Talk:Ring singularity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. |
|
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses. |
|
Contents |
[edit] Problems
To mention just one: through or missing the ring singularity: should clarify that one is discussing a level of structure underlying Lorentzian metric structure.---CH 09:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Consequences
I have long wondered (since before gaining a PhD in cosmology based on studying large-scale structure using quasars as mass tracers, if I might appeal to authority 8-) what would happen to matter falling through the ring. Could this explain quasar jets? My work was largely observational, and I would not claim to have the mathematical background necessary to work the theory through. --Pete Newman p.r.newman@lineone.net
[edit] Ring singularities & deletions
Having noted that there is some question about what form ring singularities actually take in realistic collapse, I added the info to the appropriate section, along with references. (The web references could probably use a formal entry in the references section, but I haven't done that yet).
Noticing claims that ring singularities "must" exist, I removed these claims as confusing.
Along the way I ran into this unsupported quote. I removed it to the talk page under the guideline of doubtful quotes without a source.
- This problem is serious, since it suggests that perhaps the fieldline paradigm needs modification, or perhaps a particle entering a topological wormhole is unable to interact with anything on the far side, and sees itself to be in a single-ended cavity.
Looking even further, I found a whole BUNCH of stuff to fix. :-(, too much to list. See the edit logs.
Pervect 22:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Angular Momentum of Point Mass
The current page text reads, "Since a point cannot support rotation or angular momentum...".
Such a statement is awkward in light of the fact that quantum field theories all seem to insist that pointlike particles do, in fact, carry angular momentum.
While the geometrical arguments for the ring as the minimal shape that can support angular momentum are sensible, the widespread acceptance of the concept of point angular momentum seems to leave the above statement on less than firm footing. Mseslacker 05:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I changed this to specifically exclude quantum effects. General relativity is a classical theory, and the lame description offered still holds within a classical framework. Plus I think it lends a little more insight as to the incomplete nature of the theory. - Bitset Aug 4 07
