arXiv:2102.03552v1 [gr-qc] 6 Feb 2021 etta tsol enmdised Einstein-Thirring- instead, sug- usually named authors be is some should and ( it [8], effect that Thirring gest Lense-Thirring and by as reported Lense to was by referred It ball. gravita- first rotating the massive the in a observers of of field in lines tional vorticity world of of are appearance congruence we the the one to Lense–Thirring–Schiff the we refers the which effect effect, is precession, work, dragging other this frame The in the with concerned here. not around in is system interested this are ob- earth–moon but by [7], the accuracy sun of of the degree rotation or- great the a closed It serving with a distribution. verified refers following mass been symmetric effect) has gyroscope spherically Sitter a a around (Fokker–de of bit this precession the of to One roscopes. with particles. the congruence, reference the describes to to which attached respect congruence, gyroscope a a of of rotation vorticity of that 6]). is [5, shall also regularly we (see used here accordingly term and been such nowadays, has adopt till questioned nevertheless literature been the it has in [4], dragging” appropriate- “frame Rindler observers the term by of Although the lines of object. world ness rotating producing of by the congruence gyroscope outside the a on in body vorticity massive rotating a of relativity of theory 3]). general [2, the (see by (GR) remark- predicted most recently the effect of been able one is has [1], observations existence by established whose sources, gravitating ∗ [email protected] w ieeteet a edtce ymaso gy- of means by detected be may effects different Two effect this of understanding the for concept basic The influence the to refers usually dragging frame term The self– by produced frames inertial of dragging The ewrs rm rgig ue–nry rvttoa ra Gravitational Super–energy; dragging; Frame 04.30.Nk Keywords: 04.20.Cv; w 04.20.-q; so numbers: PACS consequence Doing observational Some dragging. determine dragging. frame which frame the of cases, for picture these responsible all as in considered radi quantities Bondi–Sachs ical and spaceti stationary scenarios electro– vacuum different radiating general very ori consider manuscript ultimate we this the Specifically in for obscur analyze looking remains we and vorticity issue, ging, of this origin unravel the ro to and the order so, exampl to not their is related In it (explicitly) ago. cases directly century is a vorticity, than the more by Thirring and Lense by h otct fwrdlnso bevr soitdt h r the to associated observers of lines world of vorticity The .INTRODUCTION I. nttt nvriai eFıiaFnaetlyMatem´at y F´ısica Fundamental de Universitario Instituto nvria eSlmna aaac 70,Spain 37007, Salamanca Salamanca, de Universidad eosrcigFaeDragging Frame Deconstructing Dtd eray9 2021) 9, February (Dated: .Herrera L. rvttoa aito nagrsoetruhtevor- the through gyroscope of a influence on The radiation gravitational space–. radiating gravitationally also radiation electrodynamic vorticity. see, produces shall we Fur- ro- as the field. thermore, the electromagnetic case the thereby latter by and generated this are moments vorticity, In multipole zero. relativistic is mo- tational angular source the the cases of some of mentum in matter though even a [24], As frame dragging exhibit appears. solutions electro–vacuum station- effect stationary all dragging is fact frame a corresponding and charge, the ary electric an that gravi- plus showed the dipole analyzing he magnetic a Thus, of [23]. field tational Bonnor by out is brought source the present. of are momentum fields electromagnetic angular but the in zero vanish when necessarily not case does the quantity both a ex- such from This why contributions plains field). electro- contains electromagnetic ro- and the it momentum mass by (angular the i.e. as by well field, as affected magnetic momentum), is (angular mo- spacetimes, re- tations multipole these quantity (relativistic) the in rotational that ments the is point for The sponsible times. space massive vacuum a of rotation the without to effect, [22]. dragging link body frame explicit a an Lense–Thirring detect specifying the can (besides vac- we explicitly any time metric) always in fact, space not In stationary is objects. uum it massive of the object, rotation to to massive related due a as of metric, Lense–Thirring rotation the in identified ily therein). (see cited extensively to references developed effect. and [12] been an 13–21] has Schiff such [4, idea measure led this to result then gyroscopes Since This of use the [9–11]). propose see effect, Lense ial,i swrhrcligta otct speetin present is vorticity that recalling worth is it Finally, was situation of kind this of example known first The electro– the for striking more still is situation The eas- be may vorticity of origin the although However, diation aino h ore oee nmn other many in However source. the of tation ∗ n icl oietf.Acrigy in Accordingly, identify. to difficult and e e,gnrleetovcu spacetimes, electro–vacuum general mes, i fvriiyascae ofaedrag- frame to associated vorticity of gin tn pctms eietf h phys- the identify We spacetimes. ating forrslsaediscussed. are results our of s hr rm rgigeeti present. is effect dragging frame where tto famsiebd a reported was body massive a of otation h otct n a eiiaeybe legitimately may and vorticity the rvd opeesv physical comprehensive a provide e h rm rgigeetinduced effect dragging frame the e icas, 2 ticity associated with the emission of gravitational radi- from the Bel–Robinson tensor [34–36] (they both coincide ation was put forward for the first time in [25], and has in vacuum), and has been shown to be very useful when been discussed in detail since then in [26–33]. In this case it comes to explaining a number of phenomena in the too, the explicit relationship between the vorticity and context of GR. the emission of gravitational radiation was established Both, the Bel and the Bel–Robinson tensors, are ob- without resorting to the rotation of the source itself. tained by invoking the “structural” analogy between GR Although in many of the scenarios described above a and Maxwell theory of electromagnetism. More specifi- rotating object is not explicitly identified as the source of cally, exploiting the analogy between the Riemann tensor vorticity, the fact remains that at purely intuitive level, (Rαβγδ) and the Maxwell tensor (Fµν ), Bel introduced a one always associates the vorticity of a congruence of four–index tensor defined in terms of the Riemann tensor world lines, under any circumstance, to the rotation of in a way which is a reminiscence of the definition of the “something”. energy–momentum tensor of electromagnetism in terms The purpose of this work is twofold: on the one of the Maxwell tensor. This is the Bel tensor. hand we shall identify the physical concept (the “some- The Bel–Robinson tensor is defined as the Bel tensor, thing”) behind all cases where frame dragging is ob- but with the Riemann tensor replaced by the served, whether or not the angular momentum of the (Cαβγδ) (see [37] for a comprehensive account and more source vanishes. On the other hand we would like to em- recent references on this issue). phasize the possible observational consequences of our Let us now introduce the electric and magnetic parts results. of the Riemann and the Weyl tensors as, As we shall see below, in all possible cases, the appear- E = C(R) uγ uδ, (1) ing vorticity is accounted for by the existence of a flow αβ αγβδ of superenergy on the plane orthogonal to the vorticity vector, plus (in the case of electro–vacuum spacetimes) a ∗ γ δ flow of electromagnetic energy on the same plane. Hαβ = C(R)αγβδu u , (2) Since superenergy plays a fundamental role in our ap- where C(R)αγβδ is the Weyl (Riemann) tensor, the proach, we shall start by providing a brief introduction four–vector uγ in vacuum is the tangent vector to the ∗ of this concept in the next section. world–lines of observers, and C(R)αγβδ is the dual of the Weyl(Riemann) tensor. A third tensor may be defined from the double dual of II. SUPERENERGY AND SUPER–POYNTING the Riemann tensor as VECTOR ∗ ∗ γ δ Xαβ = Rαγβδu u , (3)

The concept of energy is a fundamental tool in all which in the case of the Weyl tensor Xαβ coincide with branches of physics, allowing to approach and solve a vast the electric part of the Weyl tensor (up to a sign). number of problems under a variety of circumstances. Next, from the analogy with electromagnetism the This explains the fact that since the early times of GR super–energy and the super–Poynting vector are defined many researchers have tried by means of very different by approaches to present a convincing definition of gravita- 1 αβ αβ αβ tional energy, in terms of an local quantity All U(R)= (XαβX + EαβE )+ HαβH , these attempts, as is well known, have failed. The reason 2 αβ αβ for this failure is easy to understand. U(C)= EαβE + HαβH , (4) Indeed, as we know, in classical field theory energy is β γǫ β ǫγ δ a quantity defined in terms of potentials and their first P (R)α = ηαβγδ(Eǫ H − Xǫ H )u , β γǫ δ derivatives. On the other hand however, we also know P (C)α =2ηαβγδEǫ H u . (5) that in GR it is impossible to construct a tensor expressed where R(C) denotes whether the quantity is defined with only through the metric tensor (the potentials) and their Riemann (Weyl) tensor, and η is the Levi–Civita ten- first derivatives (in accordance with the equivalence prin- αβγδ sor. ciple). Therefore, a local description of gravitational en- In the next sections we shall bring out the role played ergy in terms of true invariants (tensors of any rank) is by the above introduced variables in the study of the not possible within the context of the theory. frame dragging effect. Thus, the following alternatives remain: • To define energy in terms of a non–local quantity. III. FRAME DRAGGING IN VACUUM • To resort to pseudo–tensors. STATIONARY SPACETIMES • To introduce a succedaneous definition of energy. As we mentioned in the Introduction, the first case of One example of the last of the above alternatives is frame dragging analyzed in the literature was the Lense– superenergy, which may be defined either from the Bel or Thirring effect. For didactical reasons we shall start by 3 considering first this case and from there on, we shall case. consider examples of increasing complexity. Thus, after- ward we shall consider the , an approximation of which is the Lense–Thirring spacetime, and finally we A. The Lense–Thirring precession shall consider the general vacuum stationary spacetime The Lense–Thirring effect is based on an approximate solution to the Einstein equations which reads [8]

2m 2m 4J sin2 θ ds2 = − 1 − dt2 + 1+ dr2 + r2dθ2 + r2 sin2 θdφ2 + dφdt. (6)  r   r  r 

It describes the gravitational field outside a spinning The above expression embodies the essence of the sphere of constant density, up to first order in m/r and Lense–Thirring effect. It describe the vorticity of the J/r2, with m and J denoting the mass and the angular world lines of observers, produced by the rotation (J) of momentum respectively. the source. Such vorticity, as correctly guessed by Shiff Up to that order, it coincides with the Kerr metric, by [12], could be detected by a gyroscope attached to the identifying world lines of our observer. Even though in this case the vorticity is explicitly re- ma = −J (7) lated to the rotation of the spinning object which sources the gravitational field, the fact that this link in many where a is the Kerr parameter [38]. other cases is not so explicitly established leads us to the Next, the congruence of the world–lines of observers question: what is (are) the physical mechanism(s) which at rest in the frame of (6) is described by the timelike explains the appearance of vorticity in the world lines vector uα whose components are of the observer? As we shall see in the next sections the answer to this question may be given in terms of a flow of superenergy plus (in the case of electro–vacuum α 1 spacetimes) a flow of electromagnetic energy. u =  , 0, 0, 0 , (8) 2m So, in order to approach to this conclusion, let us cal- 1 − r q  culate the leading term of the super–Poynting gravita- tional vector at the equator. Using (5) and (6) we obtain from the above expression the vorticity vector, defined for the only non–vanishing component (remember that in as usual by vacuum both expressions for the super–Poynting vector coincide) 1 ωα = ηαηιλu u , (9) 2 η ι,λ m2 a 1 P φ ≈ 9 , (14) has, up to order a/r and m/r, the following non–null r2 r r5 components It describes a flux of super–energy on the plane orthogo- 2ma cos θ nal to the vorticity vector. On the other hand it follows ωr = , (10) r3 at once from (14) that P φ =0 ⇔ a =0 ⇔ ωα = 0. From the comments above, a hint about the link be- tween superenergy and vorticity (frame dragging) begins ma sin θ θ to appear. In order to delve deeper on this issue let us ω = 4 , (11) r next consider the Kerr metric. or

α 1/2 ma 2 B. Frame dragging in the Kerr metric Ω = (ω ωα) = 3 1+3cos θ, (12) r p The calculations performed in the previous subsection which at θ = π reads 2 can be very easily repeated for the Kerr metric. ma In Boyer–Linquist coordinates the Kerr metric takes Ω= . (13) the form r3 4

2mr 4mar sin2 θ r2 + a2 cos2 θ ds2 = −1+ dt2 − dtdφ + dr2 + (r2 + a2 cos2 θ)dθ2  r2 + a2 cos2 θ   r2 + a2 cosθ  r2 − 2mr + a2  2mra2 sin4 θ + r2 sin2 θ + a2 sin2 θ + dφ2, (15)  r2 + a2 cos2 θ 

and the congruence of world–lines of observers at rest in nents (15) are defined by the time–like vector uα with compo-

1 uα =  , 0, 0, 0 . (16) 2mr 1 − r2+a2 cos2 θ q  This congruence is endowed with vorticity, described by a vorticity vector ωα whose non–vanishing components are

ωr =2mra cos θ(r2 − 2mr + a2)(r2 + a2 cos2 θ)−2(r2 − 2mr + a2 cos2 θ)−1, (17)

and

ωθ = ma sin θ(r2 − a2 cos2 θ)(r2 + a2 cos2 θ)−2(r2 − 2mr + a2 cos2 θ)−1. (18)

The above expressions coincide with (10) and (11) up to Maple we obtain for the super–Poynting vector (5) first order in m/r and a/r. P µ = (P t, 0, 0, P φ), (19)

Finally, using the package GR- Tensor running on with

P t = −18m3ra2 sin2 θ(r2 − 2mr + a2 sin2 θ + a2)(r2 + a2 cos2 θ)−4(r2 − 2mr + a2 cos2 θ)−2 − r2 − 2mr + a2 cos2 θ 1/2 × , (20)  r2 + a2 cos2 θ 

P φ =9m2a(r2 − 2mr − a2 cos2 θ +2a2)(r2 + a2 cos2 θ)−4(r2 − 2mr + a2 cos2 θ)−1 − r2 − 2mr + a2 cos2 θ 1/2 × . (21)  r2 + a2 cos2 θ 

From the above expressions it follows, as in the precedent tionship between the source of the field and the vortic- case, that there is an azimuthal flow of superenergy as ity, since a specific interior for the Kerr metric is avail- long as a 6= 0, inversely the vanishing of such a flow able [39]. The remarkable fact is the presence of a non– φ implies a = 0. Once again frame dragging appears to be vanishing Tt component of the energy–momentum ten- tightly related to a circular flow of superenergy on the sor of the source, which, defining as usual an energy– ν µ µ plane orthogonal to the vorticity vector. momentum flux vector as: F = −V Tνµ (where V denotes the four velocity of the fluid), implies that in In the present case we can delve deeper in the rela- 5 the equatorial plane of our system (within the source) where P φ is given by (again in the general case, i.e.: energy flows round in circles around the symmetry axis. without taking into account the field equations): This result, as we shall see in the next section, is a rem- φ 3/2 −4γ −5 iniscence of an effect appearing in stationary Einstein– P = f e ρ {A11} , Maxwell systems. Indeed, in all stationary Einstein– or using the field equations (23-26) in the above ex- Maxwell systems, there is a non vanishing component pression of the Poynting vector describing a similar phenomenon [23, 24] (of electromagnetic nature, in this latter case). Thus, the appearance of such a component seems to be 1 P φ = − f −3/2e−4γρ−5 {A12} , a distinct physical property of rotating fluids, which has 32 been overlooked in previous studies of these sources, and that is directly related to the vorticity (see eqs.(8) and where A11 and A12 are given in the Appendix A. (18) in [39]). Now, in [24] it has been shown that for the general metric (22) the following relations hold

α Hαβ =0 ⇔ ω =0 ⇔ ω =0. (29) C. Frame dragging in a general stationary vacuum spacetime and of course as it follows from (5)

µ Let us now consider the general stationary and axisym- Hαβ =0 ⇒ P =0 . (30) metric vacuum case. The line element for a general stationary and axisym- In order to establish a link between vorticity and the metric vacuum spacetime may be written as [40, 41] super–Poynting vector of the kind already found for the Kerr (and Lense–Thirring) metric we still need to prove ds2 = −fdt2+2fωdtdφ+f −1e2γ(dρ2+dz2)+(f −1ρ2−fω2)dφ2that, the vanishing of the super–Poynting vector implies (22) the vanishing of the vorticity, i.e. we have to prove that where x0 = t; x1 = ρ; x2 = z and x3 = φ and metric P µ =0 ⇔ H =0 ⇔ ωα =0 ⇔ ω =0 . (31) functions depend only on ρ and z, which must satisfy the αβ vacuum field equations: Such a proof has been carried out in [22], but is quite 1 cumbersome and therefore we shall omit the details here. γ = ρ2 f 2 − f 2 − f 4 ω2 − ω2 , (23) Thus based on (31) we conclude that for any stationary ρ 4ρf 2 ρ z ρ z    spacetime, irrespectively of its source, there is a frame dragging effect associated to a flux of superenergy on the plane orthogonal to the vorticity vector. 1 γ = ρ2f f − f 4ω ω , (24) We shall next analyze the electro–vacuum stationary z 2ρf 2 ρ z ρ z  case.

f f 3 1 IV. FRAME DRAGGING IN f = −f − ρ − ω2 + ω2 + f 2 + f 2 , (25) ρρ zz ρ ρ2 ρ z f ρ z ELECTRO–VACUUM STATIONARY   SPACETIMES

ω 2 Electro–vacuum solutions to the Einstein equations ω = −ω + ρ − (f ω + f ω ) , (26) ρρ zz ρ f ρ ρ z z pose a challenge concerning the frame dragging effect. This was pointed out for the first time by Bonnor in [23] where subscripts denote partial derivatives. by analyzing the gravitational field produced by a mag- Then following the same protocol as in the previous netic dipole with an electric charge in the center. The cases, we define the four velocity vector for an observer surprising result is that, for this spacetime, the world at rest in the frame of (22), which reads lines of observers at rest with respect to the electromag- netic source are endowed of vorticity (i.e. the resulting uα = (f −1/2, 0, 0, 0). (27) spacetime is not static but stationary). In order to explain the appearance of vorticity in the The super-Poynting vector can now be calculated for spacetime generated by a charged magnetic dipole Bon- the general class of spacetimes represented by the above nor resorts to a result pointed out by Feynmann in his metric (22), (i.e.: without making any assumption about Lectures on Physics [42], showing that for such a sys- the matter content of the source), and one gets (using tem (in the context of classical electrodynamics) there again GR–Tensor) exists a non–vanishing component of the Poynting vec- tor describing a flow of electromagnetic energy round in P µ = (P t, 0, 0, P φ) with P t = ωP φ, (28) circles. This strange result leads Feynmann to write that 6

“it shows the theory of the Poynting vector is obviously oration efforts have been carried on, and are now under nuts”. However, some pages ahead in the same book, consideration, to put in evidence gravitational waves by when discussing the “paradox” of the rotating disk with means of laser interferometers [50]. charges and a solenoid, Feynmann shows that this “cir- However it was necessary to wait for more than half a cular” flow of electromagnetic energy is absolutely nec- century, until Bondi and coworkers [51] provided a firm essary in order to preserve the conservation of angular theoretical evidence of the existence of gravitational ra- momentum. In other words the theory of the Poynting diation without resorting to the linear approximation. vector not only is not “nuts”, but is necessary to rec- The essential “philosophy” behind the Bondi formal- oncile the electrodynamics with the conservation law of ism, consists in interpreting gravitational radiation as the angular momentum. physical process by means of which the source of the field Based on the above comments Bonnor then suggests “informs” about any changes in its structure. Thus the that, in the context of GR, such a circular flow of energy information required to forecast the evolution of the sys- affects inertial frames by producing vorticity of congru- tem (besides the “initial” data) is thereby identified with ences of particles, relative to the compass of inertia. In radiation itself, and this information is represented by other words Bonnor suggests that the “something” which the so called “news function”. In other words, whatever rotates thereby generating the vorticity, is electromag- happens at the source, leading to changes in the field, it netic energy. can only do so by affecting the news function and vice The interesting point is that this conjecture was shown versa. Therefore if the news function is zero over a time to be valid for a general axially symmetric stationary interval, there is no gravitational radiation over that in- electro–vacuum metric [24]. terval. Inversely, non vanishing news on an interval im- Indeed, assuming the line element (22) for the space- plies the emission of gravitational radiation during that time admitting an electromagnetic field, it can be shown interval. Thus the main virtue of this approach resides in that the variable responsible for the rotational multipole providing a clear and precise criterion for the existence moments, which in its turn determine the vorticity of of gravitational radiation. the congruence of world lines of observers, is affected by, The above described picture is reinforced by the fact both, the electromagnetic field and by the mass rota- that the Bondi mass of a system is constant if and only tions (angular momentum) [24]. This explains why the if there are no news. vorticity does not necessarily vanish in the case when the In order to facilitate discussion let us briefly intro- angular momentum of the source is zero but electromag- duce the main aspects of the Bondi approach. Bondi and netic fields are present. At any rate, it is important to coworkers start with the general form of an axially (and stress that in such cases, the super–Poynting vector does reflection) symmetric asymptotically flat metric given by not vanish either. V We shall next consider the presence of vorticity due to ds2 = e2β − U 2r2e2γ du2 +2e2βdudr gravitational and electromagnetic radiation.  r  +2Ur2e2γdudθ − r2 e2γdθ2 + e−2γ sin2 θdφ2 (32),  V. VORTICITY AND RADIATION where V,β,U and γ are functions of u, r and θ. The coordinates are numbered x0,1,2,3 = u,r,θ,φ re- spectively. u is a timelike coordinate such that u = We shall now analyze the generation of vorticity related constant defines a null surface. In flat spacetime this to the emission of gravitational and/or electromagnetic surface coincides with the null light cone open to the fu- radiation. As we shall see, the emission of radiation is al- ture. r is a null coordinate (grr = 0) and θ and φ are two ways accompanied by the appearance of vorticity of world coordinates. lines of observers. Furthermore, the calculations suggest Regularity conditions in the neighborhood of the polar that once the radiation process has stopped, there is still axis (sin θ = 0), implies that as sin θ− > 0 a remaining vorticity associated to the tail of the wave, which allows in principle to prove (or disprove) the vio- V,β,U/ sin θ,γ/ sin2 θ, (33) lation of the Huyghens principle in a Riemannian space- time (see [43–49] and references therein for a discussion each equals a function of cos θ regular on the polar axis. on this issue), by means of observations. Then the four metric functions are assumed to be ex- panded in series of 1/r, which using field equations pro- duces A. Gravitational radiation and vorticity 1 γ = c(u,θ)r−1 + C(u,θ) − c3 r−3 + ..., (34) Since the early days of GR, starting with the works  6  of Einstein and Weyl on the linear approximation of the Einstein equations, a great deal of work has been done −2 so far in order to provide a consistent framework for the U = − (cθ +2c cot θ) r + ..., (35) study of gravitational radiation. Also, important collab- 7

1 V = r − 2M(u,θ) − N + N cot θ − c2 − 4cc cot θ − c2(1+8cot2 θ) r−1 + ..., (36)  θ θ θ 2 

1 β = − c2r−2 + ... (37) The two main conclusions emerging from the Bondi’s 4 approach are where letters as subscripts denote derivatives, and • If γ,M and N are known for some u = a(constant), and cu (the news function) is known for all u in the interval a ≤ u ≤ b, then the system is fully 2 4Cu =2c cu +2cM + N cot θ − Nθ. (38) determined in that interval. • As it follows from (42), the mass of a system is The three functions c,M and N depend on u and θ, constant if and only if there are no news. and are further related by the supplementary conditions In the light of these comments the relationship between 2 1 news function and the occurrence of radiation becomes Mu = −c + (cθθ +3cθ cot θ − 2c) , (39) u 2 u clear. Let us now calculate the vorticity of the world lines of observers at rest in the frame of (32). For such observers the four-velocity vector has components −3Nu = Mθ +3ccuθ +4ccu cot θ + cucθ. (40) e2β Ur2e2γ In the static case M equals the mass of the system uα = A, , , 0 (43)  A A  whereas N and C are closely related to the dipole and quadrupole moment respectively. with Next, Bondi defines the mass m(u) of the system as 1/2 V 2β 2 2 2γ 1 π A ≡ e − U r e . (44) m(u)= M(u,θ) sin θdθ, (41)  r  2 Z0 Using (9) , we easily obtain which by virtue of (39) and (33) yields ωα = 0, 0, 0,ωφ (45) π  1 2 mu = − cu sin θdθ. (42) with 2 Z0

e−2β 2e2βA 2Ur2e2γ e2β Ur2e2γ Ur2e2γ ωφ = − {2β e2β − θ − Ur2e2γ + A + u − 2β e2β} (46) 2r2 sin θ θ A r A r A2  A2 u  and for the absolute value of ωα we get Feeding back (34)–(37) into (47) and keeping only 1 terms up to order 2 , we obtain e−2β−γ A r Ω ≡ (−ω ωα)1/2 = {2β e2β − 2e2β θ − Ur2e2γ α 2r θ A r  A e2β e2β +2Ur2e2γ r + Ur2e2γ − 2β Ur2e2γ} (47) A A2 u u A2 

1 1 Ω= − (c +2c cot θ)+ [M − M(c +2c cot θ) − cc +6cc cot θ +2c c ] . (48) 2r uθ u r2 θ uθ u uθ u u θ

Let us now analyze the expression above. First of all system radiates (cu 6= 0). Indeed, if we assume observe that, up to order 1/r, a gyroscope in the grav- itational field given by (32) will precess as long as the cuθ +2cu cot θ = 0 (49) 8 then at u = u0 the system starts to radiate (cu 6= 0) until u = u , when the news function vanishes again. For F (u) f u>uf the system is not radiating although (in general) cu = 2 (50) sin θ Mθ 6= 0 implying time dependence of metric functions. This class of spacetimes is referred to as non-radiative which implies, due to the regularity conditions (33) motions [51].

F (u)=0=⇒ cu =0. (51) Thus, in the interval u ∈ (u0,uf ) the leading term of vorticity is given by the term of the order 1/r in (48). For 1 In other words the leading term in (48) will vanish if and u>uf there is a vorticity term of order r2 describing only if cu = 0. the effect of the tail of the wave on the vorticity. This 1 provides an “observational” possibility to find evidence Let us now analyze the term of order . It contains, r2 for the violation of the Huygens’s principle. besides the terms involving cu, a term not involving news Following the line of arguments of the preceding sec- (Mθ). Let us now assume that initially (before some tions, we shall establish a link between vorticity and a u = u0 =constant) the system is static, in which case circular flow of superenergy on the plane orthogonal to the vorticity vector. For doing so, let us calculate the c = 0 (52) u super–Poynting vector (P µ), defined by (5). We obtain which implies , because of (40) that the leading terms for each super–Poynting compo- nent are

Mθ = 0 (53) 2 2 Pr = − cuu, (54) and Ω = 0 (actually, in this case Ω = 0 at any order) r2 as expected for a static field. Then let us suppose that

2 P = − {[2c2 c + c c ]cos θ + c c + c2 c sin θ}, (55) θ r2 sin θ uu uu u uu θu uu θ  

φ Pφ = P =0. (56) physical factor to be associated to the vorticity, in the Bondi case. The vanishing (at all orders) of the azimuthal compo- In order to strength further the case for the super- nent (P φ), is expected from the reflection symmetry of Poynting vector as the physical origin of the mentioned the Bondi metric, which is incompatible with the pres- vorticity, we shall consider next the general radiative ence of a circular flow of superenergy in the φ direction. metric without axial and reflection symmetry. Since the vorticity vector, which is orthogonal to the The extension of the Bondi formalism to the case with- plane of rotation, has in the Bondi spacetime only one out any kind of symmetries was performed by Sachs [52]. non–vanishing contravariant component ( φ ), then the In this case the line element reads (we have found more plane of the associated rotation is orthogonal to the φ convenient to follow the notation given in [53] which is direction. Therefore, it is the θ component of P µ the slightly different from the original Sachs paper) ds2 = (V r−1e2β − r2e2γU 2 cosh2δ − r2e−2γ W 2 cosh2δ − 2r2UW sinh 2δ)du2 +2e2βdudr +2r2(e2γU cosh2δ + W sinh 2δ)dudθ +2r2(e−2γW cosh2δ + U sinh 2δ) sin θdudφ − r2(e2γ cosh2δdθ2 + e−2γ cosh2δ sin2 θdφ2 + 2 sinh 2δ sin θdθdφ), (57)

where β, γ, δ, U, W , V are functions of x0 = u, x1 = r, Let us first calculate the vorticity for the congruence x2 = θ, x3 = φ. of observers at rest in (57), whose four–velocity vector is given by The general analysis of the field equations is similar to α −1 α the one in [51], but of course the expressions are far more u = A δu , (58) complicated (see [52, 53] for details). In particular, there are now two news functions. where now A is given by

A = (V r−1e2β − r2e2γU 2 cosh2δ − r2e−2γW 2 cosh2δ − 2r2UW sinh 2δ)1/2. (59) 9

Thus, (9) lead us to

ωα = (ωu,ωr,ωθ,ωφ), (60)

where

1 ωu = − {r2e−2β(WU − UW )+ 2r2 sinh 2δ cosh2δ(U 2e2γ + W 2e−2γ )+4UW r2 cosh2 2δ e−2βγ 2A2 sin θ r r r 2 −2β 2 −2γ 2 2γ 2β −2β −2γ  +2r e (W e − U e )δr + e [e (U sinh 2δ + e W cosh2δ)]θ 2β −2β −2γ − e [e (W sinh 2δ + e U cosh2δ]φ}, (61)

1 1 ωr = {2r2A−2[((U 2e2γ + W 2e−2γ) sinh 2δ cosh2δ + UW cosh2 2δ)γ + (W 2e−2γ − U 2e2γ)δ + (WU − UW )] e2β sin θ u u 2 u u 2 −2 −2γ 2 −2 2γ + A [A (We cosh2δ + U sinh 2δ)]θ − A [A (W sinh 2δ + Ue cosh2δ)]φ}, (62)

1 ωθ = {A2e−2β[r2A−2(U sinh 2δ + We−2γ cosh2δ)] 2r2 sin θ r 2β −2 −2β 2 −2γ 2β −2 −2β 2 − e A [e r (U sinh 2δ + e W cosh2δ)]u + e A (e A )φ}, (63)

and

1 ωφ = {A2e−2β[r2A−2(W sinh 2δ + Ue2γ cosh2δ)] 2r2 sin θ r 2β −2 2 −2β 2γ −2 2β 2 −2β − e A [r e (W sinh 2δ + Ue cosh2δ)]u + A e (A e )θ}. (64)

Expanding the metric functions in series of 1/r as in the the resulting expressions into (61, 62, 63, 64) we get for previous case, using the field equations and feeding back the leading term of the absolute value of ωµ

1 Ω= − [(c +2c cot θ + d csc θ)2 + (d +2d cot θ − c csc θ)2]1/2, (65) 2r θu u φu θu u φu

which of course reduces to (48) in the Bondi (axially and quite cumbersome (see [28] for details), so let us just reflection symmetric) case (d = cφ = 0). It is worth present the leading terms for each super–Poynting com- stressing the fact that now we have two news functions ponent, they read (cu, du). Next, the calculation of the super–Poynting vector 2 gives the following result P = − (d2 + c2 ), (67) r r2 uu uu Pµ = (0, Pr, Pθ, Pφ). (66) The explicit terms are too long and the calculations are 10

2 P = − {[2(d2 + c2 )c + c c + d d ]cos θ + c c + d d + (c2 + d2 )c sin θ + θ r2 sin θ uu uu uu u uu u uu θu uu θu uu uu θ  2 2 +cuudφu − duucφu + (duu + cuu)dφ}, (68)

2 P = {2[c2 d − d c − (d2 + c2 )d]cos θ + φ r2 uu u uu u uu uu 2 2 2 2 + cuudθu − duucθu − (cuu + duu)dθ sin θ + (duu + cuu)cφ − (cuucφu + duudφu)} (69)  

from which it follows

φ 2 P = − {sin θ [duθcuu − duucuθ]+2cos θ [cuudu − duucu] − [cuucuφ + duuduφ]}, (70) r4 sin2 θ

this component of course vanishes in the Bondi case. Thus, the starting point is the Einstein–Maxwell sys- From the expressions above we see that the main con- tem of equations, which reads clusion established for the Bondi metric, is also valid in the most general case, namely, there is always a non– Rµγ + Tµγ =0, (71) µ vanishing component of P on the plane orthogonal to a F[µν,δ] =0, (72) unit vector along which there is a non–vanishing compo- µν F;ν =0, (73) nent of vorticity, and inversely, P µ vanishes on a plane orthogonal to a unit vector along which the component where Rµγ is the Ricci tensor and the energy momentum of vorticity vector vanishes. The link between the super– tensor Tµγ of the electromagnetic field is given as usual Poynting vector and vorticity is thereby firmly estab- by lished. So far we have shown the appearance of vorticity in sta- 1 γδ γδ Tµν = gµν FγδF − g Fµγ Fνδ. (74) tionary vacuum spacetimes, stationary electro–vacuum 4 spacetimes and in radiative vacuum spacetimes (Bondi– Sachs), and have succeed in exhibiting the link be- Then, following the script indicated in [51], i.e. ex- tween this vorticity and a circular flow of electromagnetic panding the physical and metric variables in power series and/or super–energy, on the plane orthogonal to the vor- of 1/r and using the Einstein–Maxwell equations, one ar- ticity vector. It remains to analyze the possible role of rives at the conclusion that if a specific set of functions is electromagnetic radiation in the appearance of vorticity. prescribed on a given initial hypersurface u = constant, The next section is devoted to this issue. the evolution of the system is fully determined provided the four functions, cu, du,X,Y are given for all u. These four functions are the news functions of the system. The first two (cu, du ) are the gravitational news functions al- B. Electromagnetic radiation and vorticity ready mentioned before for the purely gravitational case, whereas X and Y are the two news functions correspond- The relationship between electromagnetic radiation ing to the electromagnetic field, these appear in the se- and vorticity has been unambiguously established in [54]. ries expansion of F12, F13. Thus, whatever happens at The corresponding calculations are quite cumbersome the source leading to changes in the field, it can only do and we shall not reproduce them here. Instead we shall so by affecting the four news functions and viceversa. highlight the most important results emerging from such Following the same line of arguments, an equation for calculations. the decreasing of the mass function due to the radiation The formalism used to study the general electro– (gravitational and electromagnetic) similar to (42) can vacuum case (including electromagnetic radiation) was be obtained, it reads developed by van der Burg in [55]. It represents a gener- 2π π alization of the Bondi–Sachs formalism for the Einstein– ∗ ∗ 1 ∗ ¯ ∗ mu = − (cuc¯u + X X ) sin θdθdφ, (75) Maxwell system. Z0 Z0 2 11 where Next, there are explicit contributions from the electro- φ ∗ ∗ magnetic news functions in ΩGEM as well as in PGEM c = c + id, X = X + iY, (76) θ and PGEM. More so, the vanishing of these contribu- φ θ and bar denotes complex conjugate. tions in PGEM and PGEM implies the vanishing of the Having arrived at this point we can now proceed to cal- corresponding contribution in ΩGEM, and viceversa. culate the vorticity, the super–Poynting vector and the From the above it is clear that electromagnetic ra- electromagnetic Poynting vector. The resulting expres- diation as described by electromagnetic news functions sions are available in [54], since they are extremely long, does produce vorticity. Furthermore we have identified here we shall focus on the main conclusions emerging the presence of electromagnetic news both in the Poynt- from them. ing and the super–Poynting components orthogonal to First, the vorticity vector (9) is calculated for the four– the vorticity vector. Doing so we have proved that a vector uα given by (58). The important point to stress Bonnor–like mechanism to generate vorticity is at work in here is that the absolute value of ωµ can be written gener- this case too, but with the important difference that now ically as vorticity is generated by the contributions of, both, the −1 −3 Poynting and the super–Poynting vectors, on the planes Ω=ΩG r + ··· +ΩGEMr + ··· , (77) orthogonal to the vorticity vector. where subscripts G, GEM and EM stand for gravi- tational, gravito–electromagnetic and electromagnetic. The “gravitational” subscript refers to those terms con- VI. DISCUSSION taining exclusively functions appearing in the purely gravitational case and their derivatives. “Electromag- We started this manuscript with two goals in mind. netic” terms are those containing exclusively functions On the one hand we wanted to identify the fundamental appearing in Fµν and their derivatives, whereas “gravito– physical phenomenon which being present in all scenarios electromagnetic” subscript refers to those terms contain- exhibiting frame dragging, could be considered as the ing functions of either kind and/or combination of both. responsible for the frame dragging effect. In other words Finally, we calculate the electromagnetic Poynting vec- we wanted to identify the factor that mediates between tor defined by the source of the gravitational field and the appearance of vorticity, in any scenario. α αβ S = T uβ, (78) On the other hand, we wanted to explore the observa- tional consequences that could be derived from our anal- and the super–Poynting vector defined by (5). Since we ysis. are not operating in vacuum, P (C) and P (R) are dif- α α Concerning our first goal, it has been clearly estab- ferent, we shall use P (C) for the discussion. α lished that in vacuum, the appearance of vorticity is al- The resulting expressions are deployed in [54]. Let ways related to the existence of circular flow of super– us summarize the main information contained in such energy in the plane orthogonal to the vorticity vector. expressions. This is true for all stationary vacuum spacetimes as well First, we notice that the leading terms for each super– as for general Bondi–Sachs radiative spacetimes. Poynting (contravariant) component are In the case of electro–vacuum spacetimes, we have u u −4 P = PG r + ··· , circular flows of super–energy as well as circular flows − of electromagnetic energy in the plane orthogonal to P r = P rr 4 + ··· , G the vorticity vector. This is true in stationary electro– θ θ −4 θ −6 P = PG r + ··· + PGEMr + ··· , vacuum spacetimes as well as in spacetimes admitting, P φ = P φr−4 + ··· + P φ r−6 + ··· , (79) both, gravitational and electromagnetic radiation. Par- G GEM ticularly remarkable is the fact that electromagnetic ra- whereas for the electromagnetic Poynting vector we can diation does produce vorticity. write All this having been said, a natural question arises con- u u −4 u −5 cerning our second goal, namely, what observational con- S = SEMr + SGEMr ··· , (80) sequences could be derived from the analysis presented so far? First of all it should be clear that the established fact r r −2 r −3 S = SEMr + SGEMr + ··· , (81) that the emission of gravitational radiation always en- tails the appearance of vorticity in the congruence of the world lines of observers, provides a mechanism for de- tecting gravitational radiation. Thus, any experimental Sθ = Sθ r−4 + Sθ r−5 + ··· , (82) EM GEM device intended to measure rotations could be a potential detector of gravitational radiation as well. We are well aware of the fact that extremely high sensitivities have to φ φ −4 φ −5 S = SEMr + SGEMr + ··· . (83) be reached, for these detectors to be operational. Thus, 12 from the estimates displayed in [25], we see that for a ACKNOWLEDGMENTS large class of possible events leading to the emission of gravitational radiation, the expected values of Ω range This research was funded by Ministerio de Ciencia, In- −15 −1 −19 −1 from Ω ≈ 10 s to Ω ≈ 10 s . Although these novacion y Universidades. Grant number: PGC2018– estimates are twenty years old and deserves to be up- 096038–B–I00. dated, we believe that probably the sensitivity of the ac- Appendix A tual technology is still below the range of expected values of vorticity. Nevertheless, the intense activity deployed in recent years in this field, invoking ring lasers, atom interferometers, atom lasers, anomalous spin–precession, 2 2 2 2 2 A11 = −2ρωρ(ω + ω )γρ − 2ρωz(ω + ω )γz − ω ωρρρ trapped atoms and quantum interference (see References ρ z ρ z z  2 2 3 2 4 [56–68] and references therein), besides the incredible +ωzωzzρ +4ωzωρωρzρ − ωρωzzρ − ωρ + ωρωρρρ f sensitivities obtained so far in gyroscope technology and 2 2 3  2 +3ρ(ωρ + ωz )(ωzfz + ωρfρ)f − 2ρ(−2ργzωρz +2γz ωρρ exhibited in the Gravity Probe B experiment [1], make 2 2 us being optimist in that this kind of detectors may be +2ργρωρ + γzωz + γρωρ + ργρωzz − ργρωρρ)f 3 2 2 operating in the foreseeable . 4ρ (fzωz + fρωρ)γρ +2ρ (ρfzzωρ − 2ρfρzωz − 2fzωz +4fρωρ − 2ρfzωρz − ρfρρωρ − ρfρωρρ + ρfρωzz)γρ 3 2 2 In the same order of ideas the established link between +4ρ (fzωz + fρωρ)γz +2ρ (4fρωz + ρfzωρρ − 2ρfρzωρ vorticity and electromagnetic radiation, has potential ob- +ρfρρωz − 2ρfρωρz − ρfzzωz − ρfzωzz +2ωρfz)γz servational consequences which should not be overlooked. 3 3 3 2 2 Indeed, intense electromagnetic outbursts are expected +4ρ fρzωρz − ρ fzzωρρ − ρ fρρωzz + ρ fzzωρ − 2ρ fρzωz 2 3 3 3 2 2 from hyperenergetic phenomena such as collapsing hy- −ρ fρρωρ + ρ fzzωzz + ρ fρρωρρ f − 6ρ (fρ + fz )ωργρ permassive neutron stars and Gamma Ray Bursts (see −6ρ3(f 2 + f 2)ω γ +3ρ3(f f ω + f f ω +2f f ω [69] and references therein). Therefore, although the con- ρ z z z ρρ ρ ρ zz z z ρz z ρ tributions of the GEM terms in (77) are of order 1/r3, in −fρρfzωz +2fρzfρωz − fzzfρωρ), contrast with the G terms which are of order 1/r, the co- efficient of the former terms usually exceeds the latter by many orders of magnitude, which opens the possibility A12 = ω (−7ω4 − 6ω2ω2 + ω4)f 9 to detect them more easily. ρ z ρ z ρ 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 8 + −ρωρfρ(ωz + ωρ +2ωρωz ) − ρfzωz(ωρ +2ωz ωρ + ωz ) f  2 2 2 7  Finally, the association of the sources of electromag- + −4ρωzz(ωρ +3ωz )+4ωρ(−2ρωzωρz + ωz ) f  2 2 2 netic fields (charges and currents) with vorticity, suggests + 4ρωz(−8ωzfz + ρωz fρz − 3ρωρωzfzz − 3ρωρfρz − ρfρωzωzz the possibility to extract information about the former, −5ω2f − 2ρf ω ω − 2ω ω f − 2ρf ω ω + ρf ω ω ) by measuring the latter. Thus, in [23], using the data ρ z ρ ρ ρz z ρ ρ z ρ zz z z ρz 2 2 6 corresponding to the earth, Bonnor estimates that the +4ρωρ(−ρωρfzωρz + ρωρfρωzz + ωρfρ + ρωρfzz) f − − vorticity would be of the order of Ω ≈ 4 × 10 33s 1. 2 3 2 2 2  + −6ρ ω (f + f ) − 2ρ fzωρωz(2ωρfρ +5ωzfz) Although this figure is so small that we do not expect ρ z ρ  2 2 5 2 to be able to measure it in the near future, the strength +2ρ fρωz (2ωzfz − ωρfρ) f + 8ρ (fρzωz − fρωzz) 3  3  of electromagnetic sources in very compact objects could −16ρ (fρzωρz + fzzωzz)+10ρ fzωzfρωρ(fzωz + fρωρ) produce vorticity many orders of magnitude larger. 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 −2ρ fz(fρfzωρ + fρ ωz)+2ρ fρ (ωρ − ωρωz ) 3 3 3 2 4 3 +2ρ fz (ωz − ωzωρ) f + −24ρ fρz(ωρfz + ωzfρ) To summarize. If we adopt the usual meaning of the 2   3 2 verb “to explain” (a phenomenon), as referred to the ac- +4ρ fρ(fρωρ − 4fzωz)+4ρ (3fρ ωzz +2fzzfρωρ − 2ωρzfρfz 2 3 4 2 2 tion of expressing such a phenomenon in terms of fun- +fz ωzz − 10fzzωzfz) f + 4ρ fρz(fρ ωz − fz ωz +2ωρfρfz) damental concepts, then we can say that we have suc- 4 2 2   4 3 2 ceed in explaining the frame dragging effect as due to +4ρ fzz(fz ωρ − fρ ωρ +2ωzfρfz)+4ρ ωρz(−fz +3fzfρ ) 4 3 2 3 2 2 circular flows of super–energy and electromagnetic en- +4ρ ωzz(−fρ +3fρfz )+4ρ (4fρ fzωz − 3fz fρωρ ergy (whenever present) in planes orthogonal to vorticity −2f 3ω +3f 3ω ) f 2 + ρ4ω (14f 2f 2 − 7f 4 +5f 4) vector. This result in turn, creates huge opportunities ρ ρ z z ρ z ρ z ρ 4 3 3  5 3 2 5 4 to obtain information from self–gravitating systems by +4ρ ωz(fρ fz +5fz fρ) f − ρ ωz(2fz fρ + fz + fzfρ ) measuring the vorticity of the congruence of world–lines 5 3 2 5  4 −ρ ωρ(2f f + f + frhof ). of observers. ρ z ρ z

[1] Everitt, C.W.F.; DeBra, D.B.; Parkinson, B.W.; G.M.; Silbergleit, A.S.; Holmes, T.; Kolodziejczak, J.; Turneaure, J.P.; Conklin, J.W.; Heifetz, M.I.; Keiser, 13

et al. Gravity Probe B: Final Results of a Space Experi- [24] Herrera, L.; Gonz´alez, G.A.; Pach´on, L.A.; Rueda, J.A. ment to Test . Phys. Rev. Lett. 2011, Frame dragging, vorticity and electromagnetic fields in 106, 221101. axially symmetric stationary spacetimes. Class. Quan- [2] Debono, I; Smoot, G. F. General Relativity and Cos- tum Grav. 2006, 23, 2395–2408. mology: Unsolved Questions and Future Directions. Uni- [25] Herrera, L.; Hern´andez-Pastora, J.L. On the influence of verse 2016, 2, 23. gravitational radiation on a gyroscope. Class. Quantum [3] Vishwakarma, R. G. Einstein and Beyond: A Critical Grav. 2000, 17, 3617–3625. Perspective on General Relativity. 2016, 2, 11. [26] Sorge, F.; Bini, D.; de Felice, F. Gravitational waves, [4] Rindler, W. The case against space dragging. Phys. Lett. gyroscopes and frame dragging. Class. Quantum Grav. A 1997, 233, 25–29. 2001, 18, 2945–2958. [5] Rindler, W. The Lense-Thirring effect exposed as anti- [27] Herrera, L.; Santos, N.O.; Carot, J. Gravitational radia- Machian. Phys. Lett. A 1994, 187, 236–238. tion, vorticity and the electric and magnetic part of Weyl [6] H. Bondi; Samuel, J. The Lense-Thirring effect and tensor. J. Math. Phys 2006, 47, 052502. Mach’s principle. Phys. Lett. A 1997, 228, 121–126. [28] Herrera, L.; Barreto, W.; Carot, J.; Di Prisco, A. [7] Shapiro, I.I.; Reasenberg, R.D.; Chandler, J.F.; Bab- Why does gravitational radiation produces vorticity? cock, R.W. Measurement of the de Sitter precession of Class. Quantum Grav. 2007, 24, 2645–2651. the Moon: A relativistic three-body effect. Phys. Rev. [29] Herrera, L. Radiation and vorticity: The missing link. Lett. 1988, 61, 2643. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 2014, 46, 1654–1657. [8] Lense, J; Thirring, H. Uber den einfluss der eigenrotation [30] Bicak, J.; Katz, J.; Lynden–Bell, D. Gravitational waves der zentralkorper auf die bewuegung der planeteren und and dragging effects. Class. Quantum Grav. 2008, 25, monde nach der Einsteinschen gravitationstheorie. Phys. 165017. Z. 1918, 19, 156–163. [31] Bini, A.D.; Geralico, A.; Plastino, W. Cylindrical grav- [9] Pfister, H. On the history of the so-called Lense-Thirring itational waves: C–energy, super-energy and associ- effect. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 2007, 39, 1735–1748. ated dynamical effects. Class. Quantum Grav. 2019, 36, [10] Pfister, H. Editorial note to: Hans Thirring, On the for- 095012. mal analogy between the basic electromagnetic equations [32] Herrera, L. Gravitational radiation , vorticity and super– and Einstein’s gravity equations in first approximation. energy. A conspicuous threesome. Universe 2019, 5, 164. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 2012, 44, 3217–3224. [33] Ruggiero, M. L.; Ortolan, A. Gravito–magnetic reso- [11] Pfister, H. The History of the So-Called Lense–Thirring nance in the field of a . Phys. Rev. D Effect, and of Related Effects. In: General Relativity 2020, 102, 101501(R). and , Eds. Ciufolini, I.; Matzner, [34] Bel, L. Sur la radiation gravitationelle. C. R. Acad. Sci. R. Astrophysics and Space Science Library, 2010, 367. 1958, 247, 1094–1096. Springer, Dordrecht. [35] Bel, L. Radiation states and the problem of energy in [12] Schiff, L. I. Possible New Experimental Test of General general relativity. Cah. Phys. 1962, 16, 59–80; Gen. Rel. Relativity Theory. Phys. Rev. Lett 1960, 4, 215–217. Grav. 2000, 32, 2047–2078. [13] Rindler, W. ; Perlick , V. Rotating coordinates as tools [36] Bel, L. Introduction d’un tenseur du quatrieme order. C. for calculating circular geodesics and gyroscopic preces- R. Acad. Sci. Paris 1959, 248, 1297–1300. sion. Gen. Rel. Grav. 1990, 22, 1067–1081. [37] Garc´ıa–Parrado G´omez Lobo, A. Dynamical laws of su- [14] Pavlis, E. C; Iorio, L. The impact of tidal errors on the perenergy in general relativity. Class. Quantum Grav. determination of the Lense– Thirring effect from satellite 2008, 25, 015006. laser ranging. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D. 2002, 11, 599–618. [38] Kerr, R. P. Gravitational Field of a Spinning Mass as [15] Iorio, L. On the Lense-Thirring test with the Mars Global an Example of Algebraically Special Metrics. Phys. Rev. Surveyor in the gravitational field of Mars. Central Eur. Lett. 1963, 11, 237. J. Phys. 2010, 8, 509–513. [39] Hern´andez-Pastora, J. L.; Herrera, L. Interior solution [16] Iorio, L. ; Lichtenegger, H.; Ruggiero, M; Corda, C. Phe- for the Kerr metric. Phys. Rev. D 2017, 95, 024003. nomenology of the Lense–Thirring effect in the Solar Sys- [40] Papapetrou, A . Eine rotationssymmetrische losung in tem. Astrophys. Space Sci. 2011, 331, 351–395. der allgmeinen relativitatstheorie. Ann. Phys. 1953, 12, [17] Iorio, L. LETSGO: A spacecraft-based mission to accu- 309–315. rately measure the solar angular momentum with frame- [41] Stephani, H; Kramer, D; MacCallum, M; Honselaers, C; dragging. Acta Astronaut. 2013, 86 149–157. Herlt, E. Exact Solutions to Einstein’s Field Equations. [18] Strohaber, J. Frame dragging with optical vortices. Gen. Second Edition, Cambridge University Press: Cam- Relativ. Grav. 2013, 45, 2457–2465. bridge, U.K. 2003. pp. 309 [19] Iorio, L. On a recent preliminary study for the measure- [42] Feynman, R.P.; Leighton, R.B.; Sand, M. Lectures on ment of the Lense–Thirring effect with the Galileo satel- Physics II; Addison–Wesley: Reading, PA, USA, 1964; lites. Int. J. Mod. Phy. D 2014, 23, 1450028. pp.27–28. [20] Iorio, L. Measuring general relativistic dragging effects in [43] DeWitt B.S.; Brehme, R. Radiation damping in a gravi- the Earth’s gravitational field with ELXIS: a proposal. tational field. Ann.Phys.(NY) 1960, 9, 220–259. Class. Quantum Grav. 2019,36, 035002. [44] Kundt W.; Newman. E. T. Hyperbolic Differential Equa- [21] Iorio, L. Is there still something left that Gravity Probe tions in Two Dimensions. J. Math. Phys. 1968, 9, 2193– B can measure? Universe 2020, 6, 85. 2210 . [22] Herrera, L.; Di Prisco, A; Carot, J. Frame dragging and [45] Bonnor, W. B. Approximate methods and gravitational super–energy. Phys. Rev. D 2007, 76, 044012-5. radiation. In Proceedings of the meeting on general rela- [23] Bonnor, W.B. Dragging of inertial frames by a charged tivity, Ed. G. Barbera: Florence, Italy 1965; pp. 119–142. magnetic dipole. Phys. Lett. A 1991, 158, 23–26. [46] Couch, W.; Torrence, R.; Janis, A.; Newman, E. T. Tail 14

of a Gravitational Wave. J. Math. Phys. 1968, 9, 484. Rotation Measurements with an Atom Interferometer [47] Bonnor, W. B. Gravitational wave tails. In Ondes et Ra- Gyroscope. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1997, 78, 2046. diations Gravitationelles. Editions du Centre National de [59] Stedman, G.E.; Schreiber, K.U.; Bilger, H.R. On the de- la Recherche Scientifique: Paris, France 1974; pp. 73–81. tectability of the Lense–Thirring field from rotating labo- [48] Blanchet, L.; Shafer, G. Gravitational wave tails and bi- ratory masses using ring laser gyroscope interferometers. nary star systems. Class.Quantum.Grav. 1993, 10, 2699– Class. Quantum Grav. 2003, 20, 2527–2540. 2722. [60] Stedman, G.E.; Hurst, R.B.; Schreiber, K.U. On the po- [49] Marchand, T.; Blanchet, L.; Faye, G. Gravitational-wave tential of large ring lasers. Opt. Commun. 2007, 279, tail effects to quartic non-linear order. Class. Quantum. 124–129. Grav. 2016, 33, 244003. [61] Di Virgilio, A.; Schreiber, K.U.; Gebauer, A.; Wells, J.- [50] Abbott, B. P. ; et al (LIGO Scientific Collaboration P.R.; Tartaglia, A.; Belfi, J.; Beverini, N.; Ortolan, A. and Virgo Collaboration). Observation of Gravitational A laser gyroscope system to detect the gravitomagnetic Waves from a Binary Merger. Phys. Rev. Lett. effect on earth. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 2010, 19, 2331– 2016, 116, 061102. 2343. [51] Bondi, H.; van der Burg, M.G.J.; Metzner, A.W.K. Grav- [62] Bosi, F.; Cella, G.; Di Virgilio, A.; Ortolan, A.; Porzic, itational waves in general relativity VII. Waves from axi– A.; Solimenof, S.; Cerdonio, M.; Zendri, J.P.; Alle- symmetric isolated systems. Proc. Roy. Soc. A 1962, 269, grini, M.; Bel, J.; et al. Measuring gravito-magnetic efects 21–52. by multiring–laser gyroscope. Phys. Rev. D 2011, 84, [52] Sachs, R. Gravitational waves in general relativity VIII. 122002. Waves in asymptotically flat space–time. Proc. Roy. Soc. [63] Robins, N.P.; Altin, P.A.; Debs, J.E.; Close, J.D. Atom A 1962, 270, 103–125. lasers: Production, properties and prospects for precision [53] van der Burg, M. G. J. Gravitational Waves in General inertial measurement. Physics Reports 2013, 529, 265– Relativity. IX. Conserved Quantities. Proc. R. Soc. 1966, 296. A294, 112–122. [64] Tartaglia, A. Experimental determination of gravitomag- [54] Herrera, L.; Barreto, W. Electromagnetic radiation pro- netic effects by means of ring lasers. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. duces frame dragging. Phys. Rev. D 2012, 86, 064014. 2013, 453, 012019. [55] van der Burg, M. G. J. Gravitational Waves in General [65] Di Virgilio, A. et al. A ring laser array for fundamental Relativity X. Asymptotic Expansions for the Einstein- physics. Comp. Rend. Phys. 2014, 15, 866–874. Maxwell Field. Proc. Roy.Soc. A 1969, 310, 221–230. [66] Campbell, W.C.; Hamilton, P. Rotation sensing with [56] Scully, M.O.; Zubairy, M.S.; Haugan, M.P. Proposed op- trapped ions. J. Phys. B 2017, 50, 064002. tical test of metric gravitation theories. Phys. Rev. A [67] Tartaglia, A.; di Virgilio, A.; Belfi, J.; Beverini, N.; Rug- 1981, 24, 2009. giero, M.L. Testing general relativity by means of rin- [57] Lenef, A.; Hammond, T.D.; Smith, E.T.; Chapman, glasers. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 2017, 132, 73. M.S.; Rubenstein, R.A.; Pritchard, D.E. Rotation Sens- [68] di Virgilio, A.; Beverini, N.; Carelli, G.; Ciampini, D.; ing with an Atom Interferometer. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1997, Fuso, F.; Maccioni, E. Analysis of ring lasers gyroscopes 78, 760. including laser dynamics. Eur. Phys. J. C 2019, 79, 573. [58] Gustavson, T.L.; Bouyer, P.; Kasevich, M.A. Precision [69] L. Lehner, C. Palenzuela, S. L. Liebling, C. Thompson and C. Hanna, Phys. Rev. D 2012, 86, 104035.