text:
# 𝒑-Branes and the GZK Paradox

## Abstract

In spacetimes with asymmetric extra dimensions, cosmic neutrino interactions may be extraordinarily enhanced by $`p`$-brane production. Brane formation and decay may then initiate showers deep in the Earth’s atmosphere at rates far above the standard model rate. We explore the $`p`$-brane discovery potential of cosmic ray experiments. The absence of deeply penetrating showers at AGASA already provides multi-TeV bounds on the fundamental Planck scale that significantly exceed those obtained from black hole production in symmetric compactification scenarios. This sensitivity will be further enhanced at the Auger Observatory. We also examine the possibility that $`p`$-brane formation resolves the GZK paradox. For flat compactifications, astrophysical bounds exclude this explanation. For warped scenarios, a solution could be consistent with the absence of deep showers only for extra dimensions with fine-tuned sizes well below the fundamental Planck length. In addition, it requires moderately penetrating showers, so far not reported, and $`100\%`$ modifications to standard model phenomenology at 100 GeV energies.

preprint:   NUB–3226–Th–02 MIT–CTP–3245 UCI–TR–2002–5 hep-ph/0202124

A spectacular prediction of scenarios with strong gravity and large (or warped) extra dimensions Antoniadis:1990ew  is the production of microscopic black holes (BHs) in particle collisions with center-of-mass energies larger than a TeV Banks:1999gd . Cosmic neutrinos with energies above $`10^6\text{GeV}`$ that strike a nucleon in the Earth’s atmosphere may then create BHs with cross sections two or more orders of magnitude above their standard model cross sections Feng:2001ib . Criticisms Voloshin:2001vs  of the assumptions leading to these cross sections have been addressed Dimopoulos:2001qe . These BHs are expected to decay promptly, initiating spectacular quasi-horizontal air showers deep in the atmosphere. The distinctive features of BH evaporation allow BHs to be differentiated from background Anchordoqui:2001ei , and the production and subsequent evaporation of such BHs may be studied in detail at cosmic ray observatories Feng:2001ib ; Emparan:2001kf ; Anchordoqui:2001cg . Additionally, neutrinos that traverse the atmosphere unscathed may produce BHs through interactions in the Earth; detailed simulations Kowalski:2002gb  of these BH events also find observable rates at neutrino telescopes.

Recently, based on the absence of a significant signal of deeply developing showers reported by the AGASA Collaboration agasa , we derived new limits on the fundamental Planck scale in spacetimes with extra dimensions of equal length Anchordoqui:2001cg . More recently, it was pointed out that for TeV-scale gravity with asymmetric large extra dimensions Lykken:1999ms  the formation of $`p`$-branes could be competitive with black hole production Ahn:2002mj . The decay of $`p`$-branes is not well-understood. One possibility is that they may decay into lower dimensional brane-antibrane pairs, leading to a cascade of branes Sen:1999mg . In any case, there is no reason for them to decay only to invisible particles, and it is reasonable to expect their decays, as with BH decays, to be dominated by visible quanta observable at cosmic ray observatories Ahn:2002mj . With this in mind, we study the implications of $`p`$-brane showers for cosmic ray physics.

Once one entertains the notion of asymmetric compactifications, a wide variety of possibilities arise, as one can consider the possibility of several compactification scales. We consider first the simplest example in which $`n`$ flat extra dimensions are divided into two sets, with $`m`$ dimensions of length $`L`$, and $`nm`$ larger dimensions of length $`L^{}`$. Brane production will be significant only in the presence of Planckian extra dimensions, and so we assume $`LL_{}M_{}^1`$, where $`L_{}`$ and $`M_{}`$ are the fundamental Planck length and mass. $`M_{}`$ and the four-dimensional Planck mass $`M_{\text{Pl}}1.2\times 10^{19}\text{GeV}`$ are related by Lykken:1999ms

$$M_{\text{Pl}}^2=M_{}^{2+n}L^mL_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{nm}.$$
(1)
For simple toroidal compactifications, $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$ are related to radii by factors of $`2\pi `$. Motivated by string/M theory, we will focus on the cases $`n=6,7`$. To facilitate comparison with our earlier analysis and collider data, we will give results in terms of both $`M_{}`$ and $`M_D=[(2\pi )^n/8\pi ]^{1/(n+2)}M_{}`$. For $`n=6(7)`$, $`M_D=2.65M_{}`$ ($`2.92M_{}`$).

Scenarios with low values of $`nm`$ are already tightly constrained. Sub-millimeter tests of the gravitational inverse-square law show no deviation from Newtonian gravity Hoyle:2000cv , yielding $`L^{}/2\pi 0.2\text{mm}`$. For $`nm=1(2)`$ and $`LL_{}`$, this implies $`M_{}2\times 10^5(1.4)\text{TeV}`$. Additionally, in the presence of large extra dimensions, the usual four-dimensional graviton is complemented by a tower of Kaluza-Klein (KK) states, corresponding to the new available phase space in the bulk. The requirement that the neutrino signal of supernova 1987A not be unduly shortened by the emission of KK modes into the part of the bulk with large extra dimensions also bounds the compactification scale Cullen:1999hc . Such limits are further strengthened by constraints on KK graviton decay in typical astrophysical environments, yielding $`M_{}10\text{TeV}`$ for $`nm3`$ Hall:1999mk . For $`nm4`$, bounds from colliders imply $`M_{}300\text{GeV}`$ Anchordoqui:2001cg . All of these bounds are for flat compactifications. Warped compactifications, in which bounds for small $`nm`$ are much less restrictive, will be discussed below.

We now consider an uncharged, non-rotating $`p`$-brane with mass $`M_p`$ that lives in this (4+$`n`$)-dimensional spacetime and wraps $`r`$ Planckian dimensions and $`pr`$ large extra dimensions. Such a $`p`$-brane is described by the metric Gregory:1995qh

$$ds^2=R^{\mathrm{\Delta }/(p+1)}(dt^2+dz_i^2)+R^{(2q\mathrm{\Delta })/(q1)}dr^2+r^2R^{(1\mathrm{\Delta })/(q1)}d\mathrm{\Omega }_q^2,$$
(2)
where $`z_i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},p`$) are the brane coordinates, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_q^2`$ ($`q=2+np`$) is the metric of the $`q`$-dimensional unit sphere, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=[q(p+1)/(p+q)]^{1/2}`$, and $`R=1(r_p/r)^{q1}`$. The radius $`r_p`$ is given by

$$r_p=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }M_{}}\gamma (n,p)\left(\frac{M_p}{M_{}V_p}\right)^{\frac{1}{1+np}},$$
(3)
where $`V_p=(L/L_{})^r(L^{}/L_{})^{pr}`$ is the volume wrapped by the $`p`$-brane in fundamental Planck units, and

$$\gamma (n,p)=\left[8\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3+np}{2}\right)\sqrt{\frac{1+p}{(2+n)(2+np)}}\right]^{\frac{1}{1+np}}.$$
(4)
For $`p=0`$, Eq. (2) reduces to the metric of a (4+$`n`$)-dimensional black hole and $`r_p`$ becomes the Schwarzschild radius Myers:un . For $`p1`$, Eq. (2) has a naked singularity at $`r_p`$. Following Ref. Ahn:2002mj , we assume that this curvature singularity is smoothed out by the core of the $`p`$-brane. We also assume that a BH or $`p`$-brane is formed when two partons $`i`$, $`j`$ with center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ scatter with impact parameter $`br_p`$, leading to the geometric cross section

$$\widehat{\sigma }_{ijp\text{-brane}}(\sqrt{\widehat{s}})=\pi r_p^2,$$
(5)
where $`r_p`$ is given by Eq. (3) with $`M_p=\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$.

Of interest for this work is the parameter space for which a $`p`$-brane cross section dominates the BH cross section. The ratio of these is Ahn:2002mj

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(\widehat{s};n,m,p,r)\frac{\widehat{\sigma }_{ijp\text{-brane}}}{\widehat{\sigma }_{ijBH}}=\left(\frac{M_{\text{Pl}}}{M_{}}\right)^\alpha \left(\frac{L}{L_{}}\right)^\beta \frac{\gamma (n,p)^2}{\gamma (n,0)^2}\left(\frac{\widehat{s}}{M_{}^2}\right)^{\frac{p}{(1+n)(1+np)}},$$
(6)
where

$$\alpha =\frac{4(pr)}{(nm)(1+np)}0,\beta =\frac{2(nrmp)}{(nm)(1+np)}0.$$
(7)
For TeV-scale gravity with $`M_{}M_{\text{Pl}}`$, $`p`$-brane production is negligible relative to BH production unless $`p=r`$, i.e., the $`p`$-brane wraps only Planck size dimensions. (It is also suppressed for symmetric compactifications with $`L=L^{}`$.) In this case, Eq. (6) simplifies to

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(\widehat{s};n,m,p,p)=\left(\frac{L}{L_{}}\right)^{\frac{2p}{1+np}}\frac{\gamma (n,p)^2}{\gamma (n,0)^2}\left(\frac{\widehat{s}}{M_{}^2}\right)^{\frac{p}{(1+n)(1+np)}}.$$
(8)
As can be seen from Eq. (8), and as noted in Ahn:2002mj , $`p`$-brane production significantly enhances BH production only if $`LL_{}`$. The enhancement results from wrapping on small dimensions and is a consequence of the dependence of $`r_p`$ solely on the density of the $`p`$-brane; thus, for a given mass, the density and radius $`r_p`$ increase with decreasing $`L`$ ackn . On the other hand, $`L`$ cannot be much smaller than $`L_{}`$: in the string-based low energy Lagrangian, the gauge coupling squared is inversely proportional to the compactification volume. A small volume corresponds to strong coupling and introduces low mass winding modes. In certain explicit models, these small volumes can be removed from the gauge sector via a $`T`$-duality transformation Shiu:1998pa . Below, we avoid reference to specific models, and present results for the generous range $`0.1<L/L_{}<10`$.

The cross section for $`p`$-brane production from neutrino-nucleon scattering is

$$\sigma (\nu Np\text{-brane})=\underset{i}{}_{M_p^{\text{min}}{}_{}{}^{2}/s}^1𝑑x\widehat{\sigma }_i(\sqrt{xs})f_i(x,Q),$$
(9)
where $`s=2m_NE_\nu `$, the sum is over all partons in the nucleon, and the $`f_i`$ are parton distribution functions. As in Feng:2001ib ; Anchordoqui:2001cg , we set the momentum transfer $`Q=\mathrm{min}\{M_p,10\text{TeV}\}`$, where the upper limit is from the CTEQ5M1 distribution functions Lai:2000wy . Finally, $`M_p^{\text{min}}`$ is the minimum $`p`$-brane mass required for production, which we assume equal to $`M_D`$.

To obtain the total cross section for brane production, we assume that $`p`$-brane production is possible for all $`p`$, and so the total cross section is

$$\sigma (\nu N\text{brane})=\underset{p=0}{\overset{m}{}}\sigma (\nu Np\text{-brane}).$$
(10)
Total cross sections for brane production by cosmic neutrinos are given in Fig. 1 for $`L/L_{}=0.25`$ and $`M_D=1\text{TeV}`$. The lowest solid curves for $`m=0`$ are for BH production only, and are greatly enhanced relative to the standard model. We see, however, that for small values of $`L/L_{}`$, even larger cross sections are possible for $`p`$-branes, especially for low $`nm`$.

It has recently been proposed Jain:2002kf  that ultra-high energy neutrinos interacting via $`p`$-brane production may provide a solution to the puzzle of the observed cosmic rays with energies above $`10^{11}\text{GeV}`$, i.e., above the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin (GZK) limit Greisen:1966jv . These cosmic ray showers begin high in the atmosphere, and so require $`\nu N`$ cross sections of order 100 mb. We see from Fig. 1, however, that such cross sections are approached only for one or two large extra dimensions $`(nm=1,2)`$ and $`M_D1\text{TeV}`$, a region of parameter space excluded by the sub-mm gravity experiments and astrophysical constraints discussed above. Cosmic neutrinos with interaction strengths enhanced by $`p`$-brane production cannot resolve the GZK paradox in flat compactification scenarios. We will return to the possibility of warped compactifications below.

While $`p`$-brane cross sections for $`nm3`$ are irrelevant for the GZK paradox, they may nevertheless enhance deep shower rates, with strong implications for cosmic ray experiments. For asymmetric spacetimes with $`nm3`$, the event rate for deep showers is

$$𝒩=𝑑E_\nu N_A\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dE_\nu }\sigma (\nu N\text{brane})A(E_\nu )T,$$
(11)
where $`N_A=6.022\times 10^{23}`$ is Avogadro’s number, $`d\mathrm{\Phi }/dE_\nu `$ is the neutrino flux, $`A(E_\nu )`$ is the acceptance for quasi-horizontal showers in cm3 water equivalent steradians, and $`T`$ is the experiment’s running time. For the neutrino flux, we consider the conservative cosmogenic flux produced by interactions of the observed ultra-high energy protons with the cosmic microwave background. Specifically, as in our previous paper Anchordoqui:2001cg , we adopt the estimates of Protheroe and Johnson with an injection spectrum with cutoff energy $`3\times 10^{12}\text{GeV}`$ Protheroe:1996ft . Additional fluxes are possible and would only strengthen the conclusions below.

The AGASA Collaboration has searched for deeply penetrating showers agasa . An estimate of the AGASA acceptance for deeply penetrating events is given in Anchordoqui:2001cg . In $`T=1710.5`$ days of data taking, they find 1 event with an expected background of 1.72, leading to a 95% CL limit of 3.5 events from $`p`$-brane creation.

The absence of evidence for deeply penetrating showers then places bounds on the parameter space of asymmetric compactifications. These bounds are given in Fig. 2, and the results can be summarized as follows: (1) For $`m=0`$, only 0-branes (BHs) are produced. The bounds on $`M_D`$ are therefore independent of $`L/L_{}`$, and we recover the constraint $`M_D1.6\text{TeV}`$, first given in Anchordoqui:2001cg . (2) For $`L/L_{}\mathrm{}`$, the contribution from $`p0`$ vanishes, and all limits asymptotically approach the BH bound. (3) Even for $`LL_{}`$, the limits on $`M_D`$ from $`p`$-brane production are significantly enhanced above limits from BH production alone, and are as large as $`3\text{TeV}`$. (4) For smaller values of $`L/L_{}`$, the lower bounds on $`M_D`$ rise dramatically. (5) The Auger Observatory, scheduled for completion by 2004 with an acceptance roughly 30-100 times that of AGASA, will provide an extremely sensitive probe of asymmetric compactifications.

We now return to scenarios with $`nm=1`$ or 2, but consider the possibility that these dimensions are warped Giddings:2001yu . Although no explicit models are available, these scenarios may evade the stringent constraints on $`M_D`$ from astrophysics and Newtonian gravity. At the same time, the cross sections for $`p`$-brane production may be as in the flat compactification case if the curvature length scales are large compared with $`r_p`$. In these scenarios, can $`p`$-brane production provide an explanation for cosmic rays above the GZK cutoff?

This possibility is constrained by at least three considerations. First, as in the $`nm3`$ cases, these scenarios are limited by the absence of deeply penetrating showers at AGASA. The expected deep shower event rate is determined essentially as before, but now cross sections may be so large that showers begin high in the atmosphere and so do not contribute to deep shower rates. The atmospheric depth for quasi-horizontal showers with zenith angle $`70^{}`$ is about $`3000\text{g}/\text{cm}^2`$. This interaction length corresponds to a cross section of $`\sigma _{\nu N}=0.56\text{mb}`$. We determine deep shower rates assuming conservatively that only neutrinos with total cross sections below 0.56 mb contribute Tyler:2000gt .

Second, if $`\sigma (\nu N)100\text{mb}`$ for $`E_\nu >10^{11}\text{GeV}`$, then one expects $`\sigma (\nu N)1`$ to 10 mb for $`E_\nu 10^9\text{GeV}`$. (See Fig. 1.) This implies that cosmic neutrinos should produce $`p`$-brane showers (akin to black hole showers Anchordoqui:2001ei ), but with primaries with mean free paths of $`\lambda _{\nu \text{-air}}430`$ times larger than $`\lambda _{p\text{-air}}`$. Such moderately penetrating showers were discussed in Anchordoqui:2000uh . Because this cross section would occur near the peak of the cosmogenic flux Protheroe:1996ft , such showers will be copiously produced and should be observed at cosmic ray detectors. This is an important test for these scenarios — an abundance of such moderately penetrating showers have not been reported to date.

Third, very large cross sections lead, via a dispersion relation, to large deviations in standard model predictions at lower energies Goldberg:1998pv . With the cross sections of Fig. 1, it is straightforward to apply the results of Goldberg:1998pv  to show that cross sections

$$\sigma _{\nu N}(10^{11}\text{GeV})300\text{mb}$$
(12)
lead to $`100\%`$ corrections to, e.g., neutrino properties at energies $`100\text{GeV}`$.

Cross sections $`\sigma (\nu N)`$ at $`E_\nu =10^{11}\text{GeV}`$ are given in Fig. 3 for two scenarios with $`nm=1,2`$. \[Results for $`(n,m)=(7,6)`$ are very similar to those for $`(6,5)`$.\] The shaded area is excluded by the AGASA bound on deeply penetrating showers. For large $`M_D`$, cross sections are sufficiently suppressed to eliminate large deep shower rates. The upper boundary of this shaded region agrees with existing limits Tyler:2000gt . The AGASA constraint may also be evaded in the lower left corners, where cross sections are so large that $`p`$-brane showers develop high in the atmosphere and appear hadronic. These regions predict moderately penetrating showers. In addition, cross sections in this region are typically extremely large, and so require modifications to standard model physics at lower energies as discussed above. The region satisfying Eq. (12) is cross-hatched in Fig. 3.

As can be seen in Fig. 3, in some regions of parameter space, cross sections of $`100\text{mb}`$ are sufficient to mimic the highest energy cosmic rays. However, all of the desired parameter space with $`\sigma (\nu N)<100\text{mb}`$ is excluded by the non-observation of deeply penetrating showers at AGASA. Regions with $`\sigma (\nu N)>100\text{mb}`$ evade this constraint, but predict moderately penetrating showers, and large corrections to standard model physics at $`100\text{GeV}`$ energies. A GZK solution also requires small extra dimensions with size considerably below the fundamental Planck length, as well as low $`M_D`$ values subject to collider probes.

In summary, we have considered the implications of $`p`$-brane production by ultra-high energy neutrinos. Current AGASA data imply multi-TeV bounds on $`M_D`$, the strongest bounds on asymmetric compactifications for $`nm4`$. Auger, with a projected sensitivity 30 to 100 times that of AGASA, will either discover $`p`$-brane showers or significantly strain attempts to identify the weak and fundamental Planck scales in these scenarios. For flat compactifications, astrophysical and sub-mm gravity constraints exclude a $`p`$-brane explanation of super-GZK events. For warped compactifications, much of the potential parameter space is excluded by AGASA data. The remaining scenarios require low $`M_D`$ and small extra dimensions $`L<0.2L_{}`$, leading to strong coupling effects in the underlying stringy regime. These solutions also predict $`100\%`$ corrections to standard model neutrino physics at the 100 GeV scale, and moderately penetrating showers, not reported to date. These considerations leave very little room for explaining super-GZK events with $`p`$-brane physics.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Eun-Joo Ahn, Marco Cavaglià, Carlos Nuñez, Angela Olinto, Al Shapere, and Tom Taylor for informative discussions. The work of LAA and HG has been partially supported by the US National Science Foundation under grants No. PHY–9972170 and No. PHY–0073034, respectively. The work of JLF was supported in part by the Department of Energy under cooperative research agreement DF–FC02–94ER40818.


format: text

text:
# Slowly, rotating non-stationary, fluid solutions of Einstein’s equations and their match to Kerr empty space-time

## 1  Introduction

In the period since the discovery of the Kerr  metric which describes analytically, the asymptotically flat, vacuum gravitational field outside a rotating source in terms of Einstein’s field equations, there have been many attempts to find closed interior solutions which match the exterior smoothly. In general terms attempts to find solutions have proved unsuccessful as has been described by Pichon and Lynden-Bell . One difficulty has been the considerable mathematical complexity in solving Einstein’s equations, see for example, Krasinski , Chinea & Gonzalez-Romero . This has led to an ‘embarrassing hiatus’ according to Bradley et al  in the number of potential interior solutions available for matching which in turn has contributed to a lack in the development in the theory of differentially rotating fluid bodies in general relativity. Even for the case of the remarkable and much quoted, Wahlquist  closed form interior there is no possible fit to the Kerr exterior as has been recently been shown by Bradley et al . Only for the important case of thin super-massive rotating discs, supported by internal pressure have analytic sources for the Kerr metric been found (Pichon and Lynden-Bell ). Yet it is important to develop further the relativistic theory of rotation since it has considerable potential application in astrophysics, for example, in the description of the gravitational collapse of rotating matter, quasars, or potential sources for gravitational radiation.

To this end one way forward is perhaps to adopt a linearised perturbation technique wherein, in the first instance, the interior source is rotating only very slowly. Following the successful match to the Kerr exterior one would proceed to develop higher order perturbation methods to describe sources with higher angular velocity. The use of perturbation techniques in general relativity are of course common. In the context of rotation they have been applied successfully by Hartle  to equilibrium configurations of cold stars. In the case of non-equilibrium configurations Kegeles  has applied the method to Robertson-Walker dust sources up to the first order in angular velocity parameter although, the results are somewhat restrictive and are not suitable for application to sources supported by internal pressure.

The apppropriate junction conditions for solutions of Einstein’s equations are extensively considered in the literature for example, Misner et al , Mars & Senovilla , Stephani , Hernandez-Pastora et al  where the main focus of attention concerns the methods of Darmois  and Lichnerowicz  which have been shown to be equivalent by Bonnor and Vickers . In the Darmois approach it is necessary that the components of the metric tensor, and also the extrinsic curvature for the Kerr exterior and the interior source are continuous at the boundary surface. A common coordinate description of source and exterior is not required. On the other hand, the Lichnerowicz approach requires a common ‘admissible’ coordinate system wherein both the metric tensor and its first partial derivatives are continuous at the boundary surface. Although flexibility and covariance has ensured the extensive use of the Darmois approach in the literature, the requirement to define the ‘admissible’ system by Lichnerowicz has proven to be of benefit for the analysis below.

The main aim here is therefore to develop the perturbation method for rotating systems up to and including first order terms in the angular velocity parameter and to find general solutions of Einstein’s equations for perfect fluid bodies which fit the Kerr solution. The solution of Einstein’s equations for the non-rotating system will be assumed given as for example, the comoving cases presented by McVittie , Kustaanheimo , Bonnor & Faulkes , Chakravarty et al  and other described by Kramer et al .

Thus in the following the spherically symmetric source will be a given solution of Einstein’s equations described by means of the metric

$`d\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\lambda }d\eta ^2e^{2\mu }d\xi ^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\text{,}`$
$`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ $`=`$ $`d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\text{,}`$ (1)
where $`\lambda =\lambda (\xi ,\eta )`$, $`\mu =\mu (\xi ,\eta )`$, $`r=r(\xi ,\eta )`$ .In the following the components of this metric will denoted by the tensor $`g_{ab}`$. The source boundary surface will be described by the equation:

$$\xi _b=F\left(\eta \right)\text{,}$$
(2)
where $`F\left(\eta \right)`$ is some function of $`\eta `$ alone and where the suffix ’$`b`$’ will denote evaluation at the boundary throughout. Lichnerowicz conditions will be used to join the interior to the Schwarzchild exterior which will be written in the form:

$`d\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^Nd\mathrm{\Pi }^2e^Nd\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2d\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2\text{,}`$
$`d\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2`$ $`=`$ $`d\overline{\theta }^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\overline{\theta }d\overline{\varphi }^2\text{,}`$ (3)
where:

$$e^N=1\frac{2\overline{m}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}>0\text{ .}$$
(4)
It will be assumed that the coordinate description $`(\xi ,\theta ,\varphi ,\eta )`$ is a suitable admissible system where the boundary conditions apply and that this is related to the $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },\overline{\theta },\overline{\varphi },\mathrm{\Pi })`$ description of the exterior by means of the transformation:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }(\xi ,\eta )\text{,}\overline{\theta }=\theta \text{,}\overline{\varphi }=\varphi \text{,}\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{\Pi }(\xi ,\eta )\text{.}$$
(5)
It follows that (3) can be transformed to the form:

$`d\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(e^N\mathrm{\Pi }_\eta ^2e^N\mathrm{\Sigma }_\eta ^2\right)d\eta ^2+2\left(e^N\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi \mathrm{\Pi }_\eta e^N\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi \mathrm{\Sigma }_\eta \right)d\xi d\eta `$ (6)
$`\left(e^N\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi ^2e^N\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi ^2\right)d\xi ^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2(\xi ,\eta )d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$
where the suffices $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ mean partial derivatives with respect to $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ respectively. The metric components of (6) will be denoted by $`\gamma _{ab}`$. In addition units are chosen such that $`c=1=G`$.

The approach adopted here therefore will be at first to apply the Lichnerowicz junction conditions, in which the components of $`g_{ab}`$ and, their first partial derivatives describing a spherically symmetric non stationary fluid sphere is matched continuously to $`\gamma _{ab}`$ and, their first partial derivatives describing the Schwarzchild metric. The conditions will then be considered in the context of slowly rotating systems. The results are used to construct new solutions of Einstein’s equations which are applicable for slow rotation and as an example a rotating dust source is considered and the results of Kegeles . In addition in a further example the McVittie  source is ‘set’ into slow rotation.

## 2 Application of the Lichnerowicz junction conditions

By means of (1) and (6) the continuity of the metric components $`g_{kl}`$ and $`\gamma _{kl}`$ , $`kl=22`$ and first partial derivatives across the boundary imply that

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_b=r_b\text{,}\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi \right\}_b=\left\{r_\xi \right\}_b\text{,}\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\eta \right\}_b=\left\{r_\eta \right\}_b$$
(7)
where, for any function $`X=X(\xi ,\eta )`$:

$$X_b=\left(X\right)_{\xi _b=F\left(\eta \right)}\text{,}\left\{X_\xi \right\}_b=\left\{\frac{X}{\xi }\right\}_{\xi _b=F\left(\eta \right)}\text{,}\left\{X_\eta \right\}_b=\left\{\frac{X}{\eta }\right\}_{\xi _b=F\left(\eta \right)}$$
(8)
However, for any $`X_b`$ :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dX_b}{d\eta }}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{X_\eta \right\}_b+F_\eta \left\{X_\xi \right\}_b\text{,}`$
$`\left\{X_{\eta \xi }\right\}_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\left\{X_\xi \right\}_b}{d\eta }}F_\eta \left\{X_{\xi \xi }\right\}_b`$
$`\left\{X_{\eta \eta }\right\}_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\left\{X_\eta \right\}_b}{d\eta }}F_\eta {\displaystyle \frac{d\left\{X_\xi \right\}_b}{d\eta }}+F_\eta ^2\left\{X_{\xi \xi }\right\}_b`$ (9)
and so applying this to $`\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\eta \xi }\right\}_b`$ and $`\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\eta \eta }\right\}_b`$ it also follows that:

$`\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\eta \xi }\right\}_b`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{r_{\eta \xi }\right\}_b+F_\eta \left\{r_{\xi \xi }\right\}_bF_\eta \left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\xi \xi }\right\}_b\text{,}`$
$`\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\eta \eta }\right\}_b`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{r_{\eta \eta }\right\}_bF_\eta ^2\left\{r_{\xi \xi }\right\}_b+F_\eta ^2\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\xi \xi }\right\}_b\text{.}`$ (10)
Thus equations (10) may be used to determine $`\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\eta \xi }\right\}_b`$ and $`\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\eta \eta }\right\}_b`$ once $`F`$ and $`\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\xi \xi }\right\}_b`$ have been determined. In particular, when $`F_\eta =0`$ then $`\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\eta \xi }\right\}_b=\left\{r_{\eta \xi }\right\}_b`$ and $`\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\eta \eta }\right\}_b=\left\{r_{\eta \eta }\right\}_b`$.

Furthermore from (1) and (6) continuity of the component $`g_{kl}`$ and $`\gamma _{kl}`$, $`kl=44,14,11`$ of the metric across the boundary gives rise to three further relationships that:

$`\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_\eta \right\}_b`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{e^N\left(e^{2\lambda }+e^N\mathrm{\Sigma }_\eta ^2\right)\right\}_b^{\frac{1}{2}}\text{,}`$
$`\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi \right\}_b`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{e^N\left(e^N\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi ^2e^{2\mu }\right)\right\}_b^{\frac{1}{2}}\text{.}`$ (11)
and the physical restriction:

$$\left\{e^{2\lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi ^2e^{2\left(\mu +\lambda \right)+N}e^{2\mu }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\eta ^2\right\}_b=0\text{,}$$
(12)
where:

$$\left\{e^N\right\}_b=1\frac{2\overline{m}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_b}=1\frac{2\overline{m}}{r_b}\text{.}$$
(13)
Equation (12) is merely the condition:

$$\left\{m(\xi ,\eta )\right\}_b=\overline{m}\text{ .}$$
(14)
where the mass function $`m(\xi ,\eta )`$ is as usual defined, in terms of the Riemann tensor through:

$$m(\xi ,\eta )=\frac{r}{2}R_{232}^3=\frac{r}{2}\left(1+e^{2\lambda }r_\eta ^2e^{2\mu }r_\xi ^2\right)\text{.}$$
(15)
This condition may be used to simplify (11) with the result that:

$$\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_\eta \right\}_b=\left\{e^Ne^{\lambda \mu }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi \right\}_b\text{,}\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi \right\}_b=\left\{e^Ne^{\mu \lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\eta \right\}_b\text{.}$$
(16)
Consider now the continuity of the partial derivatives of the metric components $`g_{kl}`$, and $`\gamma _{kl\text{ }}`$for $`kl=44,11`$ across the boundary surface. It follows immediately that:

$`\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_{\eta \eta }\right\}_b`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\left[e^{\frac{N}{2}}\left(e^{2\lambda }+e^N\mathrm{\Sigma }_\eta ^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]\right\}_b\text{,}`$
$`\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_{\xi \xi }\right\}_b`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\left[e^{\frac{N}{2}}\left(e^N\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi ^2e^{2\mu }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]\right\}_b\text{,}`$ (17)
and:

$$\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_{\xi \eta }\right\}_b=\left\{\frac{}{\xi }\left[e^{\frac{N}{2}}\left(e^{2\lambda }+e^N\mathrm{\Sigma }_\eta ^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]\right\}_b=\left\{\frac{}{\eta }\left[e^{\frac{N}{2}}\left(e^N\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi ^2e^{2\mu }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]\right\}_b\text{.}$$
(18)
Furthermore direct expansion of the consistency relation $`\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_\eta /\xi \right\}_b`$ $`=\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi /\eta \right\}_b`$ in (18) gives rise to:

$$\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\eta \xi }\mu _\eta r_\xi \lambda _\xi r_\eta \right\}_b=0$$
(19)
and, using (10) may be expanded in terms of the Einstein tensor component $`G_1^4`$, to give:

$$\frac{\left\{re^{2\lambda }G_1^4\right\}_b}{2}+F_\eta \left\{r_{\xi \xi }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\xi \xi }\right\}_b=0\text{.}$$
(20)
Furthermore using (17), (18) and it follows that the continuity of the partial derivatives of the metric components $`g_{kl}`$, and $`\gamma _{kl\text{ }}`$for $`kl=14`$ can also be written as:

$$0=\left\{\frac{}{x}\left(e^{2\mu }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi ^2e^Ne^{2\lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\eta ^2\right)\right\}_b$$
(21)
where $`x=\eta `$, $`\xi `$. With the aid of (10), these conditions may also be written in terms of the Einstein tensor components $`G_1^4`$ and $`G_4^4`$ . Thus:

$`\left\{r_{\xi \xi }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\xi \xi }\right\}_b\left\{r_\xi e^{2\mu }+F_\eta r_\eta e^{2\lambda }\right\}_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_b}{2}}\left\{G_1^4r_\eta G_4^4r_\xi \right\}_b\text{,}`$
$`F_\eta \left\{G_1^4r_\eta G_4^4r_\xi \right\}_b+\left\{G_4^1r_\xi G_1^1r_\eta \right\}_b`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{.}`$ (22)
The second equation in (22) may also be expressed in terms of the mass function to give:

$$\left\{F_\eta m_\xi +m_\eta \right\}_b=\left\{\frac{dm}{d\eta }\right\}_b=0\text{.}$$
(23)
The equations (20), and (22) may be substituted one into the other to obtain the following simplification:

$$\left\{G_4^1F_\eta G_4^4\right\}_b=0\text{,}\left\{G_1^1F_\eta G_1^4\right\}_b=0$$
(24)
$$\left\{re^{2\mu }G_4^4\right\}_b+2\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\xi \xi }r_{\xi \xi }\right\}_b=0\text{.}$$
(25)
These equations may be used to determine $`F`$, $`\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\xi \xi }\right\}_b`$ and also express the restriction (23).

Note that the above results have been obtained without reference to the nature of the energy momentum tensor $`T_l^k.`$ However if it is now supposed that the source is a perfect fluid then (24), (23) become:

$$p_b=0\text{,}\left\{u^1F_\eta u^4\right\}_b=0$$
(26)
as expected, where $`p(\xi ,\eta )`$ is the source pressure and $`u^k`$ are the components of the velocity four-vector. Further in a comoving description where $`u^1=0`$ then $`F\left(\eta \right)`$ is a constant, again as expected.

Thus direct application of the boundary conditions specifies conditions or limitations on the functions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\xi ,\eta )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\xi ,\eta )`$ but in no way defines them uniquely. However, the nature of these transformation functions must be established to complete the definition of the admissible system. It is straightforward to check that the transformation functions:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(\xi ,\eta )=r(\xi ,\eta )\left[1\frac{\left\{e^{2\mu }G_4^4\right\}_b\left(\xi F\right)^2}{4}+\underset{n=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}D_n\left(\xi F\right)^n\right]$$
(27)
and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(\xi ,\eta )=\mathrm{\Pi }_b+\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi \right\}_b\left(\xi F\right)+\frac{\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_{\xi \xi }\right\}_b\left(\xi F\right)^2}{2}+\underset{n=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E_n\left(\xi F\right)^n$$
(28)
with

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_b=\left(\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_\eta \right\}_b+F_\eta \left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi \right\}_b\right)𝑑\eta \text{,}$$
(29)
and $`D_n=D_n\left(\eta \right)`$, $`E_n=E_n\left(\eta \right)`$, $`n3`$, are consistent with equations (7), (10), (16), (17), (18) and (25). The ambiguity of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\xi ,\eta )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\xi ,\eta )`$ is clear through the arbritrary definition of $`D_n`$ and $`E_n`$.

## 3 Junction conditions for slowly rotating systems

Consider now a general first order rotating source given by

$$d\sigma ^2=e^{2\lambda }d\eta ^2e^{2\mu }d\xi ^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^22r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\theta \right)q\left(Yd\xi d\varphi +Xd\varphi d\eta \right)$$
(30)
where $`X=X(\xi ,\eta )`$, $`Y=Y(\xi ,\eta )`$ and $`q`$ is a small angular speed parameter whose square terms and higher are negligible. Note that up to and including this order the source boundary may still be written as $`\xi =\xi _b.`$ The exterior metric now the Kerr solution which is transformed to the form:

$`d\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(e^N\mathrm{\Pi }_\eta ^2e^N\mathrm{\Sigma }_\eta ^2\right)d\eta ^2+2\left(e^N\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi \mathrm{\Pi }_\eta e^N\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi \mathrm{\Sigma }_\eta \right)d\xi d\eta `$ (31)
$`\left(e^N\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi ^2e^N\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi ^2\right)d\xi ^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2(\xi ,\eta )d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$
$`2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\theta \right)a\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{m}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi d\xi d\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{m}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\mathrm{\Pi }_\eta d\varphi d\eta \right)`$
where, $`a`$ is the angular speed parameter with negligibly small quadratic terms.. The additional continuity conditions applied to $`X=X(\xi ,\eta )`$ and $`Y=Y(\xi ,\eta )`$ are obtained by comparing (30) with (31) so that with $`a=q`$:

$$X_b=\left\{\frac{2\overline{m}\mathrm{\Pi }_\eta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }r^2}\right\}_b\text{,}Y_b=\left\{\frac{2\overline{m}\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi }{\mathrm{\Sigma }r^2}\right\}_b\text{,}$$
(32)
Moreover from (32) the continuity conditions applied to the derivative of the metric tensor require:

$$\left\{X_\xi \right\}_b=\left\{\frac{}{\xi }\left(\frac{2\overline{m}\mathrm{\Pi }_\eta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }r^2}\right)\right\}_b\text{,}\left\{X_\eta \right\}_b=\left\{\frac{}{\eta }\left(\frac{2\overline{m}\mathrm{\Pi }_\eta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }r^2}\right)\right\}_b\text{,}$$
(33)
and:

$$\left\{Y_\xi \right\}_b=\left\{\frac{}{\xi }\left(\frac{2\overline{m}\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi }{\mathrm{\Sigma }r^2}\right)\right\}_b\text{,}\left\{Y_\eta \right\}_b=\left\{Y_b\right\}_\eta =\left\{\frac{}{\eta }\left(\frac{2\overline{m}\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi }{\mathrm{\Sigma }r^2}\right)\right\}_b$$
(34)
and so using (15):

$$\left\{Y_\eta X_\xi \right\}_b=\left\{\frac{6\overline{m}e^{\lambda +\mu }}{r^4}\right\}_b\text{ .}$$
(35)
## 4 Solution of Einstein’s equations for slowly rotating systems

It will now be shown that solutions of Einstein’s equations satisfying the junction conditions do exist. Suppose that Einstein’s equations for a perfect fluid source are written in the form:

$$G_b^a=8\pi T_b^a\text{,}T_b^a=\left(\rho +p\right)u^au_b\delta _b^ap\text{,}$$
(36)
where $`\rho `$, $`p`$ are the source density and pressure and $`u^a`$ are the components of the velocity four-vector with the property that $`u^au_a=1`$ and further suppose, for simplicity that comoving fluid spheres satisfying $`G_1^1=G_2^2`$ and $`G_4^1=0`$ are given for a non-rotating source. In addition, it is noted that the source density and supporting internal pressure for the metric (30) are not affected by the addition of a rotation speed parameter up to and including order $`q`$. However, for the slowly rotating systems it is necessary to ensure that the components of the velocity four-vector satisfy $`u^1=u^2`$. Now it is straightforward to show that $`G_3^2=0=G_2^3`$ ,$`G_1^2=0=G_2^1`$ identically for the metric (30), whilst $`G_3^1=0=G_1^3`$ will be satisfied so long as:

$$\left(Y_{\eta \eta }X_{\xi \eta }\right)=\left(Y_\eta X_\xi \right)\left(\lambda _\eta +\mu _\eta \frac{4r_\eta }{r}\right)\text{.}$$
(37)
Thus Einstein’s equations are satisfied whenever:

$$Y_\eta =X_\xi +\frac{h\left(\xi \right)e^{\lambda +\mu }}{r^4}$$
(38)
where $`h`$ is an arbitrary function of $`\xi `$. So comparing (35) with (38) it is seen that the boundary conditions are consistent with Einstein’s equations provided that:

$$h_b=6\overline{m}\text{.}$$
(39)
In addition, the angular velocity $`L(\xi ,\eta )`$ of the source is given by:

$$L(\xi ,\eta )=\frac{u^3}{u^4}=\frac{qe^{\lambda \mu }h_\xi }{16\pi r^4\left(\rho +p\right)}qX$$
(40)
and, a particle moving in the field of (30) will have zero angular momentum whenever $`u_3=0`$, so that the quantity:

$$\frac{u_3}{u_4}=\frac{q\mathrm{sin}^2\theta e^{\lambda \mu }h_\xi }{16\pi r^2\left(\rho +p\right)}$$
(41)
will also be zero for such a particle. It follows that the induced angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\xi ,\eta )`$ of the inertial frame is given by:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\xi ,\eta )=qX\text{,}$$
(42)
and that with (16) and (32):

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_b=q\left\{\frac{2\overline{m}e^Ne^{\lambda \mu }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi }{\mathrm{\Sigma }r^2}\right\}_b\text{.}$$
(43)
This confirms that the ’frame dragging’ effect decreases inversely with the cube of $`r`$ as is well known (for example, Schutz ).

Clearly it is now necessary to determine those functions $`X(\xi ,\eta )`$ and $`Y(\xi ,\eta )`$ satisfying the junction conditions which also satisfy (38). These are established by writing:

$`X(\xi ,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`X_b+\left(\xi \xi _b\right)\left\{X_\xi \right\}_b+\mathrm{\Psi }(\xi ,\eta )\text{,}`$
$`Y(\xi ,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`Y_b+\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi ,\eta )\text{,}`$ (44)
where $`\left\{\mathrm{\Psi }_\xi \right\}_b=0`$ and using (35) and (39) in (38) gives rise to:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi ,\eta )=\left[\mathrm{\Psi }_\xi +\frac{h\left(\xi \right)e^{\lambda +\mu }}{r^4}\left\{\frac{6me^{\lambda +\mu }}{r^4}\right\}_b\right]𝑑\eta .$$
(45)
Thus (44) with (45) is solution for $`X(\xi ,\eta )`$ in terms of $`Y(\xi ,\eta )`$ and satisfying the necessary boundary conditions (33) to (35).

## 5 A slowly rotating dust cloud

Suppose that a slowly rotating dust cloud is described by a perturbed Robertson Walker metric of the type:

$`d\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`d\eta ^2R^2\left(\eta \right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\xi ^2}{1k\xi ^2}}+\xi ^2d\theta ^2+\xi ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\theta \right)d\varphi ^2\right)`$ (46)
$`2\xi ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\theta \right)R^2q\left(Yd\xi d\varphi +Xd\varphi d\eta \right)`$
It is easy to see that $`\left\{m(\xi ,\eta )\right\}_b=\overline{m}`$ from (14) and $`p_b=0`$ from (26) give rise to:

$$R_\eta ^2=\frac{2\overline{m}}{\xi _b^3R}k$$
(47)
The boundary relations for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\xi ,\eta )`$ are:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _bR\text{,}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi \right)_b=R\text{,}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\eta \right)_b=\xi _bR_\eta `$
$`\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\xi \eta }\right\}_b`$ $`=`$ $`R_\eta \text{,}\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\eta \eta }\right\}_b={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}}{\xi _b^2R^2}}`$
$`\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\xi \xi }\right\}_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\overline{m}}{\xi _b^2(1k\xi _b^2)}}\text{,}\left\{e^N\right\}_b=1{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{m}}{R\xi _b}}\text{,}`$ (48)
whilst for $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\xi ,\eta )`$ :

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_b`$ $`=`$ $`(1k\xi _b^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle e^N𝑑\eta }\text{,}`$
$`\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi \right\}_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left\{e^N\right\}_b\xi _bRR_\eta }{(1k\xi _b^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\text{,}\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_\eta \right\}_b=\left\{e^N\right\}_b(1k\xi _b^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\text{,}`$
$`\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_{\eta \eta }\right\}_b`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^N(1k\xi ^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi }{R}}\right]\right\}_b\text{,}\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_{\xi \eta }\right\}_b=\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^NR\mathrm{\Sigma }_\eta }{(1k\xi ^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\right]\right\}_b`$
$`\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_{\xi \xi }\right\}_b`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\left[e^N\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{e^NR^2}{1k\xi ^2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]\right\}_b`$ (49)
Furthermore the final solution (44) with (45) may be written as:

$`X(\xi ,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{m}(1k\xi _0^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left\{e^N\right\}_b}{\xi _b^3R^3}}+\left(\xi \xi _b\right)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{m}e^N(1k\xi ^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi }{\mathrm{\Sigma }\xi ^2R^3}}\right)\right\}_b`$
$`+\mathrm{\Psi }(\xi ,\eta )\text{,}`$
$`Y(\xi ,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{m}R_\eta \left\{e^N\right\}_b}{\xi _b^2(1k\xi _b^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}R^2}}+\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi ,\eta )\text{,}`$ (50)
with:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi ,\eta )=\mathrm{\Psi }_\xi 𝑑\eta +\left(\frac{h\left(\xi \right)}{\xi ^4\left(1k\xi ^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\frac{6\overline{m}}{\xi _b^4\left(1k\xi _b^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right)\frac{d\eta }{R^3}$$
(51)
This is a general representation of a collapsing, slowly rotating, Robertson-Walker dust cloud and generalises the results given by Kegeles (1978) who does not give transparent forms $`X(\xi ,\eta )`$ and $`Y(\xi ,\eta ).`$

## 6 Example with non-zero internal pressure

Consider now, in outline a representative of a broad class of solutions in which the rotating source has non zero supporting pressure. The chosen source is the McVittie  solution although any spherically symmetric, comoving solution of Einstein’s equations with an added rotation term could have been used. The only restriction on their use is that any solution must have a boundary surface where the mass function is constant, or, equivalently the supporting pressure is zero.

In this case consider (30) with:

$`e^{2\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S^2}{f^4}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{f\overline{m}}{2\xi S}}\right)^4\text{,}e^{2\lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{\left(1\frac{f\overline{m}}{2\xi S}\right)^2}{\left(1+\frac{f\overline{m}}{2\xi S}\right)^2}}\text{,}`$
$`r(\xi ,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi S}{f^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{f\overline{m}}{2\xi S}}\right)^2\text{,}f\left(\xi \right)=\left(1c_1\xi ^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (52)
where $`S=S\left(\eta \right)`$ and $`c_1`$ is constant. The respective internal density and supporting pressure are given by::

$$8\pi \rho =\frac{K^5S_\eta ^2+128\xi ^3S^5\left(f^21\right)}{K^5S^2}.$$
(53)
$$8\pi p=\frac{2K^6SS_{\eta \eta }+12\xi K^5SS_\eta ^25K^6S_\eta ^2+256\xi ^4S^6\left(f^21\right)}{K^5S^2\left(4\xi SK\right)}\text{,}$$
(54)
where $`K=2\xi S+\overline{m}f`$. Since this metric is described by a comoving observer then $`F_\eta =0`$ and the boundary surface is given by the constant $`\xi =\xi _b.`$This surface is defined through the constancy of the mass function (14) at the boundary or by differentiating this with respect to $`\eta `$ to obtain the zero pressure boundary condition (26). Using the equations one may calculate:

$$S_\eta =\left\{\frac{8\sqrt{2}\left[\xi ^3S^5\left(2\xi Sf^2K\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}}{K^3}\right\}_b\text{.}$$
(55)
The transformation functions, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$, $`\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\xi \right\}_b`$, $`\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\eta \right\}_b`$,$`\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\xi \eta }\right\}_b`$, $`\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\eta \eta }\right\}_b`$ and $`\left\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\xi \xi }\right\}_{b\text{ }}`$ may be calculated directly using (7), (10) and (25) whilst , $`\mathrm{\Pi }_b`$, $`\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_\xi \right\}_b`$, $`\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_\eta \right\}_b`$, $`\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_{\xi \eta }\right\}_b`$, $`\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_{\eta \eta }\right\}_b`$ and $`\left\{\mathrm{\Pi }_{\xi \xi }\right\}_{b\text{ }}`$may be determined easily from (16), (17) and (18). Some simplification of the results will occur through the use of (15), (55). The resulting somewhat lengthy expressions need not be reproduced here.

To obtain the corresponding rotating solution it is necessary to calculate each of $`X_b`$, $`\left\{X_\xi \right\}_b`$ ,$`\left\{X_\eta \right\}_b`$,$`Y_b`$,$`\left\{Y_\xi \right\}_b`$ and $`\left\{Y_\eta \right\}_b`$ to ensure a smooth match to empty space-time of which $`X_b`$ ,$`\left\{X_\xi \right\}_b`$ ,$`Y_b`$, and $`\left\{Y_\xi \right\}`$ are also required for the explicit determination of the solution (44) and (45). These calculations are straightforward.

Also note that to obtain the final solution it is necessary to evaluate the integral (45) for which the integrand contain terms of the type:

$$\frac{h\left(\xi \right)e^{\lambda +\mu }}{r^4}=\frac{h\left(\xi \right)f^6\left(1\frac{f\overline{m}}{2\xi S}\right)}{\xi ^4S^3\left(1+\frac{fm}{2\xi S}\right)^7}$$
(56)
where , $`h_b=6\overline{m}`$. Clearly the resulting solution will therefore not have a closed form. None the less the solution for a rotating version of the McVittie (1933) has been established formally, although it is interesting to note that a solution so elegant in the absence of rotation has such an awkward form when slow rotation is included.

## 7 Conclusion

Solutions of Einstein’s equations for slowly rotating time varying sources supported by internal pressure have been presented. It has been shown that any known collapsing, or expanding, fluid source known by a comoving observer not to be rotating may be ’made’ to rotate slowly and also matched smoothly to the Kerr exterior at all times provided that a zero pressure boundary surface exists. In each case the source rotates with an angular velocity which is inversely proportional to the sum of its internal density and pressure and the induced rotation of the inertial frame of reference is explicitly clear.

It has been shown that rotating solution may be expressed in terms of the expression $`e^{\lambda +\mu }r^4𝑑\eta `$ and thus it follows that this must be integrable in closed form for the existence of analytic solutions. It is interesting to speculate that solutions of Einstein’s equations have previously been found without the need to give the nature of this expression any consideration. For example it has previously been common to express comoving systems in terms of the isotropic coordinate $`r=\xi e^\mu `$ which may not necessarily be an appropriate choice for the development of rotating descriptions. This matter is currently under investigation.

The analysis here has been presented here with accuracy up to to an including first order terms in the angular speed parameter. The natural extension of the work to the matching of second order case with Kerr space-time, where the source boundary is more complex in nature, will be reported in the near future. Extensions of this approach to higher orders may result in an analytic description of sources supported by internal pressure and which are surrounded by empty space-time.

Finally, although the focus here has been upon slowly rotating compact bodies it is interesting to note that the Robertson-Walker metric with the added rotation term (46) may be considered as a cosmological model. In this case the junctions conditions need not be applied. The expressions for pressure and density remain homogeneous and the angular velocity term (40) may also be made independent of $`\xi `$ by choosing:

$$h\left(\xi \right)=\frac{\xi ^4d\xi }{\left(1k\xi ^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}$$
(57)
and $`X=X\left(\eta \right).`$ The solution of Einstein’s equations (38) then may be written as:

$$Y_\eta =\frac{h\left(\xi \right)}{\xi ^4\left(1k\xi ^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}R^3}\text{ .}$$
(58)
## 8 Acknowledgments

I would like to record my sincere thanks for the helpful encouragement of Professor Bill Bonnor at Queen Mary & Westfield College, London during the past year and also, Professors Leonid Grishchuk, Mike Edmunds and Peter Blood for making me so welcome in the Physics and Astronomy Department in Cardiff. I am also much indebted to those at the University of Glamorgan who made my visit to Cardiff possible.


text:
# Abstract

## Abstract

Observations of warm absorbers provided new ways to study the nuclear environments of AGNs. I discuss basic properties of warm absorbers and early developments with ROSAT, ASCA and HST observations. I briefly touch upon recent advances made with Chandra and FUSE.

Key-words : quasars: absorption lines– ultraviolet: galaxies– X-rays: galaxies

## 1 Introduction: Warm absorbers with ROSAT and ASCA

What is a X-ray warm absorber? ROSAT observations of some Seyfert galaxies showed that a simple power-law does not describe the data adequately. Often strong residuals were observed around 0.8 keV (Figure 1). These residuals were interpreted as absorption edges due to highly ionized oxygen OVII/OVIII and so the absorber was called warm or ionized. Theoretically, such absorption features are expected when continuum flux passes through a slab of ionized matter (Halpern, 1982; Reynolds & Fabian 1995). The exact signature of a warm absorber depends upon its column density, shape of the ionizing continuum and ionization state (usually parameterized in terms of ionization parameter which is a dimentionless ratio of photon to electron density). Figure 2 shows the dependence of warm absorber signatures on column density and ionization parameter U.

Signatures of ionized gas from nuclear regions of AGNs were known to be present in the UV band as well, from IUE (e.g. Ulrich 1988) and HST (e.g. Bahcall et al. 1993) studies. However, the physical properties of the absorber were not known as absorption lines of only a few elements were observed, typically CIV, NV, Ly $`\alpha `$ and in some cases OVI. Quasi-simultanous observations of quasar 3C351 with ROSAT and HST helped solve the problem. ROSAT data of 3C351 detected absorption edges due to OVII/OVIII and HST observations showed OVI absoprtion lines. Through detailed photoionization modeling, Mathur et al. (1994) showed that both X-ray and UV signatures arise from the same absorbing material.

Since the discovery of a unified XUV absorber in 3C351, many observations of many AGNs showed one to one correspondence between absorption in X-rays and in UV (Crenshaw 1997, Monier et al. 2001 and references there in). Because the UV and X-tay absorbers were found to be one and the same, constraints from both the datasets could be combined to determine the physical conditions in the absorber (see, e.g. table 3 in Mathur et al. 1995). A previously not recognized component of nuclear material was discovered: high column density, highly ionized, outflowing matter situated in or around the broad emission line region. This lead to important realization that the mass outflow rate in many cases is comparable to the accretion rate, and that the outflow carries a significant amount of kinetic energy. Understanding of the physical conditions, kinematics and geometry of the absobing matter lead to one of the first comprehensive models of AGN structure (Elvis 2000).

Later observations with ASCA could resolve the OVII edge from OVIII providing better constraints on the physical state of the absorber (George et al. 2000). Photoionization models (figure 3) of X/UV absorbers also led to the prediction that in addition to the edges, resonance absorption lines due to highly ionized elements should also be present (Nicastro et al. 1999). These could only be observed with high resolution spectroscopy. Complexity, as commonly seen in UV absorption systems is also expected in X-ray warm absorbers (see Mathur 1997 and references there in).

## 2 Chandra Observations of Warm Absorbers

High resolution spectroscopy of AGNs known to have warm absorbers, was performed in the first two years of Chandra . Here I will discuss only one example and refer readers to Mathur (2001) for a review on Chandra results on AGNs.

NGC 5548: This well studies AGN was observed with LETG/HRC. Strong, narrow absorption lines from highly ionized species are clearly present in the spectrum (Kaastra et al. 2000). The widths of the X-ray lines are consistent with the UV lines. The average blueshift of the X-ray absorption lines was found to be somewhat smaller, but comparable to the UV lines. However, further relation between the X-ray and UV absorbers remained an open issue because of the low S/N and lower resolution of the X-ray spectrum. (The spectral resolution of LETG is $``$300–1000 compared to $``$10,000 of HST/STIS in medium resolution.)

The absorption lines/ edges discussed above are observed when there is absorbing gas along the line of sight. The same plasma, when viewed from another angle should exhibit emission lines. In addition to the resonance lines, seen in absorption, forbidden and intercombination lines should also be present in emission (see also Krolik & Kriss 1995). Such emission lines are best studied when the bright nuclear continuum is suppressed. Naturally, the first Chandra observations to study emission lines from AGNs were of highly absorbed Seyfert galaxies. Below I review one such example.

Mrk 3: Chandra HETG/ACIS-S observation of this Seyfert 2 galaxy is reported by Sako et al. (2000). A number of lines from a variety of elements were detected in the spectrum. Resonance lines and Fe-L lines, characteristic of photoionized plasma are strong. The OVII triplet, useful for plasma diagnostics, is also detected. Sako et al. conclude that the emission line plasma is clearly photoionized, with practically no contribution from collisionally ionized gas. As such, the plasma characteristics are consistent with a warm absorber seen in emission.

All the new observations of warm absorbers have shown consistency with the model predictions based on a common origin of the X-ray and UV absorbing gas.

## 3 UV Studies of Warm Absorbers

UV studies of ionized gas in the nuclear regions of AGNs are done by observing resonance lines of highly ionized ions of mainly CIV and NV, as they were easily accessible first with IUE and then with HST. The higher ionization OVI line was not accessible by these missions for low redshift Seyfert galaxies. OVI observations, however, are very important because together with OVII/OVIII in the X-ray band they offer best constarints on the ionization state of the absorber. This barrier was overcome with the launch of FUSE. Seyfert galaxies known to harbor X-ray warm absorbers indeed showed associated OVI absorption in FUSE spectra (see Kriss 2001). Figure 4 shows FUSE spectrum of a narrow line Seyfert 1 galaxy Akn 564. Strong OVI absorption is clearly present. OVII and OVIII absorption lines are present in the high resolution Chandra spectrum (Mastumoto, Leighly & Marshall 2001).

## 4 Conclusions

High resolution observations of warm absorbers have resulted in beautiful spectra. However, they have not yet given us additional insight into the properties/ kinematics of the absorber. This is because most of the absorption line spectra have low signal to noise ratio (S/N): the measured absorption line equivalent widths are uncertain to $`\pm 40\%`$, larger than those from sensitive ASCA observations. High resolution Chandra spectra should be viewed more as a proof of concept than diagnostic tools. Moreover, most of the modeling efforts are preliminary. So interpretations should be made with caution, especially if the results are unexpected. Only when we obtain well constrained parameters can we hope to build and test models of AGN structure and physics. One such effort is lead by Ian George and Mike Crenshaw in obtaining multiwavelength, high S/N spectra of a nearby Seyfert galaxy with a warm absorber. Our team has observed NGC 3783 with HETG/ACIS-S for 900 ksec, with HST/STIS for 34 orbits and also with FUSE and XTE. These observations have resulted in one of the best high resolution spectra of AGNs (figure 5). Modeling efforts are under way (Netzer et al. , in preparation). Within next year or so, we will know whether or not our view of the nuclear region of AGNs gets altered dramatically.

Because of space limitations, I could not cover the subject fully. Interested readers are referred to conference proceedings: “Mass Ejection from AGN” and “Mass Outflow in Active Galactic Nuclei: New Perspectives”. I thank the organizers of the meeting for inviting me to give a review talk on warm absorbers in AGNs. This has been a very nice meeting and it is always wonderful to be back home.

## References

Bahcall, J.N. et al. 1993, ApJS, 87, 1

Crenshaw, M. 1997 in “Mass Ejection from AGN”, Ed: N. Arav, I., Shlos man, & R. Weymann \[ASP Conf. Series Vol. 128\]

Elvis, M. 2000, ApJ, 545, 63

Fiore, F., Elvis, M., Mathur, S., Wilkes, B., & McDowell J. 1993, ApJ, 415, 129

George, I. et al. 2000, ApJ, 531, 52

Halpern, J. 1982, Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University.

Kaastra, J. et al. 2000, A&A Lett., 354, 83

Kaspi, S. et al. 2002, ApJ, submitted

Kriss, G. 2001, in “Probing the Physics of Active Galactic Nuclei”, Ed: B.M. Peterson, R.W. Pogge, and R.S. Polidan. \[San Francisco: ASP (vol 224)\]

Krolik, J, & Kriss, G. 1995, ApJ, 447, 512

Mastumoto, C., Leighly, K. & Marshall, H. 2001, in “X-ray Emission from Accretion onto Black Holes”, Eds: T. Yaqoob.

Mathur, S., Wilkes, B., Elvis, M. & Fiore, F. 1994, ApJ, 434, 493

Mathur, S., Elvis, M. & Wilkes, B. 1995 ApJ, 452, 230

Mathur, S. 1997 in “Mass Ejection from AGN”, Ed: N. Arav, I., Shlos man, & R. Weymann \[ASP Conf. Series Vol. 128\]

Mathur, S. 2001, in “The High Energy Universe at Sharp Focus: Chandra Symposium”, Ed: E. Schlegel and S. Vrtilek \[ASP Conf. Series\]

Mathur, S., Wilkes, B., & Aldcroft, T. 1997, ApJ, 478, 182

Monier, E., Mathur, S., Wilkes, B., & Elvis, M. 2001, ApJ, 559, 675

Nicastro, F., Fiore, F. & Matt, G. 1999, ApJ, 517, 108

Reynolds, C.S. & Fabian, A.C. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 1167

Romano, P., Mathur, S., Pogge, R. & Peterson, B.M. 2002, in preparation

Sako, M., Kahn, S.M., Paerels, F., Liedahl, D. 2000, ApJL, 543, 115

Ulrich, M.H. 1988, MNRAS, 239, 121