • Then, does the Pauli-Lubanski angular momentum represent the spin of an electron? If not, what does it really represent? Is it possible to define a moment of inertia from it?

    What's the appropriate quantity to describe the spin of an electron in General Relativity? Note that for example the Dirac equation of an electron is totally consistent and defined with a spin connection (i.e. any problem with quantum physics is not related to the spin of matter but to the gravitational field). Therefore, there should be an appropriate quantity to describe the spin of an electron in General Relativity.

    – Albert_RD Aug 13 '22 at 02:06
  • It is a convenient object. The usual spin spin current tensor $^{\mu\nu\lambda}=\frac 18 \bar \psi {\gamma^\mu, [\gamma^nu, \gamma^\lambda]}\psi$ evaluates to $ p^\mu S^{\nu\lambda}+ p^\nu S^{\lambda\mu}+p^\lambda S^{\mu\nu}$ for a plane wave solution of the Dirac equation where $S$ satisfies the Tulczyjew–Dixon condition $p_\mu S^{\mu\nu}=0$. For ang mom in classical GR see the references in the Mathisson Papapetrou article in Wikipedia that I linked to. – mike stone Aug 13 '22 at 12:10
  • But still there's no any answer to the question I made, I already mentioned in my first entry the Pauli-Lubanski angular momentum and asked if this quantity can actually describe the intrinsic spin of matter (such as the spin of an electron) or the angular momentum of an object with respect to its own rotational axis (like the spin of the Earth). Of course, in Physics both types of angular momentum are different and I don't think they can be described by the same quantity. For example, the Earth's spin has a moment of inertia which can be changed and electron's not. Can you answer my question? – Albert_RD Aug 13 '22 at 16:25
  • On the other hand, I was reading the Mathisson Papapetrou article in Wikipedia and found the term $\frac{1}{2}S^{\lambda\mu}R_{\lambda\mu\nu\rho}V^{\rho}$ in the motion of the massive spinning body.

    This terms seems to violate the equivalence principle, because $R_{\lambda\mu\nu\rho}$ can't be equal to $0$ in curved spacetime. According to this analysis of Mathisson Papapetrou, is the equivalence principle satisfied for a spinning massive body? If not, it's ok, I'd just like to know the answer to these questions.

    Thank you very much.

    – Albert_RD Aug 13 '22 at 16:35
  • The equivalence principle appplies to a body that is small enough that one can ignore the effect of tidal forces on it. To have angular momentum an astrophysical body has to have some spatial extension and the M-P-D equation is accounting for the effect of the tidal forces at the level of an energy-momentum dipole term (see Dixon's derivation). I have seen claimed derivations of the M-P-D equation for Dirac fermions, but they are not simple, and, given that the electron is effective a point particle, it is not clear what physics they are capturing. This is an interesting question. – mike stone Aug 13 '22 at 17:20
  • Thank you very much for your answer, I also think this is an interesting question. Do you know if it's possible to define a moment of inertia related to the Pauli-Lubanski angular momentum? I'd say this should be a way to clarify the full meaning of this quantity, because in principle for example the Earth's spin must have a moment of inertia which can change in time, but the electron's one not. And this should be reflected into the definition of such an angular momentum in General Relativity. – Albert_RD Aug 13 '22 at 20:41
  • On the other hand, after reading your answers now I'd say the angular momentum of the Kerr solution represents an angular momentum which is analogous to the angular momentum of Earth with respect to its own rotational axis (not the same one as electron's spin). Do you agree with this?

    Thank you very much.

    – Albert_RD Aug 13 '22 at 20:45
  • Yes. The spin of elementary particles is rather different from that of planets, although it can have similar gyroscopic precession effects. – mike stone Aug 14 '22 at 13:04
  • Ok, thank you for you valuable answers. – Albert_RD Aug 14 '22 at 19:36