1: % Filename : gem.tex
2: % Authors : Simon J Clark - s.j.clark@lancaster.ac.uk
3: % Robin W Tucker - robin.tucker@lancaster.ac.uk
4: % Last Modified : 20 September 2000
5:
6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Preamble %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7:
8: \documentclass[reqno,onecolumn]{amsart}
9: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,xspace}
10: \usepackage[musical]{sjctensor}
11:
12: \numberwithin{equation}{section}
13:
14: \topmargin 0in \textheight 8.9in \oddsidemargin 0in
15: \evensidemargin \oddsidemargin \marginparwidth 0.5in \textwidth 6.5in
16:
17: % useful abbreviations
18:
19: \newcommand{\gemism}{gravito-electromagnetism\xspace}
20: \newcommand{\Gemism}{Gravito-electromagnetism\xspace}
21: \newcommand{\gemic}{gravito-electro\-magnetic\xspace}
22: \newcommand{\Gemic}{Gravito-electromagnetic\xspace}
23: \newcommand{\gelec}{gravito-electric\xspace}
24: \newcommand{\Gelec}{Gravito-electric\xspace}
25: \newcommand{\gmag}{gravito-magnetic\xspace}
26: \newcommand{\Gmag}{Gravito-magnetic\xspace}
27: \newcommand{\emism}{electromagnetism\xspace}
28: \newcommand{\Emism}{Electromagnetism\xspace}
29: \newcommand{\emic}{electromagnetic\xspace}
30: \newcommand{\Emic}{Electromagnetic\xspace}
31:
32:
33: % useful symbols
34:
35: \newcommand{\ghat}{\hat{g}} % g with a hat above
36: \newcommand{\Ghat}{\hat{G}} % G with a hat above
37:
38: \newcommand{\delhat}{\hat{\nabla}} % nabla with a hat above
39:
40: \newcommand{\bfRhat}{\hat{\mathbf{R}}} % bold R with a hat above
41: \newcommand{\bfRdot}{\dot{\mathbf{R}}} % bold R with a dot above
42:
43: \newcommand{\Rhat}{\hat{R}} % R with a hat above
44: \newcommand{\Rdot}{\dot{R}} % R with a dot above
45: \newcommand{\Richat}{\widehat{\mathbf{Ric}}} % bold Ric with a hat above
46: \newcommand{\Ric}{{\mathbf{Ric}}} % bold Ric (background Ricci tensor)
47: \newcommand{\Ricdot}
48: {\overset{\:\:\boldsymbol{.}}{\mathbf{Ric}}} % bold Ric with a dot above
49:
50: \newcommand{\Einhat}{\widehat{\mathbf{Ein}}} % bold Ein with a hat above
51: \newcommand{\Ein}{{\mathbf{Ein}}} % bold Ein (background Einstein tensor)
52: \newcommand{\Eindot}
53: {\overset{\:\boldsymbol{.}}{\mathbf{Ein}}} % bold Ein with a dot above
54:
55: \newcommand{\cRhat}{\hat{\mathcal{R}}} % calligraphic R with a hat above
56: \newcommand{\cRdot}{\dot{\mathcal{R}}} % calligraphic R with a dot above
57:
58: \newcommand{\cThat}{\hat{\mathcal{T}}} % calligraphic T with a hat above
59: \newcommand{\cTdot}{\dot{\mathcal{T}}} % calligraphic T with a dot above
60: \newcommand{\bscTdot}{\dot{\boldsymbol{\cT}}} % bold calligraphic T with a dot above
61:
62: \newcommand{\xipar}{{\breve{\xi}}} % xi with a breve above
63:
64: \newcommand{\Cdot}{{C^\prime}} % C with a superscript prime
65: \newcommand{\cCdot}{{\cC^\prime}} % calligraphic C with a superscript prime
66:
67: \newcommand{\party}{{\partial_t}} % party on dude!
68:
69:
70: \newcommand{\www}[3][]{#1{#2} \wedge \ldots \wedge #1{#3}}
71: \newcommand{\ttt}[3][]{#1{#2} \tens \ldots \tens #1{#3}}
72: \newcommand{\iii}[3][]{\rmi_{#1{#2}} \ldots \rmi_{#1{#3}}}
73:
74:
75:
76:
77:
78:
79:
80: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Begin Document %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
81:
82: \begin{document}
83:
84: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Begin Abstract %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
85:
86: \begin{abstract}
87:
88:
89: A tensor description of perturbative Einsteinian gravity about an
90: arbitrary background spacetime is developed. By analogy with the
91: covariant laws of electromagnetism in spacetime, {\em
92: gravito-electro\-magnetic} potentials and fields are defined
93: %on a flat background
94: to emulate electromagnetic gauge transformations under
95: substitutions belonging to the gauge symmetry group of
96: perturbative gravitation. These definitions have the advantage
97: that on a flat background, with the aid of a covariantly constant
98: timelike vector field, a subset of the linearised gravitational
99: field equations can be written in a form that is fully analogous
100: to Maxwell's equations (without awkward factors of 4 and
101: extraneous tensor fields). It is shown how the remaining
102: equations in the perturbed gravitational system restrict the time
103: dependence of solutions to these equations and thereby prohibit
104: the existence of propagating vector fields. The induced {\em
105: \gemic} Lorentz force on a test particle is evaluated in terms of
106: these fields together with the torque on a small gyroscope. It is
107: concluded that the analogy of perturbative gravity to Maxwell's
108: description of electromagnetism can be valuable for
109: (quasi-)stationary gravitational phenomena but that the analogy
110: has its limitations.\newline
111:
112:
113: \noindent PACS numbers: 0420, 0450
114:
115: \end{abstract}
116:
117: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% End Abstract %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
118:
119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Begin Title %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
120:
121: \title{
122: {\centerline{\bf Gauge Symmetry and Gravito-Electromagnetism}}}
123:
124:
125:
126: \author[S. J. Clark and R. W. Tucker]{
127: S. J. Clark\\
128: {$\quad$}\\
129: R. W. Tucker\\
130: {$\quad$}\\
131: {\it Department of Physics,\\
132: Lancaster University, LA1 4YB, UK\\}
133: {\tt s.j.clark@lancaster.ac.uk\\
134: robin.tucker@lancaster.ac.uk}}
135:
136: \date{\today}
137:
138: \maketitle
139:
140: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% End Title %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
141:
142: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Begin Body %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
143:
144:
145:
146: \tableofcontents
147:
148:
149:
150: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
151: % The Maxwell Equations %
152: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
153:
154: \section{Introduction}
155:
156:
157: Einstein's theory of gravitation remains a pinnacle in the
158: evolution of theoretical physics. It offers an overarching
159: description of phenomena ranging from the familiar behaviour of
160: Newtonian gravitation to exotic astrophysical events at the
161: extremes of space and time. Although its modern formulation is in
162: terms of tensor fields on a manifold with a spacetime structure,
163: its physical interpretation often
164: %endows its equations with a structure that demands an interpretation
165: benefits from a choice of observer and an appropriate reference
166: frame. One of the traditional methods for extracting information
167: from Einstein's gravitational field equations is to exploit the
168: properties of observers in some fiducial background spacetime in
169: which gravitational physics is either absent or familiar. This
170: approach has led to various approximation in such backgrounds.
171: Further reduction is afforded by a ``3+1'' decomposition in which
172: spacetime tensors are expressed in terms of a field of frames
173: adapted to some local foliation of spacetime by spacelike
174: hypersurfaces. More generally frames are afforded by timelike
175: vector fields, the integral curves of which model ideal observers.
176: In such a manner it becomes possible to contemplate different
177: limits in which matter moves slowly or the gravitational field is
178: weak relative to such observers. It is known that Newtonian
179: gravitation follows from such a limit. Within the framework of
180: weak gravity non-Newtonian gravitational effects may arise and a
181: number of experiments have been devised in order to detect such
182: phenomena as the ``Lense-Thirring effect'' due to
183: ``frame-dragging'' produced by the earth's rotation
184: \cite{Thirring}, \cite{Thirring1}, \cite{Thirring2},
185: \cite{Everitt}. The nature of this effect may be detectable by a
186: small orbiting gyroscope and is analogous to that produced by the
187: torque on a small magnetic dipole in the presence of the magnetic
188: field of a fixed magnetic dipole. Indeed the component of weak
189: gravity (additional to the dominant Newtonian gravitational field)
190: responsible for this effect is now referred to as the {\em
191: gravito-magnetic} field. The sensitivity of recently developed
192: rotation sensors may also be increased to detect post-Newtonian
193: effects in the future \cite{Packard}.
194:
195: %\def\gm{{\it gravito-magnetic }} % use {\em \gmag} instead
196: %\def\ge{{\it gravito-electric }} % use {\em \gelec} instead
197: %\def\gem{{\it gravito-electromagnetic }} % use {\em \gemic} instead
198:
199: Several authors \cite{bct}, \cite{harris}, \cite{thorneNZ},
200: \cite{thorne}, \cite{wald}, \cite{forward}, \cite{Zee},
201: \cite{ehlers}, \cite{jan}, \cite{mashhoon}, \cite{damour} have
202: noticed that a subset of the Einstein equations when perturbed
203: about flat spacetime can be written in a form that looks
204: remarkably similar to Maxwell's equations with the Newtonian
205: gravitational field corresponding to the {\em \gelec} field and
206: mass-currents playing the role of electric currents. Since the
207: laws of electromagnetism are well studied and understood this
208: analogy has proved quite fruitful in the {\em \gemic} context
209: particularly in astrophysical applications. Extended
210: ``astrophysical jet-structures'' are now thought to have their
211: origin in {\em \gemic} forces. In \cite{NUT} the details of
212: astrophysical lensing have been explored in terms of parameters in
213: the NUT metric.
214:
215: It is also
216: amusing to recall that one of the first theories of post-Newtonian
217: gravitation was formulated by Heaviside in direct analogy with the
218: then recently formulated theory of electromagnetism by Maxwell. In
219: the language of the Poincar\'{e} isometry group it predicted that
220: gravitation like electromagnetism was mediated by an independent
221: vector field rather than a second degree tensor field associated
222: with the metric of spacetime. This difference of course must imply
223: that any analogy between weak gravity and electromagnetism is
224: incomplete and most derivations of the {\em \gemic} field
225: equations take care to point this out. However in our view the
226: caveats are themselves often incomplete and a close examination
227: of various derivations of the {\em \gemic} equations display
228: significant differences in detail. The difficulty in making
229: objective comparisons often arises due to the implicit use of a
230: particular coordinate system (usually adapted to a flat spacetime
231: background) or a partial gauge fixing. Indeed the question of the
232: gauge transformations induced on the {\em \gemic} fields from the
233: underlying gauge covariance of the perturbative Einstein equations
234: is usually dealt with rather cursorily. This leads one to
235: contemplate the {\it most useful way} to define the {\em \gemic}
236: fields in terms of the perturbed components of the spacetime
237: metric. Different choices are often responsible for the location
238: of odd factors of 4 that permeate the {\em \gemic} equations
239: compared with the Maxwell equations. Such choices also have
240: implications for the form of the induced {\em \gemic} Lorentz
241: force (and torque) in terms of the {\em \gemic} fields that enter
242: into the equation for the motion of a massive point (spinning)
243: particle. In \cite{mashhoon} \gemic gauge transformations are
244: discussed from a perspective different from the one presented in
245: this paper. Here such transformations are explicitly related to
246: the gauge symmetry of perturbative gravitation and the definitions
247: of \gemic fields in turn induce the notions of gravito-magnetic
248: and gravito-electric coupling strengths.
249:
250: In this article a tensor description of perturbative Einsteinian
251: gravity about an arbitrary background spacetime is first
252: constructed. By analogy with the covariant laws of
253: electromagnetism in spacetime {\em \gemic} potentials and fields
254: are then defined
255: %on a flat background
256: to emulate electromagnetic gauge transformations under
257: substitutions belonging to the gauge symmetry group of
258: perturbative gravitation. These definitions have the advantage
259: that on a flat background, with the aid of a covariantly constant
260: timelike vector field, a {\it subset} of the linearised
261: gravitational field equations can be written in a form that is
262: {\it fully analogous to Maxwell's equations} (without awkward
263: factors of 4 and extraneous tensor fields. It is shown how the
264: remaining equations in the perturbed gravitational system restrict
265: the time dependence of solutions to these equations and thereby
266: prohibit the existence of propagating vector fields. The induced
267: {\em \gemic} Lorentz force on a test particle is evaluated by
268: geodesic perturbation in terms of these fields together with the
269: torque on a small gyroscope. It is concluded that the analogy of
270: perturbative gravity to Maxwell's description of electromagnetism
271: can be valuable for (quasi-)~stationary gravitational phenomena
272: but that the analogy has its limitations. It has been argued that
273: such limitations are absent in the approach to {\em \gemic} based
274: on properties of the conformal tensor in a spacetime determined by
275: Einstein's equations. Although this reformulation makes no
276: reference to perturbative methods the analogy with the structure
277: of Maxwell's equations is less direct. A tensorial description of
278: this formulation is given in Appendix \sect{conf}. Throughout this
279: article the language of tensor fields as multi-linear maps on
280: vector and co-vector fields is adopted. Co-vector fields are
281: manipulated using the exterior calculus of differential forms and
282: Hodge maps. Manifolds are assumed smooth and tensor fields
283: sufficiently differentiable as required. Notations based on the
284: tools used are summarised in Appendix \sect{defs} and some
285: technical computational details are relegated to Appendices
286: \sect{connex} and \sect{trans}. In order to facilitate comparisons
287: with other authors certain field redefinitions are discussed in
288: section \sect{altanalogy} together with the changes induced by
289: them in the {\em \gemic} field equations. These alternatives are
290: discussed in the concluding section where the salient features of
291: this paper are summarised.
292:
293:
294:
295: %......................................................................
296:
297: \section{The Maxwell Equations}
298: \label{sec:max}
299:
300: Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field can be written
301: concisely (in a general spacetime with metric tensor $g$) in terms
302: of the Faraday 2-form $F$ and current 1-form $\cJ$ on spacetime:
303: \begin{subequations}
304: \begin{equation}
305: \label{eq:maxcov1}
306: \rmd F = 0 ,
307: \end{equation}
308: \begin{equation}
309: \label{eq:maxcov2}
310: \delta F = \cJ .
311: \end{equation}
312: \end{subequations}
313: Equation \eqn{maxcov1} implies that in a regular domain
314: \begin{equation}
315: F = \rmd A
316: \end{equation}
317: for some {\em $1$-form potential} $A$, and $F$ clearly remains
318: invariant under {\em electromagnetic gauge transformations} of $A$
319: which take the form
320: \begin{equation}
321: \label{eq:emgaugetrans}
322: A \mapsto A + \rmd \lambda ,
323: \end{equation}
324: where $\lambda$ is an arbitrary smooth function on spacetime.
325: Equation \eqn{maxcov2} implies that the current is conserved
326: \begin{equation}
327: \delta \cJ = 0 .
328: \end{equation}
329:
330: In terms of $A$, \eqn{maxcov1} may be written
331: \begin{equation}
332: \Delta A + \rmd \delta A = - \cJ ,
333: \end{equation}
334: where $\Delta =-(\delta \rmd +\rmd \delta)$. In the {\em Lorenz
335: gauge} defined by the condition
336: \begin{equation}
337: \label{eq:transgauge}
338: \delta A = 0 ,
339: \end{equation}
340: this reduces to the {\em Helmholtz wave equation}
341: \begin{equation}
342: \label{eq:helm}
343: \Delta A = - \cJ .
344: \end{equation}
345:
346: The equation of motion for a (spinless) test particle with mass
347: $m$ and charge $q$ moving along a curve $C(\tau)$, parameterized
348: by proper-time $\tau$, with tangent vector $\Cdot(\tau)$, in an
349: arbitrary gravitational field and \emic field $F$ is
350: \begin{equation}
351: \label{eq:qeqnmotion}
352: m \del_\Cdot \Cdot + q\, \sharpen{\rmi_\Cdot F} = 0 ,
353: \end{equation}
354: where $\nabla$ is the Levi-Civita connection associated with $g$.
355: The {\em Lorentz force} $\bbF_\rmL$ is defined by
356: \begin{equation}
357: \label{eq:lorentz}
358: \bbF_\rmL = - q\, \sharpen{\rmi_\Cdot F} .
359: \end{equation}
360:
361: One can decompose $F$ \wrt some unit-normalized
362: timelike\footnote{Such a vector satisfies $g(V,V)=-1$ with the
363: choice of signature for $g$ chosen throughout this article.}
364: vector field $V$ as
365: \begin{equation}
366: \label{eq:fsplit}
367: F = \flatten{V} \wedge \bfe + \# \bfb ,
368: \end{equation}
369: where $\rmi_V\bfe=0$ and $\rmi_V\#\bfb=0$. Similarly one may
370: decompose $\cJ$ as
371: \begin{equation}
372: \label{eq:currentsplit}
373: \cJ = \rho \flatten{V} + \bfj
374: \end{equation}
375: where $\rmi_V\bfj =0$. Ideal observers may be associated with the
376: integral curves of $V$.
377:
378: The Maxwell field equations \eqn{maxcov1} and \eqn{maxcov2} can
379: then be written in (3+1)-form in terms of $\bfe$, $\bfb$ and $V$
380: as
381: \begin{samepage}
382: \begin{subequations}
383: \label{eq:maxall}
384: \begin{equation}
385: \label{eq:max1}
386: \bfd_V \# \bfb + \bsOmega_V \wedge \bfe = 0 ,
387: \end{equation}
388: \begin{equation}
389: \label{eq:max2}
390: \bfD_V \bfe + \bscL_V \# \bfb = 0 ,
391: \end{equation}
392: \begin{equation}
393: \label{eq:max4}
394: \bfd_V \# \bfe - \bsOmega_V \wedge \bfb = \rho \# 1 ,
395: \end{equation}
396: \begin{equation}
397: \label{eq:max3}
398: \bfD_V \bfb - \bscL_V \# \bfe = \# \bfj ,
399: \end{equation}
400: \end{subequations}
401: \end{samepage}
402: where the notation is given in the Appendix \sect{defs}. Such
403: equations exhibit possible ``pseudo-sources'' measured by
404: non-inertial observers associated with non-parallel vector fields
405: $V$.
406:
407: When $V$ is a parallel vector field (e.g. associated with an
408: observer defining an inertial frame in flat spacetime) these
409: reduce to the familiar Maxwell equations relating electromagnetic
410: fields to their sources written in terms of differential forms
411: \cite{rwt}. The metric tensor permits one to define the vector
412: fields: $\bfE = \sharpen{\bfe}$, $\bfB = \sharpen{\bfb}$, $\bfJ =
413: \sharpen{\bfj}$, and (for $V$ parallel) the Maxwell equations
414: take their more familiar form
415: \begin{samepage}
416: \begin{subequations}
417: \begin{equation}
418: \mathrm{div} \, \bfB = 0 ,
419: \end{equation}
420: \begin{equation}
421: \mathrm{curl} \, \bfE + \frac{\partial {\bfB}}{\partial t} = 0 ,
422: \end{equation}
423: \begin{equation}
424: \mathrm{div} \, \bfE = \rho ,
425: \end{equation}
426: \begin{equation}
427: \mathrm{curl} \, \bfB - \frac{\partial {\bfE}}{\partial t} = \bfJ .
428: \end{equation}
429: \end{subequations}
430: \end{samepage}
431: Similarly decomposing the 4-velocity $\Cdot$ \wrt some (unit
432: timelike parallel) vector field $V$ as
433: \begin{equation}
434: \Cdot = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \bfg(\bfv,\bfv)}} (V + \bfv) ,
435: \end{equation}
436: and assuming that the magnitude of $\bfv$ is small ($v^2 =
437: \bfg(\bfv,\bfv) \ll 1$),
438: \begin{equation}
439: \Cdot = V + \bfv + O(v^2) ,
440: \end{equation}
441: the equation of motion for a charged non-relativistic particle
442: becomes
443: \begin{equation}
444: \frac{\rmd {\bfv}}{\rmd t} = \frac{q}{m}(\bfE + \bfv \times \bfB) .
445: \end{equation}
446:
447:
448:
449: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
450: % linearized Gravity %
451: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
452:
453:
454:
455:
456:
457:
458: \section{Perturbative Gravitation}
459:
460: The analogy between gravitation and electromagnetism to be
461: discussed follows from a perturbation of the gravitational field
462: about some ``background'' spacetime geometry. We explore the
463: constraints on this geometry in order to execute this analogy to
464: its fullest extent.
465:
466:
467:
468:
469:
470: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
471: % The Linearized Einstein Equations %
472: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
473:
474:
475:
476:
477:
478:
479: \subsection{The Perturbed Einstein Equations}\indent
480:
481: A perturbative approach to Einstein's theory of gravitation can be
482: based on a formal linearization of spacetime geometry about that
483: determined by some solution of Einstein's equations for the
484: spacetime metric tensor. A generic perturbation will be identified
485: with a class of linearizations that belong to the tangent space to
486: the space of Einstein solutions. Following \cite{stewart} it is
487: convenient to introduce a 5-dimensional manifold $\cM $ that can
488: be foliated by hypersurfaces belonging to a one parameter
489: ($\epsilon$) family of spacetimes. The geometry of each leaf
490: $M_\epsilon$ of the foliation is determined by some second degree
491: symmetric tensor field $g(\epsilon)$ on $\cM$ where $\epsilon\in
492: [-1,1]$ that restricts to a Lorentzian metric tensor field on each
493: leaf. Furthermore it is asserted that all points of one leaf can
494: be connected to all points on a neighbouring leaf by a one
495: parameter diffeomorphism $\varphi_\epsilon : \cM \to \cM$. Thus a
496: tensor field $T(0)$ on $M_0$ can be related to a tensor field
497: $T(\epsilon)$ on $M_\epsilon$ according to
498: \begin{equation}
499: \hat{\varphi}_{-\epsilon} T(\epsilon)= T(0) +
500: \epsilon \dot{T}_\cV + O(\epsilon^2)
501: \end{equation}
502: where, for some nowhere vanishing vector field $\cV$ that is
503: nowhere tangent to the spacetime leaves in $\cM$,
504: \begin{equation}
505: \varphi_\epsilon=\exp(\epsilon\cV)
506: \end{equation}
507: induces $\hat{\varphi}_\epsilon$ on tensors and
508: \begin{equation}
509: \dot{T}_\cV = \cL_\cV
510: T(\epsilon)\vert_{\epsilon=0} .
511: \end{equation}
512: In a local chart with coordinates $\{x^\mu,\epsilon\}$ adapted to
513: the foliation one may write:
514: \begin{equation}
515: \cV=\frac{\partial}{\partial\epsilon}
516: +\xi^\mu(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu} .
517: \end{equation}
518: The tensor $\dot{T}_\cV$ is said to be a linearization of
519: $T(\epsilon)$ about $T(0)$ with respect to a choice of the vector
520: field $\cV$. Since the leaves $M_\epsilon$ are diffeomorphic it is
521: natural to identify points on distinct leaves that lie on the same
522: integral curve of $\cV$. Different choices of $\cV$ correspond to
523: different identifications. If $\dot{T}_{\cV_1}$ and
524: $\dot{T}_{\cV_2}$ are distinct linearizations then by construction
525: their difference is generated by a vector field $X$ on $M_0$:
526: \begin{equation}
527: \dot{T}_{\cV_1}\mapsto\dot{T}_{\cV_2}= \dot{T}_{\cV_1}
528: + \cL_X T(0) .
529: \end{equation}
530: This may be called a gauge transformation of $\dot{T}_{\cV_1}$
531: induced by $X$. If $\cL_X T(0) =0$ for all $X$ then $T(\epsilon)$
532: is gauge invariant. In general there is no preferred positive (or
533: negative) definite metric on $M_0$ that enables one to assign a
534: natural norm to quantities that are not gauge invariant in this
535: sense.
536:
537:
538: Linearized gravity proceeds by writing the covariant physical
539: metric tensor $g(\epsilon)$ field so that:
540: \begin{equation}
541: \hat{\varphi}_{-\epsilon} g(\epsilon)= g(0)+\epsilon\dot{g}_\cV+
542: O(\epsilon^2)
543: \end{equation}
544: By common abuse of notation this is simply written;
545: \begin{equation}
546: \label{eq:metric}
547: \hat{g}=g+h
548: \end{equation}
549: where $h$ is of order $\epsilon$ and higher order terms in
550: $\epsilon$ are subsequently neglected. This abbreviated notation
551: hides the choice of $\cV$ in the definition of $h$ and an
552: alternative choice arises from the {\em gauge transformation}
553: \begin{equation}
554: h \mapsto h + \epsilon\cL_X g
555: \end{equation}
556: for any vector field $X$ on the spacetime with {\em background}
557: metric $g$. Similarly we introduce the abbreviated notation
558: $\hat{T} = \hat{\varphi}_{-\epsilon} T(\epsilon)$, $T = T(0)$,
559: $\dot{T} = \epsilon \dot{T}_\cV$, for some tensor $T$ (thus
560: $\dot{T}$ is of order $\epsilon$).
561:
562:
563: The {\em contravariant physical metric tensor field} $\Ghat$ can
564: be similarly written in terms of the {\em induced contravariant
565: background metric tensor} $G$ and a {\em contravariant
566: perturbation tensor} $H$
567: \begin{equation}
568: \Ghat = G + H .
569: \end{equation}
570: In a smooth local basis of vector fields on spacetime $\{X_a\}$,
571: with dual cobasis $ \{e^b\}$ such that $e^b(X_a)=\delta^b{}_a$ for
572: $a=0,1,2,3$, the induced perturbation tensor $H$ can be written
573: as
574: \begin{equation}
575: H = - h_{ab} X^a \tens X^b
576: \end{equation}
577: with $g_{ac}g^{cb}=\delta^b{}_a$ (where $g^{ab}$ are the
578: components of $G$ in the above cobasis) and $X^a = g^{ab} X_b$.
579: The metric-dual of vector and 1-form fields, and the associated
580: raising and lowering of indices are defined with respect to the
581: {\em background} metric tensor. Likewise any operations that
582: depend on the metric tensor (e.g. the Hodge map) will be defined
583: \wrt the {\em background} metric unless indicated otherwise.
584:
585:
586: To derive the perturbed Einstein tensor in terms of $h$ (in some
587: gauge) write the Levi-Civita connection $\delhat$ with respect to
588: the physical metric $\ghat$ in terms of the Levi-Civita connection
589: $\del$ with respect to $g$ so that for any vector field $X$ on
590: spacetime:
591: \begin{equation}
592: \label{eq:connex}
593: \delhat_X = \del_X + \bsgamma_X ,
594: \end{equation}
595: %and we shall assume that $\delhat$ and $\del$ and have vanishing
596: %torsion tensors.
597: Since $\delhat$ and $\del$ are torsion free
598: \begin{equation}
599: \bsgamma_X Y = \bsgamma_Y X ,
600: \end{equation}
601: for arbitrary vector fields $X$ and $Y$. It follows that
602: \begin{equation}
603: \bsgamma_X f = 0 ,
604: \end{equation}
605: for any function $f$ on spacetime. It is convenient to define a
606: tensor $\gamma$ by
607: \begin{equation}
608: \gamma(X,Y,\alpha) = \alpha(\bsgamma_X Y) ,
609: \end{equation}
610: for any 1-form $\alpha$,
611: then
612: \begin{equation}
613: \bsgamma_X Y = \gamma(X,Y,-)
614: \end{equation}
615: and
616: \begin{equation}
617: \bsgamma_X \alpha = -\gamma(X,-,\alpha) .
618: \end{equation}
619:
620: Since $\delhat$ and $\del$ are compatible \wrt $\ghat$ and $g$
621: respectively $\gamma$ can be written in terms of $h$ as
622: \begin{equation}
623: \label{eq:pertconnex}
624: \gamma(X,Y,\alpha) = \frac{1}{2}\{(\del_X
625: h)(Y,\sharpen{\alpha})+(\del_Y
626: h)(X,\sharpen{\alpha})-(\del_{\sharpen{\alpha}} h)(X,Y)\} ,
627: \end{equation}
628: for arbitrary $X$, $Y$ and $\alpha$.
629:
630: %
631: % Calculation: from line 215 to line 246 in lingrav.tex
632: %
633:
634: The curvature operators $\bfRhat$ and $\bfR$ for the connections
635: $\delhat$ and $\del$ respectively are defined in the usual manner
636: as
637: \begin{subequations}
638: \begin{equation}
639: \bfRhat_{X\:Y} = [\delhat_X,\delhat_Y] - \delhat_{[X,Y]} ,
640: \end{equation}
641: \begin{equation}
642: \bfR_{X\:Y} = [\del_X,\del_Y] - \del_{[X,Y]} .
643: \end{equation}
644: \end{subequations}
645: %Having paid our respect to tradition by denoting the metric
646: %perturbation by $h$ we henceforth denote other perturbed tensors
647: %with an overdot.
648: Thus
649: \begin{equation}
650: \bfRhat_{X\:Y} = \bfR_{X\:Y} + \bfRdot_{X\:Y} ,
651: \end{equation}
652: and it follows that the {\em perturbed curvature operator}
653: $\bfRdot$ is given by
654: \begin{equation}
655: \bfRdot_{X\:Y} = \del_X \bsgamma_Y - \del_Y \bsgamma_X + \bsgamma_X
656: \del_Y - \bsgamma_Y \del_X - \bsgamma_{[X,Y]} .
657: \end{equation}
658: When acting on any vector field $Z$ this simplifies to
659: \begin{equation}
660: \bfRdot_{X\:Y} Z = (\del_X \gamma)(Y,Z,-) - (\del_Y \gamma)(X,Z,-) ,
661: \end{equation}
662: and the {\em perturbed curvature tensor} $\Rdot$ is defined by
663: \begin{equation}
664: \Rdot(X,Y,Z,\alpha) = \alpha(\bfRdot_{X\:Y} Z) = (\del_X
665: \gamma)(Y,Z,\alpha) - (\del_Y \gamma)(X,Z,\alpha) .
666: \end{equation}
667:
668: The {\em perturbed Ricci tensor} $\Ricdot$ follows by contraction
669: \begin{equation}
670: \Ricdot(X,Y) = \Rdot(X_a,X,Y,e^a) .
671: \end{equation}
672: It is useful to introduce the {\em trace-reverse map} $\mu$ on
673: covariant degree 2 tensors so that
674: \begin{equation}
675: \mu(T) = T - \tfrac{1}{2}\Tr(T)\, g
676: \end{equation}
677: where $ \Tr(T)=T(X_a,X^a)$ in any basis. The trace-reverse of $h$
678: is denoted by $\psi$:
679: \begin{equation}
680: % \psi = h - \tfrac{1}{2} \Tr(h) g
681: \psi =\mu(h) .
682: \end{equation}
683: After some calculation $\Ricdot$ can be written in terms of $\psi$
684: and the Laplacian operator $\Lap=\div \del$
685: %\begin{equation}
686: %\Lap=\div \del
687: %\end{equation}
688: as
689: \begin{equation}
690: \Ricdot = - \frac{1}{2} \mu(\Lap \psi) + \Sym \del \div \psi -
691: \cC_\psi + \cS_\psi ,
692: \end{equation}
693: where
694: \begin{subequations}
695: \begin{equation}
696: \cC_\psi (X,Y) = R(X_a,X,Y,\psi^a) ,
697: \end{equation}
698:
699: \begin{equation} \cS_\psi(X,Y) =
700: \frac{1}{2}(\Ric(\sharpen{\psi}_X,Y) + \Ric(\sharpen{\psi}_Y,X))
701: \end{equation}
702: \end{subequations}
703: and the convenient notation
704: \begin{subequations}
705: \begin{equation}
706: \psi_X = \psi(X,-) ,
707: \end{equation}
708: \begin{equation}
709: \psi^a = \psi_{X^a} = \psi(X^a,-)
710: \end{equation}
711: \end{subequations}
712: is used.
713:
714: Note that $\cC_\psi$ and $\cS_\psi$ have the same trace, namely
715: \begin{equation}
716: \Tr(\cC_\psi) = \Tr(\cS_\psi) = \Ric(\sharpen{\psi}_a,X^a) .
717: \end{equation}
718:
719: %
720: % Calculation: from line 527 to line 611 in lingrav.tex
721: %
722:
723: The {\em perturbed curvature scalar} $\cRdot$ follows as
724: \begin{equation}
725: \cRdot = \Tr(\Ricdot - \cS_\psi + \frac{1}{2} \cR \psi) ,
726: \end{equation}
727: and with $\Einhat = \Richat - \tfrac{1}{2} \ghat \cRhat = \Ein +
728: \Eindot$ the {\em perturbed Einstein tensor} $\Eindot$ is
729: \begin{equation}
730: \Eindot = \Ricdot - \frac{1}{2} \cR h - \frac{1}{2} \cRdot g ,
731: \end{equation}
732: or
733: \begin{equation}
734: \Eindot = - \frac{1}{2} \Lap \psi + \mu(\Sym \del \div \psi) -
735: \mu(\cC_\psi) + \cS_\psi - \frac{1}{2} \cR \psi
736: \end{equation} in terms of $\psi$.
737: %
738: % Calculation: from line 629 to line 667 in lingrav.tex
739: %
740:
741: One may now express the {\em perturbed Einstein equation} in terms
742: of $\psi$ by writing the {\em physical stress energy-momentum
743: tensor} $\cThat$ as
744: \begin{equation}
745: \cThat = \cT + \cTdot ,
746: \end{equation}
747: where the {\em background stress energy-momentum tensor} $\cT$
748: acts as a source for the background metric via the {\em background
749: Einstein equation}
750: \begin{equation}
751: \label{eq:backein}
752: \Ein = \kappa \cT ,
753: \end{equation}
754: and $\kappa = 8 \pi G$ in units where $c = 1$. The {\em perturbed
755: Einstein equation}
756: \begin{equation}
757: \label{eq:eindot}
758: \Eindot = \kappa \cTdot ,
759: \end{equation}
760: becomes
761: \begin{equation}
762: - \frac{1}{2} \Lap \psi + \mu(\Sym \del \div \psi) - \mu(\cC_\psi)
763: + \cS_\psi - \frac{1}{2} \cR \psi = \kappa \cTdot .
764: \end{equation}
765: In the next section this equation is simplified by exploiting a
766: {\em gauge symmetry} of the Einstein equations.
767:
768: %Since $\psi$ is not gauge invariant this equation can be
769: %simplified by imposing a condition on $\psi$.
770:
771:
772:
773:
774:
775:
776:
777:
778:
779: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
780: % The Transverse Gauge Condition %
781: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
782:
783:
784:
785:
786:
787:
788: \subsection{Gauge Transformations and the Transverse Gauge Condition}\indent
789:
790: A {\em gauge transform} of $h$ has been defined as a substitution
791: of the form
792: \begin{equation}
793: h \mapsto h + \cL_V g ,
794: \label{eq:basic}
795: \end{equation}
796: where $\cL_V$ is the Lie derivative with respect to some vector
797: field $V$ that maintains $h$ perturbative with respect to $g$.
798: This substitution is used to determine the induced gauge
799: transformation of tensors defined in terms of $h$ (keeping the
800: background geometry fixed). Thus the induced gauge transformation
801: of $\bsgamma_X$ follows as
802: \begin{equation}
803: \bsgamma_X \mapsto \bsgamma_X + \cD_X (V) ,
804: \end{equation}
805: where, for any vector field $X$ the tensor derivation $\cD_X
806: (V)$ is defined by
807: \begin{equation}
808: \cD_X (V) = [\cL_V,\del_X] - \del_{\cL_V X} .
809: \end{equation}
810: The operator $ \cD_X (V)$ provides a useful tool when performing
811: calculations involving both Lie derivatives and covariant
812: derivatives (\cite{rwt}).
813:
814: %
815: % Calculation: from line 685 to line 741 in lingrav.tex
816: %
817:
818: It follows that the perturbed curvature operator transforms as
819: \begin{equation}
820: \bfRdot_{X\:Y} \mapsto \bfRdot_{X\:Y} + \cR_{X\:Y} (V) ,
821: \end{equation}
822: where the operator $\cR_{X\:Y}(V)$ is defined by
823: \begin{equation}
824: \cR_{X \: Y} (V) = [\cL_V,\bfR_{X \: Y}] - \bfR_{\cL_V X \:Y}
825: - \bfR_{X \: \cL_V Y} .
826: \end{equation}
827: A contraction shows that the perturbed curvature tensor transforms
828: as
829: \begin{equation}
830: \Rdot \mapsto \Rdot + \cL_V R ,
831: \end{equation}
832: from which one deduces
833: \begin{equation}
834: \Ricdot \mapsto \Ricdot + \cL_V \Ric
835: \end{equation}
836: and
837: \begin{equation}
838: \cRdot \mapsto \cRdot + \cL_V \cR .
839: \end{equation}
840: It follows that the perturbed Einstein tensor exhibits the induced
841: gauge transformation
842: \begin{equation}
843: \Eindot \mapsto \Eindot + \cL_V \Ein .
844: \end{equation}
845: This behaviour of $\Eindot$ dictates the behaviour of any
846: (phenomenological) stress energy-momentum tensor under an
847: induced gauge transformation in order to maintain the gauge
848: covariance of \eqn{eindot}.
849:
850:
851:
852:
853:
854:
855: %
856: % Calculation: from line 743 to line 808 in lingrav.tex
857: %
858:
859: It can be similarly shown that if $\psi \mapsto
860: \bar{\psi}=\psi+\mu(\cL_V g)$ the divergence of $\psi$ transforms
861: as
862: \begin{equation}
863: \div \psi \mapsto \div \bar{\psi}=
864: \div \psi + \flatten{\Lap V} + \Ric(V,-) .
865: \end{equation}
866: %and if $\bar{\psi}$ denotes the transformed $\psi$ we see that
867: Thus, if for some $\psi$, one chooses $V$ to satisfy the
868: differential equation
869: \begin{equation}
870: \flatten{\Lap V} + \Ric(V,-) = - \div \psi ,
871: \end{equation}
872: then this imposes the gauge condition
873: \begin{equation}
874: \label{eq:gravtransgauge}
875: \div \bar{\psi} = 0 ,
876: \end{equation}
877: referred to as the {\em transverse gauge}. Further gauge
878: transformations, generated by additional vector fields $W$
879: satisfying the linear differential equation
880: \begin{equation}
881: \flatten{\Lap W} + \Ric(W,-) = 0 ,
882: \end{equation}
883: maintain $\bar{\psi}$ divergenceless.
884:
885: %
886: % Calculation: from line 827 to line 953 in lingrav.tex
887: %
888:
889: In the transverse gauge the perturbed Einstein equation
890: immediately simplifies to
891: \begin{equation} - \frac{1}{2} \Lap \psi - \mu(\cC_\psi) + \cS_\psi
892: - \frac{1}{2} \cR \psi = \kappa \cTdot .
893: \end{equation}
894: It should be noted that this equation holds in {\em any}
895: (background) metric that satisfies the (background) Einstein
896: equation \eqn{backein}.
897:
898: In the case where the background metric is Ricci-flat (or has a
899: cosmological constant), the perturbed Einstein equation simplifies
900: to
901: \begin{equation}
902: - \frac{1}{2} \Lap \psi - \cC_\psi = \kappa \cTdot
903: \end{equation}
904: which may be compared with the component form \cite{mtw} and the
905: abstract index form \cite{wald}.
906:
907: If the background metric is flat this simplifies further to
908: \begin{equation}
909: \label{eq:flatein}
910: \Lap \psi = - 2 \kappa \cTdot .
911: \end{equation}
912: This equation is analogous to the Helmholtz equation for the
913: electromagnetic potential 1-form in the electromagnetic Lorenz
914: gauge and leads to the prediction of propagating gravitational
915: perturbations.
916:
917:
918:
919:
920:
921:
922: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
923: % Gravitoelectromagnetism %
924: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
925:
926:
927:
928:
929:
930:
931: \section{Gravito-Electromagnetism}\label{sec:lingem}
932:
933: The perturbed Einstein equation about a {\em flat} background
934: spacetime metric has a form that is similar to the Helmholtz
935: equation for the electromagnetic potential. However the perturbed
936: gravitational potential $\psi$ is a symmetric type (2,0) tensor
937: field, whereas the electromagnetic potential $A$ is a type (1,0)
938: tensor field (a 1-form). The description of Maxwell's equations in
939: terms of electric and magnetic fields suggests that $\psi$ be
940: decomposed relative to some fiducial vector field and split into
941: a frame dependent 1-form (analogous to the 1-form potential in
942: \emism) plus an extra non-Maxwellian tensor field.
943: %There are many
944: %ways that this can be done and we justify our choice by inducing a
945: %gauge transformation described above on this 1-form and comparing
946: %the result with the structure of the electromagnetic gauge
947: %transformation (Section \sect{max}) of the 1-form potential.
948: % BEGIN NOO BIT
949: We motivate this definition by inducing a gauge transformation
950: described above on this 1-form and comparing the result with the
951: structure of the electromagnetic gauge transformation (Section
952: \sect{max}) of the 1-form potential.
953: % END NOO BIT
954: This will also show that restrictions must be placed on the
955: fiducial vector field if a close analogy with \emism is to hold.
956:
957:
958:
959:
960:
961:
962:
963:
964: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
965: % Gauge Transformations %
966: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
967:
968:
969:
970:
971:
972:
973:
974: \subsection{Gravito-Electromagnetic Gauge Transformations}\indent
975: \label{sec:gauge}
976:
977: The trace-reversed perturbation $\psi$ can be written, relative to
978: some unit-normalized (to zero order in $\epsilon$) timelike vector
979: field $\xi$, ($ g(\xi,\xi)= -1 + O(\epsilon)$) and general
980: background metric tensor $g$ as
981: \begin{equation}
982: \label{eq:psisplit} \psi = \phi_\xi g - \psi_\xi \tens
983: \flatten{\xi} - \flatten{\xi} \tens \psi_\xi - \bsSigma_\xi .
984: \end{equation}
985: %Thus with
986: \begin{subequations}
987: % \begin{equation}
988: % g(\xi,\xi) = -1 ,
989: % \end{equation}
990: The tensor $\psi$ has been split into a 1-form part
991: \begin{equation}
992: \psi_\xi = \psi(\xi,-) ,
993: \end{equation}
994: with $\xi$ component
995: \begin{equation}
996: \phi_\xi = \psi_\xi(\xi) = \psi(\xi,\xi) ,
997: \end{equation}
998: and a spacelike tensor part $\bsSigma_\xi$ satisfying
999: \begin{equation}
1000: \bsSigma_\xi(\xi,-) = 0 .
1001: \end{equation}
1002: \end{subequations}
1003: Since
1004: \begin{equation}
1005: \label{eq:psitrans}
1006: \psi \mapsto \psi + \mu(\cL_V g)
1007: \end{equation}
1008: under a gauge transformation $h \mapsto h + \cL_V g $ generated
1009: by $V,$ a contraction with $\xi$ gives
1010: \begin{equation}
1011: \psi_\xi \mapsto \psi_\xi + \rmd (g(\xi,V)) + \rmi_V \rmd
1012: \flatten{\xi} - \div V \flatten{\xi} + \flatten{\cL_\xi V} .
1013: \end{equation}
1014: With a special choice for $V$ of the form
1015: \begin{equation}
1016: \label{eq:gemtrans}
1017: V = - \lambda \xi ,
1018: \end{equation}
1019: where $\lambda$ is any smooth function of order $\epsilon$ on
1020: spacetime, the induced transformation on the 1-form $\psi_\xi$
1021: becomes
1022: \begin{equation}
1023: \psi_\xi \mapsto \psi_\xi + \rmd \lambda + \lambda (\Theta_\xi
1024: \flatten{\xi} - \flatten{\bscA}_\xi) ,
1025: \end{equation}
1026: where $\Theta_\xi$ is the expansion of $\xi$ and $\bscA_\xi$ is
1027: its acceleration (Appendix \sect{defs}). If
1028: $\lambda (\Theta_\xi
1029: \flatten{\xi} - \flatten{\bscA}_\xi)$ is of higher order in $\epsilon$
1030: than $\lambda$ the last
1031: term
1032: can be neglected and the gauge transformation of $\psi_\xi$ simplifies to
1033: \begin{equation}
1034: \label{eq:psixitrans}
1035: \psi_\xi \mapsto \psi_\xi + \rmd \lambda .
1036: \end{equation}
1037: This suggests that $\psi_\xi$ be interpreted as the analogue of
1038: the 1-form potential $A$ in \emism and henceforth $\psi_\xi$ will
1039: be referred to as the {\em \gemic $1$-form potential}.
1040:
1041:
1042: %
1043: % Calculation: from line 285 to line 339 in gemnotes.tex
1044: %
1045:
1046: Similarly, projecting \eqn{psitrans} with $\bsPi_\xi$
1047: (Appendix \sect{defs}) one finds
1048: \begin{equation}
1049: \bsSigma_\xi \mapsto \bsSigma_\xi - \bsPi_\xi \cL_V g + 2(\div
1050: V + g(\xi,\del_\xi V)) \bfg_\xi .
1051: \end{equation}
1052: Hence with $V$ as in \eqn{gemtrans}, $\bsSigma_\xi$ transforms as
1053: \begin{equation}
1054: \bsSigma_\xi \mapsto \bsSigma_\xi + 2 \lambda (\bssigma_\xi -
1055: \tfrac{2}{3} \Theta_\xi \bfg_\xi) ,
1056: \end{equation}
1057: where $\bssigma_\xi$ is the shear of $\xi$ (Appendix \sect{defs}).
1058: If $ \lambda (\bssigma_\xi - \tfrac{2}{3} \Theta_\xi \bfg_\xi)$ is
1059: of higher order in $\epsilon$ than $\bsSigma_\xi $ the last term
1060: is negligible and $\bsSigma_\xi$ is gauge invariant under such
1061: transformations.
1062:
1063: %
1064: % Calculation: from line 341 to line 397 in gemnotes.tex
1065: %
1066:
1067: The class of gauge transformations generated by $- \lambda \xi$
1068: such that $\psi_\xi$ transforms as in \eqn{psixitrans} with
1069: $\bsSigma_\xi$ invariant will be said to contain {\em \gemic gauge
1070: transformations}. Clearly if $\xi$ is parallel (i.e. $\del \xi =
1071: 0$), or parallel to zero order in $\epsilon$ (since $\lambda$ is
1072: of order $\epsilon$), such transformations are guaranteed to be
1073: \gemic gauge transformations. For a given $h$ one may therefore
1074: define a class of vector fields $\{\xi\}$, members of which are
1075: equivalent if they can be used to generate \gemic gauge
1076: transformations. Such fields will be said to define {\em \gemic
1077: frames of reference}.
1078: % BEGIN MORE NOO STUFF
1079: Not all background spacetimes will permit the existence of such
1080: vector fields (e.g. the black-hole Schwarzschild spacetime),
1081: however they are guaranteed to exist in Minkowski spacetime (and
1082: interestingly also in the Einstein static universe).
1083: % END MORE NOO STUFF
1084: In the next section these vector fields will be used to define a
1085: class of gauge equivalent {\em gravito-electromagnetic} fields.
1086:
1087:
1088:
1089:
1090:
1091:
1092:
1093:
1094: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1095: % Field Equations %
1096: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1097:
1098:
1099:
1100:
1101:
1102:
1103: \subsection{The Gravito-Electromagnetic Field Equations}\indent
1104: \label{sec:gemfieldeq}
1105:
1106: On a flat background the linearized Einstein equation can be
1107: written as
1108: \begin{equation}
1109: \label{eq:linein}
1110: \Lap \psi = - 2 \kappa \cTdot ,
1111: \end{equation}
1112: where the transverse gauge condition
1113: \begin{equation}
1114: \label{eq:transgc}
1115: \div \psi = 0 ,
1116: \end{equation}
1117: has been imposed. Contracting \eqn{linein} with a
1118: unit-normalized timelike vector field $\xi$ that can be used to
1119: define \gemic gauge transformations gives
1120: \begin{equation}
1121: \label{eq:vecwaveeqn}
1122: \Delta \psi_\xi = 2 \kappa \cJ_\xi ,
1123: \end{equation}
1124: where the {\em mass-current} $\cJ_\xi$ is defined by
1125: \begin{equation}
1126: \label{eq:source}
1127: \cJ_\xi = - \cTdot(\xi,-) .
1128: \end{equation}
1129:
1130:
1131: Contracting \eqn{vecwaveeqn} on $\xi$ gives
1132: \begin{equation}
1133: \label{eq:scalwaveeqn}
1134: \Delta \phi_\xi = - 2 \kappa \rho_\xi ,
1135: \end{equation}
1136: where the {\em mass-density} $\rho_\xi$ is defined by
1137: \begin{equation}
1138: \label{eq:density}
1139: \rho_\xi = - \cJ_\xi(\xi) = \cTdot(\xi,\xi).
1140: \end{equation}
1141: Similarly acting on \eqn{linein} with the projection operator
1142: $\bsPi_\xi$ and using \eqn{psisplit}
1143: \begin{equation}
1144: \Delta \phi_\xi \bfg_\xi - \Lap \bsSigma_\xi = - 2 \kappa
1145: \bscTdot_\xi.
1146: \end{equation}
1147: With the aid of \eqn{scalwaveeqn} this becomes
1148: \begin{equation}
1149: \Lap \bsSigma_\xi = 2 \kappa (\bscTdot_\xi - \rho_\xi \bfg_\xi) ,
1150: \label{eq:lapsigmaeqn}
1151: \end{equation}
1152: where $\bscTdot_\xi$ is the spacelike (\wrt $\xi$), part of the
1153: stress energy-momentum tensor
1154: \begin{equation}
1155: \label{eq:slsource}
1156: \bscTdot_\xi = \bsPi_\xi \cTdot .
1157: \end{equation}
1158:
1159:
1160: The \gemic analogue of the Faraday 2-form is now defined as
1161: \begin{equation}
1162: \cF_\xi = \rmd \psi_\xi ,
1163: \end{equation}
1164: hence
1165: %\begin{subequations}
1166: \begin{equation}
1167: \label{eq:gemmaxcov1}
1168: \rmd \cF_\xi = 0 .
1169: \end{equation}
1170:
1171: % \begin{equation}
1172: % \label{eq:gemmaxcov2}
1173: % \delta \cF_\xi = - 2 \kappa \cJ_\xi .
1174: % \end{equation}
1175: %\end{subequations}
1176:
1177: The tensor $\cF_\xi$ is invariant under transformations in the
1178: class of \gemic gauge transformation defined above. The {\em
1179: \gelec field} $\bscE_\xi$, and the {\em \gmag field} $\bscB_\xi$
1180: follow from a (3+1)-split (\wrt $\xi$):
1181: \begin{equation}
1182: \label{eq:eb31def}
1183: \cF_\xi = \flatten{\xi} \wedge \bscE_\xi + \# \bscB_\xi .
1184: \end{equation}
1185: With $\psi_\xi$ written in terms of its timelike and spacelike
1186: parts:
1187: \begin{equation}
1188: \label{eq:psixisplit}
1189: \psi_\xi = - \phi_\xi \flatten{\xi} + \bsPsi_\xi ,
1190: \end{equation}
1191: where
1192: %$\bsPsi_\xi$ is spacelike,
1193: $\rmi_\xi \bsPsi_\xi=0$, one can write the \gelec field as
1194: \begin{subequations}
1195: \begin{equation}
1196: \label{eq:gefield}
1197: \bscE_\xi = \bfd_\xi \phi_\xi - \bscL_\xi \bsPsi_\xi ,
1198: \end{equation}
1199: and the \gmag field as
1200: \begin{equation}
1201: \label{eq:gmfield}
1202: \bscB_\xi = \# \bfd_\xi \bsPsi_\xi
1203: \end{equation}
1204: \end{subequations}
1205: in terms of the \gemic potential.
1206: The mass-current can be similarly split into its
1207: timelike and spacelike parts with respect to $\xi$ as
1208: \begin{equation}
1209: \cJ_\xi = \rho_\xi \flatten{\xi} + \bfJ_\xi ,
1210: \end{equation}
1211: where
1212: %$\bfJ_\xi$ is spacelike,
1213: $\rmi_\xi\bfJ_\xi=0$ .
1214:
1215: The transverse gauge condition in terms of $\xi$, $\psi_\xi$,
1216: $\phi_\xi$ and $\bsSigma_\xi$ is:
1217: \begin{equation}
1218: \div \psi = \delta \psi_\xi \flatten{\xi} + \rmd \phi_\xi -
1219: \del_\xi \psi_\xi - \div \bsSigma_\xi - \del_{\sharpen{\psi}_\xi}
1220: \flatten{\xi} - \Theta_\xi \psi_\xi = 0 .
1221: \end{equation}
1222: For a \gemic frame $\xi$ ($\nabla \xi=0$ to order $\epsilon$)
1223: %parallel with respect to $\del$
1224: %in the class that generates \gemic gauge transformations
1225: this reduces to
1226: \begin{equation}
1227: \div \psi = \delta \psi_\xi \flatten{\xi} + \rmd \phi_\xi -
1228: \del_\xi \psi_\xi - \div \bsSigma_\xi = 0.
1229: \end{equation}
1230: Using \eqn{psixisplit}, \eqn{dell} and \eqn{dsplit} it follows
1231: that $\rmd \phi_\xi - \del_\xi \psi_\xi = \bfd_\xi \phi_\xi -
1232: \bscL_\xi \bsPsi_\xi = \bscE_\xi$, hence
1233: \begin{equation}
1234: \label{eq:transsplit}
1235: \div \psi = (\delta \psi_\xi \flatten{\xi}) + ( \bscE_\xi - \div
1236: \bsSigma_\xi) = 0 .
1237: \end{equation}
1238: The two bracketed terms are orthogonal %(cf \eqn{divproperty}),
1239: so
1240: the transverse gauge condition is equivalent to the two equations
1241: \begin{subequations}
1242: \begin{equation}
1243: \label{eq:firstgc}
1244: \delta \psi_\xi = 0 ,
1245: \end{equation}
1246: \begin{equation}
1247: \label{eq:secondgc}
1248: \bscE_\xi = \div \bsSigma_\xi .
1249: \end{equation}
1250: \end{subequations}
1251: The first condition is analogous to the Lorenz gauge in \emism,
1252: while the second condition has no \emic analogue. The
1253: consequences of this second condition are explored below.
1254:
1255: The equation \eqn{firstgc} implies (Appendix \sect{defs}) that
1256: \eqn{vecwaveeqn} takes the Maxwell-like covariant form
1257: \begin{equation}
1258: \label{eq:gemmaxcov2}
1259: \delta \cF_\xi = - 2 \kappa \cJ_\xi .
1260: \end{equation}
1261: %\end{subequations}
1262:
1263:
1264: The perturbative part of the stress energy-momentum tensor may be
1265: expressed in terms of the mass-current using \eqn{source},
1266: \eqn{density} and \eqn{slsource} as
1267: \begin{equation}
1268: \cTdot = \rho_\xi \flatten{\xi} \tens \flatten{\xi} - \cJ_\xi
1269: \tens \flatten{\xi} - \flatten{\xi} \tens \cJ_\xi + \bscTdot_\xi ,
1270: \end{equation}
1271: and since the background source is assumed zero ($\cT = 0$) the
1272: divergence condition becomes
1273: \begin{equation}
1274: \div \cTdot = 0
1275: \end{equation}
1276: hence
1277: \begin{equation}
1278: (\delta \cJ_\xi \flatten{\xi}) - (\del_\xi \bfJ_\xi - \div
1279: \bscTdot_\xi) = 0 .
1280: \end{equation}
1281: Since the two bracketed terms are orthogonal one has:
1282: \begin{subequations}
1283: \begin{equation}
1284: \label{eq:firstcl}
1285: \delta \cJ_\xi = 0 ,
1286: \end{equation}
1287: \begin{equation}
1288: \label{eq:secondcl}
1289: \del_\xi \bfJ_\xi = \div \bscTdot_\xi .
1290: \end{equation}
1291: \end{subequations}
1292: with the first condition expressing the conservation of
1293: mass-current in the background geometry.
1294:
1295: The field equation \eqn{gemmaxcov2} and the closure of $\cF_\xi$
1296: \eqn{gemmaxcov1} can now be written in terms of these
1297: decompositions:
1298: % the \gelec and \gmag fields as
1299: \begin{samepage}
1300: \begin{subequations}
1301: \label{eq:gemmaxall}
1302: \begin{equation}
1303: \label{eq:gemmax1}
1304: \bfd_\xi \# \bscB_\xi = 0 ,
1305: \end{equation}
1306: \begin{equation}
1307: \label{eq:gemmax2}
1308: \bfd_\xi \bscE_\xi + \bscL_\xi \# \bscB_\xi = 0 ,
1309: \end{equation}
1310: \begin{equation}
1311: \label{eq:gemmax4}
1312: \bfd_\xi \# \bscE_\xi = - 2 \kappa \rho_\xi \# 1 ,
1313: \end{equation}
1314: \begin{equation}
1315: \label{eq:gemmax3}
1316: \bfd_\xi \bscB_\xi - \bscL_\xi \# \bscE_\xi = - 2 \kappa \# \bfJ_\xi .
1317: \end{equation}
1318: \end{subequations}
1319: \end{samepage}
1320:
1321: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1322: %Note that unlike the full theory of General Relativity, in the
1323: %linearized theory the equation of motion for the source cannot be
1324: %obtained from the conservation of the source expressed by $\div
1325: %\cTdot = 0$. This is because we are only working to zero order in
1326: %$h$, and the equation of motion requires working to first order in
1327: %$h$.
1328:
1329: Although the equations \eqn{gemmaxall} involving the gravitational
1330: field have the mathematical structure of Maxwell's equations for
1331: electromagnetism the two theories are not isomorphic since the
1332: gravitational fields must additionally satisfy \eqn{secondgc} in
1333: the transverse gauge. Not all solutions of Maxwell's equations
1334: translate to perturbative gravitational fields that are compatible
1335: with this condition for a given $\bsSigma_\xi$. There does exist
1336: however a class of compatible solutions. Such solutions $\psi$ are
1337: characterized by the existence of a gauge in which
1338: \begin{subequations}
1339: \begin{equation}
1340: \div \psi = 0 ,
1341: \end{equation}
1342: \begin{equation}
1343: \label{eq:gemlimit}
1344: \bsPi_\xi \psi = 0 ,
1345: \end{equation}
1346: \end{subequations}
1347: in some \gemic frame $\xi$ (Section \sect{gauge}). In this case
1348: such solutions will be said to belong to the {\em \gemic limit}.
1349: It follows from equation \eqn{psisplit} that
1350: \begin{equation}
1351: \bsSigma_\xi = \phi_\xi \bfg_\xi .
1352: \label{eq:gemlimiteqn}
1353: \end{equation}
1354: Such a $\xi$ will not be unique. If $\zeta = \xi + \bfv$, such
1355: that $g(\zeta,\zeta) = -1$ and $v^2 = g(\bfv,\bfv) \ll 1$, then
1356: $\bsPi_\zeta \psi$ is of order $v\epsilon$. Hence if $v \lesssim
1357: \epsilon$, $\zeta$ also defines the \gemic limit. However the
1358: fields ($\psi_\zeta$, $\bsSigma_\zeta$, $\bscE_\zeta$,
1359: $\bscB_\zeta$ ) defined \wrt $\zeta$ are identical (within this
1360: approximation) to the corresponding fields defined \wrt $\xi$
1361: %Such a $\xi$ will be referred to as a {\em \gemic frame of
1362: %reference}
1363: (Appendix \sect{trans}).
1364:
1365: The condition \eqn{gemlimit} and the field equation
1366: \eqn{linein}
1367: require
1368: \begin{equation}
1369: \label{eq:sourcelimit}
1370: \bscTdot_\xi = 0 .
1371: \end{equation}
1372: Equation \eqn{gemlimit} implies $\div \bsSigma_\xi = \bfd_\xi
1373: \phi_\xi$, hence in this limit condition \eqn{secondgc} becomes
1374: \begin{equation}
1375: \label{eq:egradphi}
1376: \bscE_\xi = \bfd_\xi \phi_\xi ,
1377: \end{equation}
1378: or with \eqn{gefield}
1379: \begin{equation}
1380: \bscL_\xi \bsPsi_\xi = 0 ,
1381: \end{equation}
1382: and using \eqn{firstgc} it follows that
1383: \begin{equation}
1384: \xi^2 \phi_\xi = 0 .
1385: \end{equation}
1386: Thus $\bsPsi_\xi$ is time independent and it follows from
1387: \eqn{gmfield} that the gravito-magnetic field is also time
1388: independent, $\bscL_\xi \bscB_\xi = 0$ . In this limit the field
1389: equations reduce to
1390: \begin{samepage}
1391: \begin{subequations}
1392: \label{eq:gemmaxallgc}
1393: \begin{equation}
1394: \label{eq:gemmax1gc}
1395: \bfd_\xi \# \bscB_\xi = 0 ,
1396: \end{equation}
1397: \begin{equation}
1398: \label{eq:gemmax2gc}
1399: \bfd_\xi \bscE_\xi = 0 ,
1400: \end{equation}
1401: \begin{equation}
1402: \label{eq:gemmax4gc}
1403: \bfd_\xi \# \bscE_\xi = - 2 \kappa \rho_\xi \# 1 ,
1404: \end{equation}
1405: \begin{equation}
1406: \label{eq:gemmax3gc}
1407: \bfd_\xi \bscB_\xi - \bscL_\xi \# \bscE_\xi = - 2 \kappa \# \bfJ_\xi ,
1408: \end{equation}
1409: \end{subequations}
1410: \end{samepage}
1411: %along with the conditions
1412: %\begin{subequations}
1413: % \begin{equation}
1414: % \del_\xi \bsPsi_\xi = 0 ,
1415: % \end{equation}
1416: % \begin{equation}
1417: % \delta \psi_\xi = 0 .
1418: % \end{equation}
1419: %\end{subequations}
1420: along with the conditions \eqn{firstgc}, \eqn{secondgc} which can
1421: be written as
1422: \begin{subequations}
1423: \begin{equation}
1424: \label{eq:firstgcsplit}
1425: \bfd_\xi \# \bsPsi_\xi - \xi \phi_\xi = 0 ,
1426: \end{equation}
1427: \begin{equation}
1428: \label{eq:secondgcsplit}
1429: \bscL_\xi \bsPsi_\xi = 0 .
1430: \end{equation}
1431: \end{subequations}
1432: respectively. Similarly it follows from \eqn{firstcl},
1433: \eqn{secondcl} and \eqn{sourcelimit} that
1434: \begin{subequations}
1435: \begin{equation}
1436: \label{eq:firstclsplit}
1437: \bfd_\xi \# \bfJ_\xi + \xi \rho_\xi = 0 ,
1438: \end{equation}
1439: \begin{equation}
1440: \label{eq:secondclsplit}
1441: \bscL_\xi \bfJ_\xi = 0 ,
1442: \end{equation}
1443: \end{subequations}
1444:
1445: With $\xi=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$ and the vector fields
1446: $\bbE_\xi = \sharpen{\bscE}_\xi$, $\bbB_\xi =
1447: \sharpen{\bscB}_\xi$, $\bbJ_\xi = \sharpen{\bfJ}_\xi$, the field
1448: equations \eqn{gemmaxallgc} can be written in more familiar
1449: notation as
1450: \begin{subequations}
1451: \begin{equation}
1452: \mathrm{div} \, \bbB_\xi = 0 ,
1453: \end{equation}
1454: \begin{equation}
1455: \mathrm{curl} \, \bbE_\xi = 0 ,
1456: \end{equation}
1457: \begin{equation}
1458: \mathrm{div} \, \bbE_\xi = - 2 \kappa \rho_\xi ,
1459: \end{equation}
1460: \begin{equation}
1461: \mathrm{curl} \, \bbB_\xi - \frac{\partial {\bbE}_\xi}{\partial t} =
1462: - 2 \kappa \bbJ_\xi.
1463: \end{equation}
1464: \end{subequations}
1465: Similarly, with $\bbA_\xi = \sharpen{\bsPsi}_\xi$, the gauge
1466: conditions \eqn{firstgcsplit},
1467: \eqn{secondgcsplit} become
1468: \begin{subequations}
1469: \begin{equation}
1470: \mathrm{div} \bbA_\xi - \frac{\partial {\phi}_\xi}{\partial t} = 0 ,
1471: \end{equation}
1472: \begin{equation}
1473: \frac{\partial {\bbA}_\xi}{\partial t} = 0
1474: \end{equation}
1475: \end{subequations}
1476: and the conservation equations \eqn{firstclsplit},
1477: \eqn{secondclsplit} become
1478: \begin{subequations}
1479: \begin{equation}
1480: \mathrm{div} \bbJ_\xi + \frac{\partial {\rho}_\xi}{\partial t} = 0 ,
1481: \end{equation}
1482: \begin{equation}
1483: \frac{\partial {\bbJ}_\xi}{\partial t} = 0 .
1484: \end{equation}
1485: \end{subequations}
1486: Thus stationary electric and magnetic field configurations and
1487: their sources have direct analogues in the theory of perturbative
1488: gravitation.
1489: % (along with somewhat unphysical solutions of the
1490: %above equations in which the potentials vary linearly with time).
1491:
1492:
1493: The {\em Newtonian limit} is defined as the \gemic limit
1494: supplemented by the condition
1495: \begin{equation}
1496: \bsPsi_\xi = 0 .
1497: \end{equation}
1498: From \eqn{vecwaveeqn} this
1499: %for some choice of \gemic gauge generated by
1500: %$\lambda\xi$. This
1501: implies
1502: \begin{equation}
1503: \bfJ_\xi = 0 .
1504: \end{equation}
1505: The {\em Newtonian potential} $\Phi_\xi$ is identified as
1506: \begin{equation}
1507: \label{eq:newtpot}
1508: \Phi_\xi = - \tfrac{1}{4} \phi_\xi .
1509: \end{equation}From \eqn{firstgcsplit} it must be time-independent
1510: \begin{equation}
1511: \xi \Phi_\xi = 0 ,
1512: \end{equation}
1513: and equation \eqn{scalwaveeqn} becomes
1514: \begin{equation}
1515: \label{eq:newtfe}
1516: \Delta \Phi_\xi = 4 \pi G \rho_\xi ,
1517: \end{equation}
1518: which is just the field equation for Newtonian gravitation.
1519:
1520: In the following section the above framework is illustrated by
1521: calculating the \gemic fields arising as perturbations on the
1522: asymptotic gravitational field of a rotating source.
1523:
1524: %and the
1525: %effects of such a field on the motion of a spinless test particle
1526: %and the precession of a small orbiting gyroscope.
1527:
1528: \subsection{The \gemic Field of a Rotating Source}\indent
1529:
1530:
1531:
1532:
1533: % Eximple
1534:
1535:
1536: The metric tensor at large distances from a compact rotating body,
1537: with Newtonian gravitational mass $M$ and angular momentum $J$,
1538: may be approximated (for $r \gg 2GM$ in units where $c=1$) by
1539: \begin{equation}
1540: \begin{aligned}
1541: \ghat = & \; - \left(1 - \frac{2GM}{r} \right) \rmd t \tens \rmd t
1542: + \left(1 + \frac{2GM}{r}\right) (\rmd r \tens \rmd r
1543: + r^2 \rmd \theta \tens \rmd \theta
1544: + r^2 \sin^2 \theta \rmd \phi \tens \rmd \phi) \\
1545: & + \frac{2GJ}{r^2} \sin \theta ( r \sin \theta \rmd \phi \tens \rmd t
1546: + r \sin \theta \rmd t \tens \rmd \phi) .
1547: \end{aligned}
1548: \end{equation}
1549: In the cobasis $\{e^0 = \rmd t, e^1 = \rmd r, e^2 = r \rmd \theta,
1550: e^3 = r \sin \theta \rmd \phi\}$ the metric tensor can be
1551: rewritten as
1552: \begin{equation}
1553: \begin{aligned}
1554: \ghat = & \; - \left(1 - \frac{R_\rmS}{r} \right) e^0 \tens e^0
1555: + \left(1 + \frac{R_\rmS}{r}\right) (e^1 \tens e^1
1556: + e^2 \tens e^2 + e^3 \tens e^3) \\
1557: & + \frac{R_\rmS R_\rmK}{r^2} \sin \theta (e^0 \tens e^3 + e^3 \tens e^0)
1558: \end{aligned}
1559: \end{equation}
1560: in terms of the two length-scales $R_\rmS = 2 G M$ and $R_\rmK =
1561: \frac{J}{M}$.
1562:
1563: Defining the dimensionless coordinates $R$ and $T$ by
1564: \begin{subequations}
1565: \begin{equation}
1566: r = \frac{R_\rmS}{\epsilon} R ,
1567: \end{equation}
1568: \begin{equation}
1569: t = \frac{R_\rmS}{\epsilon} T ,
1570: \end{equation}
1571: \end{subequations}
1572: and the dimensionless cobasis $\underline{e}^a$ by
1573: \begin{equation}
1574: e^a = \frac{R_\rmS}{\epsilon} \underline{e}^a ,
1575: \end{equation}
1576: the dimensionless physical metric tensor $\underline{\ghat}$
1577: defined by
1578: \begin{equation}
1579: \ghat = \left(\frac{R_\rmS}{\epsilon}\right)^2 \underline{\ghat} ,
1580: \end{equation}
1581: can be rewritten as
1582: \begin{equation}
1583: \begin{aligned}
1584: \label{eq:dimphysmet}
1585: \underline{\ghat} = & \; - \left(1 - \frac{\epsilon}{R} \right) \underline{e}^0 \tens \underline{e}^0
1586: + \left(1 + \frac{\epsilon}{R}\right) (\underline{e}^1 \tens \underline{e}^1
1587: + \underline{e}^2 \tens \underline{e}^2 + \underline{e}^3 \tens \underline{e}^3) \\
1588: & + \frac{\epsilon}{R^2} \Lambda \sin \theta (\underline{e}^0 \tens \underline{e}^3 + \underline{e}^3 \tens \underline{e}^0) ,
1589: \end{aligned}
1590: \end{equation}
1591: where the constant $\Lambda$ is
1592: \begin{equation}
1593: \Lambda = \epsilon \frac{R_\rmK}{R_\rmS} .
1594: \end{equation}
1595: For the last term in \eqn{dimphysmet} not to be second order in
1596: $\epsilon$ (and hence negligible), $\frac{R_\rmS}{R_\rmK}$ must be
1597: of order $\epsilon$.
1598:
1599: With the dimensionless Minkowski metric tensor
1600: \begin{equation}
1601: \underline{g} = - \underline{e}^0 \tens \underline{e}^0 + \underline{e}^1 \tens \underline{e}^1 + \underline{e}^2 \tens \underline{e}^2 + \underline{e}^3 \tens \underline{e}^3
1602: \end{equation}
1603: the perturbation $\underline{h}$ about $\underline{g}$ is then
1604: \begin{equation}
1605: \underline{h} = \frac{\epsilon}{R} (\underline{e}^0 \tens \underline{e}^0
1606: + \underline{e}^1 \tens \underline{e}^1 + \underline{e}^2 \tens \underline{e}^2
1607: + \underline{e}^3 \tens \underline{e}^3)
1608: + \frac{\epsilon}{R^2} \Lambda \sin \theta ( \underline{e}^3 \tens \underline{e}^0 + \underline{e}^0 \tens \underline{e}^3) ,
1609: \end{equation}
1610: and taking the trace-reverse yields
1611: \begin{equation}
1612: \underline{\psi} = 2\frac{\epsilon}{R} \underline{e}^0 \tens \underline{e}^0
1613: + \frac{\epsilon}{R^2} \Lambda \sin \theta ( \underline{e}^3 \tens \underline{e}^0 +
1614: \underline{e}^0 \tens \underline{e}^3) .
1615: \end{equation}
1616:
1617:
1618:
1619: Using the dimensionless basis $\{\underline{X}_a\}$ dual to
1620: $\{\underline{e}^a\}$ given by $\{\underline{X}_0 = \partial_T,
1621: \underline{X}_1 = \partial_R, \underline{X}_2 = \frac{1}{R}
1622: \partial_\theta, \underline{X}_3 = \frac{1}{R \sin \theta}
1623: \partial_\phi\}$, we use $\underline{X}_0$ to define the
1624: dimensionless \gemic 1-form potential
1625: $\underline{\psi}_{\underline{X}_0}$ as
1626: \begin{equation}
1627: \label{eq:dimlesspsi}
1628: \underline{\psi}_{\underline{X}_0} = 2
1629: \frac{\epsilon}{R} \underline{e}^0 + \frac{\epsilon}{R^2} \Lambda \sin \theta \underline{e}^3 .
1630: \end{equation}
1631: In terms of the dimensionless gravito-Faraday 2-form
1632: $\underline{\cF}_{\underline{X}_0}$ defined by
1633: \begin{equation}
1634: \underline{\cF}_{\underline{X}_0} = \rmd \underline{\psi}_{\underline{X}_0} ,
1635: \end{equation}
1636: the dimensionless \gelec and \gmag fields,
1637: $\underline{\bscE}_{\underline{X}_0}$ and
1638: $\underline{\bscB}_{\underline{X}_0}$ follow by writing
1639: \begin{equation}
1640: \underline{\cF}_{\underline{X}_0} = \underline{X}^{\underline{\flat}}_0 \wedge \underline{\bscE}_{\underline{X}_0}
1641: + \underline{\#}\underline{\bscB}_{\underline{X}_0} .
1642: \end{equation}
1643: Hence from \eqn{dimlesspsi}
1644: %the dimensionless \gelec field is found to be
1645: \begin{equation}
1646: \underline{\bscE}_{\underline{X}_0} = - 2\frac{\epsilon}{R^2} \underline{e}^1 ,
1647: \end{equation}
1648: and (with $\underline{\#} 1 = \underline{e}^1 \wedge
1649: \underline{e}^2 \wedge \underline{e}^3$) the dimensionless \gmag
1650: field is
1651: \begin{equation}
1652: \underline{\bscB}_{\underline{X}_0} =
1653: \frac{\epsilon}{R^3} \Lambda (\sin \theta \underline{e}^2 + 2 \cos \theta \underline{e}^1) .
1654: \end{equation}
1655:
1656:
1657: In terms of $Z = R \cos \theta$, $\underline{\sharp}$ the
1658: metric-dual map associated with $\underline{g}$ and
1659: %the vector $\bsLambda$
1660: \begin{equation}
1661: \bsLambda = \Lambda \partial_Z ,
1662: \end{equation}
1663: the gravito-electric and -magnetic vector fields defined by
1664: $\underline{\bbE}_{\underline{X}_0}=
1665: \underline{\bscE}^{\underline{\sharp}}_{\underline{X}_0}$ and
1666: $\underline{\bbB}_{\underline{X}_0}=
1667: \underline{\bscB}^{\underline{\sharp}}_{\underline{X}_0}$ become
1668: \begin{subequations}
1669: \begin{equation}
1670: \label{elec}
1671: \underline{\bbE}_{\underline{X}_0} = - 2\frac{\epsilon}{R^2} \underline{X}_1 ,
1672: \end{equation}
1673: \begin{equation}
1674: \label{mag}
1675: \underline{\bbB}_{\underline{X}_0}
1676: = - \frac{\epsilon}{R^3} (\bsLambda -
1677: 3 \underline{g}(\bsLambda, \underline{X}_1)
1678: \underline{X}_1).
1679: \end{equation}
1680: \end{subequations}
1681: These fields may be compared with those derived in \cite{thorneNZ}
1682: and \cite{thorne}. In the next two sections the motion of a test
1683: particle in a \gemic field is discussed. For such a particle with
1684: ``spin'' the motion is expected to follow from the weak field
1685: limit of equations presented in \cite{Dixon}. To facilitate a
1686: comparison with treatments that ignore Mathisson-Papapetrou type
1687: coupling to spacetime curvature the discussion is restricted to
1688: the separate pre-geodesic motion of a spinless test particle and
1689: the gyroscopic precession that follows from a parallel spin vector
1690: along such a motion.
1691:
1692:
1693:
1694:
1695:
1696:
1697:
1698:
1699:
1700: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1701: % Motion of Test Particles in a Gravitational Field %
1702: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1703:
1704:
1705:
1706:
1707:
1708:
1709:
1710: \section{Motion of a Test Particle in a Weak Gravitational Field}\indent
1711:
1712: The history of an electrically neutral, spinless test particle in
1713: spacetime is modeled by a future-pointing timelike curve $C(\tau)$
1714: that satisfies
1715: \begin{equation}
1716: \label{eq:pregeodesic}
1717: \delhat_\Cdot \Cdot - \frac{1}{2} \frac{\Cdot(\ghat(\Cdot,\Cdot))}{\ghat(\Cdot,\Cdot)} \Cdot = 0 ,
1718: \end{equation}
1719: for some general parameter $\tau$. To compare the following
1720: \gemic equations with analogous equations from electromagnetism
1721: {\em in Minkowski spacetime} it is most convenient to parameterize
1722: the curve so that
1723: \begin{equation}
1724: g(\Cdot,\Cdot) = -1 .
1725: \end{equation}
1726:
1727:
1728:
1729:
1730:
1731:
1732: Using \eqn{metric} and \eqn{connex}, to first order in $\epsilon$
1733: equation \eqn{pregeodesic} is
1734: \begin{equation}
1735: \label{eq:xixi}
1736: \del_\Cdot \Cdot + \gamma(\Cdot,\Cdot,-) - \frac{1}{2} \Cdot(h(\Cdot,\Cdot)) \Cdot = 0
1737: .
1738: \end{equation}
1739:
1740: Rewriting $\gamma(\Cdot,\Cdot,-)$ in terms of $\cF_\Cdot$ and
1741: $\bsSigma_\Cdot$ (see Appendix \sect{connex}), \eqn{xixi} becomes
1742: \begin{equation}
1743: \label{eq:eqnmotion}
1744: \del_\Cdot \Cdot + \sharpen{\rmi_\Cdot
1745: \cF_\Cdot + \tfrac{1}{4} \bfd_\Cdot \Tr(\bsSigma_\Cdot)} = 0
1746: \end{equation}
1747: and, for a test particle with mass $m$, the perturbed {\em
1748: gravitational force} $\bbF_\rmG$, is then
1749: \begin{equation}
1750: \label{eq:gemlorentz}
1751: \bbF_\rmG = - m \sharpen{\rmi_\Cdot
1752: \cF_\Cdot + \tfrac{1}{4} \bfd_\Cdot \Tr(\bsSigma_\Cdot)} .
1753: \end{equation}
1754: The first term on the right is analogous to the Lorentz force in
1755: \emism, however the second term is non-Maxwellian. Since
1756: $\bbF_\rmG$ depends only on $\cF_\Cdot$ and $\bsSigma_\Cdot$ it is
1757: invariant under \gemic gauge transformations (Section
1758: \sect{gauge}).
1759:
1760: %
1761: % Calculation: from line 685 to line 795 in gemnotes.tex
1762: % from line 825 to line 890 in gemnotes.tex
1763: %
1764:
1765: To examine the above equations in the \gemic limit assume that
1766: some vector $\party$ defines a \gemic frame, and reparameterize
1767: $C(\tau)$ in terms of $t$, so that $\cC(t) = C(\tau)$. Writing
1768: $\cCdot(t)$ as
1769: \begin{equation}
1770: \label{eq:cdotv}
1771: \cCdot = \party + \bfv ,
1772: \end{equation}
1773: where $g(\bfv,\party)=0$, it then follows that
1774: \begin{equation}
1775: g(\cCdot,\cCdot) = - (1-v^2) ,
1776: \end{equation}
1777: where $v^2 = g(\bfv,\bfv)$.
1778:
1779: Writing $\Cdot = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}} \cCdot$, and introducing
1780: the assumption
1781: that the speed $v$ of the particle is non-relativistic, so that $v \ll 1$
1782: (hence terms smaller than $\epsilon v$ will be neglected), \eqn{eqnmotion}
1783: can be written in terms of $\cCdot$ as
1784: \begin{equation}
1785: \label{eq:eqnmotion2}
1786: \del_\cCdot \cCdot + v \party v \, \cCdot + \sharpen{\rmi_\cCdot
1787: \cF_\cCdot + \tfrac{1}{4} \bfd_\cCdot \Tr(\bsSigma_\cCdot)} = 0 .
1788: \end{equation}
1789:
1790: Expressing $\cF_\cCdot$ and $\bsSigma_\cCdot$ in terms of
1791: $\psi_{\party}$
1792: (see Appendix \sect{trans} with $\zeta=\cCdot$ and $\xi=\party$) so that
1793: \begin{subequations}
1794: \begin{equation}
1795: \cF_\cCdot = \cF_\party + \bfd_\party (\psi_\party (\bfv)) \wedge \rmd t ,
1796: \end{equation}
1797: \begin{equation}
1798: \bsSigma_\cCdot = \{ \phi_\party + 2 \psi_\party (\bfv) \} \bfg_\party - \psi_\party \tens \flatten{\bfv} + \flatten{\bfv} \tens \psi_\party ,
1799: \end{equation}
1800: \end{subequations}
1801: it follows that
1802: \begin{subequations}
1803: \begin{equation}
1804: \rmi_\cCdot \cF_\cCdot = - \bscE_\party - \# (\flatten{\bfv} \wedge \bscB_\party ) - \bfd_\party (\psi_\party (\bfv)) + \bscE_\party (\bfv) \rmd t ,
1805: \end{equation}
1806: \begin{equation}
1807: \bfd_\cCdot \Tr(\bsSigma_\cCdot) = 3 \bscE_\party + 4 \bfd_\party (\psi_\party (\bfv)) + 3 \party \phi_\party \bfv - 3 \bscE_\party (\bfv) \rmd t ,
1808: \end{equation}
1809: \end{subequations}
1810: where \eqn{egradphi} has been used.
1811:
1812: Using \eqn{cdotv} the spatial part of the equation of motion
1813: \eqn{eqnmotion2} becomes
1814: \begin{equation}
1815: \frac{\rmd {\bfv}}{\rmd t} = \tfrac{1}{4} \sharpen{\bscE}_\party
1816: + \# \sharpen{\flatten{\bfv} \wedge \bscB_\party} - \frac{3}{4} \party \phi_\party \bfv ,
1817: \end{equation}
1818: and if $\phi_\party$ is time-independent this reduces to
1819: \begin{equation}
1820: \frac{\rmd {\bfv}}{\rmd t} = \tfrac{1}{4} \sharpen{\bscE}_\party
1821: + \# \sharpen{\flatten{\bfv} \wedge \bscB_\party} .
1822: \end{equation}
1823: or in vector notation
1824: \begin{equation}
1825: \frac{\rmd {\bfv}}{\rmd t} = \tfrac{1}{4}\bbE_\party + \bfv \times \bbB_\party ,
1826: \end{equation}
1827: where $\bbE_\party = \sharpen{\bscE}_\party$ and $\bbB_\party =
1828: \sharpen{\bscB}_\party$.
1829:
1830: In terms of these fields the perturbed gravitational force
1831: $\bbF_\rmG$ is then
1832: \begin{equation}
1833: \label{eq:pop}
1834: \bbF_\rmG = m \left( \tfrac{1}{4}\bbE_\party + \bfv \times \bbB_\party \right) .
1835: \end{equation}
1836: This is similar in structure to the Lorentz force law of \emism,
1837: except for the factor of $\tfrac{1}{4}$ multiplying the \gelec
1838: term (and the fact that the $\bbE_\party$ and $\bbB_\party$ fields
1839: couple universally to inertial mass).
1840: Note that rescaling $\bbE_\party$ to
1841: remove the factor $\tfrac{1}{4}$ would introduce a factor into the
1842: gravito-Maxwell equations above.
1843:
1844: If one continues to the Newtonian limit then $\bbB_\party = 0$
1845: and, using \eqn{egradphi}, \eqn{newtpot} to express $\bbE_\party$
1846: in terms of the Newtonian potential $\Phi_\party$ (which will
1847: automatically be time-independent by the gauge condition $\div
1848: \psi = 0$), \eqn{pop} reduces to
1849: \begin{equation}
1850: \bbF_\rmG = - m \, \mathrm{grad} \, \Phi_\party ,
1851: \end{equation}
1852: which is just Newton's force of gravity in terms of a
1853: gravitational potential $\Phi_\party$ satisfying \eqn{newtfe}.
1854:
1855:
1856:
1857:
1858:
1859:
1860:
1861:
1862:
1863:
1864: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1865: % Precession of a Gyroscope in a Gravitational Field %
1866: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1867:
1868:
1869:
1870:
1871:
1872:
1873:
1874: \section{Precession of a Small Gyroscope in a Weak Gravitational Field}\indent
1875:
1876:
1877:
1878:
1879:
1880:
1881:
1882:
1883: One may model the relativistic spin of a freely falling gyroscope
1884: by a unit spacelike vector field $\bfS$ along a future-pointing
1885: timelike curve $C(\tau)$ that satisfies \eqn{pregeodesic}, such
1886: that $\bfS$ solves
1887: \begin{equation}
1888: \label{eq:delZS}
1889: \delhat_\Cdot \bfS = 0 ,
1890: \end{equation}
1891: with
1892: \begin{subequations}
1893: \begin{equation}
1894: \ghat(\bfS,\bfS) = 1 ,
1895: \end{equation}
1896: \begin{equation}
1897: \ghat(\bfS,\Cdot) = 0 ,
1898: \end{equation}
1899: \end{subequations}
1900: in terms of the physical metric tensor. A perturbative analysis
1901: can be given in terms of the vector $\bfs$ defined along
1902: $C(\tau)$ by
1903: \begin{equation}
1904: \label{eq:newspin}
1905: \bfs = (1 + \tfrac{1}{2} h(\bfS,\bfS)) \bfS - h(\bfS,\Cdot) \Cdot ,
1906: \end{equation}
1907: so that (to first order in $\epsilon$)
1908: \begin{subequations}
1909: \begin{equation}
1910: \label{eq:spinnorm}
1911: g(\bfs,\bfs) = 1 ,
1912: \end{equation}
1913: \begin{equation}
1914: g(\bfs,\Cdot) = 0 ,
1915: \end{equation}
1916: \end{subequations}
1917: in terms of the background metric $g$.
1918:
1919: Equation \eqn{newspin} can be inverted and to first order in
1920: $\epsilon$
1921: \begin{equation}
1922: \bfS = (1 - \tfrac{1}{2} h(\bfs,\bfs)) \bfs + h(\bfs,\Cdot) \Cdot .
1923: \end{equation}
1924: Using the perturbed connection, \eqn{delZS} can be written in
1925: terms of $\bfs$ to first order in $\epsilon$ as
1926: \begin{equation}
1927: \del_\Cdot \bfs - \frac{1}{2} \Cdot (h(\bfs,\bfs)) \bfs + \Cdot( h(\bfs,\Cdot)) \Cdot + \gamma(\Cdot,\bfs,-) = 0 .
1928: \end{equation}
1929: Rewriting $\gamma(\Cdot,\bfs,-)$ in terms of $\cF_\cCdot$ and
1930: $\bsSigma_\cCdot$ (see Appendix \sect{connex}), this becomes
1931: \begin{equation}
1932: \label{eq:spineqn}
1933: \del_\Cdot^{\rmF} \bfs +
1934: \frac{1}{2}\sharpen{\bsPi_\Cdot \rmi_\bfs
1935: \cF_\Cdot - \bsPi_\bfs \del_\Cdot \{ \bsSigma_\Cdot (\bfs,-) \} } = 0,
1936: \end{equation}
1937: where for any vector field $X$, the {\em Fermi-Walker connection}
1938: $\del^\rmF$ is defined on $C$ by
1939: \begin{equation}
1940: \del_\Cdot^{\rmF} X = \del_\Cdot X + g(\Cdot,X) \bscA_\Cdot -
1941: g(\bscA_\Cdot,X) \Cdot ,
1942: \end{equation}
1943: with $\bscA_\Cdot = \del_\Cdot \Cdot$. From \eqn{spineqn}
1944: the effective gravitational torque $\bbT_\rmG$ on the gyroscope is
1945: \begin{equation}
1946: \label{eq:torque}
1947: \bbT_\rmG = - \frac{1}{2}\sharpen{\bsPi_\Cdot \rmi_\bfs
1948: \cF_\Cdot - \bsPi_\bfs \del_\Cdot \{ \bsSigma_\Cdot (\bfs,-) \} } .
1949: \end{equation}
1950:
1951: The vector $\bfs$ is said to be non-rotating along the path $C$
1952: when $\bbT_\rmG=0$. As with the point particle, if this curve is
1953: parameterized in terms of $t$ so that $\cCdot(t)$ is given by
1954: \eqn{cdotv} (and dropping terms smaller than $\epsilon v$),
1955: \eqn{spineqn} becomes
1956: \begin{equation}
1957: \label{eq:spineq2}
1958: \del_\cCdot^{\rmF} \bfs +
1959: \frac{1}{2}\sharpen{\bsPi_\cCdot \rmi_\bfs
1960: \cF_\cCdot - \bsPi_\bfs \del_\cCdot \{ \bsSigma_\cCdot (\bfs,-) \} } = 0 .
1961: \end{equation}
1962: The vector $\bfs$ can be written in terms of its spacelike
1963: component $\bssigma$ as
1964: \begin{equation}
1965: \bfs = g(\bssigma,\bfv) \partial_t + \bssigma,
1966: \end{equation}
1967: which follows from \eqn{spinnorm}. Imposing the \gemic limit in
1968: the $\party$ frame, and writing $\cF_\cCdot$ and $\bsSigma_\cCdot$
1969: in terms of $\bbE_\party$, $\bbB_\party$ and $\phi_\party$ (see
1970: Appendix \sect{trans}), the spacelike component of \eqn{spineq2}
1971: then becomes
1972: \begin{equation}
1973: \label{eq:spineq3}
1974: \frac{\rmd {\bssigma}}{\rmd t} = \frac{1}{2} \left( \bssigma \times \bbB_\party + (\bssigma \cdot \bfv) \bbE_\party - \frac{1}{2} (\bssigma \cdot \bbE_\party) \bfv + (\cCdot \phi_\party) \bssigma \right) .
1975: \end{equation}
1976:
1977: Since the length $\sqrt{\bssigma \cdot \bssigma}$ of the vector
1978: $\bssigma$ is dependent on $t$ (to the appropriate order),
1979: introduce the constant length gyroscopic spin vector $\bbS$ by
1980: \begin{equation}
1981: \bbS = (1 - \tfrac{1}{2} \phi_\party) \bssigma - \tfrac{1}{2} (\bfv \cdot \bssigma) \bfv .
1982: \end{equation}
1983: In terms of $\bbS$, \eqn{spineq3} can be written
1984: \begin{equation}
1985: \label{eq:gyroeqn}
1986: \frac{\rmd {\bbS}}{\rmd t} =
1987: \frac{1}{2} \bbS \times \left(\bbB_\party - \frac{3}{4} \bfv \times \bbE_\party \right)
1988: \end{equation}
1989: which may be compared with the similar equation found in
1990: \cite{harris}.
1991:
1992: To this approximation the precession rate
1993: $\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{3}{4} \bfv \times\bbE_\party - \bbB_\party
1994: \right)$ of $\bbS$ is independent of the gyroscopic spin and could
1995: in principle be used to detect $\bbB_\party$.
1996:
1997:
1998:
1999:
2000:
2001:
2002:
2003:
2004: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2005: % An Alternative Analogy %
2006: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2007:
2008:
2009:
2010:
2011:
2012:
2013:
2014: % ***
2015:
2016:
2017:
2018: \section{Field Redefinitions}
2019: \label{sec:altanalogy}
2020:
2021: In order to facilitate a comparison with alternative formulations
2022: of weak gravity using the \gemic analogy it is worthwhile to
2023: effect certain field redfinitions. These are motivated by looking
2024: at the analogues of the transformations \eqn{basic} with
2025: \eqn{gemtrans}.
2026:
2027: Let $h_\xi = h(\xi,-)$ and $\xi$ be a \gemic frame, then under a
2028: \gemic gauge transformation $h_\xi$ transforms as
2029: \begin{equation}
2030: h_\xi \mapsto h_\xi + \rmd \lambda - (\xi \lambda) \flatten{\xi} ,
2031: \end{equation}
2032: which is not quite of the same form as \eqn{emgaugetrans}.
2033: However, defining
2034: \begin{subequations}
2035: \begin{equation}
2036: \Phi_h = - \tfrac{1}{2} h(\xi,\xi) ,
2037: \end{equation}
2038: and
2039: \begin{equation}
2040: \bfA_h = \bsPi_\xi \sharpen{h}_\xi ,
2041: \end{equation}
2042: \end{subequations}
2043: it follows, writing $\xi = \party$, that
2044: \begin{subequations}
2045: \label{eq:altgemtrans}
2046: \begin{equation}
2047: \Phi_h \mapsto \Phi_h - \party \lambda ,
2048: \end{equation}
2049: \begin{equation}
2050: \bfA_h \mapsto \bfA_h + \mathrm{grad} \, \lambda
2051: \end{equation}
2052: \end{subequations}
2053: which is indeed analogous to the (3+1)-decomposed form of an \emic
2054: gauge transformation.
2055:
2056: Similarly $\psi_\xi$ transforms as in \eqn{psixitrans} and
2057: defining
2058: \begin{subequations}
2059: \begin{equation}
2060: \Phi_\psi = - \phi_\xi = - \psi(\xi,\xi) ,
2061: \end{equation}
2062: \begin{equation}
2063: \bfA_\psi = \bsPi_\xi \sharpen{\psi}_\xi ,
2064: \end{equation}
2065: \end{subequations}
2066: the (3+1)-decomposed form of the gauge transformation
2067: \eqn{psixitrans} becomes
2068: \begin{subequations}
2069: \label{eq:decompgemtrans}
2070: \begin{equation}
2071: \Phi_\psi \mapsto \Phi_\psi - \party \lambda ,
2072: \end{equation}
2073: \begin{equation}
2074: \bfA_\psi \mapsto \bfA_\psi + \mathrm{grad} \, \lambda .
2075: \end{equation}
2076: \end{subequations}
2077:
2078: Since \eqn{altgemtrans}, \eqn{decompgemtrans} are analagous to
2079: \emic gauge transformations this suggests that a Maxwell type
2080: system of field equations may be constructed using $\Phi_h$ and
2081: $\bfA_h$ instead of $\Phi_\psi$ and $\bfA_\psi$.
2082:
2083: >From \eqn{psisplit} and the above definitions of $\Phi_h$,
2084: $\Phi_\psi$, $\bfA_h$ and $\bfA_\psi$ it follows that
2085: \begin{subequations}
2086: \begin{equation}
2087: \Phi_\psi = \Phi_h - \tfrac{1}{4} \Tr(\bsSigma) ,
2088: \end{equation}
2089: \begin{equation}
2090: \bfA_\psi = \bfA_h ,
2091: \end{equation}
2092: \end{subequations}
2093: where $\bsSigma = \bsSigma_\xi$.
2094:
2095: The Lorenz gauge condition in \eqn{firstgc} written in terms of
2096: $\Phi_\psi$ and $\bfA_\psi$ becomes
2097: \begin{subequations}
2098: \begin{equation}
2099: \mathrm{div} \, \bfA_\psi + \party \Phi_\psi = 0 ,
2100: \label{eq:divaeqn}
2101: \end{equation}
2102: which has the same form as in \emism for all $\bsSigma$. In terms
2103: of $\Phi_h$ and $\bfA_h$ this becomes
2104: \begin{equation}
2105: \label{eq:hlorenz}
2106: \mathrm{div} \, \bfA_h + \party \Phi_h = \tfrac{1}{4} \Tr(\bsSigma) ,
2107: \end{equation}
2108: \end{subequations}
2109: which is unlike the \emic Lorenz gauge condition when the
2110: right-hand side is non-zero.
2111:
2112: The \gelec and -magnetic fields $\bfE_\psi = \bbE_\xi$ and
2113: $\bfB_\psi = \bbB_\xi$ discussed earlier are related to
2114: $\Phi_\psi$ and $\bfA_\psi$ by
2115: \begin{subequations}
2116: \begin{equation}
2117: \bfE_\psi = - \mathrm{grad} \, \Phi_\psi - \party \bfA_\psi ,
2118: \end{equation}
2119: \begin{equation}
2120: \bfB_\psi = \mathrm{curl} \, \bfA_\psi .
2121: \end{equation}
2122: \end{subequations}
2123:
2124: Alternative \gemic fields $\bfE_h$ and $\bfB_h$ can be defined in
2125: terms of $\Phi_h$ and $\bfA_h$ as
2126: \begin{subequations}
2127: \begin{equation}
2128: \bfE_h = - \mathrm{grad} \, \Phi_h - \party \bfA_h ,
2129: \end{equation}
2130: \begin{equation}
2131: \bfB_h = \mathrm{curl} \, \bfA_h .
2132: \end{equation}
2133: \end{subequations}
2134: These are related to $\bfE_\psi$ and $\bfB_\psi$ by
2135: \begin{subequations}
2136: \begin{equation}
2137: \label{eq:ehepsirel}
2138: \bfE_\psi = \bfE_h + \tfrac{1}{4} \mathrm{grad} \Tr(\bsSigma) ,
2139: \end{equation}
2140: \begin{equation}
2141: \label{eq:bhbpsirel}
2142: \bfB_\psi = \bfB_h .
2143: \end{equation}
2144: \end{subequations}
2145: In terms of $\bfE_\psi$ and $\bsSigma$ the second gauge condition
2146: \eqn{secondgc} can be written as
2147: \begin{subequations}
2148: \begin{equation}
2149: \label{eq:nonmaxgcpsi}
2150: \bfE_\psi = \sharpen{\div \bsSigma} ,
2151: \end{equation}
2152: or using $\bfE_h$ and $\bsSigma$ as
2153: \begin{equation}
2154: \label{eq:nonmaxgch}
2155: \bfE_h = \sharpen{\div \bsSigma} - \tfrac{1}{4} \mathrm{grad} \Tr(\bsSigma) .
2156: \end{equation}
2157: \end{subequations}
2158: In the $\bfE_\psi$ and $\bfB_\psi$ notation , with $ \kappa= 8\pi
2159: G$, $\rho = \rho_\xi$ and $\bfJ = \bbJ_\xi$ the field equations
2160: \eqn{gemmaxall} become
2161: \begin{subequations}
2162: \begin{equation}
2163: \mathrm{div} \, \bfB_\psi = 0 ,
2164: \end{equation}
2165: \begin{equation}
2166: \mathrm{curl} \, \bfE_\psi + \party \bfB_\psi = 0 ,
2167: \end{equation}
2168: \begin{equation}
2169: \mathrm{div} \, \bfE_\psi = -16 \pi G \rho ,
2170: \end{equation}
2171: \begin{equation}
2172: \mathrm{curl} \, \bfB_\psi - \party \bfE_\psi = -16 \pi G \bfJ
2173: \end{equation}
2174: \end{subequations}
2175: for all $\bsSigma$. As stressed above these equations together
2176: with \eqn{lapsigmaeqn}, \eqn{divaeqn}, \eqn{nonmaxgcpsi} summarise
2177: linearised Einsteinnian gravitation.
2178:
2179: Alternatively using \eqn{ehepsirel} and \eqn{bhbpsirel} the above
2180: take the form
2181: \begin{subequations}
2182: \label{eq:hgemfield}
2183: \begin{equation}
2184: \mathrm{div} \, \bfB_h = 0 ,
2185: \end{equation}
2186: \begin{equation}
2187: \mathrm{curl} \, \bfE_h + \party \bfB_h = 0 ,
2188: \end{equation}
2189: \begin{equation}
2190: \label{eq:gemsigcoup1}
2191: \mathrm{div} \, \bfE_h = -16 \pi G \rho - \tfrac{1}{4} \mathrm{div} \, \mathrm{grad} \, \Tr(\bsSigma) ,
2192: \end{equation}
2193: \begin{equation}
2194: \label{eq:gemsigcoup2}
2195: \mathrm{curl} \, \bfB_h - \party \bfE_h = -16 \pi G \bfJ + \tfrac{1}{4} \party \, \mathrm{grad} \,
2196: \Tr(\bsSigma)
2197: \end{equation}
2198: \end{subequations}
2199: in terms of $\bfE_h$ and $\bfB_h$ and $\bsSigma$.
2200: In the \gemic
2201: limit, $\Tr(\bsSigma) = - 12 \Phi_h$ so $\Phi_\psi = 4 \Phi_h$
2202: and $\bfE_\psi = 4 \bfE_h$. Then the Lorenz gauge condition
2203: \eqn{hlorenz} becomes
2204: \begin{equation}
2205: \mathrm{div} \, \bfA_h + 4 \party \Phi_h = 0 ,
2206: \end{equation}
2207: and (since $\party \bfB_h = 0$ in the \gemic limit) the field
2208: equations \eqn{hgemfield} simplify to
2209: \begin{subequations}
2210: \begin{equation}
2211: \mathrm{div} \, \bfB_h = 0 ,
2212: \end{equation}
2213: \begin{equation}
2214: \mathrm{curl} \, \bfE_h = 0 ,
2215: \end{equation}
2216: \begin{equation}
2217: \mathrm{div} \, \bfE_h = -4 \pi G \rho ,
2218: \end{equation}
2219: \begin{equation}
2220: \mathrm{curl} \, \bfB_h - 4 \party \bfE_h = -16 \pi G \bfJ
2221: \end{equation}
2222: \end{subequations}
2223: which may be compared with (4.44) and the formulations given in
2224: \cite{thorneNZ}, \cite{harris}.
2225:
2226:
2227:
2228:
2229:
2230:
2231:
2232:
2233:
2234:
2235:
2236:
2237:
2238:
2239:
2240:
2241: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2242: % Discussion %
2243: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2244:
2245:
2246:
2247:
2248:
2249:
2250: \section{Discussion}
2251: \label{sec:discuss}
2252:
2253: In this article the analogy between Maxwell's equations for the
2254: electromagnetic field, \eqn{maxcov1}, \eqn{maxcov2} and the
2255: Einstein equations for weak gravitational fields in the transverse
2256: gauge, \eqn{gemmaxcov1}, \eqn{gemmaxcov2} has been made in terms
2257: of tensor fields. While the former are valid in an arbitrary
2258: Lorentzian spacetime the latter have been developed in terms of
2259: perturbations about a flat spacetime background. A comparison has
2260: been made between the general equation describing the motion of
2261: electrically charged point particles \eqn{qeqnmotion} and the
2262: motion of massive point particles in a weak gravitational field
2263: \eqn{eqnmotion}. Equations have also been developed \eqn{gyroeqn}
2264: describing the motion of a freely falling small gyroscope in terms
2265: of \gemic fields.
2266:
2267: In general it is asserted that any analogy between
2268: electromagnetism and weak gravity is closest in a restricted class
2269: of reference frames related by suitable non-relativistic
2270: transformations and for stationary physical field configurations
2271: in such frames. In addition to \gemic fields the general
2272: equations of weak gravity involve
2273: a second degree symmetric tensor field $\bsSigma_\xi$ which has no
2274: electromagnetic analogue. The \gemic fields defined in
2275: \ref{sec:gemfieldeq} are coupled to $\bsSigma_\xi$ via
2276: \eqn{secondgc} and this field produces non-Maxwellian terms in the
2277: weak gravitational force and torque equations, \eqn{gemlorentz}
2278: and \eqn{torque} respectively.
2279:
2280: In \emism the Maxwell fields $A$, $F$ and $\cJ$ are defined
2281: independent of any frame of reference. The latter is only
2282: required to define electric and magnetic fields and their sources
2283: in terms of electric charge and current density \eqn{fsplit},
2284: \eqn{currentsplit}. In \gemism the analogous fields $\psi_\xi$,
2285: $\cF_\xi$ and $\cJ_\xi$ are manifestly frame-dependent.
2286:
2287: The definition of these fields has been motivated by their
2288: behaviour under a class of gauge transformations belonging to the
2289: gauge symmetry of the weak Einstein equations. Unlike \emism,
2290: $\cF_\xi$ is not gauge invariant under these transformations in
2291: general. However a subset of these transformations does exist for
2292: which $\cF_\xi$ remains invariant. These have been called \gemic
2293: gauge transformations by analogy with the gauge symmetry of
2294: Maxwell's equations. Unlike electromagnetic interactions with
2295: electrically charged particles, weak gravitational interactions
2296: are not mediated by complex representations of these symmetries.
2297: In terms of the \gemic fields a subset of the linearised Einstein
2298: equations take a remarkable form that is isomorphic to Maxwell's
2299: \emic field equations. No limits or further approximations are
2300: required to establish this correspondence. The explicit appearance
2301: of the $\bsSigma_\xi$ tensor is confined to the remaining
2302: equations in the linearised system. This is a primary distinction
2303: of the approach adopted here compared with previous derivations of
2304: the \gemic field equations. To exploit this reformulation and link
2305: physical field configurations with solutions to Maxwell's
2306: equations further conditions must be imposed on the linearised
2307: system.
2308:
2309:
2310: Conditions have been found that enable
2311: a useful analogy between weak gravitation and electromagnetism to
2312: be established. In the \gemic limit $\bsSigma_\xi$ depends only on
2313: the a \gemic potential \eqn{gemlimiteqn}. Consequently, such weak
2314: gravitational fields can be described in terms of $\psi_\xi$ (or
2315: alternatively $\bscE_\xi$ and $\bscB_\xi$).
2316:
2317: However as stressed above, in order to obtain Maxwell-like
2318: equations the transverse gauge condition \eqn{transgc} is imposed
2319: on $\psi$. Condition \eqn{transsplit} induces an equivalent
2320: condition \eqn{firstgc} on $\psi_\xi$. (By contrast the
2321: electromagnetic gauge condition \eqn{transgauge} is one of many
2322: that may be imposed on $A$.) The condition on $\psi$ also imposes
2323: the restriction \eqn{secondgc} which in the \gemic limit implies
2324: that $\psi_\xi$ has a restricted time dependence. Physical \gemism
2325: consequently shares more in common with electromagneto-statics
2326: than electromagnetism. Although both the Maxwell equations
2327: \eqn{maxall} and the equivalent \gemic equations \eqn{gemmaxall}
2328: hold in any inertial frame (in Minkowski spacetime),
2329: in order to remain within the \gemic limit only a class of \gemic frames
2330: of reference is permitted (Appendix \sect{trans}).
2331:
2332: By perturbing the equation of a physical timelike geodesic the
2333: relativistic equation of motion for a massive point particle in
2334: the weak gravitational field can be cast into a form containing a
2335: \gemic Lorentz force \eqn{gemlorentz} and an additional
2336: non-Maxwellian term.
2337: It is worth pointing out that in
2338: the context of the \gemic fields defined in this paper the
2339: derivation of this equation of motion does not rely on the speed
2340: of the particle and the \gemic Lorentz-like force takes its
2341: natural form.
2342: In the \gemic and non-relativistic limit the particle acceleration is
2343: then determined by a non-relativisti
2344: Lorentz-like force \eqn{pop} containing an additional factor of
2345: $\frac{1}{4}$ multiplying the \gelec field.
2346:
2347: % ***
2348: %
2349: % Compare the two GEM analogies in previous
2350: % section and relate to Thorne and others.
2351: %
2352:
2353:
2354: When working in the \gemic limit the field redefinitions presented
2355: in section \sect{altanalogy} permit a comparison with the work of
2356: Thorne in \cite{thorneNZ} with the notation $\Phi_h = \Phi$,
2357: $\bfA_h = \bsgamma$, $\bfE_h = \bfg$, and $\bfB_h = \bfH$, and
2358: with a current of the form $\bfJ = \rho \bfv$. The work of
2359: \cite{harris}, \cite{mashhoon}, \cite{bct}, \cite{thorne} and
2360: others may be related to that of \cite{thorneNZ} either by trivial
2361: field redefinitions or changes in metric signature.
2362: The analogy between
2363: electromagnetism and weak gravity developed by Wald \cite{wald} is
2364: similar to the one presented here. However he does not discuss how
2365: the \gemic 1-form-potential behaves under gauge transformations
2366: nor how the restricted time dependence arises from the transverse
2367: gauge condition.
2368: % (only that the 1-form
2369: %potential ``satisfies precisely Maxwell's equations in the Lorentz
2370: %gauge'').
2371:
2372:
2373:
2374: This article offers an alternative description of weak field
2375: gravitation in the language of \gemic fields. We feel that it
2376: clarifies a number of issues concerning various other analogies
2377: between the equations of post-Newtonian gravity according to
2378: Einstein and Maxwell's description of electromagnetism. In the
2379: absence of a \gemic limit formulations based on $\Phi_h$ and
2380: $\bfA_h$ give rise to gauge conditions \eqn{hlorenz},
2381: \eqn{nonmaxgch} and field equations \eqn{gemsigcoup1},
2382: \eqn{gemsigcoup2} thereby exposing couplings between the \gemic
2383: potentials and fields and the tensor field $\bsSigma_\xi$. In the
2384: approach adopted here such couplings are relegated to the gauge
2385: condition \eqn{nonmaxgcpsi}. Many analogies coalesce in the \gemic
2386: limit modulo a re-shuffling of numerical factors that cannot be
2387: scaled away entirely. Although the mathematical analogy between
2388: weak gravity and the full system of Maxwells equations for
2389: electromagnetism in terms of covariant tensor fields on flat
2390: spacetime can be made close, the existence of gravitational gauge
2391: conditions limits the physical\footnote{Fields derived from a
2392: potential $\phi_{\partial_t}$ that vary linearly with $t$ are
2393: deemed unphysical here.} analogy to stationary phenomena. Despite
2394: this limitation the interpretation of weak gravity in terms of
2395: \gemic fields offers a fertile avenue of exploration for phenomena
2396: associated with the detection of the stationary gravito-magnetic
2397: field. The methods presented here are also applicable in principle
2398: to certain non-flat backgrounds and to weak field descriptions of
2399: non-Einsteinian gravitation (in which other geometrical fields may
2400: compete with metric-induced gravity) at the post-Newtonian level.
2401: These issues will be discussed elsewhere.
2402:
2403:
2404:
2405: \section{Acknowledgement}
2406: SJC is grateful to PPARC and RWT to BAE-Systems for support for
2407: this research. The authors are also grateful for stimulating
2408: discussions with Dr R Evans of BAE-Systems (Warton).
2409:
2410: \vfill\eject
2411: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2412: % Definitions and Notation %
2413: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2414:
2415: \appendix
2416:
2417: \section{Definitions and Notation}
2418: \label{sec:defs}
2419:
2420: Throughout this article the geometry of spacetime is described in
2421: terms of a smooth Lorentzian metric tensor field and its
2422: associated Levi-Civita connection. The connection 1-forms
2423: $\omega^a{}_b$ associated with any such connection $\del$ are
2424: defined with respect to any local basis of vector fields $\{X_a\}$
2425: where $a=0,1,2,3$ by
2426: \begin{equation}
2427: \del_{X_a}X_b=\omega^c{}_b(X_a)\, X_c.
2428: \end{equation}
2429:
2430: %If $T$ is a smooth tensor field on spacetime whose first argument
2431: %is contravariant, then in terms of this connection the covariant
2432: %differential $\del$ of $T$ is defined by
2433:
2434: If $T$ is a smooth tensor field on spacetime then in terms of this
2435: connection the covariant differential $\del$ of $T$ is defined by
2436: \begin{equation}
2437: (\del T)(X,-,...,-) = (\del_X T),
2438: \end{equation}
2439: and if the first argument of $T$ is contravariant, the divergence
2440: of $T$ is
2441: \begin{equation}
2442: \div T = (\del_{X_a} T)(X^a,-,...,-) ,
2443: \end{equation}
2444: where indices are raised with the components of the metric tensor
2445: in the usual way. Similarly with $\{e^a\}$ dual to ${\{X_a\}}$
2446: (i.e. $e^a(X_b)=\delta^a_b$)
2447: \begin{equation}
2448: \div S = (\del_{X_a} S)(e^a,-,...,-) ,
2449: \end{equation}
2450: for all tensors $S$ whose first argument is covariant.
2451: For any degree 2 covariant tensor $T$ the tensor $\Sym T$
2452: is defined by $\Sym T(X,Y)=\tfrac{1}{2}(T(X,Y)+T(Y,X))$.
2453:
2454:
2455:
2456: In terms of the exterior derivative $\rmd$ on smooth differential
2457: $p$-forms on spacetime, the {\em covariant exterior derivative}
2458: is defined on mixed basis indexed $p$-forms by
2459: \begin{equation}
2460: \begin{aligned}
2461: \rmD S^{a...b}{}_{c...d} = & \rmd S^{a...b}{}_{c...d} + \omega^a{}_s
2462: \wedge S^{s...b}{}_{c...d} + ... + \omega^b{}_s \wedge
2463: S^{a...s}{}_{c...d} \\
2464: & - \omega^s{}_c \wedge S^{a...b}{}_{s...d} -
2465: ... - \omega^s{}_d \wedge S^{a...b}{}_{c...s} .
2466: \end{aligned}
2467: \end{equation}
2468: The curvature operator $\bfR$ for the connection $\del$ is
2469: \begin{equation}
2470: \bfR_{X\:Y} = [\del_X,\del_Y] - \del_{[X,Y]}
2471: \end{equation}
2472: for all vector fields $X,Y$, and the (Riemann) curvature tensor
2473: $R$ defined by
2474: \begin{equation}
2475: R(X,Y,Z,\alpha) = \alpha(\bfR_{X\:Y} Z).
2476: \end{equation}
2477: Then in dual local bases $\{X_a\}$ and $\{e^a\}$
2478: %such that $e^a(X_b)=\delta^a_b$,
2479: the curvature 2-forms $R^a{}_b$ are defined by
2480: \begin{equation}
2481: R = 2 R^a{}_b \tens e^b \tens X_a.
2482: \end{equation}
2483: Successive contractions (where $\rmi_X$ is the interior operator
2484: with respect to the vector $X$) give the
2485: Ricci 1-forms
2486: \begin{equation}
2487: P_b = \rmi_{X_a} R^a{}_b ,
2488: \end{equation}
2489: and the curvature scalar $\cR$
2490: \begin{equation}
2491: \cR = \rmi_{X^a} P_a .
2492: \end{equation}
2493:
2494: With $g$ a metric tensor on vectors and $G$ the induced metric
2495: tensor on 1-forms, the metric-dual of a vector $X$ is given by
2496: $\flatten{X} = g(X,-)$ and that of and a 1-form $\alpha$ by
2497: $\sharpen{\alpha} = G(\alpha,-)$.
2498:
2499: If $U$ is a unit-normalized vector field ($g(U,U) = \lambda$ where
2500: $\lambda = \pm 1$), then the projection operator on contravariant
2501: tensor fields is defined as
2502: \begin{subequations}
2503: \begin{equation}
2504: \bsPi_U = \bfone - \lambda U \tens \flatten{U} .
2505: \end{equation}
2506: By abuse of notation the same symbol is used to denote the projector on covariant tensors
2507: \begin{equation}
2508: \bsPi_U = \bfone - \lambda \flatten{U} \tens U ,
2509: \end{equation}
2510: and differential $p$-forms
2511: \begin{equation}
2512: \bsPi_U = \bfone - \lambda \flatten{U} \wedge \rmi_U ,
2513: \end{equation}
2514: since the domain should be clear from the context. The map
2515: $\bsPi_U$ is a tensor homomorphism
2516: \begin{equation}
2517: \bsPi_U (\ttt{\alpha}{\beta}) = \ttt[\bsPi_U]{\alpha}{\beta} ,
2518: \end{equation}
2519: \end{subequations}
2520: for all $\alpha, \beta, ...$ and has the following properties:
2521: \begin{subequations}
2522: \begin{equation}
2523: \bsPi_U \bsPi_U = \bsPi_U ,
2524: \end{equation}
2525: \begin{equation}
2526: \bsPi_U \rmi_U = \rmi_U ,
2527: \end{equation}
2528: \begin{equation}
2529: \rmi_U \bsPi_U = 0 .
2530: \end{equation}
2531: \end{subequations}
2532: The projection tensor $\bsPi_V$ is used to define the {\em spatial
2533: metric} on spacetime associated with the timelike vector field
2534: $V$:
2535: \begin{equation}
2536: \bfg_V = \Pi_V g .
2537: \end{equation}
2538: One can write $\del \flatten{V}$ in terms of $\bfg_V$ and
2539: $\bsPi_V$ as follows:
2540: \begin{equation}
2541: \del \flatten{V} = \bssigma_V + \bsOmega_V
2542: + \tfrac{1}{3} \Theta_V \bfg_V
2543: - \flatten{V} \tens \flatten{\bscA}_V
2544: \end{equation}
2545: where
2546: \begin{subequations}
2547: \begin{equation}
2548: \bssigma_V = \Sym \Pi_V \del \flatten{V} - \tfrac{1}{3} \Theta_V \bfg_V ,
2549: \end{equation}
2550: is the {\em shear} of $V$,
2551: \begin{equation}
2552: \Theta_V = \div V ,
2553: \end{equation}
2554: is the {\em expansion} of $V$,
2555: \begin{equation}
2556: \bsOmega_V = \Pi_V \rmd \flatten{V} ,
2557: \end{equation}
2558: is the {\em vorticity} of $V$ and
2559: \begin{equation}
2560: \bscA_V = \del_V V
2561: \end{equation}
2562: is the {\em acceleration} of $V$.
2563: \end{subequations}
2564:
2565: A vector field $\xi$ is said to be {\em parallel} (\wrt $\del$) if
2566: \begin{equation}
2567: \del \xi = 0 ,
2568: \end{equation}
2569: in which case $\del \flatten{\xi} = 0$, so $\xi$ has vanishing
2570: shear, vorticity, expansion and acceleration. Furthermore
2571: \begin{equation}
2572: \Sym \del \flatten{\xi} = 0 ,
2573: \end{equation}
2574: or equivalently
2575: \begin{equation}
2576: \cL_\xi g = 0
2577: \end{equation}
2578: in terms of the Lie derivative. Thus, if $\xi$ is parallel then it
2579: is also a Killing vector and
2580: \begin{equation}
2581: \label{eq:dell}
2582: \del_\xi = \cL_\xi .
2583: \end{equation}
2584:
2585:
2586: For any tensor field $T$ taking at least one covariant argument
2587: let $T_\xi$ be defined by contraction such that
2588: \begin{equation}
2589: T_\xi(-,\hdots,-) = T(-,\hdots,-,\xi,-,\hdots,-).
2590: \end{equation}
2591: If $\xi$ is parallel it follows that
2592: \begin{equation}
2593: (\del_X T_\xi)(-,\hdots ,-)
2594: = (\del_X T)(-,\hdots ,-,\xi,-,\hdots ,-) \label{eq:divproperty}
2595: \end{equation}
2596: for all vector fields $X$.
2597: %!!!
2598: When acting on $p$-forms this is simply the rule:
2599: \begin{equation}
2600: \rmi_\xi \del_X = \del_X \rmi_\xi .
2601: \end{equation}
2602:
2603:
2604: The metric tensor $g$ gives rise to a canonical {\em volume}
2605: 4-form $\ast 1$ on spacetime and an associated Hodge map $\ast$ on
2606: $p$-forms. In terms of a local $g-$orthonormal local basis of
2607: 1-forms $\{e^a\}$ one may write $\ast 1=e^0\wedge e^1\wedge
2608: e^2\wedge e^3$. A volume 3-form $\# 1$ associated with the unit
2609: timelike vector field $V$ is given in terms of $\ast 1$ by
2610: \begin{equation}
2611: \ast 1 = \flatten{V} \wedge \# 1
2612: \end{equation}
2613: with $\rmi_V\# 1=0$. Hence
2614: \begin{equation}
2615: \# 1 = - \ast \flatten{V}
2616: \end{equation}
2617: and $\# 1$ induces a spatial Hodge map, $\#$, on the image of
2618: forms under $\bsPi_V$. With these operations defined one can
2619: decompose the Hodge map of any spacetime form and its exterior
2620: derivative into spatial forms. Thus the Hodge dual of {\em any}
2621: $p$-form $\omega$ on spacetime may always be written
2622: \begin{equation}
2623: \label{eq:hodgesplit}
2624: \ast \omega = \Bigl\{ \# \rmi_V \omega \Bigr\}
2625: + \flatten{V} \wedge \Bigl\{ \# (\bsPi_V \omega)^\eta \Bigr\}
2626: \end{equation}
2627: where $\alpha^\eta=(-1)^p\alpha$ for any $p$-form $\alpha$ and
2628: each of the terms in brackets is annihilated by $V$ (i.e.
2629: $\rmi_V \Bigl\{ \quad \Bigr\}=0$). A projected Lie derivative
2630: \wrt $V$ is defined as
2631: \begin{equation}
2632: \bscL_V = \bsPi_V \cL_V \bsPi_V
2633: \end{equation}
2634: and for any p-form $\omega$ one can write
2635: \begin{equation}
2636: \cL_V \omega = \Bigl\{ \bscL_V \omega
2637: - \flatten{\bscA}_V \wedge \rmi_V \omega \Bigr\}
2638: - \flatten{V} \wedge \Bigl\{ \bscL_V \rmi_V \omega \Bigr\}
2639: \end{equation}
2640: where each of the terms in brackets is annihilated by $V$.
2641:
2642: In terms of the projected exterior derivative
2643: \begin{equation}
2644: \bfd_V = \bsPi_V \rmd \bsPi_V ,
2645: \end{equation}
2646: and with $\bfD_V$ defined by
2647: %\begin{equation}
2648: % \bfD_V = \bfd_V + \flatten{\bscA_V} \wedge ,
2649: %\end{equation}
2650: \begin{equation}
2651: \mathbf{D}_V = \mathbf{d}_V +
2652: \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}_V^\flat \wedge
2653: \end{equation}
2654: one may write
2655: \begin{equation}
2656: \label{eq:dsplit}
2657: \rmd \omega = \Bigl\{ \bfd_V \omega
2658: - \bsOmega_V \wedge \rmi_V \omega \Bigr\}
2659: - \flatten{V} \wedge \Bigl\{ (\bscL_V \omega
2660: - \bfD_V \rmi_V \omega) \Bigr\}
2661: \end{equation}
2662: where each of the terms in brackets is annihilated by $V$. These
2663: formulae permit a local ``3+1'' decomposition of exterior
2664: differential equations with respect to the general observer field
2665: $V$ in a spacetime with an arbitrary Lorentzian metric and permit
2666: one to identify spatial fields parametrised by a local time
2667: associated with $V$.
2668:
2669:
2670:
2671:
2672:
2673: With the Faraday 2-form $F$ decomposed as
2674: \begin{equation}
2675: F = \flatten{V} \wedge \bfe + \# \bfb
2676: \end{equation}
2677: where $\rmi_V \bfe = 0$, and $\rmi_V \bfb = 0$, it follows that
2678: $\rmi_V F = - \bfe$ and $\bsPi_V F = \# \bfb$. Similarly using
2679: \eqn{hodgesplit}
2680: \begin{equation}
2681: \ast F = \flatten{V} \wedge \bfb - \# \bfe ,
2682: \end{equation}
2683: so $\rmi_V \ast F = - \bfb$ and $\bsPi_V F = \# \bfe$. Writing
2684: \begin{equation}
2685: \cJ = \rho \flatten{V} + \bfj
2686: \end{equation}
2687: where $\rmi_V \bfj = 0$, and using \eqn{hodgesplit} it follows
2688: that
2689: \begin{equation}
2690: \ast \cJ = - \rho \# 1 - \flatten{V} \wedge \# \bfj .
2691: \end{equation}
2692:
2693: The co-derivative $\delta$ is defined on spacetime $p$-forms in
2694: terms of the Hodge map $\ast$ and the exterior derivative $\rmd$
2695: by
2696: \begin{equation}
2697: \delta = \ast^{-1} \rmd \ast \eta
2698: \end{equation}
2699: where $\eta \omega = \omega^\eta$ for any $p$-form $\omega$. The
2700: field equations \eqn{maxcov1} and \eqn{maxcov2} can be written as
2701: \begin{subequations}
2702: \begin{equation}
2703: \rmd F = 0 ,
2704: \end{equation}
2705: \begin{equation}
2706: \rmd \ast F = \ast \cJ .
2707: \end{equation}
2708: \end{subequations}
2709: Using \eqn{dsplit} the Maxwell equations given in \eqn{maxall}
2710: follow immediately.
2711:
2712:
2713:
2714: With the definitions:
2715: \begin{samepage}
2716: \begin{subequations}
2717: \begin{equation}
2718: \mathrm{div} \, \bfX = \sharpen{\# \bfd_V \# \flatten{\bfX}} ,
2719: \end{equation}
2720: \begin{equation}
2721: \mathrm{curl} \, \bfX = \sharpen{\# \bfd_V \flatten{\bfX}} ,
2722: \end{equation}
2723: \begin{equation}
2724: \mathrm{grad} \, \Phi = \sharpen{\bfd_V \Phi} ,
2725: \end{equation}
2726: % \begin{equation}
2727: % \dot{\bfX} = \bscL_V \bfX ,
2728: % \end{equation}
2729: \begin{equation}
2730: \bfX \times \bfY = \sharpen{\flatten{\bfX} \wedge \flatten{\bfY}} ,
2731: \end{equation}
2732: \begin{equation}
2733: \bfX \cdot \bfY = \bfg_V(\bfX, \bfY) = \# (\flatten{\bfX} \wedge \# \flatten{\bfY})
2734: \end{equation}
2735: \end{subequations}
2736: \end{samepage}
2737: where $\bfX$ and $\bfY$ are spacelike (\wrt V) vectors, and $\Phi$
2738: is a $0$-form on spacetime, exterior equations can be transcribed
2739: to Euclidean vector notation.
2740:
2741:
2742:
2743:
2744:
2745: The Laplacian operator $\Lap$ associated with $g$ and $\del$ is
2746: defined by
2747: \begin{equation}
2748: \Lap = \div \del ,
2749: \end{equation}
2750: and the associated Laplace-Beltrami operator $\Delta$ on $p$-forms
2751: is
2752: \begin{equation}
2753: \Delta = -(\delta \rmd + \rmd \delta) .
2754: \end{equation}
2755: It can be shown that, when acting on any $p$-form $\alpha$, $\Lap$
2756: is related to the Laplace-Beltrami operator $\Delta$ by
2757: \begin{equation}
2758: \Delta \alpha = \Lap \alpha + e^a \wedge \rmi_{X^b} \bfR_{X_a\:X_b} \alpha
2759: .
2760: \end{equation}
2761: Thus if $\beta$ is a 1-form
2762: \begin{equation}
2763: \Delta \beta = \Lap \beta - \Ric(\sharpen{\beta},-)
2764: \end{equation}
2765: and for any 0-form $f$
2766: \begin{equation}
2767: \Delta f = \Lap f .
2768: \end{equation}
2769: In a spacetime with a flat metric
2770: \begin{equation}
2771: \Delta = \Lap
2772: \end{equation}
2773: for {\em all} $p$-forms.
2774:
2775: \vfill\eject
2776:
2777:
2778:
2779:
2780:
2781:
2782:
2783:
2784: \section{The Perturbed Connection and Gravito-Electromagnetic Fields}
2785: \label{sec:connex}
2786:
2787: With the $(3,0)$ tensor field $\flatten{\gamma}$ defined by
2788: \begin{equation}
2789: \flatten{\gamma}(X,Y,Z) = \gamma(X,Y,\flatten{Z}) ,
2790: \end{equation}
2791: using \eqn{pertconnex} it follows that
2792: \begin{equation}
2793: \label{eq:gammaxi}
2794: \flatten{\gamma}(\xi,-,-) = \tfrac{1}{2} \del_\xi h + \Alt (\del h)(-,\xi,-) ,
2795: \end{equation}
2796: where $\xi$ defines a \gemic frame (unit timelike and parallel,
2797: to zero order in $\epsilon$), and for any type (2,0) tensor $T$,
2798: $\Alt T$ is defined by $\Alt T(X,Y)=\tfrac{1}{2}(T(X,Y)-T(Y,X))$.
2799:
2800: To relate expression \eqn{gammaxi} to \gemic fields one may
2801: proceed as follows. By trace-reversing $\psi$ as given in
2802: \eqn{psisplit}, $h$ can be written as
2803: \begin{equation}
2804: \label{eq:hsplit}
2805: h = - \psi_\xi \tens \flatten{\xi} - \flatten{\xi} \tens \psi_\xi
2806: - \bsSigma_\xi + \tfrac{1}{2} \Tr(\bsSigma_\xi) g ,
2807: \end{equation}
2808: and acting with $\del_\xi$ gives
2809: \begin{equation}
2810: \del_\xi h = - \del_\xi \psi_\xi \tens \flatten{\xi} - \flatten{\xi} \tens \del_\xi \psi_\xi
2811: - \del_\xi \bsSigma_\xi + \tfrac{1}{2} \xi \Tr(\bsSigma_\xi) g .
2812: \end{equation}
2813:
2814: Since $\del \xi$ is first order in $\epsilon$ it follows that
2815: \begin{equation}
2816: (\del h)(-,\xi,-) = \del(h(\xi,-)) ,
2817: \end{equation}
2818: and contracting \eqn{hsplit} with $\xi$ gives
2819: \begin{equation}
2820: \label{eq:hxipsixi}
2821: h(\xi,-) = \psi_\xi - (\phi_\xi - \tfrac{1}{2}\Tr(\bsSigma_\xi))
2822: \flatten{\xi}.
2823: \end{equation}
2824: Hence
2825: \begin{equation}
2826: (\del h)(-,\xi,-) = \del \psi_\xi - \rmd (\phi_\xi - \tfrac{1}{2}\Tr(\bsSigma_\xi)) \tens \flatten{\xi} .
2827: \end{equation}
2828: Antisymmetrizing this yields
2829: \begin{equation}
2830: \Alt (\del h)(-,\xi,-) = \cF_\xi + \flatten{\xi} \wedge \bfd_\xi (\phi_\xi - \tfrac{1}{2}\Tr(\bsSigma_\xi)) ,
2831: \end{equation}
2832: where $\cF_\xi = \rmd \psi_\xi$.
2833:
2834: Equation \eqn{gammaxi} can now be written as
2835: \begin{equation}
2836: \label{eq:gammaxifinal}
2837: \begin{aligned}
2838: \flatten{\gamma}(\xi,-,-) = & - (\del_\xi \psi_\xi \tens \flatten{\xi} + \flatten{\xi} \tens \del_\xi \psi_\xi
2839: + \del_\xi \bsSigma_\xi) \\
2840: & + \tfrac{1}{4} \xi \Tr(\bsSigma_\xi) g
2841: + \cF_\xi + \flatten{\xi} \wedge \bfd_\xi (\phi_\xi - \tfrac{1}{2}\Tr(\bsSigma_\xi)) ,
2842: \end{aligned}
2843: \end{equation}
2844: and contracting on $\xi$ gives
2845: \begin{equation}
2846: \flatten{\gamma}(\xi,\xi,-) = - \xi (\phi_\xi - \tfrac{1}{4} \Tr(\bsSigma_\xi)) \flatten{\xi}
2847: + \rmi_\xi \cF_\xi + \tfrac{1}{4} \bfd_\xi \Tr(\bsSigma_\xi) .
2848: \end{equation}
2849:
2850: If $\bfX$ is orthogonal to $\xi$, $g(\xi,\bfX) = 0$, and $\del
2851: \bfX$ is first order or higher in $\epsilon$, then
2852: $\flatten{\gamma}(\xi,\bfX,-)$ can be rewritten as
2853: \begin{equation}
2854: \begin{aligned}
2855: \flatten{\gamma}(\xi,\bfX,-) = & - \xi(\psi_\xi(\bfX)) \flatten{\xi}
2856: + \xi (\tfrac{1}{4} \Tr(\bsSigma_\xi) + \bsSigma_\xi(\bfX,\bfX)) \flatten{\bfX} \\
2857: & + \rmi_\bfX (\rmi_\xi \cF_\xi + \tfrac{1}{4} \bfd_\xi \Tr(\bsSigma_\xi)) \xi
2858: + \tfrac{1}{2} \bsPi_\xi \rmi_\bfX \cF_\xi + \bsPi_\bfX \del_\xi \bsSigma_\xi(\bfX,-) .
2859: \end{aligned}
2860: \end{equation}
2861:
2862:
2863:
2864:
2865:
2866:
2867:
2868:
2869: % ***
2870:
2871:
2872:
2873:
2874:
2875:
2876: Let $\xi$ be a vector field such that $\del \xi = 0$ and
2877: $g(\xi,\xi) = -1$ (to at least first order in $\epsilon$). Using
2878: \eqn{connex} and adding hats to quantities defined with respect to
2879: the physical metric $\ghat$ it follows that
2880: \begin{equation}
2881: \hat{\del} \xi = \gamma(\xi,-,-) ,
2882: \end{equation}
2883: or with $X^{\hat{\flat}} = \hat{G}(X,-)$, that:
2884: \begin{equation}
2885: \hat{\del} \xi^{\hat{\flat}} = \flatten{\gamma}(\xi,-,-) ,
2886: \end{equation}
2887: where $\flatten{\gamma}(X,Y,Z) = \gamma(X,Y,\flatten{Z})$.
2888: Antisymmetrizing and using \eqn{gammaxifinal} yields
2889: \begin{equation}
2890: \label{eq:antisymdxi}
2891: \rmd \xi^{\hat{\flat}} = \cF_\xi + \flatten{\xi} \wedge \bfd_\xi (\phi_\xi - \tfrac{1}{2} \Tr(\bsSigma_\xi)) .
2892: \end{equation}
2893: The left hand side can be contracted on $\xi$ and rewritten as
2894: \begin{equation}
2895: \label{eq:accelhat}
2896: \rmi_\xi \rmd \xi^{\hat{\flat}} = \hat{\bscA\,\,\,}^{\hat{\flat}}_\xi - \tfrac{1}{2} \rmd (h(\xi,\xi)) ,
2897: \end{equation}
2898: where $\hat{\bscA\,\,\,}_\xi = \hat{\del}_\xi \xi$. Contracting
2899: \eqn{hxipsixi} with $\xi$ and using \eqn{antisymdxi} it follows
2900: that
2901: \begin{equation}
2902: \label{eq:accelxi}
2903: \hat{\bscA\,\,\,}^{\hat{\flat}}_\xi = - \bscE_\xi + \tfrac{1}{4} \bfd_\xi \Tr(\bsSigma_\xi)) + \tfrac{1}{4} \xi \Tr(\bsSigma_\xi) \flatten{\xi} .
2904: \end{equation}
2905: Defining
2906: \begin{equation}
2907: \hat{\bsOmega}_\xi = \hat{\bsPi}_\xi \rmd \xi^{\hat{\flat}} ,
2908: \end{equation}
2909: and projecting \eqn{antisymdxi} gives
2910: \begin{equation}
2911: \hat{\bsOmega}_\xi = \# \bscB_\xi .
2912: \end{equation}
2913:
2914: In the \gemic limit and with $\xi \phi_\xi = 0$ \eqn{accelxi}
2915: simplifies to
2916: \begin{equation}
2917: \hat{\bscA\,\,\,}^{\hat{\flat}}_\xi = - \tfrac{1}{4} \bscE_\xi .
2918: \end{equation}
2919:
2920:
2921: Thus the \gemic fields can be interpreted in terms of the
2922: vorticity and acceleration of the vector field $\xi$ with respect
2923: to $\ghat$.
2924:
2925:
2926:
2927:
2928:
2929: \vfill\eject
2930:
2931:
2932:
2933:
2934:
2935:
2936:
2937: \section{Transformation Laws For Gravito-Electromagnetic Fields Under a Change of Frame}
2938: \label{sec:trans}
2939:
2940: Let $\zeta$ and $\xi$ define two \gemic frames (as defined in
2941: section \sect{gauge}) such that
2942: \begin{equation}
2943: \zeta = \xi + \bfv ,
2944: \end{equation}
2945: where $g(\xi,\bfv) = 0$ and $v^2 = g(\bfv,\bfv) \ll 1$.
2946:
2947: Since $\psi$ is independent of any frame of reference it may be
2948: expanded as
2949: \begin{subequations}
2950: \begin{equation}
2951: \psi = \phi_\xi g - \psi_\xi \tens \flatten{\xi} - \flatten{\xi} \tens \psi_\xi - \bsSigma_\xi ,
2952: \end{equation}
2953: in terms of $\zeta$ or as
2954: \begin{equation}
2955: \psi = \phi_\zeta g - \psi_\zeta \tens \flatten{\zeta} -
2956: \flatten{\zeta} \tens \psi_\zeta - \bsSigma_\zeta
2957: \end{equation}
2958: \end{subequations}
2959: in terms of $\xi$.
2960: Equating these two expressions
2961: % for $\psi$ give the following relationships
2962: yields
2963: \begin{subequations}
2964: \begin{equation}
2965: \psi_\zeta = \psi_\xi - \psi_\xi (\bfv) \flatten{\xi} + \left\{ \phi_\xi \flatten{\bfv} - \bsSigma_\xi(\bfv,-) \right\} ,
2966: \end{equation}
2967: \begin{equation}
2968: \begin{aligned}
2969: \bsSigma_\zeta = & \; \bsSigma_\xi + 2 \psi_\xi (\bfv) \bfg_\xi - \psi_\xi \tens \flatten{\bfv} - \flatten{\bfv} \tens \psi_\xi \\
2970: & - \left\{ \phi_\xi \flatten{\bfv} - \bsSigma_\xi(\bfv,-) \right\} \tens \flatten{\xi} - \flatten{\xi} \tens \left\{ \phi_\xi \flatten{\bfv} - \bsSigma_\xi(\bfv,-) \right\} ,
2971: \end{aligned}
2972: \end{equation}
2973: \end{subequations}
2974: Thus if $\bfv$ is of order $\epsilon$ the fields $\psi_\zeta$ and
2975: $\bsSigma_\zeta$ are invariant under a change of \gemic frame to
2976: first order in $\epsilon$.
2977:
2978:
2979: If the \gemic limit is satisfied in the $\xi$ frame,
2980: the terms in braces vanish and the above simplify to
2981: \begin{subequations}
2982: \begin{equation}
2983: \psi_\zeta = \psi_\xi - \psi_\xi (\bfv) \flatten{\xi} ,
2984: \end{equation}
2985: \begin{equation}
2986: \bsSigma_\zeta = \{ \phi_\xi + 2 \psi_\xi (\bfv) \} \bfg_\xi -
2987: \psi_\xi \tens \flatten{\bfv} - \flatten{\bfv} \tens \psi_\xi .
2988: \end{equation}
2989: \end{subequations}
2990:
2991: If ${\bfv}$ is of order $\epsilon$ then the \gemic limit is
2992: preserved and the above fields remain invariant.
2993:
2994:
2995: \vfill\eject
2996:
2997: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2998: % Conformal Stuff %
2999: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3000:
3001:
3002:
3003:
3004:
3005:
3006: \section{An Alternative Analogy Between Einstein's Equations and
3007: Electromagnetism Based on Properties of the Conformal Tensor}
3008: \label{sec:conf}
3009:
3010: %
3011: % would like a non-linear analogy...
3012: % Y_a called the Cotton (York) 2-forms...
3013: %
3014:
3015: As mentioned in the introduction there exist alternative
3016: analogies between Einstein's theory of gravitation and Maxwell's
3017: electromagnetic equations that do not necessarily require a
3018: perturbative approach. One such analogy is summarised here in
3019: terms of the conformal tensor on spacetime since it highlights the
3020: differences accorded to gravito-electromagnetism by different
3021: authors \cite{maartens}, \cite{ehlers}, \cite{Bonnor1},
3022: \cite{Bonnor2},
3023: \cite{Ellis1}, \cite{Ellis2}. % Do we really mean Ellis1 and Ellis2, what about Ellis3 and Ellis4?
3024: %\cite{jan}.
3025:
3026:
3027: The fourth order (Weyl) conformal tensor may be written as
3028: \begin{equation}
3029: \label{eq:conftens}
3030: C = - 2 C_{ab} \tens (e^a \wedge e^b)
3031: \end{equation}
3032: where (in any local cobasis $\{e^a\}$), the conformal 2-forms
3033: $C_{ab}$ are defined in terms of the curvature 2-forms $R_{ab}$,
3034: the Ricci 1-forms $P_a$, \cite{rwt} and the curvature scalar
3035: $\cR$:
3036: \begin{equation}
3037: C_{ab} = R_{ab} - \frac{1}{2}(P_a \wedge e_b - P_b \wedge
3038: e_a) + \frac{1}{6} \cR e_a \wedge e_b .
3039: \end{equation}
3040: The covariant exterior derivative of the conformal 2-forms is
3041: \begin{equation}
3042: \rmD C_{ab} = - \frac{1}{2}(Y_a \wedge e_b - Y_b \wedge e_a) ,
3043: \end{equation}
3044: where the 2-forms $Y_a$ are defined by
3045: \begin{equation}
3046: Y_a = \rmD P_a - \frac{1}{6} \rmd \cR \wedge e_a .
3047: \end{equation}
3048: If the geometry of spacetime is determined by Einstein's
3049: equations then these forms may be related to
3050: the stress energy-momentum tensor $\cT$ by introducing the 3-forms
3051: $\tau_a$ such that
3052: \begin{equation}
3053: \cT = (\ast^{-1} \tau_a) \tens e^a .
3054: \end{equation}
3055: Since the connection is torsion-free:
3056: \begin{equation}
3057: Y_a = \rmD (P_a - \frac{1}{6} \cR \wedge e_a) .
3058: \end{equation}
3059: It follows immediately from Einstein's equations written in terms
3060: of the Ricci forms $P_a$ \cite{rwt} that
3061: \begin{equation}
3062: Y_a = \frac{\kappa}{2} \rmD \left(\ast^{-1} \tau_a - \tfrac{1}{3}( \rmi_{X^c} \ast^{-1} \tau_c) e_a\right ) ,
3063: \end{equation}
3064: where $\kappa = 8 \pi G$.
3065: %
3066: % Note: my kappa is NOT the same as the kappa in your book!
3067: %
3068:
3069: In terms of the {\em covariant Lie derivative} $\rmL_{X}$:
3070: \begin{equation}
3071: \rmL_{X} = \rmD \rmi_{X} + \rmi_{X} \rmD ,
3072: \end{equation}
3073: one may show that
3074: \begin{equation}
3075: \label{eq:confmax}
3076: \rmL_{X^a} C_{ab} = \frac{1}{2} Y_b
3077: \end{equation}
3078: and
3079: \begin{equation}
3080: \label{eq:confcons}
3081: \rmL_{X^a} Y_a = 0 .
3082: \end{equation}
3083: These relations may be compared with the equations for the
3084: Faraday 2-form $F$:
3085: \begin{equation}
3086: \label{eq:max}
3087: \delta F = \cJ ,
3088: \end{equation}
3089: from which there follows the conservation of electric current,
3090: \begin{equation}
3091: \label{eq:cons}
3092: \delta \cJ = 0 .
3093: \end{equation}
3094: In any local cobase $F$ can be written in terms of its components
3095: as
3096: \begin{equation}
3097: F = F_{ab} e^a \wedge e^b ,
3098: \end{equation}
3099: (compare with \eqn{conftens}) and $\cJ$ as
3100: \begin{equation}
3101: \cJ = \cJ_a e^a .
3102: \end{equation}
3103: In terms of the {\em vector-valued $0$-forms} $F_{ab}$ and $\cJ_a$
3104: \eqn{max} and \eqn{cons} can be rewritten as
3105: \begin{equation}
3106: \rmL_{X^a} F_{ab} = - \frac{1}{2} \cJ_b ,
3107: \end{equation}
3108: \begin{equation}
3109: \rmL_{X^a} \cJ_a = 0
3110: \end{equation}
3111: which are analogous to \eqn{confmax} and \eqn{confcons}.
3112:
3113: The use of local coframes is not mandatory to see this
3114: correspondence. A purely tensorial formulation follows by writing
3115: \begin{equation}
3116: \div C = - Y ,
3117: \end{equation}
3118: where
3119: \begin{equation}
3120: Y = e^a \tens Y_a .
3121: \end{equation}
3122: This is the analogue of the Maxwell equation
3123: \begin{equation}
3124: \div F = - \frac{1}{2} \cJ .
3125: \end{equation}
3126: Similarly one may write
3127: \begin{equation}
3128: \div Y = 0 ,
3129: \end{equation}
3130: to compare it with the conservation of electric current written in
3131: the form
3132: \begin{equation}
3133: \div \cJ = 0 .
3134: \end{equation}
3135:
3136:
3137: %NEED TO COMMENT THAT Y CAN BE WRITTEN IN TERMS OF STRESS TENSOR
3138: %VIA EINSTEIN EQNS (See MY LAST DRAFT)
3139:
3140: %NEED TO COMMENT THAT dF=0 IS MISSING SO NO VECTOR POTENTIAL
3141:
3142: %NEED TO COMMENT ON ABSENCE OF A LORENTZ FORCE EQUATION IN TERMS OF
3143: %CONFORMAL FIELDS.
3144:
3145:
3146:
3147:
3148:
3149:
3150:
3151:
3152:
3153: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% End Body %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3154:
3155: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Begin Bibliography %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3156:
3157:
3158: %NEED MORE REFERENCES: PAPERS ON CONFORMAL STUFF + I HAVE MORE
3159: %REFS.
3160:
3161: %SEE: [13], [18] and [19] from Maartens (gr-qc/9704059) for some
3162: %references about the conformal analogy, and possibly [24] from
3163: %Maartens for the linear analogy.
3164:
3165: %NEED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PPARC, BAe, OLD UNCLE TOM COBLY AND ALL.
3166:
3167: \bibliographystyle{amsplain}
3168: \bibliography{sjcrefs}
3169:
3170: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% End Bibliography %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3171:
3172: \end{document}
3173:
3174: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% End Document %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3175: