2 tioned “cylindrical coordinates”. To introduce this idea, this also implies that we must have sgn(gtφ) = sgn(β). let us first consider a 2-dimensional flat spacetime and Under the transformation e, the light cones (1, 1)T and the two well-known metrics (1, −1)T are mapped into:

2 2 2 (1) Minkowski metric: ds = − dt + dx , α β  1  α − β α β 1 α + β = , = , (2) Rindler metric: ds2 = −X2 dT 2 + dX2. 0 δ −1 −δ 0 δ 1 δ We can re-write these in matrix notation as: respectively. This simple linear algebra approach thus reveals two (1) Minkowski metric: possibilities regarding the tilt of the light cones: −1 0 dt ds2 = (dt dx) ≡ vT ηv, 0 1 dx (i)

(2) Rindler metric: gtφ > 0, β > 0 =⇒ α − β < α + β, −X2 0 dT  ds2 = (dT dX) ≡ uT gu. 0 1 dX (ii) We note that if there exists a transformation e such that eT ge = η, then the Minkowski light cone (ds2 = 0) sat- gtφ < 0, β < 0 =⇒ α − β > α + β. isfies vT eT gev = 0, i.e., (ev)T g(ev) = 0. The plan is to find a transformation matrix e such that ev = u. Such Either α+β or α−β must be negative for CTC to exist (i.e. e is not unique due to Lorentz symmetry. One obvious the light cone opens wide enough to encompass the φ-axis, choice is to set so that ∂/∂φ is timelike). The first possibility corresponds to light cones that tilts “backward” with respect to the X−1 0 e = . increasing φ direction. This is in the direction of Ω, if Ω 0 1 is positive. That is, the CTC is counter-rotating. This is the only possibility because CTC has to satisfy g < 0, Now, consider a light cone in Minkowski spacetime φφ T T which implies that sgn(Ω) = sgn(gtφ). Likewise, the and label the two null directions by (1, 1) and (1, −1) second possibility corresponds to a counter-rotating CTC respectively. Consider the mapping of these vectors under for Ω < 0. See Fig.(1) for an illustration. This is why a the transformation matrix e. We see that they get mapped co-rotating CTC does not exist. as follows: X−1 0 1 X−1 X−1 0  1  X−1 = , = . 0 1 1 1 0 1 −1 −1

These yield the light cones in the Rindler coordinates. For axial-symmetric spacetimes, we focus on the (t-φ)- plane:    
gtt gtφ/r dt g[(t, φ)] = dt r dφ 2 . gtφ/r gφφ/r r dφ

As above, we would like to have a matrix e such that

eT ge = η. FIG. 1: Schematic illustation (not to scale) of the transformation e By local Lorentz freedom one could set one the elements that maps the Minkowski light cone to the light cone in rotating CTC spacetime. It is possible – as is illustrated here – that α + β is tilted in e to be zero: so much forward that it tipped below the spatial axis, giving rise to a         CTC. In this case α + β < 0, and the CTC is counter-rotating with α 0 gtt gtφ/r α β −1 0 respect to Ω < 0 (i.e. in the decreasing φ direction) and gtφ < 0. 2 = . β δ gtφ/r gφφ/r 0 δ 0 1

To conclude, a negative gtφ means that we have a We can then solve for α, β and δ: “forward tilt” in the increasing φ direction, but this only 1 sgn(g ) −rg happens when Ω < 0; likewise gφφ > 0 corresponds to a α = √ > 0; β = tφ α, δ = tt β > 0. q g g “backward tilt” and occurs only when Ω > 0. In both cases −gtt tt φφ gtφ 1 − 2 the CTCs are counter-rotating with respect to the central gtφ black hole (or other objects). The implicit assumption Here we imposed the conditions that α and δ are pos- here is that the sign of Ω is the same in the entire exterior itive; this means that the light cones are not “reflected” spacetime, and so sgn(Ω) = sgn(Ω+) for all r > r+. We under the transformation e. From the expression of β, wish to discuss an example in which this is not the case. 3

III. THE CURIOUS CASE OF KERR-TAUB-NUT

The Taub-NUT solution [12–14] is well-known to be peculiar even before we introduced a global rotation – Misner called it “a counterexample to almost anything” [15]. It can be described as a “twisted black hole”, due to the fact that (the exterior of) its northern hemisphere is rotating in a direction opposite to its southern hemisphere [16, 17]. Actually, near the poles, just outside the horizon, the angular velocity Ω is again reversed with respect to the respective hemisphere, as shown in the top panel of FIG. 2: The orientation of the angular velocity Ω(r, θ) for the Taub- Fig.(2). This spacetime is infested with CTCs near both NUT case (left) and the Kerr-Taub-NUT case (right), where r is plotted starting from their respective event horizon. The mass M and the NUT poles [17, 18]. It is straightforward to verify that the charge n are chosen to be 1, while the rotation parameter a is set to be CTCs counter-rotate with respect to the angular velocity 0.5 for the Kerr-Taub NUT case. In both cases, CTCs can be found in the shaded region near the south pole, and the unshaded region near of the respective local region. The globally defined total the north pole. The shaded regions have opposite rotation with respect angular momentum is however zero since the contributions to the unshaded region (the solid curves and lines have zero angular from the counter-rotating halves cancel out each other. velocity). In particular, unlike the Taub-NUT case, the Kerr-Taub- NUT horizon has a well-defined rotating direction. We can go on to introduce a global angular momentum and consider instead the Kerr-Taub-NUT solution [19, 20], whose metric tensor in the standard Boyer-Lindquist coordinates give, in particular, the following components:

∆ − a2 sin2 θ ∆χ − a(Σ + aχ) sin2 θ g = − , g = , tt Σ tφ Σ where Σ := r2+(n+a cos θ)2, ∆ := r2−2Mr+a2−n2, and χ := a sin2 θ−2n cos θ. The parameters M, a and n are re- spectively the mass, the rotation parameter,√ and the NUT- 2 2 2 charge. The event horizon r+ = M + M − a + n now has a well-defined non-vanishing angular velocity, i.e., the entire horizon rotates in a single direction. For M = 1, n = 1, a = 0.5, we have the horizon angular ve- locity Ω+ ≈ 0.0752. Sufficiently far outside the horizon each hemisphere still has opposite sense of angular veloc- ity. Again, near the poles the angular velocity changes direction. CTCs are present near both poles (see also [21]), which are still counter-rotating with respect to the respective local angular velocity. See Fig.(2). Thus the CTCs near the north pole θ = 0 are co-rotating with respect to the black hole angular velocity, which has the same sign as the total angular momentum [22]

a(r2 + a2 + n2) J = + . (1) 2r+

We also show the 3-dimensional plot of gφφ and its change of sign in Fig.(3). FIG. 3: The function gφφ for Kerr-Taub NUT solution becomes neg- ative at the poles (the zero plane is shown in cyan), where there ex- ist CTCs. The function gtφ is plotted in red: it is positive near the south pole but negative at the north pole, indicating that CTCs IV. DISCUSSION: NO OBVIOUS SOURCE are counter-rotating near the south pole but co-rotating at the north pole (both with respect to the horizon). The choice of parameters are M = n = 1, a = 0.5. The question raised in [4] is whether CTCs are always counter-rotating with the rotating source. We have seen that it is indeed true that CTCs are always counter- more physical terms. As pointed out in [4], the counter- rotating with respect to the local angular velocity Ω(r, θ), rotation property means that it would be misleading to simply due to the defining relation Ω = −gtφ/gφφ and think of CTCs as being “caused” by frame dragging-like the fact that CTC is characterized by gφφ < 0. The effect, which goes in the same direction as the (singly) nontrivial question is whether we can understand this in rotating source. (Actually, even the frame-dragging effect 4 is tricky to be interpreted in general, see below.) the rotating object in the radial direction, not near it. If In our work, we see that in a more complicated example CTCs are directly “caused” by the rotating effect, one in which Ω can have different signs outside the horizon, it typically expects them to occur close to the “source”. Of becomes even less clear how CTCs can be caused by the course, the Tipler-van Stockum cylinder is infinitely long, rotation of the source. For the Taub-NUT case (a = 0), and the fields produced by it increases as the distance the upper half of the exterior spacetime rotates in an grows, so in some sense this explains why CTC forms opposite sense from its lower half, hence there is no global at large distances. Nevertheless, the point is that there angular momentum. The CTCs are counter-rotating with is no obvious, single simple underlying explanation for respect to the each rotating half. One could therefore the formation and counter-rotation of CTCs, though one surmise that perhaps the total angular momentum is a could perhaps seek some form of justification case by case. red herring, and it is the local rotation that is important. We should not be too alarmed about the lack of obvious That is, the different halves each act as a source that “cause” from a “source”, since such a situation is not new somehow causes the CTCs to counter-rotate. (Note that in general relativity [23] (see also Lecture 17 of [24]). the horizon itself does not rotate so the black hole is Recall the interpretation of the mass of a black hole, for not quite a “source”.) However, in the Kerr-Taub-NUT example. Take the Schwarzschild black hole for simplicity, case, the black hole horizon (the putative source) has a which is a vacuum solution to Einstein’s equation, its well-defined direction of rotation, yet not all CTCs are mass is then just a property of the nontrivial curvature counter-rotating with it. In fact, even without considering of the spacetime, and should not be regarded as being closed timelike curves, we can ask why Ω(r, θ), the angular “sourced” by the singularity, which is afterall, spacelike. velocity of a test particle (coming in with zero angular In a geometric theory of gravitation like GR, nontrivial momentum from infinity), can be opposite to that of the spacetime geometries can give rise to surprising behaviors angular velocity of the horizon, Ω+ (which occurs in the that while mathematically clear, sometimes simply do not unshaded region sandwiched between the shaded regions admit a good intuitive explanation. This is especially true in the right plot of Fig.(3).). That is to say, it is not in our example since the NUT charge has no Newtonian obviously clear that this “frame-dragging” is caused by analogue. the rotating black hole dragging spacetime around it. Perhaps the simplest interpretation is that one should not think of Ω and the orientation of CTC as being caused by the rotation of the black hole too literally. They simply are. Of course in the simple case of a Kerr black hole, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS since Ω has the same sign as Ω+ throughout, one can interpret this as a test particle being frame-dragged by YCO thanks the National Natural Science Foundation the black hole. One can say the same here for particles of China (No.11922508) for funding support. He also that are sufficiently close to the horizon of a Kerr-Taub- thanks Lee-hwa Yeh, from whom he learned about the NUT black hole, but the interpretation ultimately does light cone transformation technique during the summer not work far away from the black hole. school “Physics and Mathematics of General Relativity”, In the case of CTC of Tipler-van Stockum cylinder, which took place at National Taiwan University in August recall also that CTCs occur sufficiently far away from 2011.

[1] Stephen Hawking, “The Chronology Protection Conjec- a Distribution of Particles Rotating About an Axis of ture”, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 603. Symmetry”, Proc. Roy. Edinb. 57 (1937) 135. 135-154. [2] Matt Visser, “The Quantum Physics of Chronology Pro- [8] Kurt G¨odel, “An Example of a New Type of Cosmological tection”,[arXiv:gr-qc/0204022]. Solutions of Einstein’s Field Equations of Gravitation”, [3] Jean-Pierre Luminet , “Closed Timelike Curves, Singulari- Rev. Mod. Phys. 21 (1949) 447. ties and Causality: A Survey from G¨odelto Chronological [9] Michael Buser, Endre Kajari, Wolfgang P. Schleich, “Visu- Protection”, Universe 7 (2021) 1, 12,[arXiv:2101.08592 alization of the G¨odelUniverse”, New J. Phys. 15 (2013) [gr-qc]]. 013063,[arXiv:1303.4651 [gr-qc]]. [4] Hajnal Andr´eka, Istv´anN´emetiand Christian W¨uthrich, [10] J. Richard Gott, III, “Closed Timelike Curves Produced “A Twist in the Geometry of Rotating Black Holes: Seeking by Pairs of Moving Cosmic Strings: Exact Solutions”, the Cause of Acausality”, Gen. Rel. Grav. 40 (2008) 1809, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 1126. [arXiv:0708.2324 [gr-qc]]. [11] John Earman, Christopher Smeenk, Christian W¨uthrich, [5] Frank J. Tipler, “Rotating Cylinders and the Possibility “Do the Laws of Physics Forbid the Operation of Time of Global Causality Violation”, Phys. Rev. D 9 (1974) Machines?”, Synthese 169 (2009) 91. 2203. [12] Abraham H. Taub, “Empty Space-Times Admitting a [6] Frank J. Tipler, “Causally Symmetric Spacetimes”, Jour. Three Parameter Group of Motions”, Annals of Math. 53 of Math. Phys. 18 (1977) 1568. (1951) 472. [7] Willem Jacob van Stockum, “The Gravitational Field of [13] Ezra T. Newman, L. Tamburino, T. Unti, “Empty-Space 5

Generalization of the Schwarzschild Metric”, J. Math. NUT Solution of the Einstein Field Equations”, Bull. Phys., 4 (1963) 91. Acad. Pol. Sci. Ser. Sci. Math. Astron. Phys. 14 (1966) [14] Charles W. Misner, “The Flatter Regions of Newman, 653. Unti, and Tamburino’s Generalized Schwarzschild Space”, [20] J. G. Miller, “Global Analysis of the Kerr-Taub-NUT J. Math. Phys. 4 (1963) 924. Metric”, Jour. Math. Phys. 14 (1973) 486. [15] Charles W. Misner, “Taub-NUT as a Counterexample [21] Fen Long, Songbai Chen, Jieci Wang, Jiliang Jing, “Elec- to Almost Anything”, Technical Report, University of tromagnetic Emissions From Near-Horizon Region of an Maryland 529 (1965) 1. Extreme Kerr-Taub-NUT Black Hole”, Eur. Phys. J. C [16] Hongsheng Zhang, “Twisted Spacetime in Einstein Grav- 79 (2019) 6, 466,[arXiv:1812.11463 [gr-qc]]. ity”,[arXiv:1609.09721 [gr-qc]]. [22] Alvaro Ballon Bordo, Finnian Gray, Robie A. Hennigar, [17] Yen Chin Ong, “Twisted Black Hole Is Taub-NUT”, David Kubizˇn´ak,“The First Law for Rotating NUTs”, JCAP 01 (2017) 001,[arXiv:1610.05757 [gr-qc]]. Phys. Lett. B 798 (2019) 134972,[arXiv:1905.06350 [hep- [18] Finnian Gray, Jessica Santiago, Sebastian Schuster, Matt th]]. Visser, “‘Twisted’ Black Holes Are Unphysical”, Mod. [23] Brett McInnes, “No Forces, No Sources: The Ideology of Phys. Lett. A 32 (2017) 18, 1771001,[arXiv:1610.06135 General Relativity”, 1987, an entry for Essays on Gravi- [gr-qc]]. tation, Gravity Research Foundation. [19] Marek Demia´nski,Ezra T. Newman, “Combined Kerr- [24] H. A. Buchdahl, Seven Simple Lectures on General Rela- tivity Theory, John Wiley & Sons; 1st edition (1981).