Arxiv:2107.08844V1 [Gr-Qc] 19 Jul 2021

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 = p > 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 respectively the mass, the rotation parameter,p 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 velocity Ω+ ≈ 0:0752. Sufficiently far outside the horizon each hemisphere still has opposite sense of angular velocity. 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 negative at the poles (the zero plane is shown in cyan), where there exist 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.

Load more