I was reading about the angular momentum of rigid bodies, and I cam across the following problem.
Imagine a solid sphere is rolling down over an inclined plane without slipping, and I was trying to find the angular momentum of this body.
I found the following formula : $L = I\omega + mvr = \frac{7}{5}mvr$
It is obvious, that the first term is the angular momentum, due to the body spinning about its central axis. However, where does the second term come from ? It seems similar to the orbital angular momentum of a point particle about some barycenter. However, not only is the sphere here, a point particle, but it also isn't in any orbit. The motion comprises of rolling about its axis, and the linear motion of its center of mass. However, the center of mass isn't rotating about any point whatsoever, so why is the $mvr$ component coming from.
Moreover, $r$ refers to the radius of the sphere. Hence, $mvr$ must be the moment of inertia of a point particle of mass $m$ orbiting the center of the sphere while it rolls down. If that is the case, haven't we already taken care of that in $I\omega$ ?
Why are we considering, the rotation of the entire sphere about its axis, and the rotation of a point of mass $m$ about the center of the sphere separately, and then summing over them ?
Any intuitive explanation of what exactly does $mvr$ represent would be highly appreciated.
I did the derivation for angular momentum, and the two terms popped up. However, isn't angular momentum always related to the rotation? The term $mvr$ is written as translational angular momentum. However, this name seems to be a little contradictory to me. How can pure translation be related to rotation - unless we claim that rotation is always related to angular momentum, but angular momentum might not always signify rotation as in this case ? Is this claim valid ? If not, can someone explain to me, the physical intuition or help me visualize the idea of translational angular momentum.