text:
# Untitled Document

A List of References on
Spacetime Splitting
and Gravitoelectromagnetism

Donato Bini† and Robert T. Jantzen$`\mathrm{\S }`$

† Istituto per Applicazioni della Matematica C.N.R., I–80131 Napoli, Italy

I.C.R.A., International Center for Relativistic Astrophysics, University of Rome, I–00185 Rome, Italy
$`\mathrm{\S }`$ Department of Mathematical Sciences, Villanova University, Villanova, PA 19085, USA

To be published in the Proceedings of the Encuentros Relativistas Españoles, September, 2000

(http://hades.eis.uva.es/EREs2000).

We invite corrections and additions to be sent to robert.jantzen@villanova.edu.

1.
2. Abramowicz, M.A., see also Kristiansson, Sonego.
3. Abramowicz, M.A., 1990,
Centrifugal Force: A Few Surprises, Mon. Not. R. Ast. Soc. 245, 733.
4. Abramowicz, M.A., 1992,
Relativity of Inwards and Outwards, Mon. Not. R. Ast. Soc. 256, 710.
5. Abramowicz, M.A., 1993,
Black Holes and the Centrifugal Force Paradox, Sci. Am. 268, 26.
6. Abramowicz, M.A. and Bičák, J., 1991,
The Interplay between Relativistic Gravitational, Centrifugal and Electric Forces: a Simple Example, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 23, 941.
7. Abramowicz, M.A., Carter, B. and Lasota, J.P., 1988,
Optical Reference Geometry for Stationary and Static Dynamics, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 20, 1173.
8. Abramowicz, M.A. and Lasota, J.P., 1974,
A Note on a Paradoxical Property of the Schwarzschild Solution, Acta Phys. Polonica. B5, 327.
9. Abramowicz, M.A. and Lasota, J.P., 1986,
On Traveling Round Without Feeling It and Uncurving Curves, Amer. J. Phys. 54, 936.
10. Abramowicz, M.A. and Lasota, J.P., 1997,
A Brief Story of a Straight Circle, Class. Quantum Grav. 14, A23.
11. Abramowicz, M.A., Miller, J.C., and Stuchlík, Z., 1993,
Concept of Radius of Gyration in General Relativity, Phys. Rev. D47, 1440.
12. Abramowicz, M.A., Nurowski, P., Wex, N., 1993,
Covariant Definition of Inertial Forces, Class. Quantum Grav. 10, L183.
13. Abramowicz, M.A., Nurowski, P., Wex, N., 1995,
Optical reference geometry for stationary and axially symmetric spacetimes, Class. Quantum Grav. 12, 1467.
14. Abramowicz, M.A. and Prasanna, A.R., 1990,
Centrifugal-force Reversal Near a Schwarzschild Black Hole, Mon. Not. R. Ast. Soc. 245, 720.
15. Abramowicz, M.A., 1990,
Unexpected Properties of the Centrifugal Force, in 1989 Summer School in High Energy Physics and Cosmology, Pati, J.C., Randjbar-Daemi, S., Sezgin, E., Shafi, Q. (editors), World Scientific, Singapore, 586.
16. Abramowicz, M.A., 1992,
Relativity of Inwards and Outwards, Mon. Not. R. Ast. Soc. 256, 710.
17. Abramowicz, M.A., 1993,
Inertial Forces in General Relativity, in The Renaissance of General Relativity, Ellis, G.F.R., Lanza, A., and Miller, J.C. (editors), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
18. Aguirregabiria, J.M., Chamorro, A., Nayak, K.R., Suinaga, J. and Vishveshwara, C.V., 1996,
Equilibrium of a Charged Test Particle in the Kerr-Newman Spacetime: Force Analysis, Class. Quantum Grav. 13, 2179.
19. Allen, B., 1990,
Reversing Centrifugal Forces, Nature 347, 615.
20. Anderson, R., Bilger, H.R. and Stedman, G.E., 1994,
“Sagnac Effect: A Century of Earth-Rotated Interferometers, R. Am. J. Phys. 62, 975.
21. Arms, J.A., 1979,
Linearization stability of gravitational and gauge fields, J. Math. Phys. 20, 443.
22. Arms, J.A., Marsden, J.E., and Moncrief, V., 1982,
The Structure of the Space of Solutions of Einstein’s Equations II: Several Killing Fields and the Einstein-Yang-Mills Equations, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 144, 81.
23. Arnowit, R., Deser, S. and Misner, C.W., 1962,
The Dynamics of General Relativity, in Gravitation: An Introduction to Current Research, Ed. L. Witten, (Wiley, New York).
24. Ashby, N., and Shahid-Saless, B., 1990,
Geodetic Precession or Dragging of Inertial Frames?, Phys. Rev. D42, 1118.
25. Ashtekar, A., and Magnon, A., 1975,
The Sagnac Effect in General Relativity, J. Math. Phys. 16, 341.
26.
27. Bao, D., Marsden, J. and Walton, R., 1985,
The Hamiltonian Structure of General Relativistic Perfect Fluids, Commun. Math. Phys. 99, 319.
28. Bardeen, J.M., 1970,
Variational Principle for Rotating Stars in General Relativity, Astrophys. J. 162, 71.
29. Bardeen, J.M., 1980,
Gauge-invariant Cosmological Perturbations, Phys. Rev. D22, 1882.
30. Bardeen, J.M., Press, W.H. and Teukolsky, S.A., 1972, Astrophys. J. 170, 347.
31. Barnes, A., and Rowlingson, R.R., 1989,
Irrotational Perfect Fluids With a Purely Electric Weyl Tensor, Class. Quantum Grav. 6, 949.
32. Barrabès, C., Boisseau, B., and Israel, W., 1995,
Orbits, Forces, and Accretion Dynamics Near Spinning Black Holes, Mon. Not. R. Ast. Soc. 276, 432.
33. Bazański, S.L., 1997,
Is the Geodesic Hypothesis in General Relativity Falsifiable?, in Mathematics of Gravitation Part II, Gravitational Wave Detection, Banach Center Publications, Volume 41, (Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw).
34. Belasco, E.P. and Ohanian, H.C., 1969,
Initial Conditions in General Relativity: Lapse and Shift Formulation, J. Math. Phys. 10, 1503.
35. Benvenuti, P., 1960,
Formulazione relativa delle equazioni dell’elettromagnetismo in relatività generale, Ann. Scuola Normale Sup. Pisa, Ser.III 14, 171.
36. Bertschinger, E., and Hamilton, A.J.S., 1994,
Lagrangian Evolution of the Weyl Tensor, Astrophys. J. 435, 1.
37. Bini, D., Carini, P., and Jantzen, R.T., 1992,
Applications of Gravitoelectromagnetism to Rotating Spacetimes, in Proceedings of the Third Italian-Korean Astrophysics Meeting, Eds. S. Kim, H. Lee, K.T. Kim, J. Korean. Phys. Soc. 25, S190.
38. Bini, D., Carini, P., and Jantzen, R.T., 1995,
Relative Observer Kinematics in General Relativity, Class. Quantum Grav. 12, 2549.
39. Bini, D., Carini, P., and Jantzen, R.T., 1996,
Gravitoelectromagnetism: Further Applications, in Proceedings of the Seventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity (1994), Eds. R.T. Jantzen and G.M. Keiser, (World Scientific, Singapore), 519.
40. Bini, D., Carini, P., and Jantzen, R.T., 1997,
The Intrinsic Derivative and Centrifugal Forces. I: Theoretical Foundations, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D6, 1.
41. Bini, D., Carini, P., and Jantzen, R.T., 1997,
The Intrinsic Derivative and Centrifugal Forces. II: Applications to Some Familiar Stationary Axisymmetric Spacetimes, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D6, 143.
42. Bini, D., Carini, P., Jantzen, R.T., and D. Wilkins, 1994,
Thomas Precession in Post-Newtonian Gravitoelectromagnetism, Phys. Rev. D49, 2820.
43. Bini, D., Jantzen, R.T., Merloni, A., 1998,
Adapted Frames for Spacetime Splitting with an Additional Observer Family, Il Nuovo Cimento B 113, 611.
44. Bini, D., Jantzen, R.T., Merloni, A., 1999,
Geometric Interpretation of the Frenet-Serret Frame Description of Circular Orbits in Stationary Axisymmetric Spacetimes, Class. Quantum Grav. 16, 1333.
45. Bini, D., de Felice, F., Jantzen, R.T., 1999,
Absolute and Relative Frenet-Serret Frames and Fermi-Walker Transport, Class. Quantum Grav. 16, 2105.
46. Bini, D., Gemelli, G., Ruffini, R., 2000
Spinning Test Particles in General Relativity: Nongeodesic Motion in the Reissner-Nordström Spacetime, Phys. Rev. D61, 064013-1.
47. Bini, D., Jantzen, R.T., 2000,
Circular Orbits in Kerr Spacetime: Equatorial Plane Embedding Diagrams, Class. Quantum Grav.  17, 1.
48. Blanchet, L. and Damour, T., 1989
Post-Newtonian Generation of Gravitational Waves, Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré 50, 377.
49. Blanchet, L., Damour, T. and Schäfer, G., 1990,
Post-Newtonian Hydrodynamics and Post-Newtonian Gravitational Wave Generation for Numerical Relativity, Mon. Not. R. Ast. Soc. 242, 289.
50. Boersma, S., and Dray, T., 1995,
Parametric Manifolds I: Extrinsic Approach, J. Math. Phys. 36, 1378.
51. Boersma, S., and Dray, T., 1995,
Parametric Manifolds II: Intrinsic Approach, J. Math. Phys. 36, 1394.
52. Boersma, S., and Dray, T., 1994,
Slicing, Threading and Parametric Manifolds, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 27, 319.
53. Bonnor, W.B., 1992, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 24, 551.
54. Bonnor, W.B. and Steadman, B.R., 1999,
The Gravitomagnetic Clock Effect, Class. Quantum Grav. 16, 1853.
55. Bradley, M. Fodor, G., Gergely, L.A., Marklund, M. and Perjés, Z., 1999, Class. Quantum Grav. 16, 1667.
56. Boyer, R.H., and Lindquist, R.W., 1967,
Maximal Analytic Extension of the Kerr Metric, J. Math. Phys. 8, 265.
57. Braginsky, V.B., Caves, C.M., and Thorne, K.S., 1977,
Laboratory Experiments to Test Relativistic Gravity, Phys. Rev. 15, 2047.
58. Braginsky, V.B., Polnarev, A.G., and Thorne, K.S., 1984,
Foucault Pendulum at the South Pole: Proposal For an Experiment to Detect the Earth’s General Relativistic Gravitomagnetic Field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 863.
59. Bruni, M., Dunsby, P.K.S., and Ellis, G.F.R., 1992,
Cosmological Perturbations and the Meaning of Gauge-invariant Variables, Astrophys. J. 395, 34.
60. Bruni, M., Matarrese, S., and Pantano, O., 1994,
Dynamics of silent universes with and without lambda, SISSA-171-94-A Talk given at 11th Italian Congress of General Relativity and Gravitation, Trieste, Italy, 26-30 Sep 1994.
61. Bruni, M., Matarrese, S., and Pantano, O., 1995,
A Local View of the Observable Universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 1916.
62. Bunchaft, F., and Carneiro, S., 1998,
The static spacetime relative acceleration for the general free fall and its possible experimental test, Class. Quantum Grav. 15, 1557.
63. Burinskii, Kerr, R.P., and Perjés, Z., 1995,
Nonstationary Kerr Congruences, electronic preprint: gr-qc/ 9501012.
64.
65. Calvão, M.O., Soares, I.D. and Tiomno, J., 1990,
Geodesics in Gödel-type Spacetimes, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 22, 683.
66. Carini, P., Bini, D., and Jantzen, R.T., 1992,
Gravitoelectromagnetism: Relativity of Splitting Formalisms, in Proceedings of the Third Italian-Korean Astrophysics Meeting, Eds. S. Kim, H. Lee, K.T. Kim, J. Korean. Phys. Soc. 25, S233.
67. Carini, P., Bini, D., and Jantzen, R.T., 1996,
Gravitoelectromagnetism and Inertial Forces in General Relativity, in Proceedings of the Seventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity (1994), Eds. R.T. Jantzen and G.M. Keiser, (World Scientific, Singapore), 522.
68. Carini, P. and Jantzen, R.T., 1993,
Gravitoelectromagnetism and the Single Gyro, in Proceedings of the First William Fairbank Meeting on Relativistic Experiments in Space (September 1990), Eds. R. Ruffini and M. Demianski, (World Scientific Press, Singapore), 135.
69. Carter, B., 1968,
Global Structure of the Kerr Family of Gravitational fields, Phys. Rev. 174, 1559.
70. Carter, B., 1968,
Hamilton-Jacobi and Schrodinger Separable Solutions of Einstein’s Equations, Commun. Math. Phys. 10, 280.
71. Carter, B., 1969,
Killing Horizons and Orthogonally Transitive Groups in Space-Time, J. Math. Phys. 10, 70.
72. Carter, B., 1973,
Black Hole Equilibrium States, in Black Holes, Eds. C. DeWitt and B.S. DeWitt, (Gordon and Breach, New York), 57.
73. Carter, B., McLenaghan, R.G., 1982,
Generalized Master Equations for Wave Equation Separation in a Kerr or Kerr-Newmann Black Hole Background, in Proceedings of the Second Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, Ed. R. Ruffini, (North Holland, Amsterdam), p. 575.
74. Cattaneo, C., 1958,
General Relativity: Relative Standard Mass, Momentum, Energy and Gravitational Field in a General System of Reference, Nuovo Cim. 10, 318.
75. Cattaneo, C., 1959,
On the Energy Equation for a Gravitating Test Particle, Nuovo Cim. 11, 733.
76. Cattaneo, C., 1959,
Proiezioni naturali e derivazione traversa in una varietà riemanniana a metrica iperbolica normale, Ann. Mat. Pura ed Appl. 48, 361.
77. Cattaneo, C., 1959,
Dérivation transverse et grandeurs relatives en relativité générale, Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. 248, 197.
78. Cattaneo, C., 1961, Calcolo Differenziale Assoluto su una Varietá Riemanniana, (Libreria E.V. Veschi, Rome).
79. Cattaneo-Gasperini, I., 1961,
Projections naturelles des tenseurs de courbure d’une variété $`V_{n+1}`$ à métrique hyperbolique normale, Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. 252, 3722.
80. Cattaneo-Gasperini, I., 1963,
Proiezioni dei tensori di curvatura di una varietá riemanniana a metrica iperbolica normale, Rend. di Mat. 22, 127.
81. Chakrabarti, S.K., see also Prasanna.
82. Chakrabarti, S.K. and Prasanna, A.R., 1990,
Classical Forces in the Kerr Geometry, J. Astrophys. Astro. 11, 29.
83. Chakrabarti, S.K. and Sheikh, A.Y., 1993,
Force on a Charged Particle Orbiting Around a Kerr-Newman Black Hole, in Proceedings of the Sixth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, Eds. H. Sato and T. Nakamura, (World Scientific Press, Singapore), p. 1360.
84. Chakrabarti, S.K., 1993,
Reversal of Force and Energy Coupling Around a Rotating Black Hole, Mon. Not. R. Ast. Soc. 261, 625.
85. Choquet-Bruhat, Y., 1956,
Sur L’Integration des Équations de la Relativité Générale, J. Rat. Mech. Anal. 5, 951.
86. Choquet-Bruhat, Y. and York, J.W., Jr., 1980,
The Cauchy Problem, in General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. I, Ed. A. Held, (Plenum, New York).
87. Christodoulou, D., and Ruffini, R., 1973,
On the Electrodynamics of Collapsed Objects, in Black Holes,, Eds. C. DeWitt and B.S. DeWitt, (Gordon and Breach, New York), R151.
88. Ciufolini, I., 1986,
Generalized Geodesic Deviation Equation, Phys. Rev. D34, 1014.
89. Ciufolini, I., 1990,
General Relativistic Measurements with Satellite Laser Ranging, Lunar Laser Ranging and Very Long Baseline Interferometry, Nuovo Cim. 13C, 67.
90. Ciufolini, I., 1994,
On Gravitomagnetism and Dragging of Inertial Frames, Class. Quantum Grav. 11, A73.
91. Ciufolini, I. and Demiański, M., 1986,
How to Measure the Curvature of Space-time, Phys. Rev. D34, 1018. Erratum: Phys. Rev. D35, 773.
92. Ciufolini, I., Chieppa, F., Lucchesi, D. and Vespe, F., 1997,
Test of Lense-Thirring Orbital Shift Due to Spin, Class. Quantum Grav. 14, 2701.
93. Ciufolini, I. and Wheeler, J.A., 1995, Gravitation and Inertia, (Princeton University Press, Princeton).
94. Cohen, J.M. and Toton, E.T., 1971,
Pulsar Electrodynamics, Astrophys. Lett. 7, 213.
95. Cohen, J.M. and Mashhoon, B., 1993,
Standard Clocks, Interferometry, and Gravitomagnetism, Phys. Lett. A181, 353.
96. Cohen, J.M., Tiomno, J., and Wald, R., 1973,
Gyromagnetic Ratio of a Massive Body, Phys. Rev. 7, 998.
97. Cohen, J. M. and Mashhoon B., 1993
Standard Clocks, Interferometry, and Gravitomagnetism, Phys. Lett. A181, 353.
98. Collins, C.B., and Szafron, D.A., 1979,
A New Approach to Inhomogeneous Cosmologies: Intrinsic Symmetries. I., J. Math. Phys. 20, 2347.
99. Collins, C.B., and Szafron, D.A., 1979,
A New Approach to Inhomogeneous Cosmologies: Intrinsic Symmetries. III. Conformally Flat Slices and Their Analysis, J. Math. Phys. 20, 2347.
100. Corum, J.F., 1977,
Relativistic Rotation and the Anholonomic Object, J. Math. Phys. 18, 770.
101. Corum, J.F., 1980,
Relativistic covariance and rotational electrodynamics, J. Math. Phys. 18, 2360.
102.
103. Damour, T., 1982,
Surface Effects in Black Hole Physics, in Proceedings of the Second Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, Ed. R. Ruffini, (North Holland, Amsterdam), 587.
104. Damour, T., 1978,
Black Hole Eddy Currents, Phys. Rev. D18, 3598.
105. Damour, T., Hanni, R.H., Ruffini, R., and Wilson, J.R., 1978,
Regions of Magnetic Support of a Plasma around a Black Hole, Phys. Rev. 17, 1518.
106. Damour, T. and Ruffini, R., 1975,
Quantum Electrodynamical Effects in Kerr-Newmann Geometries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 463.
107. Damour, T., 1987,
??, in 300 Years of Gravitation, Eds. S.W. Hawking and W. Israel, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), 128.
108. Damour, T. Soffel, M. and Xu, C., 1991,
General Relativistic Celestial Mechanics I. Method and Definition of Reference Systems, Phys. Rev. D43, 3273.
109. Damour, T. Soffel, M. and Xu, C., 1992,
General Relativistic Celestial Mechanics II. Translational Equations of Motion, Phys. Rev. D45, 1017.
110. Damour, T. Soffel, M. and Xu, C., 1993,
General Relativistic Celestial Mechanics III. Rotational Equations of Motion, Phys. Rev. D47, 3124.
111. Damour, T. Soffel, M. and Xu, C., 1993,
New Approach to the General Relativistic $`N`$-Body Problem, in Proceedings of the First William Fairbank Meeting (1990), (World Scientific Press, Singapore).
112. Damour, T. Soffel, M. and Xu, C., 1993,
Relativistic Celestial Mechanics, in Proceedings of the Sixth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, Eds. H. Sato and T. Nakamura, (World Scientific Press, Singapore), 1282.
113. de Felice, F., 1971,
On the Gravitational Field Acting as an Optical Medium, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 2, 347.
114. de Felice, F., 1975,
Analogia fra campi gravitationali e campi electromagnetici, Rend. Sc. Fis. Mat. e Nat. Accad. Naz. dei Lincei 58 (serie 8), 231.
115. de Felice, F., 1979,
On the Nonexistence of Nonequatorial Circular Geodesics with Constant Latitude in the Kerr Metric, Phys. Lett. 96A, 307.
116. de Felice, F., 1990,
On the Circular Motion in General Relativity: Energy Threshold and Gravitational Strength, Rendiconti Matematica Roma Serie VII 10, 59.
117. de Felice, F., 1991,
Rotating Frames and Measurements of Forces in General Relativity, Mon. Not. R. Ast. Soc. 252, 197.
118. de Felice, F., 1994,
Kerr Metric: The Permitted Angular Velocity Pattern and the Pre-Horizon Regime, Class. Quantum Grav. 11, 1283.
119. de Felice, F., 1995,
Circular Orbits: A New Relativistic Effect in the Weak Gravitational field of a Rotating Source, Class. Quantum Grav. 12, 1119.
120. de Felice, F. and Bradley, M., 1988,
Rotational anisotropy and repulsive effects in the Kerr metric, Class. Quantum Grav. 5, 1577.
121. de Felice, F. and Calvani, M., 1979,
Causality violation in the Kerr metric, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 10, 335.
122. de Felice, F., and Semarák, O., 1997,
Quasi-local Measurements and Orientation in Black-hole Fields, Class. Quantum Grav. 14, 2381.
123. de Felice, F., and Usseglio-Tomasset, S., 1991,
On the Pre-Horizon Regime in the Kerr Metric, Class. Quantum Grav. 8, 1871.
124. de Felice, F., and Usseglio-Tomasset, S., 1993,
Schwarzchild Spacetime: Measurements in Orbiting Space-Stations, Class. Quantum Grav. 10, 353.
125. de Felice, F. and Usseglio-Tomasset, S., 1996,
Strains and Rigidity in Black Hole Fields, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 28, 179.
126. Demiansky, M., 1985, Relativistic Astrophysics, (Permagon Press, New York).
127. de Sitter,W., 1916, Mon. Not. R. Ast. Soc. 76, 155, 481.
128. Deutsch, A.J., 1955,
The Electromagnetic Field of an Idealized Star in Rigid Rotation in Vacuo, Ann. Astrophys. 18, 1.
129. Dirac, P.A.M., 1958,
Generalized Hamiltonian Dynamics, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A246, 326.
130. Durrer, R. and Straumann, S., 1988,
Some Applications of the $`3+1`$ Formalism of General Relativity, Helv. Phys. Acta. 61, 1027.
131. Durrer, R., 1989,
Gauge-Invariant Cosmological Perturbation Theory for Collisionless Matter: Numerical Results, Astrophys. J. 208, 1.
132.
133. Ehlers, J., 1961,
Beiträge zur relativistischen Mechanik kontinuierlicher Medien (Contributions to relativistic continuum mechanics), Akad. Wiss. Mainz Abh., Math.-Nat. Kl.  11, 793. \[English translation by G.F.R. Ellis: 1993, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 25, 1225.\]
134. Ehlers, J., 1997,
Examples of Newtonian Limits of Relativistic Spacetimes, Class. Quantum Grav. 14, A119.
135. Ellis, G.F.R., see also Bruni, Rothman.
136. Ellis, G.F.R., 1971,
Relativistic Cosmology, in General Relativity and Cosmology: Proceedings of Course 47 of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”, Ed. R. Sachs, (Academic Press, New York).
137. Ellis, G.F.R., 1973,
Relativistic Cosmology, in Càrgese Lectures in Physics,, Vol. 6, Ed. E. Schatzman, (Gordon and Breach, New York).
138. Ellis, G.F.R. and Bruni, M., 1989,
A Covariant and Gauge-invariant Approach to Cosmological Density Fluctuations, Phys. Rev. D40, 1804.
139. Ellis, G.F.R., Bruni, M., and Hwang, J., 1990,
Density-Gradient-Vorticity Relation in Perfect Fluid Robertson-Walker Perturbations,, Phys. Rev. D42, 1035.
140. Ellis, G.F.R., and Dunsby, P.K.S., 1994,
Newtonian Evolution of the Weyl Tensor, electronic preprint: astro-ph/ 9410001.
141. Ellis, G.F.R., Hwang, J. and Bruni, M., 1989,
Covariant and Gauge-Independent Perfect-Fluid Robertson-Walker Spacetimes, Phys. Rev. D40, 1819.
142. Ellis, G.F.R., and MacCallum, M.A.H., 1969,
A Class of Homogeneous Cosmological Models, Commun. Math. Phys. 12, 108.
143. Ellis, G.F.R., and van Elst, H., 1998,
Cosmological Models (Cargèse lectures 1998), in Theoretical and Observational Cosmology,, Ed. Marc Lachièze-Rey,, (Kluwer, Dordrecht), 1.
144. Estabrook, F.B., and Wahlquist, H.D., 1964,
Dyadic Analysis of Space-time Congruences, J. Math. Phys. 5, 1629.
145. Everitt, C.W.F., 1979,
The Gyroscope Experiment – I: General Description and Analysis of Gyroscope Performance, in Experimental Gravitation, Ed. B. Bertotti, (Academic Press, New York).
146. Everitt, C.W.F., 1979, in Experimental Gravitation: Proceedings of Course 56 of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”, Ed. B. Bertotti, (Academic Press, New York).
147.
148. Ferraris, M., Francaviglia, M., and Sinicco, I., 1993,
Covariant ADM Formulation Applied to General Relativity, Il Nuovo Cimento B 107, 1303.
149. Fermi, E., 1922,
Sopra i fenomeni che avvengono in vicinanza di una linea oraria, Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei Cl. Sci. Fis. Mat. e Nat. 31, 184, 306.
150. Ferrarese, G., 1963,
Contributi alla tecnica delle proiezioni in una varietà riemanniana a metrica iperbolica normale, Rend. di Mat. 22, 147.
151. Ferrarese, G., 1965,
Proprietà di secondo ordine di un generico riferimento fisico in Relatività generale, Rend. di Mat. 24, 57.
152. Ferrarese, G., 1987,
Intrinsic Formulations in Relativistic Continuum Mechanics, in Selected Problems in Modern Continuum Theory, Eds. W. Kosinsky, T. Manacorda, A. Morro and T. Ruggeri, (Pitagora Editrice, Bologna).
153. Ferrarese, G., 1988,
Intrinsic Formulation for the Cauchy Problem in General Relativity, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris (Ser I), 307, 107.
154. Ferrarese, G., 1989,
Intrinsic Formulation of the Cauchy Problem in General Relativity, in Proceedings of the Fifth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, Eds. D.G. Blair and M.J. Buckingham, (World Scientific, Singapore).
155. Fischer, A.E. and Marsden, J.E., 1978,
Topics in the Dynamics of General Relativity, in Isolated Gravitating Systems in General Relativity,, Ed. J. Ehlers, (Italian Physical Society, Bologna).
156. Fischer, A.E., and Marsden, J.E., 1979,
The Initial Value Problem and the Dynamical Formulation of General Relativity, in General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, Eds. S.W. Hawking and W. Israel, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
157. Fodor, G., and Perjés, Z., 1994,
Canonical Gravity in the Parametric Manifold Picture, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 26, 759.
158. Fokker, A.D., 19??, Proc. Roy. Acad. Amsterdam 23, 379.
159. Forward, R.L., 1961,
General Relativity for the Experimentalist, Proceedings of the IRE 49, 892.
160.
161. Gerosh, R., 1971,
A Method for Generating Solutions of Einstein’s Equations, J. Math. Phys. 12, 918.
162. Gödel, K., 1949,
An Example of a New Type of Cosmological Solutions of Einstein’s Field Equations of Gravitation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 447.
163. Goode, S.W., 1989,
Analysis of Spatially Inhomogeneous Perturbations of the FRW Cosmologies, J. Math. Phys. 39, 2882.
164. Gotay, M.J., Isenberg, J., Marsden, J.E., Montgomery, R., Śniatycki, J., and Yasskin, P.B., 1991, Momentum Maps and Classical Relativistic Fields, (to appear).
165. Greene, R.D., Schücking, E.L. and Vishveshwara, C.V., 1975,
The Rest Frame in Stationary Space-times With Axial Symmetry, J. Math. Phys. 16, 153.
166. Gupta, A., Iyer, S. and Prasanna A.R., 1996,
Centrifugal Force and Ellipticity Behaviour of a Slowly Rotating Ultra Compact Object, Class. Quantum Grav. 13, 2675.
167. Gupta, A., Iyer, S. and Prasanna A.R., 1997,
Behaviour of the Centrifugal Force and of Ellipticity for a Slowly Rotating Fluid Configuration with Different Equations of State, Class. Quantum Grav. 14, L143.
168.
169. Hanni, R.S., 1977,
Wavefronts Near a Black Hole, Phys. Rev. D16, 933.
170. Hanni, R., and Ruffini, R., 1973,
Lines of Force of a Point Charge Near a Schwarzschild Black Hole, Phys. Rev. D8, 3259.
171. Hanni, R., and Ruffini, R., 1975,
Schwarzschild Black Hole in an Asymptotically Uniform Magnetic Field, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 15, 189.
172. Hasse, W. and Perlick, V., 1990,
On Redshift and Parallaxes in General Relativistic Kinematical World Models, J. Math. Phys. 31, 1962.
173. Hawking, S.W., 1966,
Perturbations of an Expanding Universe, Astrophys. J. 145, 544.
174. Hawking, S.W., and Ellis, G.F.R., 1973, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
175. Henriksen, R.H., and Nelson, L.A., 1985,
Clock Synchronization by Accelerated Observers: Metric Construction for Arbitrary Congruences of World Lines, Can. J. Phys. 63, 1393.
176. Hill, E.L., 1946,
A Note on the Relativistic Problem of Uniform Rotation, Phys. Rev. 69, 488.
177. Honig, E., Schücking, E.L. and Vishveshwara, C.W., 1974,
Motion of Charged Particles in Homogeneous Electromagnetic Fields, J. Math. Phys. 15, 744.
178.
179. Irvine, W.M., 1964,
Electrodynamics in a Rotating System of Reference, Physica 30, 1160.
180. Isenberg, J., and Nester, J., 1980,
Canonical Gravity, in General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. I, Ed. A. Held, (Plenum, New York).
181. Iyer, B.R. and Vishveshwara, C.V., 1993,
Frenet-Serret Description of Gyroscopic Precession, Phys. Rev. D48, 5706.
182. Iyer, S. and Prasanna, A.P., 1993,
Centrifugal Force in Kerr Geometry, Class. Quantum Grav. 10, L13.
183. Iorio, L., 2000, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, in press (electronic preprint: gr-qc/ 0007014 and 0007057).
184.
185. Jantzen, R.T., see also Bini.
186. Jantzen, R.T., 1983,
Perfect Fluid Sources for Spatially Homogeneous Spacetimes, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 145, 378.
187. Jantzen, R.T., 1990,
Understanding Spacetime Splittings and Their Relationships, in Fisica Matematica Classica e Relativitá: Rapporti e Compatibilitá, Eds. G. Ferrarese and C. Cattani, (Springer-Verlag, New York).
188. Jantzen, R.T., Bini, D., and Carini, P., 1996,
Gravitoelectromagnetism: Just a Big Word?, in Proceedings of the Seventh Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity (1994), Eds. R.T. Jantzen and G.M. Keiser, (World Scientific, Singapore), 133.
189. Jantzen, R.T. and Carini, P., 1991,
Understanding Spacetime Splittings and Their Relationships, in Classical Mechanics and Relativity: Relationship and Consistency, Ed. G. Ferrarese, (Bibliopolis, Naples), 185.
190. Jantzen, R.T., Carini, P., and Bini, D., 1992,
The Many Faces of Gravitoelectromagnetism, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 215, 1.
191. Jantzen, R.T., Carini, P., and Bini, D., 1993,
Gravitoelectromagnetism: Relativity of Splitting Formalisms, in Proceedings of the Sixth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity (1991), Eds. H. Sato and T. Nakamura, (World Scientific, Singapore), 135.
192. Jantzen, R.T., Carini, P., and Bini, D., 1993,
Gravitoelectromagnetism: Applications to Rotating Minkowski, Gödel, and Kerr Spacetimes, in Proceedings of the Sixth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity (1991), Eds. H. Sato and T. Nakamura, (World Scientific, Singapore), 1622.
193. Jantzen, R.T., Carini, P., and Bini, D., 2010, Understanding Spacetime Splittings and Their Relationships, (in preparation).
194.
195. Karlovini, M., Rosquist, K. and Samuelsson, L., 2000,
Ultracompact stars with multiple necks, Ann. Physik 9, 149 (see also electronic preprint: gr-qc/ 0009073 and electronic preprint: gr-qc/ 0009079).
196. Kichenassamy, S. and Krikorian, R.A., 1991,
The Relativistic Rotation Transformation and the Corotating Source Model, Astrophys. J. 371, 277.
197. King, A.R. and Ellis, G.F.R., 1973,
Tilted Homogeneous Cosmological Models, Commun. Math. Phys. 31, 209.
198. Kristiansson, S., Sonego, S., Abramowicz, M.A., 1998,
Optical Space of the Reissner-Nordström Solutions, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 30, 275.
199. Kuang, Z. and Liang, C., 1993,
All Space-times Admitting Strongly Synchronizable Reference Frames Are Static, J. Math. Phys. 34, 1016.
200. Kundt, W., and Trümper, M., 1962, Akad. Wiss. Mainz Abh., Math.-Nat. Kl. Nr. 12, 196.
201. Kramer D., Stephani H., Herlt E. and MacCallum M.A.H., 1980, Exact Solutions of Einstein’s Theory, Ed. E. Schmutzer, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
202.
203. Landau, L.D., and Lifshitz, E.M., 1941, Teoriya Polya, (Nauka, Moscow).
204. Landau, L.D., and Lifshitz, E.M., 1975, The Classical Theory of Fields, (Permagon Press, New York).
205. Lense, J. and Thirring, H., 1918,
Über den Einfluss der Eigenrotation der Zentralkörper auf die Bewegung der Planeten und Monde nach der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie, Phys. Zeitschr. 19, 156.
206. Lesame, W.M., 1995,
Irrotational Dust with a Purely Magnetic Weyl Tensor, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 27, 1111; erratum, 1995, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 27, 1327.
207. Lesame, W.M., Dunsby, P.K.S., and Ellis, G.F.R, 1995,
Integrability Conditions for Irrotational Dust with a Purely Electric Weyl Tensor: A Tetrad Analysis, Phys. Rev. D52, 3406.
208. Lesame, W.M., Ellis, G.F.R, and Dunsby, P.K.S., 1996,
Irrotational Dust with $`\mathrm{div}H=0`$, Phys. Rev. D53, 738.
209. Lesame, W.M., Ellis, G.F.R, and Dunsby, P.K.S., 1994,
Irrotational Dust with a Zero Circulation Magnetic Weyl Tensor, (Dept. of Applied Mathematics, University of Cape Town).
210. Lewis, T., 1932, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. 331, 176 (1932).
211. Li, N. and Torr, D.G., 1991,
Effects of a Gravitomagnetic Field on Pure Superconductors, Phys. Rev. D43, 457.
212. Lichnerowicz, A., 1944,
L’intégration des équations de la gravitation relativiste et le problème des $`n`$ corps, J. Math. Pures Appl. 23, 37.
213. Lichnerowicz, A., 1955, Théories Relativistes de la Gravitation et de L’Electromagnétisme, (Masson, Paris).
214. Lichnerowicz, A., 1967, Relativistic Hydrodynamics and Magnetohydrodynamics, (Benjamin, New York).
215. Lichtenegger. H.I.M., Gronwald, F. and Mashhoon, B., 2000, Adv. Space Res. 25, 1255.
216. Lottermoser, M., 1988,
On the Newtonian Limit of General Relativity and the Relativistic Extension of Newtonian Initial Data, Ph.D. Dissertation (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich).
217. Lottermoser, M., 1992,
The Post-Newtonian Approximation for the Constraint Equations in General Relativity, Ann. Inst. H. Poin. 57, 279.
218.
219. Maartens, R., 1997,
Linearisation instability of gravity waves?, Phys. Rev. D55, 463.
220. Maartens, R. and Bassett, B.A., 1998,
Gravito-electromagnetism, Class. Quantum Grav. 15, 705.
221. Maartens, R., Ellis, G.F.R., and Siklos, S.T.C., 1997,
Local Freedom in the Gravitational Field, Class. Quantum Grav. 14, 1927.
222. Maartens, R., Lesame, W.M., and Ellis, G.F.R., 1997,
Consistency of Dust Solutions with div H=0, Phys. Rev. D55, 5219.
223. Maartens, R., Lesame, W.M., and Ellis, G.F.R., 1998,
Newtonian-like and Anti-Newtonian Universes, Class. Quantum Grav. 15, 1005.
224. Maartens, R., and Triginer, J., 1997,
Density Perturbations with Relativistic Thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. D56, 4640.
225. MacCallum, M.A.H., 1973,
Cosmological Models From a Geometric Point of View, in Cargese Lectures in Physics 6, Lectures at the International Summer School of Physics, Cargese, Corsica 1971, Ed. E. Schatzman, (New York: Gordan and Breach).
226. Macdonald, D., and Thorne, K.S., 1982,
Black-Hole Electrodynamics: an Absolute-Space/Universal-Time Formulation, Mon. Not. R. Ast. Soc. 198, 345.
227. Marck, J.A., 1983,
Solution to the Equations of Parallel Transport in Kerr Geometry; Tidal Tensor, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 385, 431.
228. Marck, J.A., 1983,
Parallel-Tetrad on Null Geodesics in Kerr and Kerr-Newman Space-Time, Phys. Lett. 97A, 140.
229. Marck, J.A., 1996,
Short-cut Method of Solution of Geodesic Equations for Schwarzschild black hole, Class. Quantum Grav. 13, 393.
230. Martinez, E.A., 1994,
Quasi-local Energy for a Kerr Black Hole, Phys. Rev. D50, 4920.
231. Mashhoon, B., see also Cohen.
232. Mashhoon, B., 1973,
Scattering of Electromagnetic Radiation from a Black Hole, Phys. Rev. 7, 2807.
233. Mashhoon, B., 1974,
Electromagnetic Scattering From a Black Hole and the Glory Effect, Phys. Rev. 10, 1059.
234. Mashhoon, B., 1974,
Can Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation Be Tested Beyond the Geometrical Optics Limit?, Nature 250, 316.
235. Mashhoon, B., 1975,
Influence of Gravitation on the Progagation of Electromagnetic Radiation from a Black Hole, Phys. Rev. 11, 2679.
236. Mashhoon, B., 1989,
Electrodynamics in a Rotating Frame of Reference, Phys. Lett. A139, 103.
237. Mashhoon, B., 1992,
On the Strength of a Gravitational Field, Phys. Lett. A163, 7.
238. Mashhoon, B., 1999,
On the spin-rotation-gravity coupling, in Mexican Meeting on Gauge Theories of Gravity (Mexico City, 1997), Gen. Relativ. Grav. 31, 681.
239. Mashhoon, B., Gronwald, F. and Lichtenegger, H.I.M, 2000,
Gravitomagnetism and the Clock Effect, in Gyros, Clocks and Interferometers: Testing General Relativity in Space,, Eds. C. Lämmerzahl C.W.F. Everitt and F.W. Heyl, (Springer, Berlin).
240. Mashhoon, B., Gronwald, F. and Theiss, D.S., 1999,
On Measuring Gravitomagnetism via Spaceborne Clocks: A Gravitomagnetic Clock Effect, Ann. Physik 8, 135.
241. Mashhoon, B., Heyl, F.W., and Theiss, D.S., 1984,
On the Gravitational Effects of Rotating Masses: The Thirring-Lense Papers, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 16, 711.
242. Mashhoon, B., McClune, J.C., Quevedo, H., 1997,
Gravitational Superenergy Tensor, Phys. Lett. A231, 47.
243. Mashhoon, B., McClune, J.C., Quevedo, H., 1999,
On the Gravitoelectromagnetic Stress-energy Tensor, Class. Quantum Grav. 16, 1137.
244. Mashhoon, B., Paik, H.J. and Will, C.M., 1989,
Detection of the Gravitomagnetic Field Using an Orbiting Superconducting Gravity Gradiometer: Theoretical Principles, Phys. Rev. D39, 2825.
245. Mashhoon, B. and Santos, N.O., 2000
Rotating Cylindrical Systems and Gravomagnetism, Ann. Physik 9, 49.
246. Massa, E., 1974,
Space Tensors in General Relativity I: Spatial Tensor Algebra and Analysis, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 5, 555.
247. Massa, E., 1974,
Space Tensors in General Relativity II: Physical Applications, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 5, 573.
248. Massa, E., 1974,
Space Tensors in General Relativity III: The Structural Equations, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 5, 715.
249. Massa, E. and Zordan, C., 1975,
Relative Kinematics in General Relativity: The Thomas and Fokker Precessions, Meccanica 10, 27.
250. Massa, E., 1990,
Spatial Tensor Analysis in General Relativity, in Fisica Matematica Classica e Relativitá: Rapporti e Compatibilitá, Eds. G. Ferrarese and C. Cattani, (Springer-Verlag, New York).
251. McIntosh, C.B.G, Arianrhod, R., Wade, S.T., and Hoenselaers, C., 1994,
Electric and Magnetic Weyl Tensors: Classification and Analysis, Class. Quantum Grav. 11, 1555.
252. Misner, C.W., and Wheeler, J.A., 1957,
Classical Physics as Geometry, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 2, 525.
253. Misner, C.W., Thorne, K.S. and Wheeler, J.A., 1973, Gravitation, (Freeman, San Francisco).
254. Mitskievich, N.V.,
Relativistic Physics in Arbitrary Reference Frames, electronic preprint: gr-qc/ 9606051.
255. Mitskievich, N.V. and Pulido Garcia, I., 1970,
??, Sov. Phys. Dokl. 15, 591.
256. Mitskievich, N. V. and Zaharow, V. N., 1970,
??, Doklady Akad. Nauk. SSSR., 195, 321 (in Russian).
257. Møller, C., 1952, The Theory of Relativity,, First Edition; 1972, Second Edition, (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
258.
259. Nayak, K.R. and Vishveshwara, C.V., 1996,
Gyroscopic Precession and Inertial Forces in the Kerr-Newman Spacetime, Class. Quantum Grav. 13, 1783.
260. Nayak, K.R. and Vishveshwara, C.V., 1997,
Gyroscopic Precession and Centrifugal Force in the Ernst Spacetime, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 29, 291.
261. Nordtvedt, K., 1988,
Gravitomagnetic Interaction and Laser Ranging to Earth Satellites, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2647.
262. Nordtvedt, K., 1988,
Existence of the Gravitomagnetic Interaction, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 27, 1395 (1988).
263.
264. Olson, D.W., 1976,
Density Perturbations in Cosmological Models, Phys. Rev. D14, 327.
265. Ozsváth, I., 1977,
Spatially Homogeneous Lichnerowicz Universes, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 8, 737.
266. Ozsváth, I., and Schücking, E., 1969,
The Finite Rotating Universe, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 55, 166.
267.
268. Page, D.N., 1993,
??, Sci. Am. 269, 10.
269. Page, D., 1998,
Maximal acceleration is nonrotating, Class. Quantum Grav. 15, 1669.
270. Papapetrou, A., 1966, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré A4, 83.
271. Perjés, Z., 1989,
Parametric Manifolds, in Proceedings of the Fifth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, Eds. D.G. Blair and M.J. Buckingham, (World Scientific, Singapore).
272. Perjés, Z., 1993,
The Parametric Manifold Picture of Space-Time, Nuc. Phys. B403, 809. !-837
273. Perlick, V., 1990,
On Fermat’s Principle in General Relativity: I. The General Case, Class. Quantum Grav. 7, 1319.
274. Perlick, V., 1990,
On Fermat’s Principle in General Relativity: II. The Conformally Stationary Case, Class. Quantum Grav. 7, 1849.
275. Perlick, V., 1990,
Geometrical and Kinematical Characterization of Parallax-Free World Models, J. Math. Phys. 29, 2064.
276. Perlick, V. 1991,
A Class of Stationary Charged Dust Solutions of Einstein’s Field Equations, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 23, 1337.
277. Pietronero, L., 1973,
The Mechanics of Particles Inside a Rotating Cylindrical Mass Shell, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 79, 250.
278. Pietronero, L., 1974,
Mach’s Principle for Rotation, Nuovo Cim. 20B, 144.
279. Pirani, F.A.E., 1956, Acta Physica Polonica 15, 389.
280. Plebansky, J., 1960,
Electromagnetic Waves in Gravitational Fields, Phys. Rev. 118, 1396.
281. Post, E.J., 1967,
Sagnac Effect, Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 475.
282. Prasanna, A.R., see also Iyer.
283. Prasanna, A.R., 1991,
Centrifugal Force in Ernst Space-Time, Phys. Rev. D43, 1418.
284. Prasanna, A.R., 1997,
Inertial Frame Dragging and Mach’s Principle in General Relativity, Class. Quantum Grav. 14, 227.
285. Prasanna, A.R. and Chakrabarti, S.K., 1990,
Angular Momentum Coupling and Optical Reference Geometry in Kerr Spacetime, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 22, 987.
286. Prasanna, A.R. and Iyer, S., 1991,
The Radial Force on a Charged Particle in Superimposed Magnetic Fields on Schwarzschild Space-Time, Pramana J. Phys 37, 405.
287. Prasanna, A.R. and Iyer, S., 1997,
Cumulative Dragging: An Intrinsic Characterization of Stationary Axisymmetric Spacetime, Phys. Lett. A233, 17.
288.
289. Qadir, A., 1989, Introduction to Special Relativity, (World Scientific, Singapore).
290.
291. Raychaudhuri, R., 1955, Phys. Rev. 98, 1113.
292. Raychaudhuri, R., 1957, Zeits. f. Astrophys. 48, 161.
293. Rindler, W., 1977,
The Case Against Space Dragging, Phys. Lett. A233, 25.
294. Rindler, W., 1977, Essential Relativity, Second Revised Edition, (Springer-Verlag, New York).
295. Rindler, W. and Perlick, V., 1990,
Rotating Coordinates as Tools for Calculating Circular Geodesics and Gyroscopic Precession, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 22, 1067.
296. Romano, J.D., Price, R.H., 1995,
Embedding Initial Data for Black-Hole Collisions, Class. Quantum Grav. 12, 875.
297. Rothman, T., Ellis, G.R.F. and Murugan, J., 2000,
Holonomy in the Schwarzschild-Droste Geometry, electronic preprint: gr-qc/ 0008070.
298. Ruffini, R., and Wilson, J.R., 1975,
Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamical Effects of Plasma Accreting into a Black Hole, Phys. Rev. D12, 2959.
299. Ruffini, R., 1978, in Physics and Astrophysics of Neutron Stars and Black Holes,, Eds. R. Giacconi and R. Ruffini, (Italian Physical Society, Bologna).
300. Ryan Jr, M.P., and Shepley, L.C., 1975, Homogeneous Relativistic Cosmologies, (Princeton University Press, Princeton).
301.
302. Sachs, R.K., and Wu, H., 1977, General Relativity for Mathematicians, (Springer-Verlag, New York).
303. Samuel, J. and Iyer, B.R., 1986,
A Gravitational Analog of the Dirac Monopole, Current Science 55, 818.
304. Schiff, L.I., 1967,
Motion of a Gyroscope According to Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. Am. 46, 871.
305. Schmutzer, E., 1968,
New Approach to Interpretation Problems of General Relativity by Means of the Splitting-up-formalism of Space-time, in Induction, Physics and Ethics, Eds. P. Weingartner and G. Zecha, (Riedel, Dordrecht).
306. Schmutzer, E. and Plebansky, J., 1977,
Quantum Mechanics in Non-inertial Frames of Reference, Fortschritte der Physik 25, 37.
307. Schouten, J.A., 1921,
??, Math. Z. 11, 55.
308. Semerák, O., see also de Felice.
309. Semerák, O., 1993,
Stationary Frames in the Kerr Field, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 25, 1041.
310. Semerák O 1994
On the Competition of Forces in the Kerr Field, Astron. Astrophys. 291, 679.
311. Semerák, O., 1995,
On the Occurrence of Rotospheres in the Kerr field, Physica Scripta 52, 488.
312. Semerák, O., 1995,
What Forces Drive Relativistic Motion?, Il Nuovo Cimento B 110, 973.
313. Semerák, O., 1996,
Extremally Accelerated Observers in Stationary Axisymmetric Spacetimes, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 28, 1151.
314. Semerák, O., 1996,
What Forces Act in Relativistic Gyroscope Motion?, Class. Quantum Grav. 13, 2987.
315. Semerák, O., 1996,
Collimation (and Other) Effects of the Kerr Field: an Interpretation, Astrophys. Lett. Commun. 33, 275.
316. Semerák, O., 1997,
Gyroscope in Polar Orbit in the Kerr Field, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 29, 153.
317. Semerák, O., 1998,
Rotospheres in Stationary Axisymmetric Spacetimes, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 263, 133.
318. Semerák, O., 1999,
The Gravitomagnetic Clock Effect and Extremely Accelerated Observers, Class. Quantum Grav. 16, 3769.
319. Semerák, O. and Bičák, J., 1997,
The Interplay Between Forces in the Kerr-Newman Field, Class. Quantum Grav. 14, 3135.
320. Semerák, O. and de Felice, F., 1997,
Quasi-Local Measurements and Orientation in Black Hole Fields, Class. Quantum Grav. 14, 2381.
321. Shahid-Saless, B., 1988,
Relativistic Effects in Local Inertial Frames Including Parametrized-Post-Newtonian Effects, Phys. Rev. D38, 1645.
322. Shahid-Saless, B., 1990,
Local Gravitomagnetism, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 22, 1147.
323. Shahid-Saless, B., 1992,
Local Gravitomagnetic Perturbations of the Lunar Orbit, Phys. Rev. D46, 5404.
324. Sharp, N.A., 1981,
On Embeddings of the Kerr Geometry, Can. J. Phys. 59, 688.
325. Skrotsky, G.V., 1957,
The Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light, Sov. Phys. Dok. 2, 226.
326. Smarr, L., and York Jr, J.W., 1978b,
Kinematical Conditions in the Construction of Spacetime, Phys. Rev. D17, 2529.
327. Soffel, M.H., 1989, Relativity, Astrometry, Celestial Mechanics and Geodesy, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin).
328. Sonego, S., see also Abramowicz, Kristiansson.
329. Sonego, S. and Abramowicz, M.A., 1998,
Maxwell Equations and the Optical Geometry, J. Math. Phys. 39, 3158.
330. Sonego, S. and Lanza, A., 1996,
Relativistic Perihelion Advance as a Centrifugal Force, Mon. Not. R. Ast. Soc. 279, L65.
331. Sonego, S. and Massar, M., 1996,
Covariant Definition of Inertial Forces: Newtonian Limit and Time-Dependent Gravitational Fields, Class. Quantum Grav. 13, 139.
332. Sopuerta, C., Roy Maartens, R., Ellis, G. and Lesame, W., 1999,
Nonperturbative Gravito-Magnetic Fields, Phys. Rev. D60, 024006.
333. Stachel, J., 1980,
The Anholonomic Cauchy Problem in General Relativity, J. Math. Phys. 21, 1776.
334. Stedman G. E., 1985,
Ring Interferometric Tests of Classical and Quantum Gravity, Contemp. Phys. 26, 311.
335. Stedman G. E., 1997,
Ring Laser Tests of Fundamental Physics and Geophysics, Rep. Prog. Phys. 60, 615.
336. Szafron, D.A., and Collins, C.B., 1979,
A New Approach to Inhomogeneous Cosmologies: Instrinsic Symmetries. II. Conformally Flat Slices and an Invariant Classification, J. Math. Phys. 20, 2347.
337.
338. Takeno, H., 1952,
On Relativistic Theory of Rotating Disk, Prog. Theor. Phys. 7, 367.
339. Tamm, I., 1924, J. Russ. Phys.-Chem. Soc. 56, 284.
340. Tartaglia, A., 2000,
Detection of the Gravitomagnetic Clock Effect, Class. Quantum Grav. 17, 783.
341. Tartaglia, A., 2000,
Influence of the Angular Momentum of Astrophysical Objects on Light and Clocks and Related Measurements, Class. Quantum Grav. 17, 2381.
342. Taub, A.H., 1969,
Stability of Fluid Motions and Variational Principles, Proceedings of the 1967 Colloque on “Fluids et champ gravitationel en relativité générale”, No. 170 (Cente National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris), 57.
343. Taub, A.H., and MacCallum, M.A.H., 1972,
Variational Principles and Spatially-Homogeneous Universes, Including Rotation, Commun. Math. Phys. 25, 173.
344. Thirring, H., and Lense, J., 1918,
Über den Einfluss der Eigenrotation der Zentralkörper auf die Bewegung der Planeten und Monde nach der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie, Phys. Z. 19, 156.
345. Thomas, L.W., 1927,
The Kinematics of an Electron With an Axis, Phyl. Mag. 3, 1.
346. Thorne, K.S., 1981,
Experimental Gravity, Gravitational Waves, and Quantum Nondemolition: an Introduction, in Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravitation, and Measurement Theory, Eds. P. Meystre and M.O. Scully, (Plenum Press, New York and London).
347. Thorne, K.S., 1989,
Gravitomagnetism, Jets in Quasars, and the Stanford Gyroscope Experiment, in Near Zero: New Frontiers in Physics, Eds. J.D. Fairbank, B.S. Deaver, Jr., C.W.F. Everitt, P.F. Michelson, (Freeman, New York).
348. Thorne, K.S., and Macdonald, D., 1982,
Electrodynamics in Curved Spacetime: $`3+1`$ formulation, Mon. Not. R. Ast. Soc. 198, 339.
349. Thorne, K.S., Price, R.H., and Macdonald, D.A., 1986, Black Holes: The Membrane Paradigm, (Yale University Press, New Haven).
350. Thorne, K.S., 1988, in Near Zero: New Frontiers of Physics, Eds. J.D. Fairbank, B.S. Deaver, Jr., C.W. Everitt, and P.F. Michelson, (Freeman, New York).
351. Tiomno, J., 1973,
Electromagnetic Field of Rotating Charged Bodies, Phys. Rev. 7, 992.
352. Trautman, A., 1965,
Foundations and Current Problems of General Relativity, in Brandeis Lectures on General Relativity, Eds. A. Trautman, F.A.E. Pirani, H. Bondi, (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
353. Trocheris, M.G., 1949,
Electrodynamics in a Rotating Frame of Reference, Phil. Mag. 40, 1143.
354. Trümper, M., 1965,
On a Special Class of Type-I Gravitational Fields, J. Math. Phys. 6, 584.
355. Trümper, M., 1967,
Bemerkungen über scherungsfreie Strömungen gravitierender Gase, Zeits. f. Astrophys. 66, 215.
356. Tsoubelis, D., Economou, A., and Stoghianidis, E., 1987,
Local and Global Gravitomagnetic Effects in Kerr Spacetime, Phys. Rev. D36, 1045.
357. Tsoubelis, D., Economou, A., and Stoghianidis, E., 1986,
The Geodetic Effect Along Polar Orbits in the Kerr Spacetime, Phys. Lett. 118, 113.
358.
359. Van Bladel, J., 1984, Relativity and Engineering, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin).
360. van Elst, H. and Uggla, C., 1997,
General Relativistic 1+3 Orthonormal Frame Approach Revisited, Class. Quantum Grav. 14, 2673.
361. Vishveshwara, C.V., see also Iyer, Nayak.
362.
363. Wainwright, J., 1979,
A Classification Scheme for Non-Rotating Inhomogenous Cosmologies, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 12, 2015.
364. Wald, R.M., 1984 General Relativity,, (University of Chicago, Chicago).
365. Walker, A.G., 1932,
Relative Coordinates, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 52, 345.
366. Weinberg, S., 1972, Gravitation and Cosmology, (Wiley, New York).
367. J.A. Wheeler, 1964, in Relativity, Groups, and Topology, Eds. C. DeWitt and B.S. DeWitt, (Gordon and Breach, New York).
368. Wheeler, J.A., 1988,
Geometrodynamic Steering Principle Reveals the Determiners of Inertia, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A3, 2207.
369. Weyl, H., 1917, Ann. Phys., Lpz. 54, 117.
370. Wilkins, D. and Jacobs, M.W., 1992,
Gödel’s Gravitomagnet, Phys. Rev. D46, 3395.
371. Xu, D.Y. and Qin, Z.Y., 1998, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 37, 1159.
372.
373. York Jr., J.W., 1971,
Gravitational Degrees of Freedom and the Initial-Value Problem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 1656.
374. York Jr., J.W., 1972,
Role of Conformal Three-Geometry in the Dynamics of Gravitation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 1082.
375. York Jr., J.W., 1979,
Kinematics and Dynamics of General Relativity, in Sources of Gravitational Radiation, Ed. L. Smarr, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
376.
377. Zel’manov, A.L., 1956,
Chronometric Invariants and Frames of Reference in the General Theory of Relativity, Dokl. Akad. Nauk. USSR 107, 805 \[Eng. trans. in Sov. Phys. Doklady 1, 227 (1956)\].
378. Zel’manov, A.L., 1959, in Turdy Shestovo Soveshchaniya po Voprosam Kosmogonii, (Acad. Pub. USSR, Moscow).
379. Zel’manov, A.L., 1973,
Kinematic Invariants and Their Relation to Chronometric Invariants in Einstein’s Theory, Sov. Phys. Dokl. 18, 231.
380. Zhang, X.H., 1989,
$`3+1`$ Formulation of General-Relativistic Perfect Magnetohydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. 39, 2933.
381. Znajek, R.L., 1977,
Black Hole Electrodynamics and the Carter Tetrad, Mon. Not. R. Ast. Soc. 175, 457.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently , I have considered a specific inhomogeneous cosmological model, which could explain, in an alternative way, by the presence of a kinematic acceleration generated by a negative gradient of pressure (or mass-energy), the present negative deceleration parameter, which appears to be a result of high redshift Supernovae data . In the current way, these data are explained by the presence of a positive cosmological constant or vacuum energy or quintessence, in the background of standard Friedmann (FLRW) models with perfect fluid matter.

In this specific inhomogeneous model, which I will also consider in this work, the cosmic matter is described by a barotropic (B) perfect fluid and geometrically has spherical (S) symmetry (hereafter BS). The comoving perfect fluid matter congruence, in this vorticity-free BS inhomogeneous model, has expansion, kinematic acceleration and shear, at difference with the standard FLRW models, where it has expansion only.

## 2 The BS model can explain cosmic acceleration

In the BS model, the isotropy group is 1-dim, whereas the isometry group is a 3-dim $`G_3`$, which is acting multiply transitively on spacelike 2-dim surfaces orthogonal to a preferred direction (hereafter $`e_1`$). These 2-dim surfaces orbits, orthogonal both to the 4-velocity $`u^a`$ of the congruence and to $`e_1`$, are spheres.

Also, in the BS model the vorticity is zero. This implies both the existence of a global cosmic time and of 3-dim global spacelike hypersurfaces orthogonal to the fluid congruence.

Thus, the metric in comoving coordinates has the expression

$$ds^2=N^2(r,t)dt^2+B^2(r,t)dr^2+R^2(r,t)d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(1)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ is the spherical line element and the coefficient $`N(r,t)`$ is a lapse function which relates global cosmic and local proper times. In the BS spacetime exists a preferred central worldline, i.e. the spacelike hypersurfaces have a centre at $`r=0`$, where the isotropy group is 3-dim, and a preferred radial direction $`e_1`$ at each point, associated with the direction of the only non-null component, $`A`$, of the kinematic acceleration of the matter fluid elements. This kinematic acceleration satisfies the spatially contracted equations of motion

$$p^{}+(\mu +p)A=0,$$
(2)
where a prime denotes the derivative along the preferred radial direction with unit vector field $`e_1`$. We see from the last formula that the kinematic acceleration, which opposes to the gravitational attraction towards the centre, is generated by a negative gradient of pressure or, equivalently, due to the supposed barotropic equation of state $`p(r,t)=p(\mu (r,t))`$, by a negative gradient of mass-energy density $`\mu (r,t)`$.

Note (see ), that the presence in the metric of the coefficient $`N(r,t)`$, gives rise to a non null kinematic acceleration and also to a new term in the expression of the deceleration parameter $`q`$,

$$q_0=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_0II_0,$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is the present matter density in units of the critical density and $`II_0`$ was called in  the inhomogeneity parameter.

This additional inhomogeneity term $`II_0`$ is positive and hence the deceleration parameter $`q_0`$ can be negative at present cosmic time, so one has an alternative explanation for the cosmic acceleration implied by the Supernovae data, in the realm of the BS model.

## 3 Cosmological principle

As the Cosmological Principle (CP) is not verified in the BS model, we would like to remind that nowadays there are not observational proofs of this philosophical assumption. The observational almost isotropy of the cosmic background radiation (CBR) temperature is insufficient to force exact isotropy into the spacetime geometry and hence exact spatial homogeneity of the 3-dim cosmic hypersurfaces, i.e., to force the verification of the Cosmological Principle, because neither the ”exact” Ehlers-Geren-Sachs (EGS) theorem nor the ”almost EGS theorem”  are necessarily verified.

Thus the measured almost isotropy of the CBR temperature is in principle compatible with large shear  and (or) nonzero kinematic acceleration, as happens in the BS model.

## 4 Linear Hubble law for the BS model

Now, we specialize the general linear Hubble law , valid for any inhomogeneous universe, for the specific case of the BS model considered. The final expression that adopts for off-center observers $`P_0`$, is :

$$z=\left(\frac{\dot{R}}{R}A\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Psi }+\sqrt{3}\sigma \mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Psi }\right)_0D$$
(4)
By spherical symmetry, just the telescopic angle $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is needed to describe off-centre observations in the rest space of the observer. $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the angle between the direction of observation of a light ray and the preferred vector $`e_1`$, $`\sigma `$ is the scalar shear and $`D`$ is any cosmological distance. The generalized Hubble function has three terms which contribute to the cosmological redshift $`z`$. The first is similar to the usual one of FLRW models due to the volume expansion, but in this model is due to the azimuthal expansion and depends not only on cosmic time but also on a radial comoving distance or position of the observer with respect to the centre. The second term in the generalized Hubble function is a dipolar one, due to the acceleration, and the third is a quadrupolar one, due to the shear.

The consequences of the generalized linear Hubble law are striking. For instance, when we are observing in the same sense that the acceleration away from the centre, that is $`\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$, then the dipole term gives a maximum violetshift contribution, $`AD`$. Of course, observing in the opposite sense to the acceleration, i.e., towards the centre, it gives an maximum dipole redshift, $`+AD`$. In both cases, if the emitters are at the same distance, the additional expansion and shear quadrupole terms have the same positive value. Hence, using the new Hubble law (4), the difference of redshifts of these kind of observations, is a pure dipole violetshift. Therefore, we consider this specific direction away from the centre, as the global direction of the matter dipole.

## 5 Final comments and conclusions

The usual dipole, manifested as a deviation of the isotropic Hubble law of Friedmann models, is a constant Doppler effect. This Doppler effect arises in the standard model from peculiar velocities and it can be eliminated going to the correct zero peculiar velocity frame. Whereas, in the BS model, the cosmological acceleration dipole, measured by off centre observers, is emitter’s distance dependent and cannot be eliminated. The same happens for the quadrupole shear term.

However, we do not claim that all the observed matter dipole is cosmological. In our model, a peculiar velocity dipole induced by a local inhomogeneity, must be calculated as a local perturbation of the inhomogeneous background spacetime, i.e. as a local deviation of the new Hubble law (4).

Finally note, that the new Hubble function of this model is not only cosmic time dependent, as in FLRW models, but observer’s position and angular dependent too. Therefore, this may justify the difference between its inferred values from observations performed with different telescopic angles.

## 6 Acknowledgments

This work is partially supported by the spanish Junta de Castilla y León projects VA 34/99 and VA 68/00.


text:
# Anisotropic inverse Compton scattering in radio galaxies and particle energy distribution

## 1. Introduction

A full understanding of the energetics and of the energy distribution of the relativistic particles in the radio jets and lobes of radio galaxies and quasars is of basic importance to a complete description of the physics and time evolution of these sources. Synchrotron emission properties result from a complicated convolution of magnetic fields and relativistic electron distributions, so that they cannot be unambiguously derived by radio observations alone (see Rudnick, this meeting). In the lobes of radio galaxies and quasars this degeneracy could be broken by measurements of the X-rays produced by the inverse Compton (IC) scattering of CMB photons (e.g. Harris & Grindlay 1979), and/or nuclear photons (Brunetti, Setti & Comastri 1997).

While the X–rays produced by the IC scattering of the CMB photons typically involve the less energetic part of the radio emitting electrons (Lorentz factor $`\gamma 1000`$), those from the IC scattering of the far IR – optic nuclear photons are mainly powered by $`\gamma =100300`$ electrons which are not detected, since their synchrotron emission falls in the hundred kHz to MHz frequency range. By combining measurements of the 0.1–10 keV extended fluxes it is then possible to obtain broad band information on the energy distribution of the relativistic electrons ($`\gamma 503000`$) in the lobes of radio galaxies and quasars.

The knowledge of the low energy part of the electron spectrum is particularly important. Indeed, while at higher energies radiative losses are dominant, at lower energies the electron spectrum is particularly sensitive to the initial injection conditions and to the acceleration mechanisms (Eilek & Huges 1990). Furthermore, the detection of X–ray fluxes produced by IC scattering of nuclear photons, implying the lack of a prominent low energy cut off ($`\gamma <300`$) in the electron energy distribution, may significantly increase the energy budget in the radio lobes compared with present estimates based on standard equipartition formulae (Brunetti et al. 1997).

## 2. Anisotropic IC scattering and relativistic electron spectrum

In the framework of the unification between powerful radio galaxies and radio loud quasars, the IC scattering of far IR to optic/UV nuclear photons by the relativistic electrons in the radio lobes could give detectable X–ray fluxes (Brunetti et al. 1997). Due to the geometrical configuration, the IC scattering is anisotropic so that if a symmetric double lobed radio galaxy is inclined with respect to the plane of the sky, the far lobe should appear more luminous than the near one. The slope of the X–ray spectrum produced by this scattering are reasonably close to the radio synchrotron one, but, if a low energy flattening of the electron energy distribution (or a cut–off) is present at energies $`\gamma <100`$ the spectrum should flatten in the low energy part of the X–ray band (Fig.1a) and, furthermore, since the photons from the far lobe are back scattered, the X–ray spectrum of the far lobe should appear slightly harder that that of the near one (Fig.1b).

For a given energy distribution of the scattering electrons, the anisotropic IC spectrum can be obtained by making use of Brunetti (2000) equations. A positive detection of X–rays generated by this process can be used to constrain the electron energy distribution and the possible presence of a low energy cut–off ($`\gamma _{low}`$). In addition to the brightness asymmetry caused by the orientation of the radio axis, the X–rays from IC scattering of nuclear photons are expected to be more concentrated in the innermost parts of the radio lobes due to the dilution of the nuclear photon flux with distance. Moreover, if the lobes of a radio galaxy are significantly different in shape, the radio lobe closer to the nuclear source is expected to be the most luminous. All these properties of the X–ray brightness distribution allow to recognise the X–rays from IC scattering of nuclear photons.

## 3. Observational evidence

### 3.1. The case of 3C 219

Possible evidence for this emission has been found in the case of the powerful radio galaxy 3C 219 (z=0.1744) by a relatively deep ROSAT HRI observation corroborated by a combinated ROSAT PSPC and ASCA spectral analysis (Brunetti et al. 1999). In this case the observed X–ray flux can be matched by assuming that the magnetic field in the inner radio lobes is a factor of $`3`$ lower than the equipartition value (calculated with $`\gamma _{low}=50`$), similarly to that found in the case of Cen B (Tashiro et al.1998). 3C 219 will be observed by Chandra and we eagerly expect confirmation of the IC scenario.

### 3.2. The case of 3C 295

We report here on a study (Brunetti et al., to be submitted) of the powerful and compact FR II radio source 3C 295, which extends for $`5`$ arcsec on the plane of the sky, and is identified with a giant elliptical (cD) galaxy at the center of a rich cluster, at redshift z=0.461. This source was observed by Chandra (calibration time) for an elapsed time of $``$20 ks; the 0.5–7 keV image is dominated by the two hot spot regions and by a powerful nuclear source (Harris et al.2000) making the study of extended X–rays associated with the radio lobes very difficult. We have performed a 0.1–10 keV spectral analysis of the nucleus finding that it is well fitted by a powerful X–ray source ($`10^{45}`$erg s-1) absorbed below $`2`$ keV ($`N_H10^{23}`$cm-2). Thus the 0.1-2 keV image is nucleus free allowing to study the extended X–ray emission after subtraction of the diffuse cluster component. The result is shown in Fig.2a: extended and asymmetric X–ray emission is clearly detected. In Fig.2b we report the energy densities due to synchrotron emission, CMB photons and hidden quasar photons by assuming a far IR to optic luminosity of $`10^{46}`$erg s-1. It can be noticed that in the region where extended X–ray emission is clearly detected the energy density due to the nuclear photons is more than one order of magnitude larger than that due to other processes. By assuming for simplicity that the radio volume is axisymmetric, an inclination angle with respect to the sky plane of $`5^o`$ (with the northern being the far lobe) is sufficient to reproduce the X–ray brightness asymmetry when the different morphologies of the two radio lobes are taken into account; such an asymmetry cannot be explained with other X–ray mechanisms proposed so far. Furthermore, a faint radio jet has been recently discovered in the southern lobe by a deep MERLIN observation (Leahy, private comm) possibly confirming that the northern lobe is the farthermost. Spectral analysis in the 0.1-2 keV band of the extended emission with a power law model limits the photon index in the range 1.23–1.65 (90% confidence level) requiring $`\gamma _{low}<100`$ if a spectral energy injection index $`\delta =2.3`$ (as constrained by radio spectral fits, see Brunetti, this meeting) is assumed for the electron energy distribution. By comparing the synchrotron flux from the lobes with the extended X–ray flux we obtain a magnetic field $`B4090\mu `$G (close to the equipartition value, but lower) if a reasonable far IR to optical luminosity of the hidden quasar of $`1210^{46}`$erg s-1 is assumed.

#### Acknowledgments.

We would like to thank A.Comastri and L.Feretti who are actively involved in the IC scattering research, and M.Cappi and D.E. Harris who are coinvestigators for 3C 295. It is also a great pleasure to acknowledge Robert Laing and Katherine Blundell for organizing such an interesting meeting. This work was partly supported by the Italian Ministry for University and Research (MURST) under grant Cofin98-02-32, and by the Italian Space Agency (ASI).

## References

Brunetti, G. 2000, APh, 13, 107–125

Brunetti, G., Setti, G., Comastri, A. 1997, A&A, 325, 898–910

Brunetti, G., Setti, G., Comastri, A., Feretti, L. 1999, A&A, 342, 57–68

Eilek, J.A., Hughes, P., 1990, in ’Astrophysical Jets’, ed. Hughes, P., Cambridge Univ. Press, p.428

Harris, D.E., Grindlay, J.E., 1979, MNRAS, 188, 25

Harris, D.E., Nulsen, P.E.J., Ponman, T.J., et al., 2000, ApJ, 530, L81

Sanders D.B., Phinney E.S., Neugebauer G., Soifer B.T., Matthews K., 1989, ApJ347, 29

Tashiro M., Kaneda H., Makishima N., et al., 1998, ApJ, 499, 713


text:
# Why the Salpeter screening formula cannot be applied in the Sun

## 1 Introduction

In view of the controversy about how to calculate the screening and the new paper by Bahcall et al. (2000) we feel that an explanation of the method of Shaviv & Shaviv (2000a) (hereafter $`S^2`$) and in particular juxtaposition of it with the mean field methods is appropriate. The issue of this paper is not whether the screening resolves or not the solar neutrino problem. This paper is about how to calculate the screening irrespective of the consequences to the solar neutrino problem. It may very well be that the new screening aggravates the classical solar neutrino problem and enhances the discrepancy between the prediction of the standard solar neutrino model and the experiments.

The plasma correction to the rate of the solar nuclear reactions affects the theoretical prediction of the solar neutrino fluxes and consequently the predicted counting rate in the various undergoing experiments to detect solar neutrinos. Therefore, as accurate values as possible are needed for evaluation of the nuclear reaction rates. As is well known, if all attempts to explain the solar neutrino discrepancy between theory and observations fail, then one of the suggested explanations is neutrino oscillations. In this case, the accurate derivation of the parameters of the solution, like the oscillation length, would depend on the exact prediction of the neutrino fluxes in the classical theory. As plain as day, before a new theory is invented it is crucial to calculate correctly all effects created by the ‘classical’ theory.

The paper by Bahcall et al. (2000) enumerates various attempts to derive the screening correction to the rate of nuclear reactions in stellar plasma. The paper gives reference to $`S^2`$ in the context of dynamic screening and then does not discuss the paper, the method or the results, but instead discusses the dynamic screening of Carraro et al. (1988). As a mater of fact, $`S^2`$ show in detail that Carraro et al. (1988) are wrong in using the approach of a test particle instead of a particle in thermodynamic equilibrium. Neither the effect $`S^2`$ discuss, nor their kinetic approach, are mentioned in the Bahcall et al. (2000) paper but the impression the reader is provoked to adopt is that it is identical to Carraro et al. and hence equally wrong (see section 3.1 of their paper). This is far from being the truth and the purpose of this paper is therefore

* To show in what way the method of $`S^2`$ is new and different from the mean field methods.
* To explain what is the plasma effect $`S^2`$ discuss and why it is a natural consequence of an equilibrium state.
* Explain why the assumption of mean field does not apply to the screening in the Sun.

We first discuss the premises of the standard treatment of screening and then enumerate the assumptions of the $`S^2`$ method, as well as the $`S^2`$ definition of the screening from first principles and finally compare the various sets of tacit assumptions in each approach.

## 2 The standard treatment of screening

All treatments of the screening (except for Carraro et al. 1988 and $`S^2`$) are based on the mean field approximation. The mean field is the average field a particle feels in the plasma. The average is calculated over a thermodynamically long times. According to the ergodic hypothesis this field is equal to the average field calculated in a snapshot with the average taken over all particles in the system. Is this approximation valid for the solar conditions? The Debye radius in the solar core is about $`0.87<r>`$, where $`<r>`$ is the mean interparticle distance, so that $`N_D`$, the mean number of particles in a Debye sphere, is 2-5 (depending on the charge of the ion). The mean field approximations treats this number as a fixed and very large number which does not fluctuate (because it is assumes that $`1/\sqrt{N}1`$) so as to obtain the mean field potential. The first claim of $`S^2`$ is that because of the smallness of $`N_D`$ the mean field approximation is a poor approximation for reaction kinetics. (cf Montgomery & Tidman 1964 for a discussion of the breakdown of the cluster expansion when $`N_D`$ is small)

Why do the fluctuations matter? When the relevant property is constant with the kinetic energy like the potential energy, the averaging over the fluctuations is equivalent to averaging over a constant mean potential. But when a phenomenon is sensitive to the energy like the Coulomb barrier penetration, the average over fluctuations is not equivalent to penetration with the average energy.

The Bahcall et al. (2000) refers to the screening in the kinetic approach a la Clayton (1968) where particles react via a mean potential. However, we mention in passing that one can discuss the screening effect through a change in the number density of particles due to the correlation (cf Ichimaru (1994)) without considering the interaction directly.

## 3 The treatment of $`S^2`$

$`S^2`$ assume neither the mean field nor that the amount of energy transferred in a ion-ion scattering is the mean potential energy per ion, but instead start from first principles. They defined the plasma effect during a scattering of two ions and calculated it directly without any additional assumption about the long time average field.

The formalism to include the plasma effect on the nuclear rate assumes that the particles are free at infinity and the only interaction is through the bare pair potential. In other words, the classical stellar nuclear reaction theory defines the screening energy as follows. The total energy of a pair (ignoring the surrounding plasma) is given as:

$$E_{\mathrm{bin}}^{\mathrm{pair}}=E_{\mathrm{kin},1}+E_{\mathrm{kin},2}+\frac{Z_1Z_2e^2}{r_{12}}.$$
(1)
The screening energy, that is the energy the incoming pair gains from the plasma, is then given by:

$$E_{\mathrm{scr}}=\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{bin}}^{\mathrm{pair}}=E_{\mathrm{bin},\mathrm{c}}^{\mathrm{pair}}E_{\mathrm{bin},\mathrm{f}}^{\mathrm{pair}}$$
(2)
where index c means close and index f means far away. Equation 2 compares directly the energy of the pair when it is close and when it is far away. The calculation should proceeds therefore, as follows: calculate the evolution of all particles in the system. For every particle, find the nearest particle and declare it as ‘mates’. Evaluate now the dynamic evolution from the identification moment as a pair of approaching particles, through the approach and until the pair separates a given distance. Once the particles moved away calculate Eq. 2. In this way the screening is calculated directly from first principles without any additional assumptions.

Clearly, when the reaction takes place in vacuum $`E_{\mathrm{scr}}0`$. However, any effect the plasma has on the approaching pair will appear in $`E_{\mathrm{scr}}`$. We stress that Eq. 2 correlates between the distance of closest approach and far away and not between the ‘initial’ and ‘final’ scattering states. According to the classical Salpeter or any mean field theory, there is no difference between the above two: the energy gained from the plasma by the approaching particles is returned by the separating particles. The balance is maintained per each collision.

In summary, the mean potential energy per particle, $`E_{\mathrm{pot}}`$, namely the long time average of the potential energy, does not depend on the absolute or the relative kinetic energy of the particle. This classical result of statistical mechanics is manifested clearly in the calculations of $`S^2`$. However, the energy gained (or lost) from the plasma by a scattering pair as given by Eq. 2 may depend on the relative kinetic energy.

It is clear that in order to solve Eq. 2 for particles in the plasma one needs a proper kinetic treatment and not a mean field approach. $`S^2`$ found that in view of the complexity of the problem (see also later) it is advantageous to look for a method that handles the problem from first principles and without any additional assumptions or approximations. Such a method is the Molecular Dynamics method (MD).

What is the Molecular Dynamic method? One takes a system of N positive (the protons) and N negative (the electrons) particles, assumes a pure Coulomb interaction between every two particles (p-p, p-e and e-e) and solves the 3N second order Newton’s equation of motion. The MD method does not assume anything about a mean field or smoothing field etc. Nor does it assume a long time average potential for the scattering of any two particles. In the MD method the scattering of each pair with all the interaction of the particles around it is exactly followed. To have a decent representation of the various effects N must be large. In the case of $`S^2`$ $`N=10^5`$ was used. (Some authors apply screened potential. However, $`S^2`$ apply a simple $`1/r`$ potential).

### 3.1 The new effect

Consider a pair of mutually scattering particles with a given relative kinetic energy between them. The basic findings of S2 is that when the relative kinetic energy of the pair is low it gains energy from the plasma as they approach each other. On the other hand, particles with large relative kinetic energy lose energy to the plasma as they approach each other. Gain or loss are used in terms of the relative kinetic energy of the pair and not in absolute terms. If one takes a random pair of approaching particles with a given relative kinetic energy, it may lose or gain energy. However, the average for a given relative kinetic energy is positive for low relative kinetic energies and negative for high relative kinetic energies. (In this respect it is exactly like the action of dynamic friction in a cluster of stars. ).

Of course, on the average the energy gained/lost by the scattering particles when summed overall particles in the plasma, must  vanish. The balance is over all particles not per collision.

The physical explanation of the effect is simple. When the relative energy of the scattering particle is lower than the mean thermal energy of the particles in the screening cloud, it gains energy upon penetrating into the cloud. However, when the relative kinetic energy is higher than the mean thermal energy, the pair loses energy by penetrating into the cloud of each other. One could predict the existence of such an effect without going into the long calculations. However, the amount of energy exchange and the energy of turn over from gain to loss must be obtained from calculations.

We note at this point that none of the various treatments of screening (for reference see Bahcall et al. 2000) satisfy the condition of overall energy balance explicitly. In other words, how a pair of scattering protons, which gains energy from a cloud of 3 particles upon approaching each other, returns this energy to the cloud as they separate? The classical treatments assume implicitly a detailed balance, namely each approaching pair, which gains energy from the plasma, must return it to the plasma upon separation (which is apparently good for $`N_D\mathrm{}`$). If this assumption is dropped from the mean field approximation, then one has to explain how the approaching particles return the gained energy to the plasma.

### 3.2 The MD method reproduce the statistical mechanics results

Without fail the MD reproduces all standard statistical mechanics results obtained after a long time average. The effect found in $`S^2`$ does not violate thermodynamics nor does it need a new or special assumption about thermodynamics or screening. It is a simple consequence of the global balance in the plasma. If some particles gain energy from the plasma others must lose energy to the plasma.

The MD calculation of $`S^2`$ reproduces the following standard statistical mechanics results:

* The particles obey a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. The calculation starts from an arbitrary initial distribution in the phases space and relaxes after an initial time to a very accurate Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. The distribution is reproduced over many orders of magnitudes in number of particles.
* The long time average of the potential energy per particle does not depend on the absolute kinetic energy of the particle.
* The average force acting on the particle vanishes but the root mean square does not and as a matter of fact is very large and does not depend on the kinetic energy of the particle.
* The potential energy of the particle does not depend on the mass of the particle. The potential energy per particle does not change when the mass of the particles changes.
* The long time average potential between two ions, say protons, is the Debye H$`\ddot{\mathrm{u}}`$ckel potential and the potential energy per particle is close to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the plasma parameter.
* All thermodynamic properties like mean kinetic energy, mean potential energy per particle etc are in agreement with statistical mechanics.
* The power spectrum of the fluctuations does not show any scale and obey a power law.
* The distribution of the potential energy per particle as seen in a snapshot (space average) is properly obtained.

### 3.3 What MD has that mean field does not

What does the Molecular Dynamic contain that the mean field is missing:

* The exact energy exchange between the two approaching ions and each massive ion in the cloud around the interacting pair is followed. The same is true of the energy exchange of the approaching pair and the electrons. Thus, while the pair of approaching particles gains/loses energy, the energy lost/gained by the other particles is fully accounted for. In the mean field approach the energy lost by the cloud of particles composing the mean field is not accounted for. The implicit assumption is that the mass of the potential is infinite.
* The recoil of each particle composing the ‘effective potential’ upon the approach of the interacting pair of ions is fully accounted for in the MD method. In the mean field approach the tacit assumption is that the potential has an infinite mass and does not recoil (or lose/gain energy during the approach).
* The MD secure automatically an overall detailed balance of the energy exchange between the plasma and the scattering pair. Some pairs lose energy while others gain, but the sum over the entire system vanishes. In the mean field one assumes a detailed balance, namely while a pair of ions gains energy from the plasma as they approach each other, it loses exactly  this energy as it moves away. But it is difficult to see how energy gained from a cloud of 2-5 particles during the approach is exactly returned to the cloud during the separation, or is it returned elsewhere?
* As the number of particles in the Debye sphere is very small, the MD treats properly the third body interaction as well as all higher orders. In the mean field, it is always the effect of the ’many’ particles composing the mean spherical field.
* On the one hand the instantaneous potential energy of all particles is not identical (it fluctuates) and there is a distribution of potential energies. On the other hand, the Coulomb penetration is very not linear with kinetic energy. Consequently, taking the Coulomb penetration at the value of the mean field may be very inaccurate.
* The mean field approach assumes that the energy gained by the approaching pair (and later returned to the plasma) is always the mean potential energy of an ion in the plasma. The MD calculates the energy exchange exactly without recourse to any assumption.
* The method of Molecular Dynamics is equivalent to summing the ladder (interaction) diagrams to all orders.

## 4 Conclusions

### 4.1 General conclusions

* $`S^2`$ applied Molecular Dynamics to calculate from first principles the effect of the plasma on a pair of reacting particles. The numerical method is equivalent to summation of the interaction diagrams to all orders.
* The MD reproduces all results of statistical mechanics to a high accuracy.
* The basic result of $`S^2`$ is that the mean energy exchange with the plasma is positive for pairs with low relative kinetic energy (the pair gains energy) and negative for high relative energy pairs (the pair loses energy). The sum overall scatterings vanishes for each specie in the plasma.
* The interaction of the plasma with the scattering particles is dynamic and must be derived from a proper kinematic considerations.
* The spread in the energy exchange of the particles with the plasma is large and must be taken into account in calculating the effective Coulomb penetration.
* The pair-plasma energy exchange in a single scattering is mainly between the massive pair and the massive ion component. The contribution of the electrons in a single collision is calculated by the MD method but is effectively negligible. Of course, over thermodynamic times there is an energy exchange between the massive ions and the light electrons.
* The mean field approximation ceases to be valid under the conditions prevailing in stellar cores in general and in the Sun in particular. Even using only the ion contribution to the mean field is not sufficient since few body interactions cannot be neglected.
* Averaging the effect of the plasma into a mean long term potential is not appropriate for handling very non linear functions, like the Coulomb barrier penetration.
* The penetration factor calculation must include the spread in the energy exchange.

### 4.2 Could the screening affect the prediction of the solar neutrino flux?

While it is not the purpose of this paper to discuss this particular problem we would like to comment, as an epilogue, as follows: all numerical tests about the effect of the plasma assumed a mean field approximation where all reaction are either enhanced or not affected (for a review see Dzitko & Turck-Chièze(1995). Shaviv & Shaviv (2000b) show that (a) due to fluctuations the problem is more complicated than just assumed by the approach using a ‘corrected’ penetration factor. (b) Some reactions are enhanced and others are suppressed depending on the relation of the Gamow energy to the turnover energy (from gains to losses) and the width of the screening distribution. Finally, assessment of the effect is carried out and will be published in due course. The effect found so far is far from being negligible.

## 5 Acknowledgment

The author would like to acknowledge extremely helpful discussions with J.P. Lasota. Also, he thanks the Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris for hospitality and the European Association for Research in Astronomy for supporting his visit there.


text:
# References

Quantum computation, theory of111Article by E. H. Knill and M. A. Nielsen accepted for Supplement III, Encyclopaedia of Mathematics (publication expected Summer 2001). See also “http://www.wkap.nl/series.htm/ENM”. E. H. Knill is with the Los Alamos National Laboratory, MS B265, Los Alamos NM 87545, USA, and M. A. Nielsen is with the Center for Quantum Computer Technology, Department of Physics, University of Queensland 4072, Australia.  \- The study of the model of computation in which the state space consists of linear superpositions of classical configurations and the computational steps consist of applying local unitary operators and measurements as permitted by quantum mechanics.

Quantum computation emerged in the 1980’s when P. Benioff and R. Feynman realized that the apparent exponential complexity in simulating quantum physics could be overcome by using a sufficiently well controlled quantum mechanical system to perform a simulation. Quantum Turing machines were introduced by D. Deutsch in 1985. Initial work focused on how quantum mechanics could be used to implement classical computation (computation in the sense of A. Church and A. Turing), and on analyzing whether the quantum Turing machine model provided a universal model of computation. In the early 1990’s, D. Deutsch and R. Jozsa found an oracle problem that could be solved faster on an error-free quantum computer than on any deterministic classical computer. E. Bernstein and U. Vazirani then formalized the notion of quantum complexity from a theoretical computer science point of view, and showed that with respect to oracles which reversibly compute classical functions, quantum computers are super-polynomially more efficient than classical computers. The gap was soon improved to an exponential one. This work culminated in P. Shor’s discovery of an efficient (that is, consuming only polynomial resources) algorithm for factoring large numbers and for computing discrete logarithms. It implied that widely used public key cryptographic systems would be insecure if quantum computers were available. Subsequently, L. Grover found an algorithm which permitted a square-root speed-up of unstructured search. Finding new algorithmic improvements achievable with quantum computers which are not reducible to Shor’s or Grover’s algorithm is currently (2000) an active research area. Also of great current interest is understanding how the problem of simulating quantum systems, known to be tractable on a quantum computer, relates to the problems conventionally studied within classical computational complexity theory. Comprehensive introductions to quantum computation and the known quantum algorithms may be found in .

The algorithmic work described above firmly established the field of quantum computation in computer science. However, it was initially unclear whether quantum computation was a physically realizable model. Particularly worrisome was the fact that in nature, quantum effects are rarely observable, and in fact, physical noise processes tend to rapidly remove the necessary phase relationships. To solve the problem of quantum noise, P. Shor and A. Steane introduced quantum error-correcting codes. This idea was expanded and applied by several research groups to prove that under physically reasonable assumptions, fault tolerant quantum computation is possible. Among the assumptions are the requirements that quantum noise is sufficiently weak (below some constant threshold error per quantum bit and operation) and that the basic operations can be performed in parallel. As a result there are now many intense experimental efforts devoted toward realizing quantum computation, in a wide and increasing variety of physical systems. Progress to date (2000) has been modest, with existing systems limited to just a few qubits, and on the order of one hundred operations .

Models of quantum computation largely parallel and generalize the classical models of computation. In particular, for formal studies of complexity, many researchers use various versions of quantum Turing machines, while quantum random access machines or quantum networks (also known as quantum circuits) are preferred for describing and investigating specific algorithms. To obtain a quantum version of a classical model of deterministic computation, one begins with the classical model’s state space. The classical state space usually consists of an enumerable set of configurations $`\psi _i`$, with index $`i`$ often constructed from strings of symbols. The quantum model associates to each $`\psi _i`$ a member of a standard orthonormal basis $`|i`$ (called *classical states*) of a Hilbert space $``$. The states of the quantum model are given by “superpositions” of these basis states, which are unit vectors in $``$. The classical model’s initial state $`\psi _0`$ becomes the quantum model’s initial state $`|0`$, and the classical model’s transition function is replaced by a unitary operator $`U`$ acting on $``$. $`U`$ has to satisfy certain locality restrictions that imply, for example, that $`U|i`$ must be a superposition of classical states that are accessible by an allowed classical transition function in one step from $`\psi _i`$. The computation’s answer can be obtained by *measuring* the state after each step. In the simplest case, the classical computation’s answer is determined by whether the configuration is an “accepting” one. Accepting configurations form a set $`𝒜`$ which may be associated with the closed subspace of $``$ spanned by the corresponding classical states. Let $`P`$ be the projection operator onto this subspace. If the state of the quantum model is $`|\varphi `$, measurement has two possible outcomes. Either the new state is $`P|\varphi /P|\varphi `$ with probability $`p=P|\varphi ^2`$, in which case the computation “accepts”, or the state is $`(1P)|\varphi /(1P)|\varphi `$ with probability $`1p`$, in which case the computation continues. The possible measurement outcomes can be expanded by adding a set of “rejecting” states. In the early days of quantum computation there were lively discussions of how quantum Turing machines should halt, implying different rules about when measurements are applied during a computation.

The method outlined above for obtaining a quantum model of computation from a classical model yields a generalization of the restriction of the classical model to reversible transition functions. This implies that quantum complexity classes do not necessarily enlarge the classical analogues, particularly for the low-lying classes or when restricted models of computation (for example, finite state automata) are involved. To obtain a generalization of the usual model of computation it suffices to extend the set of transition operators with suitable irreversible ones. One way to do that is to allow transition operators which are the composition of a measurement (satisfying an appropriate locality constraint) followed by unitary operators depending on the measurement outcome. A different approach which works well for random access machines (RAM) is to enhance the RAM by giving it access to an unbounded number of *quantum bits* which can be controlled by applying *quantum gates* (cf. quantum information processing). This is in effect how existing quantum algorithms are described and analyzed.

As in classical complexity studies, resources considered for quantum complexity include time and space. In the context of irreversible processes, an additional resource that may be considered is entropy generated by irreversible operations. When analyzing algorithms based on quantum RAMs, it is also useful to separately account for classical and quantum resources. It is important to realize that if the complex coefficients of the unitary transition operators are rational (or in general, *computable* complex numbers), then there is no difference between classical and quantum computability. Thus the functions computable by quantum Turing machines are the same as those computable by classical Turing machines.

An important issue in studying quantum models of computation is how to define the computation’s “answer” given that the output is intrinsically probabilistic. How this is defined can affect complexity classes. Guidance comes from studies of probabilistic (or randomized) computation, where the same issues arise. Since quantum computation with irreversibility can also be viewed as a generalization of probabilistic computation, most comparisons of the complexity of algorithms use bounds on the efficiency of probabilistic algorithms.

The best known quantum complexity class is the class of bounded error quantum polynomial time computable languages ($`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$). This is the class of languages decided in polynomial time with probability $`>2/3`$ (acceptance) and $`<1/3`$ (rejection) by a quantum Turing machine. Based on the oracle computing studies, the quantum factoring algorithm, and the difficulty of classically simulating quantum physics, it is conjectured that $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ strictly contains $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐏𝐏}`$ (the class of bounded error polynomial time computable languages for the model of probabilistic classical computation). $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ is contained in $`𝐏^{\text{\#}𝐏}`$ (the class of languages decidable in polynomial time on a classical Turing machine given access to an oracle for computing the permanent of $`0`$-$`1`$ matrices—this class is contained in the class $`\mathrm{𝐏𝐒𝐏𝐀𝐂𝐄}`$ of languages computable using polynomial working space). Thus, a proof of the important conjecture that $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ is strictly larger than $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐏𝐏}`$ will imply the long-sought result in classical computational complexity that $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐏𝐏}\mathrm{𝐏𝐒𝐏𝐀𝐂𝐄}`$.

The relationship of $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ to $`\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}`$ (the class of nondeterministic polynomial time languages) is not known, though it is conjectured that $`\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$. If this is not the case, it would have immense practical significance, as many combinatorial optimization problems are in $`\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}`$. One reason for thinking that $`\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}\mathrm{𝐁𝐐𝐏}`$ is the fact that Grover’s algorithm provides the optimal speedup for unstructured quantum search, and it is widely believed that the reason for the difficulty of solving $`\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}`$-complete problems is that it is essentially equivalent to searching an unstructured search space. A generalization of unstructured search involves determining properties of (quantum) oracles by means of queries. In classical computation, an oracle is a function $`f`$ with values in $`\{0,1\}`$. The corresponding quantum oracle applies the unitary operator $`\widehat{f}`$ defined on basis states by $`\widehat{f}|x,0,w|x,f(x),w`$ and $`\widehat{f}|x,1,w|x,1f(x),w`$. To *query* the oracle, one applies $`\widehat{f}`$ to the current state. Grover’s algorithm can be cast in terms of an oracle problem. The observation that this algorithm is optimal has been extended by using the method of polynomials  to show that when no promise is made on the behavior of the oracle, quantum computers are at most polynomially more efficient than classical computers.

An area where there are provable exponential gaps between the efficiency of quantum and classical computation occurs when communication resources are taken into consideration. This area is known as quantum communication complexity (introduced by A. Yao in 1993) and considers problems where two parties with quantum computers and a quantum channel between them (cf. quantum information processing) jointly compute a function of their respective inputs and wish to minimize the number of quantum bits communicated. The exponential gaps between quantum and classical communication complexity are so far confined to problems where the inputs to the function computed are constrained by a “promise” . The best known gap without a promise is a quadratic separation between classical and quantum protocols with bounded probability of error . Several research groups have developed techniques for proving lower bounds on quantum communication complexity, mostly variations of the log-rank lower bound also used in classical communication complexity. These results show that for some problems (for example, computing the inner product modulo two of bit strings known to the respective parties) there is little advantage to using quantum information processing.

E. H. Knill  M. A. Nielsen

AMS 2000 Subject Classification: 81P68, 68Q05