text:
# Schwarzschild metrics, quasi-universes and wormholes

## 1 Introduction

It is well known  that the three-dimensional space

$$d^{(3)}s^2=\frac{dr^2}{1{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{R^2}}}+r^2(d\vartheta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta d\phi ^2)$$
(1)
of some models of closed homogeneous and isotropic universes has an especially simple geometry which can be seen best introducing a angular coordinate $`0\chi \pi `$ via $`r=R\mathrm{sin}\chi `$ and transforming the line element (1) into the form

$$d^{(3)}s^2=R^2(d\chi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\chi d\mathrm{\Omega }^2)$$
(2)
where

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\vartheta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta d\phi ^2$$
(3)
The metric (2) is that of a three-dimensional hypersurface of radius $`R`$ which can be represented in a flat, four-dimensional Euclidean embedding space.

Our purpose is to employ a similar angular variable to describe the geometry of the exterior Schwarzschild solution and to investigate such a description of the interior solution also when $`\chi >\pi /2`$, a possibility which appears to have been ignored in the literature. In this way we can introduce the concept of “quasi-universe” and show that the the Einstein-Rose bridge is nothing else that an “extreme wormhole connecting two quasi-universes”. Moreover it can be seen, in the framework of Brans-Dicke theory, that the Einstein-Rosen bridge becomes a traversable wormhole.

## 2 The exterior Schwarzschild solution

The exterior spherically symmetric vacuum solution, which by Birkhoff’s theorem is also static, will be written in standard coordinates as

$$ds^2=\frac{dr^2}{1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}}}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2N^2(t)\left(1\frac{2m}{r}\right)dt^2$$
(4)
The term $`N^2(t)`$ allows the matching between exterior and interior values of $`g_{tt}`$ when the interior solution is not static and the observer is below the radius $`r_1`$ of the body; of course in the static cases $`N^2(t)`$ reduces to a constant. Such a constant shall be written as $`(12m/r_0)^1`$ if the observer is placed at $`r_0`$ above the radius $`r_1`$; so the light will appear to him red-shifted if received from $`r<r_0`$ and blue-shifted if received from $`r>r_0`$.

Coming back to the line element (4), we want to replace the radial coordinate $`r`$ with an angular coordinate $`\psi `$; because of the covariance of Einstein’s equations there are infinite ways to accomplish the replacement. We choose to define an angular coordinate $`\psi `$ given by

$$r=\frac{2m}{\mathrm{cos}^2\psi }\frac{\pi }{2}\psi \frac{\pi }{2}$$
(5)
when $`r>2m`$, and analytically continued to

$$r=\frac{2m}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\psi }\mathrm{}<\psi <\mathrm{}$$
(6)
when $`r<2m`$. The line element (4) becomes, in the region $`r>2m`$

$$ds^2=\frac{16m^2}{\mathrm{cos}^6\psi }d\psi ^2+\frac{4m^2}{\mathrm{cos}^4\psi }d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\psi }{\mathrm{sin}^2\psi _0}dt^2$$
(7)
Here the event horizon is placed at $`\psi =0`$, while infinity is reached at $`\psi =\pm \pi /2`$. The metrical relations in the surface $`t`$ = constant, $`\vartheta =\pi /2`$ are illustrated by means of the surface of revolution $`f(r)=\sqrt{8m(r2m)}`$ (remember the representation of the Flamm’s paraboloid with the Einstein-Rosen bridge). In the extended region $`r<2m`$ one has instead the line element

$$ds^2=\frac{16m^2}{\mathrm{cosh}^6\psi }d\psi ^2+\frac{4m^2}{\mathrm{cosh}^4\psi }d\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2\psi }{\mathrm{sinh}^2\psi _0}dt^2$$
(8)
which describes the interior of a black hole joined to the exterior by the event horizon placed at $`\psi =0`$. It is worth noticing that the introduction of the $`\psi `$ coordinate provides a division of the maximally extended Schwarzschild spacetime in four regions with two singularities corresponding to an equal gravitational mass, just as described by Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates. These singularities are placed at $`\psi =\pm \mathrm{}`$, being now $`\psi `$ a time coordinate.

## 3 The interior Schwarzschild solution

The gravitational field inside a celestial body, say a star, modelled on an ideal fluid medium with energy-momentum tensor

$$T_{\mu \nu }=(\rho +p)u_\mu u_\nu +pg_{\mu \nu }$$
(9)
is given, for static distribution of matter and pressure and moreover under the hypotheses of spherical symmetry and constant mass density, by

$$ds^2=\frac{dr^2}{1{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{R^2}}}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left[AB\sqrt{1\frac{r^2}{R^2}}\right]^2dt^2$$
(10)
Here $`A`$ and $`B`$ are integration constants to be determined by the matching conditions. We use this simple and rather unrealistic solution as a toy model uniquely to illustrate the employ, which is new if $`\chi >\pi /2`$, of the angular coordinate $`\chi `$. If we now define this angular coordinate through

$$\frac{r}{R}\mathrm{sin}\chi 0\chi \pi $$
(11)
the line element (10) becomes

$$ds^2=R^2(d\chi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\chi d\mathrm{\Omega }^2)[AB\mathrm{cos}\chi ]^2dt^2$$
(12)
From Einstein’s equations the pressure $`p`$ and the mass density $`\rho `$ are

$$p=\frac{1}{8\pi R^2}\left[\frac{3B\mathrm{cos}\chi A}{AB\mathrm{cos}\chi }\right],\rho =\frac{3}{8\pi R^2}$$
(13)
In formulating the matching conditions to connect the exterior and interior Schwarzschild solutions, continuity of the metric and its derivatives are to be taken into account. However in our simple example we rest on physical plausibility considerations, so we require that the metric is continuous for $`\mathrm{sin}\chi _1={\displaystyle \frac{r_1}{R}}`$, where $`r_1`$ is the radius of the body, that the pressure $`p`$ vanishes on its surface and that the observer is in the interior at an angle $`\chi _0`$.

As a result one obtains

$$\mathrm{sin}\chi _1=\left(\frac{2m}{R}\right)^{1/3},A=\frac{3\mathrm{cos}\chi _1}{3\mathrm{cos}\chi _1\mathrm{cos}\chi _0},B=\frac{1}{3\mathrm{cos}\chi _1\mathrm{cos}\chi _0}$$
(14)
where $`m`$ is the gravitational mass. The line element (10) can now be written

$$ds^2=R^2(d\chi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\chi d\mathrm{\Omega }^2)\left[\frac{3\mathrm{cos}\chi _1\mathrm{cos}\chi }{3\mathrm{cos}\chi _1\mathrm{cos}\chi _0}\right]^2dt^2$$
(15)
So the observer receives the frequency of light red-shifted when coming from inside and blue-shifted when coming from outside. The matching to the exterior solution requires that

$$N^2=\left[\frac{2\mathrm{cos}\chi _1}{3\mathrm{cos}\chi _1\mathrm{cos}\chi _0}\right]^2\left(1\frac{2m}{R\mathrm{sin}\chi _1}\right)^1$$
(16)
If the observer is at the exterior the previous values of $`A`$ and $`B`$ change accordingly. The pressure becomes

$$p=\frac{3}{8\pi R^2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{cos}\chi \mathrm{cos}\chi _1}{3\mathrm{cos}\chi _1\mathrm{cos}\chi }\right]$$
(17)
and is obviously observer independent. Because of definition (11) two cases are now to be considered, depending whether for a given value of $`r_1`$ one chooses $`\chi _1<\pi /2`$ or $`\chi _1>\pi /2`$. In the former case, while the mass density $`\rho `$ is constant, the pressure $`p`$, which is zero at the surface, increases inwards; the solution is non singular as long as $`p`$ is finite. At $`r=0`$ where $`p`$ takes its maximum value, this is only possible for $`\chi _1^{(1)}<\mathrm{arccos}(1/3)0.39\pi `$, that is, as known , for $`r_1/(2m)>9/8`$. In the latter case, the pressure $`p`$ takes negative values in the interior, and the solution is non singular at $`r=0`$ for $`\chi _1^{(2)}>\pi /2`$. In both cases, the weak energy condition

$$\rho 0,\rho +p0$$
(18)
is always satisfied. We would also point out that while the surface area $`S=4\pi R^2\mathrm{sin}^2\chi _1`$ is the same in the two cases, independently of the choice made for $`\chi _1`$, things are different in calculating volumes, given by the formula

$$V=4\pi R^3_0^{\chi _1}\mathrm{sin}^2\chi d\chi =\pi R^3(2\chi _1\mathrm{sin}2\chi _1)$$
(19)
To make an example let us consider two bodies having the same gravitational mass and the same density $`\rho `$ but different values of $`\chi _1`$ given respectively by $`\chi _1^{(1)}`$ and $`\chi _1^{(2)}=\pi \chi _1^{(1)}`$ (and so the same value of $`\mathrm{sin}\chi _1`$). The ratio $`V^{(2)}/V^{(1)}`$ of their volumes is

$$\frac{V^{(2)}}{V^{(1)}}=\frac{2(\pi \chi _1^{(1)})+\mathrm{sin}2\chi _1^{(1)}}{2\chi _1^{(1)}\mathrm{sin}2\chi _1^{(1)}}$$
(20)
Therefore while the volume $`V^{(1)}`$ encloses a star whose matter is endowed by the usual properties ($`\rho >0,p>0`$), the volume $`V^{(2)}`$ may be so large to be considered as a “quasi-universe”, so named because it is an universe deprived of a spherical void, containing matter with properties ($`\rho >0,p<0`$, but $`\rho +p>0`$); we do not call such a matter exotic, because it satisfies the weak energy condition and so also the null energy condition . The connection between a body and a quasi-universe through a suitable part of the Flamm paraboloid is schematically represented in Figure 1. A different possibility is shown in Figure 2 where now two quasi-universes are joined through an Einstein-Rosen bridge (with throat at $`\psi =0`$) which can be renamed “extreme wormhole”; here the matching conditions to be fulfilled for the second junction are the same already seen for the first, analogous quantities being now renamed with the same letter primed. Because the throat is in the vacuum, the null energy condition is not violated; so, according to the Morris-Thorne analysis  it is not seen as traversable by an observer placed in a fixed forwarding station. The Einstein-Rosen bridge (or extreme wormhole) can also be considered as a limiting case, when the post-Newtonian parameter $`\gamma 1^+`$, of the corresponding Brans-Dicke solution  (see in the following). Finally, because of the necessary equality of the gravitational masses in the three joined solutions, one obtains the following relation between the densities of the two quasi-universes $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _1^{^{}}`$:

$$\frac{\rho }{\rho _1^{^{}}}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\chi _1}{\mathrm{sin}\chi _1^{^{}}}\right)^2$$
(21)
To summarize the above results, the metrics corresponding to the exterior and interior Schwarzschild solutions have been rewritten replacing the usual radial coordinate with an angular one. With respect to the exterior solution, it covers four different regions of the space-time. With respect to the interior solution, it has been extended from the case $`\chi <\pi /2`$ (first-type solution) to the case $`\chi >\pi /2`$ of a quasi-universe (second-type solution). A second-type solution can be joined either to a first-type or to a second-type solution respectively through a suitable part of the Flamm’s paraboloid or through a particular Einstein-Rosen bridge (extreme wormhole) provided the gravitational masses are equal.

Let us now consider Equations (7) and (8) in the limiting case when the exterior Schwarzschild solution goes over all the remaining space (asymptotic flatness). It is our opinion that the following unions ($``$) of two of the four regions - named hereafter $`I,\mathrm{𝐼𝐼},\mathrm{𝐼𝐼𝐼},\mathrm{𝐼𝑉}`$ according to the customary nomenclature  - of the Kruskal-Szekeres diagram give rise to distinct solutions:

1) $`I\mathrm{𝐼𝐼}`$ : there is a singularity corresponding to a gravitational mass $`m`$ at $`\psi =\mathrm{}`$ and a quasi-universe of gravitational mass $`m`$ and density $`\rho =0`$ at the boundary $`\psi =\pi /2`$. The two regions are separated at $`\psi =0`$ by an event horizon.

2) $`\mathrm{𝐼𝐼𝐼}\mathrm{𝐼𝑉}`$ : there is a singularity corresponding to a gravitational mass $`m`$ at $`\psi =+\mathrm{}`$ and a quasi-universe of gravitational mass $`m`$ and density $`\rho =0`$ at the boundary $`\psi =\pi /2`$. The two regions are separated at $`\psi =0`$ by an event horizon.

3) $`I\mathrm{𝐼𝐼𝐼}`$ : there are two quasi-universes with gravitational mass $`m`$ and density $`\rho =0`$ at the boundaries $`\psi =\pi /2`$ and $`\psi =\pi /2`$, connected by an extreme wormhole.

4) $`\mathrm{𝐼𝐼}\mathrm{𝐼𝑉}`$ : the universe consists of two equal masses placed respectively at $`\psi =\mathrm{}`$ and at $`\psi =+\mathrm{}`$ with a cosmological horizon at $`\psi =0`$.

The Penrose diagram for the maximally extended Schwarzschild spacetime is a representation of the set of the four solutions.

More in general, one could consider expanding quasi-universes, which are universes with cavities ,,,. Inside one of such voids there is a body whose inertial mass is, by the equivalence principle, equal to its own gravitational mass and consequently, broadening the above considerations, also to the gravitational mass of the corresponding quasi-universe.

## 4 Brans-Dicke wormholes

We start by considering the static spherically symmetric vacuum solution of the Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation .

The related calculations were performed by us in Ref. , working in the Jordan frame, where the action is given (in units $`G_0=c=1`$) by

$$S=\frac{1}{16\pi }d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }R\frac{\omega }{\mathrm{\Phi }}^\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }\right]$$
(22)
and with a suitable choice of gauge. Here we quote only the results relevant for the following.

The line element can be written as

$$ds^2=e^{\mu (r)}dr^2+R^2(r)d\mathrm{\Omega }^2e^{\nu (r)}dt^2$$
(23)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\vartheta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta d\phi ^2`$ and, in the selected gauge:

$`R^2(r)=r^2\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{r}}\right]^{1\gamma \sqrt{2/(1+\gamma )}}`$ (24a)
$`e^{\mu (r)}=\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{r}}\right]^{\gamma \sqrt{2/(1+\gamma )}}`$ (24b)
$`e^{\nu (r)}=\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{r}}\right]^{\sqrt{2/(1+\gamma )}}`$ (24c)
Here $`\gamma `$ is the post-Newtonian parameter

$$\gamma =\frac{1+\omega }{2+\omega }$$
(25)
and

$$\eta =M\sqrt{\frac{1+\gamma }{2}}$$
(26)
Finally the scalar field is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(r)=\mathrm{\Phi }_0\left[1\frac{2\eta }{r}\right]^{(\gamma 1)/\sqrt{2(1+\gamma )}}$$
(27)
while the effective gravitational coupling $`G(r)`$ equals

$$G(r)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }(r)}\frac{2}{(1+\gamma )}$$
(28)
the factor $`2/(1+\gamma )`$ being absorbed, as in Ref. , in the definition of $`G`$.

Departures from Einstein’s theory of General Relativity appear only if $`\gamma 1`$, a possibility consistent with experimental observations which estimate it in the range $`10.0003<\gamma <1+0.0003`$ corresponding to the dimensionless Dicke coupling constant $`|\omega |>3000`$.

When $`\gamma <1`$ and $`r2\eta `$, then $`R(r)`$, $`e^{\nu (r)}`$ and $`G(r)`$ go all to zero. Therefore we have a singularity with infinite red-shift and gravitational interaction decreasing while approaching the singularity.

When $`\gamma =1`$ exactly, one has Schwarzschild solution of General Relativity

$$ds^2=\frac{dr^2}{1{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r}}}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2(1\frac{2M}{r})dt^2$$
(29)
When $`\gamma >1`$, the null energy condition $`\rho +p_j>0`$ is violated  and a wormhole solution is obtained  with throat at

$$r_0=\eta \left[1+\gamma \sqrt{\frac{2}{1+\gamma }}\right]=M\left[\gamma +\sqrt{\frac{1+\gamma }{2}}\right]$$
(30)
to which corresponds the value $`R_0`$ given by equation (24a). In this last case beyond the throat, where $`R>R_0`$, we are faced with two possibilities according to the value of the radial coordinate $`r`$ with respect to $`r_0`$.

* If $`r<r_0`$, when $`r2\eta `$ one has $`R\mathrm{}`$, $`g_{tt}0`$, $`g_{rr}\mathrm{}`$ and $`G\mathrm{}`$. The singularity is beyond the throat and is smeared on a spherical surface, asymptotically large but not asymptotically flat.
* If $`r>r_0`$, when $`r\mathrm{}`$ one has $`R\mathrm{}`$, $`g_{tt}1`$, $`g_{rr}1`$ and $`GG_N`$ (the Newton constant), so the space is asymptotically flat. In this case we have a two-way traversable wormhole which, more generally, will be a bridge connecting two quasi-universes.

## 5 Conclusions

The exterior and interior Schwarzschild solutions are rewritten replacing the usual radial variable with an angular one. This allows to obtain some results otherwise less apparent or even hidden in other coordinate systems. In particular we have proposed the concept of “quasi-universe” and described the Einstein-Rosen bridge as the extreme wormhole connecting two quasi-universes. Then we have employed the Brans-Dicke field to convert the non traversable Einstein-Rosen bridge into a traversable wormhole. There are however other possibilities to achieve this goal: the existence of exotic matter suffices for the violation of the null energy condition. Some other possibilities are:

* Scalar fields acting in the low energy limit of string theories.
* The Casimir energy.
* Squeezed quantum states.

As a concluding remark, we have introduced wormholes connecting different universes; the possibility of wormholes connecting different regions of the same universe (called stargates in the fiction) does not seem too realistic, due to the large amount of exotic matter needed and the difficulty of its stabilization in time.


format: text

text:
# Angular momentum effects in Michelson - Morley type experiments

## 1 Introduction

The famous Michelson-Morley experiment does not require any explanation regarding its nature and the crucial role that history reserved to it is well known. It has been analyzed in any respect in the early days of relativity and discussed also on its fundamental meaning . Since then it has been assumed that no anisotropy can be revealed until the frontier of special relativity is crossed. Only in a few cases anisotropies deriving from general relativistic corrections were considered , but only caused by the gravitational red shift in non-horizontal arms of the interferometer; Schwarzschild-like corrections do not produce any effect in the horizontal plane.

However, if the source of the field is rotating as it is the case for the Earth, the situation in principle changes. This means that a tiny anisotropy can legitimately be expected, depending on the angular momentum of the source.

On the other hand the search for measurable effects of the angular momentum of the gravitational field is always active in order to add a new direct verification of the consequences of general relativity. The only positive result at the moment concerns the precession of the nodes of the orbit of the LAGEOS satellite  (Lense-Thirring effect ). In the next few years the space mission Gravity Probe B (GPB) is planned to fly carrying gyroscopes which should in turn verify the Lense-Thirring effect too ; finally a series of different possibilities connected both with the Sagnac effect and the gravitomagnetic clock effect have been considered .

The present paper will fix the general formalism to verify a possible influence of the angular momentum density of the Earth on a Michelson-Morley type experiment. Numerical estimates will show that the effect is quite small in any case, however using non-geodesic light paths it could turn out to be comparable with what people are expecting and planning to measure with big size interferometric gravitational waves detectors like LIGO  and VIRGO .

## 2 Preliminaries

The Michelson-Morley experiment is an interferometric measure and uses light, let us then start from a generic null line element in polar coordinates and within an axially symmetric static field originated by a central body endowed with an angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }=d\varphi /dt`$:

$$0=g_{tt}dt^2+2g_{t\varphi }dtd\varphi +g_{rr}dr^2+g_{\theta \theta }d\theta ^2+g_{\varphi \varphi }d\varphi ^2$$
(1)
The $`g`$’s are of course the elements of the metric and are independent both from time $`t`$ and from $`\varphi `$. In weak-field approximation the explicit form of the metric can be

$`g_{tt}`$ $``$ $`c^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{r}}\right)`$
$`g_{t\varphi }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu c}{r}}a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$
$`g_{rr}`$ $``$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{r^2}}a^2`$ (2)
$`g_{\theta \theta }`$ $`=`$ $`r^2a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$
$`g_{\varphi \varphi }`$ $``$ $`\left(r^2+a^2\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$
where we introduced the parameters $`a=J/Mc`$ ($`J`$ is the angular momentum of the source, $`M`$ is its mass and $`c`$ is the speed of light), $`\mu =2GM/c^2`$ (Schwarzschild radius of the source). Now let us consider $`r=`$ constant world lines only. This choice corresponds to limiting the study to light beams contained locally in a ”horizontal” plane (actually this would require a wave guide locally shaped as a constant gravitational potential surface). The null (non-geodesic) world line becomes:

$$0=g_{tt}dt^2+2g_{t\varphi }dtd\varphi +g_{\theta \theta }d\theta ^2+g_{\varphi \varphi }d\varphi ^2$$
(3)
If we suppose to place our interferometer at the equator ($`\theta =\pi /2`$) and provided its arms are not too long, the metric (2) (first order in $`a/r`$, $`\mu /r`$ and $`\frac{\pi }{2}\theta `$) becomes

$`g_{tt}`$ $``$ $`c^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{r}}\right)`$
$`g_{t\varphi }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu c}{r}}a`$
$`g_{rr}`$ $``$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{r^2}}`$ (4)
$`g_{\theta \theta }`$ $``$ $`r^2`$
$`g_{\varphi \varphi }`$ $``$ $`r^2a^2`$
Consequently for short enough excursions in the ”horizontal plane” we can assume, at the lowest order in $`\theta `$, that, for light, $`\varphi `$ and $`\theta `$ variations are approximately proportional to each other, so:

$$\left|d\theta \right|=\chi \left|d\varphi \right|$$
(5)
where $`\chi `$ is a constant.

Suppose now that the interferometer arms are stretched one in the North-South direction and the other in the East-West direction. Taking into account the fact that the Earth reference frame, where the interferometer is at rest, is indeed rotating, the coefficient $`\chi `$ will depend on the angular speed of the Earth.

Now solving (3) for $`dt`$ we obtain

$$dt=\frac{g_{t\varphi }\pm \sqrt{g_{t\varphi }^2g_{tt}g_{\theta \theta }\chi ^2g_{tt}g_{\varphi \varphi }}}{g_{tt}}d\varphi $$
(6)
Supposing our light beam starts from a point on the equator at $`\varphi =0`$ and moves northward, it will be

$$\theta =\frac{\pi }{2}\chi \varphi $$
(7)
Of course in the case of an East-West beam it is $`\chi =0`$.

## 3 Times of flight of non-geodesic light beams

In proximity of the equator the first factor in the right hand side of (6) does not depend on $`\theta `$; thus

$$t_N=\frac{g_{t\varphi }+\sqrt{g_{t\varphi }^2g_{tt}g_{\theta \theta }\chi ^2g_{tt}g_{\varphi \varphi }}}{g_{tt}}\varphi _1$$
(8)
$`t_N`$ is the time of flight to reach the northern mirror and $`\varphi _1`$ is the angular coordinate of the event; the drift of the beam is naturally in the prograde sense.

The world line of the mirror (initially at $`\theta =\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\varphi =0`$; here $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ represents the angular stretch of the interferometer arm) is:

$$t_N=\varphi _1/\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(9)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is of course the angular speed of the Earth.

(8) and (9) allow to deduce an expression for $`\chi `$:

$$\chi =\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\sqrt{\frac{g_{tt}+2g_{t\varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }+g_{\varphi \varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{g_{\theta \theta }}}$$
(10)
Actually at the lowest order in $`\theta `$ (10) does not contain $`\theta `$ itself and consequently on an $`r=`$ $`R`$ $`=`$ constant surface $`\chi `$ is a constant.

From (7) we see that to span the South-North angular distance $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, one travels eastward by the angle

$$\varphi _1=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\chi }$$
(11)
Returning to (8) and using (10):

$$t_N=\sqrt{\frac{g_{\theta \theta }}{g_{tt}+2g_{t\varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }+g_{\varphi \varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}\mathrm{\Phi }$$

Considering the North-South way back to the source we see from (8) that it is

$$t_S=\frac{g_{t\varphi }+\sqrt{g_{t\varphi }^2g_{tt}g_{\theta \theta }\chi _S^2g_{tt}g_{\varphi \varphi }}}{g_{tt}}\varphi _2$$
(12)
where $`\varphi _2`$ is the Earth’s rotation angle between the reflection and the arrival back at the source. It must be

$$t_S=\varphi _2/\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(13)
(12) and (13) give $`\chi _S=\chi `$ as in (10); then it is $`t_S=t_N`$, $`\varphi _2=\varphi _1.`$ Finally the total time of flight South-North-South is

$$t_{SNS}=t_N+t_S=2\sqrt{\frac{g_{\theta \theta }}{g_{tt}+2g_{t\varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }+g_{\varphi \varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}\mathrm{\Phi }$$

To proceed further we recall the explicit expressions for the $`g`$’s, given in (4): now, posing $`\mathrm{\Phi }=l/R`$ where $`l`$ is the length of the arm of the interferometer and $`R`$ is the radius of the Earth, one has approximately:

$$t_{SNS}2\frac{l}{c}\left(1+\frac{\mu }{2R}+\frac{R^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2c^2}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2a^2}{c^2}\right)2\frac{\mu a\mathrm{\Omega }}{c^2R}l$$

All further corrections in $`\theta `$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, are indeed quadratic and multiply the other small terms, thus resulting much smaller than them.

The next step is to consider the time of flight along the East-West arm of the interferometer.

From formula (3) with $`\theta =\pi /2=`$ const we have

$$t_E=\frac{g_{t\varphi }+\sqrt{g_{t\varphi }^2g_{tt}g_{\varphi \varphi }}}{g_{tt}}\varphi $$
(14)
The world line of the eastern end mirror, assuming equal length arms, is $`\varphi =\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Omega }t`$ which means also

$$\varphi _E=\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Omega }t_E$$
(15)
Combining (14) and (15) one has

$$t_E=\frac{g_{t\varphi }\sqrt{\left(g_{t\varphi }^2g_{tt}g_{\varphi \varphi }\right)}}{g_{tt}+g_{t\varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{\left(g_{t\varphi }^2g_{tt}g_{\varphi \varphi }\right)}\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(16)
Now for the way back we have

$$t_W=\frac{g_{t\varphi }+\sqrt{g_{t\varphi }^2g_{tt}g_{\varphi \varphi }}}{g_{tt}}\left(\varphi _E\varphi _W\right)$$
(17)
$`\varphi _W`$ is the angular coordinate of the source at the arrival time of the reflected beam. It must also be

$$\varphi _W=\mathrm{\Omega }\left(t_E+t_W\right)$$
(18)
(18) and (17) together allow for the calculation of $`t_W`$:

$$t_W=\frac{g_{t\varphi }+\sqrt{g_{t\varphi }^2g_{tt}g_{\varphi \varphi }}}{g_{tt}+g_{t\varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }+\sqrt{g_{t\varphi }^2g_{tt}g_{\varphi \varphi }}\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(19)
The total West-East-West time of flight is

$$t_{WEW}=t_E+t_W=2\frac{\sqrt{g_{t\varphi }^2g_{tt}g_{\varphi \varphi }}}{g_{tt}+2g_{t\varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }+\mathrm{\Omega }^2g_{\varphi \varphi }}\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(20)
The difference in the time of flight along the two arms at the lowest order weak field approximation is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t=t_{WEW}t_{SNS}\frac{a^2}{R^2}\frac{l}{c}$$
(21)
## 4 Geodesic light beams

The situation for free, i.e. geodesic, light rays is different from the description given in the previous section. Now we start from the remark that in the equatorial plane the bending of the light rays is lower than the curvature of the circle along which the mirrors of the interferometer move. Actually in the zeroth order of approximation the time of flight of light between the two end mirrors of an arm of the interferometer is deduced from the length of the chord subtended to the appropriate arc of the mirrors circumference. It is

$$t_o=2\frac{R}{c}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\varphi _o}{2}$$
(22)
where $`\varphi _o=\mathrm{\Phi }\pm \mathrm{\Omega }t`$ ($`+`$ in the prograde path, $``$ in the reverse trip).

Taking into account the effect of the mass $`M`$ and the angular momentum density $`a`$, we expect a deviation from the straight line, which can be expressed in terms of the space curvature of the light beam $`k=1/\rho `$ ($`\rho `$ is the radius of curvature).

A further approximation can be to use the average curvature of the path between the two ends of the interferometer arc. The length of the intercepted beam would then be

$$\rho \psi $$
(23)
where $`\psi `$ is the angle subtending the moving interferometer arc, as seen from the curvature center. When the space trajectory of the light rays is not contained in the equatorial plane, we expect it also no more to be plane at all, however reasonably the non-planarity corrections will be smaller than the other corrections we are introducing.

The chord subtended to the arc (23) is of course the same when seen from the origin of the reference frame; in the equatorial plane this gives

$$\rho \mathrm{sin}\frac{\psi }{2}=R\mathrm{sin}\frac{\varphi }{2}$$

Now $`\varphi `$ is slightly different from the former $`\varphi _o`$:

$$\varphi =\varphi _o\pm \mathrm{\Omega }\delta t$$

where $`\delta t`$ is the correction to the time of flight induced by the curvature of the trajectory.

Extracting $`\psi `$ from (4):

$$\psi =2\mathrm{arcsin}\left(\frac{R}{\rho }\mathrm{sin}\frac{\varphi }{2}\right)$$

and the time of flight becomes

$$t=\frac{\rho }{c}\psi =2\frac{\rho }{c}\mathrm{arcsin}\left(\frac{R}{\rho }\mathrm{sin}\frac{\varphi }{2}\right)$$

More explicitly in terms of $`\delta t`$ and using (22):

$$\delta t=tt_o=2\frac{\rho }{c}\mathrm{arcsin}\left(\frac{R}{\rho }\mathrm{sin}\frac{\varphi _o\pm \mathrm{\Omega }\delta t}{2}\right)2\frac{R}{c}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\varphi _o}{2}$$

Reasonably it is $`\rho >>R`$ and all angles are small ($`<10^6`$ rad, which is the angle subtended under a $`1`$ m arm, from the center of the Earth). This allows for series developments up to the lowest meaningful orders, thus

$$\delta t=\pm \frac{R}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }\delta t+\frac{1}{24}\frac{R^3}{c\rho ^2}\left(\varphi _o^3\pm 3\varphi _o^2\mathrm{\Omega }\delta t\right)$$

Solving for $`\delta t`$

$$\delta t=\frac{1}{24}\frac{l^3}{c\rho ^2}$$
(24)
Now we need an explicit expression for $`\rho `$. A standard approach  moves from considering the right hand side of (3) divided by $`d\lambda ^2`$ (where $`\lambda `$ is an affine parameter) as the Lagrangian of the light ray. The cyclicity of the $`t`$ and $`\varphi `$ coordinates leads to the constants of the motion

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`g_{tt}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{d\lambda }}+g_{t\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{d\lambda }}`$
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`g_{t\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{d\lambda }}+g_{\varphi \varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{d\lambda }}`$
wherefrom

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{d\lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{t\varphi }Eg_{tt}L}{g_{t\varphi }^2g_{tt}g_{\varphi \varphi }}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{d\lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\varphi \varphi }E+g_{t\varphi }L}{g_{t\varphi }^2g_{tt}g_{\varphi \varphi }}}`$
Using the Lagrangian in the equatorial plane one obtains also

$$\left(\frac{dr}{d\lambda }\right)^2=\frac{2ELg_{t\varphi }E^2g_{\varphi \varphi }L^2g_{tt}}{g_{rr}\left(g_{tt}g_{\varphi \varphi }g_{t\varphi }^2\right)}$$
(25)
and

$$(r^{})^2=\frac{g_{tt}g_{\varphi \varphi }g_{t\varphi }^2}{g_{rr}}\frac{2jg_{t\varphi }g_{\varphi \varphi }j^2g_{tt}}{\left(jg_{tt}g_{t\varphi }\right)^2}$$
(26)
A  denotes differentiation with respect to $`\varphi `$ and $`j=L/E`$. Introducing the variable $`u=1/r`$ one has

$$\left(u^{}\right)^2=u^4\frac{g_{tt}(u)g_{\varphi \varphi }(u)g_{t\varphi }^2(u)}{g_{rr}(u)}\frac{2jg_{t\varphi }(u)g_{\varphi \varphi }(u)j^2g_{tt}(u)}{\left(jg_{tt}(u)g_{t\varphi }(u)\right)^2}$$
(27)
Now using (2) (27), in the lowest order in the gravitational parameters, becomes

$$\left(u^{}\right)^2=\frac{1}{j^2}u^2+\mu u^3+2\frac{u}{j^3}\mu a+\left(\frac{3}{j^2}2u^2\right)u^2a^2$$
(28)
Differentiating with respect to $`\varphi `$ we end up with the differential equation

$$u^{\prime \prime }+u=\frac{3}{2}\mu u^2+\frac{1}{j^3}\mu a4u^3a^2+\frac{3}{j^2}ua^2$$
(29)
Now coming to the local curvature of the rays in the equatorial plane, it is convenient to use a Cartesian reference frame in that plane posing

$`y`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g_{\varphi \varphi }}\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g_{\varphi \varphi }}\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$
In terms of $`u`$ (which is a function of $`\varphi `$ along the trajectory) and using the appropriate approximation:

$`y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}\sqrt{\left(1+a^2u^2\right)}\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}\sqrt{\left(1+a^2u^2\right)}\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$
then

$$w=\frac{dy}{dx}=\frac{u^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi +\left(1+u^2a^2\right)u\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{u^{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \left(1+u^2a^2\right)u\mathrm{cos}\varphi }$$

Finally

$$\frac{1}{\rho }=\frac{dw}{dx}=𝒜\left(\varphi \right)+\left(\varphi \right)a^2$$
(30)
where $`𝒜\left(\varphi \right)`$ and $`\left(\varphi \right)`$ are rather complicated functions of $`u`$, $`u^{}`$, $`u^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\varphi `$.

The formula (30) can be explicitly written in a convenient form if the curvature is calculated at the point of closest approach of the ray to the center of the Earth (maximum value of $`u`$ which we are calling $`u_m`$). There we expect $`u^{}=0`$ and can decide that $`\varphi =0`$. Reasonably the average value of the curvature along the path of the light differs from the value at the closest approach by small corrections.

The curvature value we shall use is then

$$\frac{1}{\rho }=\left(u_m^{\prime \prime }+u_m\right)+\frac{1}{2}\left(u_m+3u_m^{\prime \prime }\right)u^2a^2$$

Actually the last term is 12 orders of magnitude smaller than the first, so in practice

$$\frac{1}{\rho }=\left(u_m^{\prime \prime }+u_m\right)$$
(31)
Now $`u_m`$ can be obtained equating (28) to $`0`$. At the lowest approximation order it is

$$u_m=\frac{1}{j}$$

Introducing this result into (29) and (31) produces

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{j^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{j^3}}\mu a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{j^3}}a^2\right)^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{j^4}}3{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{j^5}}a^2`$
Now back to the time difference (24). A further crude approximation can be to put $`jR`$:

$$\delta t\frac{1}{24}\frac{l^3}{c}\frac{\mu }{R^4}\left(\frac{9}{4}\mu 3\frac{a^2}{R}\right)$$
(32)
The correction, as we see, is negligibly small: $`10^{36}`$ s for the pure mass term and $`10^{40}`$ s for the $`a^2`$ term.

Out of the equatorial plane we cannot reasonably expect the situation to be different. Of course the difference in flight times along the two arms cannot but be less or at most equal in the order of magnitude to (32). In practice this means that for free light rays in the terrestrial environment the straight line approximation is fairly adequate and the time of flight difference has the typical $`0`$ value of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

## 5 Discussion and conclusion

The result (21) is obtained under the assumption that a physical apparatus (bidimensional wave guide) obliges the light rays to move along constant radius paths. Were this possible the order of magnitude estimate at the surface of the Earth for $`1`$ m long interferometer arms would be:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t10^{20}s$$
(33)
This effect is purely rotational and rather small but not entirely negligible. Should the interferometer rotate in the horizontal plane, the time of flight difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ would alternatively change of sign displaying an oscillating behavior which in principle could be detected. In general (33) fixes the scale for $`a^2`$ effects on the Earth.

A way to increase the value of (33) would be to have multiple reflections of the light beams happen along each arm of the interferometer before the actual interference is measured. This is what happens in Fabry-Perot type interferometers. Here both arms should be equipped with such devices, it would then be easy to have the light rays to be reflected back and forth for instance $`10^3`$ or $`10^4`$ times, before the measurement. Since the effect we are looking at is indeed cumulative, this fact would bring the time difference between the two paths to $`10^{17}10^{16}`$ s, which corresponds, for visible light, to $`10^210^1`$ fringe in the interference pattern. This would indeed be a huge effect: $`10^410^2`$ fractional change of the signal intensity.

It is remarkable that the obtained numeric value compares with the expected phase (and time) shifts in the gravitational wave interferometric detectors now under construction, as LIGO and VIRGO ,. There indeed a sensitivity is expected, in measuring displacements, of the order of $`10^{16}`$ m which corresponds to a time of flight difference 4 orders of magnitude lower than (33) and consequent much higher sensitivity.

Of course our effect as such is a static one, producing a DC signal and it would be practically impossible to recognize its presence in the given static interference pattern. On the other hand the spectacular sensitivity of gravitational wave interferometric detectors is obtained at frequencies in the range $`10^210^3`$ Hz. To extract the information from the background and to profit of highly refined interferometric techniques we would have to modulate the signal. This result could be achieved, for instance, steadily rotating the whole interferometer in the horizontal plane. This solution would however introduce a new source of noise too, in form of vibrations. It would be better to think of a static interferometer with a couple of rotating beams. In practice one could have two cylindric, coaxial mirrors; the internal one should be partially transparent. On the axis one would have a compact rotating head with a couple of source/receivers shooting two light beams orthogonally to each other; this result would actually be performed with an appropriate beam splitter on the axis and a primary source sending light along the axis. The couple of cylindrical reflecting surfaces would act as a Fabry-Perot device; the return beams would interfere on the axis.

Of course in this configuration one would have the sought for signal, modulated at a frequency double of the rotation frequency of the beams. Any imperfection of the mirrors and of the whole set up would of course generate perturbations at the same fundamental frequency as the one of the signal. The difference between signal and rotation induced noise would be that the signal would be peaked on the East-West direction, whereas the various disturbances would have random orientations of their axes. Repeating many measurement runs with different angular configurations of the interferometer and carefully analyzing the data should allow separating the East-West peaked signal from the rest.

Besides the rotation induced perturbations one would expect also elastic vibration and thermal noise in the solid body of the interferometer. The elastic vibrations can be controlled carefully designing the structure in order to have proper frequencies not coinciding with the rotation frequency of the beams. For a rigid configuration at the scale of the meter, proper frequencies are easily greater than 1 kH.

As for thermal noise, it can be controlled operating at low temperature. In any case if a phase difference can be achieved in the order of one hundredth of a fringe or better, the signal would easily be bigger than the amplitude of the thermal noise of an even moderately cooled device.

In order to cope with the needs both of mechanical and thermal stability, and considering that we need also to properly guide the optical beams a best suited material could be sapphire, whose properties make it extremely interesting for interferometry in gravitational waves detection .

The one described above is a simple scheme, showing the principle feasibility of an experiment. A careful analysis of the technical details would of course be needed in order to proceed further.

We can conclude that the calculations we have written in this paper fix the order of magnitude of effects depending from the $`a^2`$ of the Earth and show that they should be big enough to be measurable by interferometric techniques.