text:
# Shear–Free Gravitational Waves in an Anisotropic Universe

## 1 Introduction

In a recent paper  shear–free gravitational radiation analogous to the Bateman waves of electromagnetic theory was studied propagating through isotropic cosmological models. The radiation was represented as a perturbation of the cosmological model. It was analysed using the Ellis–Bruni  gauge–invariant and covariant perturbation formalism. Explicit solutions of the linear differential equations for the gauge–invariant small quantities (the Ellis–Bruni variables) were derived. These variables divide naturally into so–called vector quantities and tensor quantities. Examples of the vector quantities are the spatial gradients of the proper density of matter, of the isotropic pressure, of the expansion scalar of the matter world–lines, as well as the vorticity vector associated with the matter world–lines and the heat flow vector of the matter distribution. The tensor quantities include the shear of the matter world–lines and the anisotropic stress of the matter distribution. For perturbations describing gravitational waves the important variables needed are the tensor variables , . If the cosmological model is isotropic then the shear of the matter world–lines and the anisotropic stress of the matter distribution are Ellis–Bruni variables. However if the cosmological model is *anisotropic* then the matter world–lines have shear and so the shear tensor is not (in its entirety at least) available to us as an Ellis–Bruni variable. This has important implications therefore for the study of gravitational wave propagation in an anisotropic universe. In this paper we show how to circumvent this difficulty. In addition we discover what influence the anisotropy in the universe has on the gravitational waves.

We are concerned here with deriving perturbations of an anisotropic cosmological model which can be interpreted as representing shear–free gravitational radiation. For definiteness we choose a Bianchi I dust–filled universe (containing the Einstein–de Sitter universe as a special case) and a simple family of null hypersurfaces in this space–time to act as the histories of the wave fronts of the radiation. To begin with these null hypersurfaces can have shear but we show that the perturbations we generate can only represent gravitational waves (with the gauge–invariant part of the perturbed Weyl tensor having the algebraic structure one associates with pure gravitational radiation) if the null hypersurfaces are shear–free. This involves a specialisation of the anisotropic universe. The perturbed quantities are explicitly calculated in this case and all are derived from a single complex–valued function whose dependence on one complex variable is analytic and arbitrary (a feature always associated with shear–free gravitational radiation) and whose dependence on two real variables is determined by a wave equation which can easily be integrated. If the background cosmological model is isotropic (Einstein–de Sitter) then the wave equation is *second order* whereas if the background is anisotropic the wave equation is *first order*. This difference is directly attributable to the presence of shear in the matter world–lines in the anisotropic background.

Density perturbations of anisotropic Bianchi I universes have been thoroughly examined in the Ellis–Bruni formalism by Dunsby . Our study of gravitational wave perturbations of a Bianchi I universe is complementary to this work and has in part been inspired by it.

The outline of the paper is as follows: The notation used throughout this paper and some important basic equations are given in Appendix A and referred to where appropriate. In Sec. II we describe the Bianchi I dust–filled universe which will play the role of a “background” space–time for our small perturbations. In Sec. III we identify the Ellis–Bruni gauge–invariant variables we shall use and give the equations satisfied by these variables. Then, in Sec. IV we require these Ellis–Bruni variables to have an arbitrary dependence on a function (in order to have the possibility of having gravitational waves with an arbitrary profile) and insert this dependence into the equations. The calculation of the perturbed quantities when the null hypersurfaces, described in the second paragraph of this introduction, are shear–free is also given in Sec. IV and the analogous calculations for the shearing hypersurfaces (also referred to above) are given in Appendix B. Finally, Sec. V is a discussion in which we summarise and comment on the results obtained in Sec. IV and in Appendix B.

## 2 An Anisotropic Space–Time

We are interested in constructing models of gravitational waves propagating through an anisotropic universe. For clarity we choose a specific Bianchi type I dust–filled universe which is the dust–filled counterpart of the Kasner universe (see, for example, ) . The space–time model has line–element

$$ds^2=A^2(t)dx^2+B^2(t)dy^2+C^2(t)dz^2dt^2,$$
(2.1)
with $`A(t)=(tk)^p(t+k)^{\frac{2}{3}p}`$ , $`B(t)=(tk)^q(t+k)^{\frac{2}{3}q}`$ , $`C(t)=(tk)^r(t+k)^{\frac{2}{3}r}`$ , where $`p,q,r`$ are constants satisfying $`p+q+r=1`$ and $`p^2+q^2+r^2=1`$ and $`k`$ is a constant (if $`k=0`$ the line–element (2.1) becomes the Einstein–de–Sitter line–element).

The world–lines of the dust–particles are the time–like geodesic integral curves of the vector field $`u^a/x^a=/t`$ (thus $`u^a=\delta _4^a`$ since we shall label the coordinates $`x^1=x`$, $`x^2=y`$, $`x^3=z`$ and $`x^4=t`$). The proper density is

$$\mu =\frac{\dot{A}\dot{B}}{AB}+\frac{\dot{A}\dot{C}}{AC}+\frac{\dot{B}\dot{C}}{BC}=\frac{4}{3(t^2k^2)},$$
(2.2)
where a dot indicates differentiation with respect to $`t`$. For future purposes it is useful to note that the field equations satisfied by the functions $`A,B,C`$ given above are

$$\frac{\dot{B}\dot{C}}{BC}+\frac{\ddot{B}}{B}+\frac{\ddot{C}}{C}=0,$$
(2.3)
$$\frac{\dot{A}\dot{C}}{AC}+\frac{\ddot{A}}{A}+\frac{\ddot{C}}{C}=0,$$
(2.4)
$$\frac{\dot{A}\dot{B}}{AB}+\frac{\ddot{A}}{A}+\frac{\ddot{B}}{B}=0.$$
(2.5)
The geodesic world–lines of the dust particles are twist–free (vorticity tensor $`\omega _{ab}=0`$) and have *expansion scalar*

$$\theta =\frac{\dot{A}}{A}+\frac{\dot{B}}{B}+\frac{\dot{C}}{C}=\frac{2t}{t^2k^2},$$
(2.6)
and *shear tensor*

$$\sigma _{ab}=\sigma _{(1)}n_{(1)a}n_{(1)b}+\sigma _{(2)}n_{(2)a}n_{(2)b}+\sigma _{(3)}n_{(3)a}n_{(3)b},$$
(2.7)
where $`n_{(1)a}=A\delta _a^1`$ , $`n_{(2)a}=B\delta _a^2`$ , $`n_{(3)a}=C\delta _a^3`$ and

$$\sigma _{(1)}=\frac{\dot{A}}{A}\frac{1}{3}\theta ,\sigma _{(2)}=\frac{\dot{B}}{B}\frac{1}{3}\theta ,\sigma _{(3)}=\frac{\dot{C}}{C}\frac{1}{3}\theta ,$$
(2.8)
with $`A,B,C`$ given above and $`\theta `$ given by (2.6). The vorticity and shear tensors and the expansion scalar are defined in Appendix A.

We note that $`\sigma _{ab}=\sigma _{ba}`$ satisfies $`\sigma ^{ab}u_b=0`$ and, in addition, $`\sigma ^a{}_{a}{}^{}=0`$ (this is equivalent to $`\sigma _{(1)}+\sigma _{(2)}+\sigma _{(3)}=0`$ which follows for example, from (2.6) and (2.8)). Following Ellis  it is convenient to define a *projected covariant derivative* operating on tensors which are orthogonal to $`u^a`$ on all of their indices. In particular, if for example $`T_{abc}`$ is such a tensor, then its projected covariant derivative, denoted by $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}T_{abc}`$ , is defined as

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}T_{abc}=h_d^ph_a^qh_b^rh_c^sT_{qrs;p},$$
(2.9)
where $`h_b^a=\delta _b^a+u^au_b`$ is the projection tensor and the semi–colon indicates covariant differentiation. When this derivative operates on a scalar function $`f`$ it naturally specialises to the partial derivative projected orthogonal to $`u^a`$. Thus

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{a}^{}f=h_a^bf_{,b},$$
(2.10)
with a comma denoting the partial derivative. We note that

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{a}^{}h_{bc}=0,$$
(2.11)
and thus the projected covariant derivative commutes with the operations of lowering and raising indices on tensors orthogonal to $`u^a`$ using $`h_{ab}`$ and $`h^{ab}`$ respectively.

In the exact Bianchi type I universe the projected covariant derivative of any scalar function vanishes. Thus we have

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{a}^{}\theta =0,{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{a}^{}\mu =0.$$
(2.12)
Also

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{b}^{}\sigma _{(a)}=0,$$
(2.13)
for $`a=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$, and hence

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{b}^{}\sigma ^2=0,$$
(2.14)
where $`\sigma ^2=\frac{1}{2}\sigma _{ab}\sigma ^{ab}=\sigma _{(1)}^2+\sigma _{(2)}^2+\sigma _{(3)}^2`$. It follows from (2.7), (2.13) and the fact that $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}n_{(\alpha )}^a=0`$ with $`\alpha =1,2,3`$ that

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\sigma _{ab}=0.$$
(2.15)
With $`\theta `$ and $`\sigma _{ab}`$ given by (2.6)and (2.7) respectively, it is easily shown using (2.3), (2.4), and (2.5) that

$$\dot{\sigma }_{ab}+\theta \sigma _{ab}=0.$$
(2.16)
Here and throughout a dot indicates covariant differentiation in the direction of $`u^a`$. Thus $`\dot{\sigma }_{ab}=\sigma _{ab;c}u^a`$.

With respect to the 4–velocity field defined after (2.1) the Weyl tensor with components $`C_{abcd}`$, is decomposed into an “electric part” and a “magnetic part” given by

$$E_{ab}=C_{apbq}u^pu^q,H_{ab}={}_{}{}^{}C_{apbq}^{}u^pu^q.$$
(2.17)
Here $`{}_{}{}^{}C_{apbq}^{}`$ is the dual of the Weyl tensor and it is defined by $`{}_{}{}^{}C_{apbq}^{}=\frac{1}{2}\eta _{ap}{}_{}{}^{rs}C_{rsbq}^{}`$, where $`\eta _{abcd}=\sqrt{g}ϵ_{abcd}`$ with $`g=\mathrm{det}(g_{ab})`$ and $`ϵ_{abcd}`$ is the Levi–Civita permutation symbol. The electric part of the Weyl tensor of the anisotropic universe with line element (2.1) is non–zero and can be written in terms of the shear $`\sigma _{ab}`$ of the matter world–lines as

$$E_{ab}=\frac{2}{3}\sigma ^2h_{ab}\sigma _{ac}\sigma ^c{}_{b}{}^{}+\frac{1}{3}\theta \sigma _{ab}.$$
(2.18)
This follows from the shear–propagation equation (see equation (3) below) in this space–time using the facts that the matter world–lines in this case are geodesic, twist–free with shear satisfying (2.16) and the dust matter distribution is stress–free. The magnetic part of the Weyl tensor vanishes in this universe and so we have

$$H_{ab}=0.$$
(2.19)
In the rest of this paper we wish to construct perturbations of this anisotropic universe which we can interpret as gravitational waves propagating through the universe. The histories of the wave–fronts will be null hypersurfaces in this anisotropic (background) space–time. To be specific we shall choose the null hypersurfaces to have equations

$$\varphi (x,t)xT(t)=\mathrm{constant},$$
(2.20)
with $`dT/dt=A^1`$. It is easy to see that these hypersurfaces are null with respect to the metric $`g_{ab}`$ given via the line–element (2.1). Thus

$$g^{ab}\varphi _{,a}\varphi _{,b}=0.$$
(2.21)
The integral curves of the vector field $`g^{ab}\varphi _{,b}`$ are the null geodesic generators of the hypersurfaces (2.20). In terms of a convenient null tetrad in the anisotropic background given by the 1–forms,

$`k_adx^a`$ $`=`$ $`Adxdt,l_adx^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(Adx+dt),`$
$`m_adx^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(Bdy+iCdz),\overline{m}_adx^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(BdyiCdz),`$ (2.22)
the complex shear of the null geodesics tangent to $`\varphi _{,a}`$ is

$$\sigma =\varphi _{,a;b}m^am^b=\frac{1}{2A}\left(\frac{\dot{B}}{B}\frac{\dot{C}}{C}\right)=\frac{1}{2A}(\sigma _{(2)}\sigma _{(3)}),$$
(2.23)
where we have used (2.8) in the last equality. We see that the null hypersurfaces are *shear–free* if and only if $`B=C`$. With the explicit expressions for $`A,B,C`$ given following (2.1) we see that this corresponds to putting the constant $`r=q`$ and choosing $`q`$ and $`p`$ such that $`p+2q=1`$ and $`p^2+2q^2=1`$.

## 3 Equations for Perturbations

We wish to study gravitational wave propagation in the anisotropic universe described in Section II. We use the Ellis–Bruni approach  which involves working with small gauge–invariant and covariant quantities which vanish in the background rather than small perturbations of the background metric. The gauge–invariant variables used depend on the type of perturbations to be studied and also on the background space–time. For example, $`E_{ab}`$ defined by (2.17) is an Ellis–Bruni variable for gravitational wave propagation in isotropic cosmologies , but in the present context its background value is non–zero (it is given by (2.18)) and hence it is not an Ellis–Bruni variable for our purposes. However, it is possible to extract a gauge–invariant part $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}`$ of $`E_{ab}`$ given by (see equations (3.13) and (3.14) below)

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}:=\frac{1}{2}\pi _{ab}(\dot{\sigma }_{ab}+\theta \sigma _{ab}).$$
(3.1)
Here $`\pi _{ab}`$ is the small anisotropic stress in the perturbed matter distribution (see Appendix A). For our case the important Ellis–Bruni variables are $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}`$, $`H_{ab}`$, $`\pi _{ab}`$, $`\dot{\sigma }_{ab}+\theta \sigma _{ab}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\sigma _{ab}`$. We set all other Ellis–Bruni variables, including $`q_a`$, $`\omega _{ab}`$, $`h_c^b\theta _{,b}`$ , $`h_c^b\mu _{,b}`$, $`h_c^bp_{,b}`$ ($`p`$ is the isotropic pressure) and $`\dot{u}_a`$, equal to zero since we found in  that it is tensor, not vector, quantities that describe gravitational wave perturbations (the vector quantities describe other types of perturbations such as inhomogeneities in the matter density). We now outline the equations satisfied by these variables.

When the Ricci identities,

$$u_{a;dc}u_{a;cd}=R_{abcd}u^b,$$
(3.2)
where $`R_{abcd}`$ is the Riemann curvature tensor, are projected along $`u^a`$ and orthogonal to $`u^a`$ (using the projection tensor) we obtain *Raychaudhuri’s equation*,

$$\dot{\theta }+\frac{1}{3}\theta ^2\dot{u}^a{}_{;a}{}^{}+2(\sigma ^2\omega ^2)+\frac{1}{2}(\mu +3p)=0,$$
(3.3)
(here $`\omega ^2=\frac{1}{2}\omega ^{ab}\omega _{ab}`$) the *vorticity propagation equation*,

$$h_b^a\dot{\omega }^b+\frac{2}{3}\theta \omega ^a=\sigma ^a{}_{b}{}^{}\omega _{}^{b}+\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{abcd}u_b\dot{u}_{c;d},$$
(3.4)
(where $`\omega ^b:=\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{abcd}u_b\omega _{cd}`$ is the vorticity vector) the *shear propagation equation*,

$`h_a^fh_b^g(\dot{\sigma }_{fg}\dot{u}_{(f;g)})\dot{u}_a\dot{u}_b+\omega _a\omega _b+\sigma _{af}\sigma ^f{}_{b}{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\theta \sigma _{ab}`$
$`+h_{ab}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\omega ^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\sigma ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\dot{u}^c{}_{;c}{}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi _{ab}+E_{ab}=0,`$ (3.5)
the *(0,$`\nu `$)-field equation* (this terminology is explained in ),

$$\frac{2}{3}h_b^a\theta ^{,b}h_b^a\sigma ^{bc}{}_{;d}{}^{}h_{c}^{d}\eta ^{acdf}u_c(\omega _{d;f}+2\omega _d\dot{u}_f)=q^a,$$
(3.6)
the *divergence of vorticity equation*,

$$\omega ^a{}_{;b}{}^{}h_{a}^{b}=\omega ^a\dot{u}_a,$$
(3.7)
and the *magnetic part of the Weyl tensor*,

$$H_{ab}=2\dot{u}_{(a}\omega _{b)}h_a^th_b^s(\omega _{(t}{}_{}{}^{g;c}+\sigma _{(t}{}_{}{}^{g;c})\eta _{s)fgc}u^f.$$
(3.8)
Next we consider the conservation equation,

$$T^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=0,$$
(3.9)
where $`T^{ab}`$ is the energy-momentum-stress tensor (see Appendix A). This equation projected orthogonal to $`u^a`$ and along $`u^a`$ respectively gives the *equations of motion of matter*,

$$(\mu +p)\dot{u}^a+h^{ac}(p_{,c}+\pi ^b{}_{c;b}{}^{}+\dot{q}_c)+(\omega ^{ab}+\sigma ^{ab}+\frac{4}{3}\theta h^{ab})q_b=0,$$
(3.10)
and the *energy conservation* equation,

$$\dot{\mu }+\theta (\mu +p)+\pi _{ab}\sigma ^{ab}+q^a{}_{;a}{}^{}+\dot{u}^aq_a=0.$$
(3.11)
Specialising equations (3.3)–(3.8) and (3.10)–(3.11) to the problem at hand, with perturbed quantities listed after (3.1) and $`q_a`$, $`\omega _{ab}`$, $`h_c^b\theta _{,b}`$ , $`h_c^b\mu _{,b}`$, $`h_c^bp_{,b}`$ and $`\dot{u}_a`$ *all put equal to zero*, we obtain the following equations: From *Raychaudhuri’s equation*,

$$\dot{\theta }+\frac{1}{3}\theta ^2+2\sigma ^2+\frac{1}{2}(\mu +3p)=0.$$
(3.12)
From the *shear propagation equation*,

$$E_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}\pi _{ab}\dot{\sigma }_{ab}\sigma _{af}\sigma ^f{}_{b}{}^{}\frac{2}{3}\theta \sigma _{ab}+\frac{2}{3}\sigma ^2h_{ab}.$$
(3.13)
With $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}`$ given by (3.1) we can write this equation as

$$E_{ab}=\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}\sigma _{af}\sigma ^f{}_{b}{}^{}+\frac{1}{3}\theta \sigma _{ab}+\frac{2}{3}\sigma ^2h_{ab}.$$
(3.14)
We now see explicitly from equations (2.19) and (3.14) that $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}=0`$ in the anisotropic background. This justifies the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}`$ in equation (3.1).

From the *(0,$`\nu `$)-field equation*

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{a}^{}\sigma ^{ab}=0.$$
(3.15)
From the *magnetic part of the Weyl tensor*

$$H_{ab}=h_{(a}^s{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{}^{c}\sigma ^p{}_{b)}{}^{}\eta _{sfpc}^{}u^f.$$
(3.16)
From the *equations of motion of matter*

$$h^{ac}\pi ^b{}_{c;b}{}^{}=0.$$
(3.17)
Finally the energy conservation equation gives

$$\dot{\mu }+\theta (\mu +p)+\pi _{ab}\sigma ^{ab}=0.$$
(3.18)
The remaining two equations derived from the Ricci identities (the vorticity propagation equation and the divergence of vorticity equation) are identically satisfied. We note that equations (3.12) and (3.18) are not expressed in terms of the Ellis–Bruni variables we wish to work with and so are not immediately useful. However, taking the projected covariant derivative of these equations and retaining only linear terms yields: *the projected covariant derivative of Raychaudhuri’s equation*,

$$\sigma _{ab}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\sigma ^{ab}=0,$$
(3.19)
and *the projected covariant derivative of the energy conservation equation*,

$$\sigma ^{ab}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\pi _{ab}=0.$$
(3.20)
When the Bianchi identities, written conveniently in the form

$$C^{abcd}{}_{;d}{}^{}=R^{c[a;b]}\frac{1}{6}g^{c[a}R^{;b]},$$
(3.21)
where $`R^{ca}:=R^{cba}_b`$ are the components of the Ricci tensor and $`R:=R^c_c`$ is the Ricci scalar, are projected along $`u^a`$ and orthogonal to $`u^a`$ we obtain equations for $`E_{ab}`$ and $`H_{ab}`$ which are analogous to Maxwell’s equations. The general forms of these equations are lengthy and to keep this section to a reasonable length we give them in Appendix A. In terms of the perturbed quantities given following (3.1) and with $`q_a`$, $`\omega _{ab}`$, $`h_c^b\theta _{,b}`$, $`h_c^b\mu _{,b}`$, $`h_c^bp_{,b}`$ and $`\dot{u}_a`$ all vanishing these equations are: the *div–E equation* (using (3.17)),

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{a}^{}\stackrel{~}{E}^{ab}=\sigma ^{af}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{a}^{}\sigma ^b{}_{f}{}^{}+\eta ^{bapq}u_a\sigma ^d{}_{p}{}^{}H_{qd}^{},$$
(3.22)
the *div–H equation*,

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{a}^{}H^{ab}=\eta ^{bapq}u_a\sigma ^d{}_{p}{}^{}(\stackrel{~}{E}_{qd}+\frac{1}{2}\pi _{qd}),$$
(3.23)
the *$`\dot{H}`$–equation*,

$`\dot{H}^{bt}h_a^{(b}\eta ^{t)rsd}u_r\stackrel{~}{E}^a{}_{s;d}{}^{}\eta ^{rsd(t}u_r{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}\sigma ^{b)f}\sigma _{fs}\eta ^{rsd(t}u_r\sigma ^{b)f}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}\sigma _{fs}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\theta ({}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}\sigma ^{(b}{}_{s}{}^{})\eta ^{t)rsd}u_r3H^{(t}{}_{s}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{b)s}+h^{bt}H^{dp}\sigma _{dp}+\theta H^{bt}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^{(b}{}_{rad}{}^{}\pi _{}^{t)a;d}u^r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^{(b}{}_{rad}{}^{}u_{}^{t)}u^r\sigma ^{cd}\pi ^a{}_{c}{}^{},`$ (3.24)
and the *$`\dot{E}`$–equation*,

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\dot{\theta }2\sigma ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu \right)\sigma ^{bt}+3\sigma ^b{}_{f}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{f}{}_{s}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{st}h^{bt}\sigma ^a{}_{f}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{fd}\sigma _{da}`$
$`=\dot{\stackrel{~}{E}^{bt}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\sigma _{fg}(\dot{\sigma }^{fg}+\theta \sigma ^{fg})h^{bt}\theta \stackrel{~}{E}^{bt}+(\dot{\sigma }^b{}_{f}{}^{}+\theta \sigma ^b{}_{f}{}^{})\sigma ^{ft}`$
$`+(\dot{\sigma }^{ft}+\theta \sigma ^{ft})\sigma ^b{}_{f}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\theta (\dot{\sigma }^{bt}+\theta \sigma ^{bt})h_a^{(b}\eta ^{t)rsd}u_rH^a_{s;d}`$
$`+3\stackrel{~}{E}^{(t}{}_{c}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{b)c}h^{bt}\stackrel{~}{E}^{dp}\sigma _{dp}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}h^{bt}\pi ^{dp}\sigma _{dp}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\pi }^{bt}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma ^{c(b}\pi ^{t)}_c`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\theta \pi ^{bt}.`$ (3.25)
We note that the right–hand side of equation (3) is expressed in terms of Ellis–Bruni variables and thus the left hand side must be an Ellis–Bruni variable which we denote by

$$W^{bt}:=\left(\frac{1}{3}\dot{\theta }2\sigma ^2+\frac{1}{2}\mu \right)\sigma ^{bt}+3\sigma ^b{}_{f}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{f}{}_{s}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{st}h^{bt}\sigma ^a{}_{f}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{fd}\sigma _{ad}.$$
(3.26)
Calculating the projected covariant derivative of $`W^{bt}`$ gives

$`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}W^{bt}`$ $`=`$ $`3\sigma ^2{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\sigma ^{bt}+3{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}(\sigma ^b{}_{f}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{f}{}_{s}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{st})`$ (3.27)
$`h^{bt}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}(\sigma ^a{}_{f}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{fd}\sigma _{da}),`$
where we have used the background values of $`\theta `$, $`\mu `$ and $`\sigma ^{ab}`$ given in the previous section to simplify the coefficient of $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\sigma ^{bt}`$. Using (3) and (3.1) we can express $`W^{tb}`$ in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{E}^{bt}`$, $`H^{bt}`$ and $`\pi ^{bt}`$ as

$`W^{bt}=\dot{\stackrel{~}{E}}^{bt}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\theta \stackrel{~}{E}^{bt}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\pi }^{bt}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\theta \pi ^{bt}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}h^{bt}\pi ^{dp}\sigma _{dp}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}h^{bt}\stackrel{~}{E}^{dp}\sigma _{dp}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma ^{(b}{}_{f}{}^{}\pi _{}^{t)f}+\stackrel{~}{E}^{(t}{}_{f}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{b)f}h_a^{(b}\eta ^{t)rsd}u_rH^a{}_{s;d}{}^{}.`$ (3.28)
We shall use this expression later in the left–hand side of (3.27).

Next we examine Eq. (3.23). Substituting for $`H^{ab}`$ from (3.16) gives

$`\eta ^{frsd}u_r\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}\sigma ^b{}_{s}{}^{})_{;f}+u^b\sigma _{fa}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}\sigma ^a{}_{s}{}^{}\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^{brsd}\sigma _{ra}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}\sigma ^a_s`$
$`\eta ^{brsd}u_r\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}\sigma ^a{}_{s}{}^{})_{;a}\sigma ^a{}_{s}{}^{}(\stackrel{~}{E}_{da}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi _{ad})\}=0.`$ (3.29)
Multiplying across by $`\eta _{blmq}`$ and using

$$u_b({}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}\sigma ^b{}_{s}{}^{})_{;l}=\frac{1}{3}\theta {}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}\sigma _{ls}\sigma _{bl}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}\sigma ^b{}_{s}{}^{},$$
(3.30)
(since $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}\sigma ^b_s`$ is orthogonal to $`u_b`$) and

$$({}_{}{}^{(3)}_{m}^{}\sigma ^b{}_{q}{}^{})_{;b}u_m\sigma ^{ab}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{a}^{}\sigma _{bq}={}_{}{}^{(3)}_{b}^{}({}_{}{}^{(3)}_{m}^{}\sigma ^b{}_{q}{}^{}),$$
(3.31)
we find that the $`divH`$ equation implies that

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{b}^{}({}_{}{}^{(3)}_{[m}^{}\sigma ^b{}_{q]}{}^{})+\sigma ^a{}_{[m}{}^{}(\stackrel{~}{E}_{q]a}+\frac{1}{2}\pi _{q]a})=0,$$
(3.32)
with the square brackets as always denoting skew–symmetrisation. The converse is also true. This is shown by multiplying (3.32) by $`\eta ^{rsmq}`$ and using

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{m}^{}\sigma ^b{}_{q}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{q}^{}\sigma ^b{}_{m}{}^{}=\eta _{qpfm}u^pH^{bf},$$
(3.33)
which is easily derived from (3.16). Thus we can replace (3.23) by (3.32) without any loss of information.

The projected covariant derivative and the covariant derivative in the direction of $`u^a`$ do not commute. The commutation relation satisfied by these derivatives when acting on $`\sigma _{ab}`$ follows from the Ricci identities and reads:

$`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\dot{\sigma }_{ab}\left({}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\sigma _{ab}\right)\dot{}=\sigma ^s{}_{a}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{b}^{}\sigma _{cs}\sigma ^s{}_{a}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{s}^{}\sigma _{cb}+\sigma ^s{}_{b}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{a}^{}\sigma _{cs}`$
$`\sigma ^s{}_{b}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{s}^{}\sigma _{ca}+\sigma ^s{}_{c}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{s}^{}\sigma _{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\theta {}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\sigma _{ab}.`$ (3.34)
In the present context this important equation can be written solely in terms of gauge–invariant variables. Thus we shall use it in the form,

$`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}(\dot{\sigma }_{ab}+\theta \sigma _{ab})=\left({}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\sigma _{ab}\right)\dot{}\sigma ^f{}_{b}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{f}^{}\sigma _{ac}\sigma ^f{}_{a}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{f}^{}\sigma _{bc}`$
$`+\sigma ^f{}_{b}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{a}^{}\sigma _{fc}+\sigma ^f{}_{a}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{b}^{}\sigma _{fc}+\sigma ^f{}_{c}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{f}^{}\sigma _{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\theta {}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\sigma _{ab}.`$ (3.35)
Using this equation and (3.1) we obtain the following equation for the projected covariant derivative of $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}`$ ,

$`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\pi _{ab}\left({}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\sigma _{ab}\right)\dot{}+\sigma ^f{}_{b}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{f}^{}\sigma _{ac}+\sigma ^f{}_{a}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{f}^{}\sigma _{bc}`$
$`\sigma ^f{}_{b}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{a}^{}\sigma _{fc}\sigma ^f{}_{a}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{b}^{}\sigma _{fc}\sigma ^f{}_{c}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{f}^{}\sigma _{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\theta {}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\sigma _{ab}.`$ (3.36)
Contracting this equation over $`a`$ and $`c`$ and making use of (3.15) and (3.17) gives

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{a}^{}\stackrel{~}{E}^{ab}=0.$$
(3.37)
With $`H_{ab}`$ given by (3.16) it is easily shown that (3.22) is consistent with this equation. It also follows from (3), (3.19) and (3.20) that

$$\sigma ^{ab}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}=0.$$
(3.38)
The equations we will use are (3.1), (3.14), (3.15), (3.16), (3.17), (3.19), (3.20), (3), (3.27), (3), (3.32), (3), (3.37) and (3.38). These equations are not independent of each other. For example (3) is automatically satisfied and this can be seen as follows: First using (3.13) and (3) we show that

$`h_a^b\eta ^{trsd}u_r(E^a{}_{s}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi ^a{}_{s}{}^{})_{;d}=\eta ^{trsd}u_r({}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}\sigma ^b{}_{s}{}^{})\dot{}\theta \eta ^{trsd}u_r{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}\sigma ^b_s`$
$`\eta ^{trsd}u_r\sigma ^f{}_{s}{}^{}({}_{}{}^{(3)}_{}^{b}\sigma _{fd}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{f}^{}\sigma ^b{}_{d}{}^{}+{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}\sigma ^b{}_{f}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{f}^{}\sigma ^b{}_{d}{}^{}).`$ (3.39)
Then substituting for $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}\sigma ^b{}_{f}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{f}^{}\sigma ^b_d`$ from (3.33) in this equation we find that

$`h_a^{(b}\eta ^{t)rsd}u_r(E^a{}_{s}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi ^a{}_{s}{}^{})_{;d}=\dot{H}^{bt}3\sigma ^{(t}{}_{d}{}^{}H_{}^{b)d}+h^{bt}\sigma ^{dp}H_{dp}\theta H^{bt}.`$
If we replace $`E^a_s`$ in this equation with the right-hand side of (3.14) the result is Eq. (3) and thus the $`\dot{H}equation`$ is automatically satisfied. We shall demonstrate the internal consistencies of the remaining equations by finding a solution which satisfies all the equations.

## 4 Shear–Free Gravitational Waves

We shall now look for solutions $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\sigma _{ab}`$, $`\dot{\sigma }_{ab}+\theta \sigma _{ab}`$ and $`\pi _{ab}`$ of the equations given in the previous section for which these variables depend upon an arbitrary function. We expect that this dependence of perturbations will describe gravitational waves carrying arbitrary information. Specifically we assume that

$`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\sigma _{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{cab}F(\varphi )+G_{cab}F^{}(\varphi ),`$
$`\dot{\sigma }_{ab}+\theta \sigma _{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`B_{ab}F(\varphi )+C_{ab}F^{}(\varphi ),`$ (4.1)
$`\pi _{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}F(\varphi ),`$
where $`F`$ is an arbitrary real–valued function of its argument $`\varphi (x^a)`$ and $`F^{}`$ denotes the derivative of $`F`$ with respect to its argument. This idea of introducing arbitrary functions into solutions of Einsteins equations describing gravitational waves goes back to work by Trautman . Its use in the context of gauge–invariant perturbations of cosmological models was initiated by Hogan and Ellis  and further developed by Hogan and O’Shea . We note that all of the quantities in (4) are orthogonal to $`u^a`$ and $`B_{ab}`$, $`C_{ab}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}`$ are trace–free with respect to the background metric $`g_{ab}`$ (i.e. $`B^a{}_{a}{}^{}=0`$, $`C^a{}_{a}{}^{}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^a{}_{a}{}^{}=0`$).

When we substitute the first two equations in Eq. (4) into the commutation relation (3) we, in effect, obtain integrability conditions to be satisfied by the right hand sides of these two equations. Remembering that $`F`$ is an *arbitrary* function this substitution results in the following equations:

$$C_{ab}\lambda _c=G_{cab}\dot{\varphi },$$
(4.2)
where $`\lambda _c=h_c^b\varphi _{,b}`$ and $`\dot{\varphi }=\varphi _{,a}u^a`$ ,

$`B_{ab}\lambda _c+{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}C_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`A_{cab}\dot{\varphi }+\dot{G}_{cab}\sigma ^f{}_{b}{}^{}G_{fac}^{}\sigma ^f{}_{a}{}^{}G_{fbc}^{}`$ (4.3)
$`+\sigma ^f{}_{b}{}^{}G_{afc}^{}+\sigma ^f{}_{a}{}^{}G_{bfc}^{}+\sigma ^f{}_{c}{}^{}G_{fab}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\theta G_{cab},`$
and

$`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}B_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{A}_{cab}\sigma ^f{}_{b}{}^{}A_{fac}^{}\sigma ^f{}_{a}{}^{}A_{fbc}^{}+\sigma ^f{}_{b}{}^{}A_{afc}^{}`$ (4.4)
$`+\sigma ^f{}_{a}{}^{}A_{bfc}^{}+\sigma ^f{}_{c}{}^{}A_{fab}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\theta A_{cab}.`$
If we now let

$$C_{ab}=\dot{\varphi }s_{ab},$$
(4.5)
where $`s_{ab}u^a=0`$ and $`s^a{}_{a}{}^{}=0`$ then it immediately follows from (4.2) that

$$G_{cab}=s_{ab}\lambda _c.$$
(4.6)
As a result of (4.5) and (4.6) and also since

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\dot{\varphi }=(\varphi _{,c})\dot{}+\ddot{\varphi }u_c+\frac{1}{3}\theta \lambda _c+\sigma ^p{}_{c}{}^{}\lambda _{p}^{},$$
(4.7)
and

$$(\lambda _c)\dot{}=(\varphi _{,c})\dot{}+\ddot{\varphi }u_c,$$
(4.8)
(4.3) now reads

$`B_{ab}\lambda _cA_{cab}\dot{\varphi }`$ $`=\dot{\varphi }{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}s_{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\theta \lambda _cs_{ab}+\dot{s}_{ab}\lambda _c\sigma ^f{}_{b}{}^{}\lambda _{f}^{}s_{ac}`$ (4.9)
$`\sigma ^f{}_{a}{}^{}\lambda _{f}^{}s_{bc}+\sigma ^f{}_{b}{}^{}\lambda _{a}^{}s_{fc}+\sigma ^f{}_{a}{}^{}\lambda _{b}^{}s_{fc}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\theta \lambda _cs_{ab}.`$
Substituting Eqs. (4) (with $`C_{ab}`$ and $`G_{cab}`$ replaced by (4.5) and (4.6) respectively) into Eqs. (3.1), (3.15), (3.16) (3.17), (3.19), (3.20), (3.27), (3), (3.32), (3.37) and (3.38) results in the following list of equations: From the *(0, $`\nu `$) field equation*,

$$s^{ab}\lambda _b=0,$$
(4.10)
$$A_b{}_{}{}^{ab}=0.$$
(4.11)
From the *magnetic part of the Weyl tensor*,

$$H_{ab}=q_{ab}F+l_{ab}F^{},$$
(4.12)
where as always $`F^{}=dF/d\varphi `$ and

$$q_{ab}=A^{cp}{}_{(b}{}^{}\eta _{a)fpc}^{}u^f,$$
(4.13)
$$l_{ab}=\lambda ^cs^p{}_{(b}{}^{}\eta _{a)fpc}^{}u^f.$$
(4.14)
From the *equations of motion of matter*,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}{}_{;b}{}^{}=u^a\pi ^{bc}\sigma _{bc},$$
(4.15)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}\varphi _{,b}=0.$$
(4.16)
From the *projected covariant derivative of Raychaudhuri’s equation*,

$$\sigma ^{ab}A_{cab}=0,$$
(4.17)
$$\sigma ^{ab}s_{ab}=0.$$
(4.18)
From the *projected covariant derivative of the energy conservation equation*,

$$\sigma _{ab}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}=0,$$
(4.19)
$$\sigma _{ab}\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}=0.$$
(4.20)
From (3.1)

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}=(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}B_{ab})F\dot{\varphi }s_{ab}F^{}.$$
(4.21)
From (3.32)

$`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{b}^{}A_m{}_{}{}^{b}{}_{q}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{b}^{}A_q{}_{}{}^{b}{}_{m}{}^{}+\sigma ^a{}_{m}{}^{}(\mathrm{\Pi }_{qa}B_{qa})`$
$`\sigma ^a{}_{q}{}^{}(\mathrm{\Pi }_{ma}B_{ma})=0,`$ (4.22)
and

$`A_m{}_{}{}^{b}{}_{q}{}^{}\lambda _{b}^{}+\lambda _m{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{b}^{}s^b{}_{q}{}^{}+s^b{}_{q}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{b}^{}\lambda _mA_q{}_{}{}^{b}{}_{m}{}^{}\lambda _{b}^{}\lambda _q{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{b}^{}s^b_m`$
$`s^b{}_{m}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{b}^{}\lambda _q\dot{\varphi }\sigma ^a{}_{m}{}^{}s_{qa}^{}+\dot{\varphi }\sigma ^a{}_{q}{}^{}s_{ma}^{}=0.`$ (4.23)
From (3.37)

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{a}^{}B_{ab}=0,$$
(4.24)
$$B^{ab}\lambda _a+\dot{\varphi }{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{a}^{}s^{ab}+s^{ab}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{a}^{}\dot{\varphi }=0,$$
(4.25)
$$s^{ab}\lambda _b=0.$$
(4.26)
From (3.38)

$$\sigma _{ab}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}B^{ab}=0,$$
(4.27)
$$\sigma _{ab}B^{ab}=0.$$
(4.28)
From (3.27)

$`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}W^{bt}`$ $`=`$ $`3(\sigma ^2A_c{}_{}{}^{bt}+\sigma ^b{}_{f}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{f}{}_{s}{}^{}A_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{st}+\sigma ^b{}_{f}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{st}A_c{}_{}{}^{f}{}_{s}{}^{}+\sigma ^f{}_{s}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{st}A_c{}_{}{}^{b}_f`$ (4.29)
$`h^{bt}\sigma ^d{}_{a}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{af}A_{cfd})F+3(\sigma ^2s^{bt}+\sigma ^b{}_{f}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{f}{}_{s}{}^{}s_{}^{st}+\sigma ^b{}_{f}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{st}s^f_s`$
$`+\sigma ^f{}_{s}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{st}s^b{}_{f}{}^{}h^{bt}\sigma ^d{}_{a}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{af}s_{fd})\lambda _cF^{}.`$
Finally, from Eq. (3) using (4.12)–(4.14), (4.18), (4.20), (4.21) and (4.28) we find that

$`W^{bt}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{bt}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\theta \mathrm{\Pi }^{bt}+\dot{B}^{bt}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\theta B^{bt}+\sigma ^{(b}{}_{f}{}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^{t)f}B^{(t}{}_{f}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{b)f}`$ (4.30)
$`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}(A^{dbt}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^{tdb}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^{bdt})\}F+\{(B^{bt}\mathrm{\Pi }^{bt}+\dot{s}^{bt}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\theta s^{bt}s^{(t}{}_{f}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{b)f})\dot{\varphi }+\ddot{\varphi }s^{bt}A^{dbt}\lambda _d\lambda ^d^{(3)}_ds^{bt}`$
$`s^{bt}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}\lambda ^d+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^{tdb}\lambda _d+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda ^t{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}s^{db}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s^{db}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}\lambda ^t`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^{bdt}\lambda _d+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s^{dt}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}\lambda ^b+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda ^b{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{d}^{}s^{dt}\}F^{}+`$
$`\{\dot{\varphi }^2s^{bt}\lambda ^d\lambda _ds^{bt}\}F^{\prime \prime }.`$
Replacing $`W^{bt}`$ in (4.29) by the right–hand side of (4.30) and equating the coefficients of $`F^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ yields:

$$(\dot{\varphi }^2s^{bt}\lambda ^d\lambda _ds^{bt})\lambda _c=0.$$
(4.31)
Assuming $`\lambda _c0`$ this implies that

$$\varphi _{,a}\varphi ^{,a}=0.$$
(4.32)
Thus the hypersurfaces $`\varphi (x^a)=\mathrm{constant}`$ in the background anisotropic cosmological model are null. The equations found here by equating the coefficients of $`F`$, $`F^{}`$ and $`F^{\prime \prime }`$ are extremely complicated and we will work with them in a completely different way below.

For the remainder of this section we seek to construct perturbations of the anisotropic background cosmological model which describe *shear–free* gravitational waves having the null hypersurfaces $`\varphi (x^a)=\mathrm{constant}`$ as the histories of their wave fronts in the background space–time. For the function $`\varphi (x^a)`$ in (4.32) we shall take $`\varphi (x,t)`$ given by (2.20) and in order to have these null hypersurfaces shear–free we see from (2.23) that we must have $`\sigma _{(2)}=\sigma _{(3)}`$. This is a relationship between the (non–vanishing) principal shears of the background matter distribution. One immediate consequence of this is that $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}`$ is no longer the *full* gauge invariant part of $`E_{ab}`$. To see this we note that in a general space–time with metric $`g_{ab}`$ and a preferred congruence of world–lines tangent to $`u^a`$ we can write the shear tensor $`\sigma _{ab}`$ in terms of the principal shears $`\sigma _{(1)},\sigma _{(2)},\sigma _{(3)}`$ as

$$\sigma _{ab}=\sigma _{(1)}n_{(1)a}n_{(1)b}+\sigma _{(2)}n_{(2)a}n_{(2)b}+\sigma _{(3)}n_{(3)a}n_{(3)b},$$
(4.33)
where $`\sigma _{(1)}+\sigma _{(2)}+\sigma _{(3)}=0`$ and $`n_{(1)a}`$ , $`n_{(2)a}`$ and $`n_{(3)a}`$ are the unit orthogonal (space–like) eigenvectors of $`\sigma _{ab}`$. Then letting $`m^a=(n_{(2)}^a+in_{(3)}^a)/\sqrt{2}`$ and using (4.33) we can write

$$(\frac{1}{3}\theta \sigma _{ab}\sigma _{af}\sigma ^f{}_{b}{}^{}\frac{2}{3}\sigma ^2h_{ab})m^am^b=(\sigma _{(1)}+\frac{1}{3}\theta )\sigma _{ab}m^am^b,$$
(4.34)
where

$$\sigma _{ab}m^am^b=\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _{(2)}\sigma _{(3)}),$$
(4.35)
is now a gauge–invariant variable which vanishes in the background space–time in which $`\sigma _{(2)}=\sigma _{(3)}`$. When $`\sigma _{ab}`$ is the perturbed shear $`m^a`$ is given its background value which, for our case, is given implicitly in (2). Thus we can give $`\sigma _{(1)}+\frac{1}{3}\theta `$ its background value when (4.34) is calculated in first approximation. It follows from this and (3.14) that now in first approximation the full gauge invariant part of $`E_{ab}`$ is

$$E_{ab}^{}:=\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}+\frac{\dot{A}}{A}\sigma _{rs}m^rm^s\overline{m}_a\overline{m}_b+\frac{\dot{A}}{A}\sigma _{rs}\overline{m}^r\overline{m}^sm_am_b.$$
(4.36)
We shall consider pure pure gravity wave perturbations of the anisotropic background. We do this by requiring that the *gauge–invariant* perturbed “magnetic” and “electric” parts ($`H_{ab}`$ and $`E_{ab}^{}`$ respectively) of the Weyl tensor be type N in the Petrov classification with $`\varphi ^{,a}`$ as degenerate principal null direction. We achieve this provided $`E_{ab}^{}\varphi ^{,b}=0=H_{ab}\varphi ^{,b}`$. This means that, in light of (4.10) and (4.16), we should require

$$B^{ab}\varphi _{,b}=0,l^{ab}\varphi _{,b}=0,q^{ab}\varphi _{,b}=0,$$
(4.37)
with $`l^{ab}`$ , $`q^{ab}`$ given above in (4.13) and (4.14). The first of these allows us to write Eq. (4.25) as

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{a}^{}(\dot{\varphi }s^{ab})=0,$$
(4.38)
which we can simplify to

$$(\dot{\varphi }s^{ab})_{;b}=0.$$
(4.39)
We note that it follows from the definition of $`l_{ab}`$ given in (4.14) that the second of (4.37) is identically satisfied.

Since $`s^{ab}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}`$ and $`B^{ab}`$ are orthogonal to $`u^a`$ and $`\varphi ^{,a}`$ and trace–free with respect to the metric tensor given via the line–element (2.1) each have only two independent components, $`s^{22}=s^{33}=\alpha (x,y,z,t)`$$`s^{23}=s^{32}=\beta (x,y,z,t)`$$`B^{23}=B^{32}`$$`B^{22}=B^{33}`$$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{23}=\mathrm{\Pi }^{32}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{22}=\mathrm{\Pi }^{33}`$. It follows from this and the fact that $`\sigma _{(2)}=\sigma _{(3)}`$ that (4.18), (4.20) and (4.28) (and hence (4.19) and (4.27)) are identically satisfied.

Calculation of (4.39) shows that $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ must satisfy the Cauchy–Riemann equations,

$$\frac{\alpha }{y}\frac{\beta }{z}=0,$$
(4.40)
$$\frac{\beta }{y}+\frac{\alpha }{z}=0.$$
(4.41)
We can write these equations economically as

$$\frac{}{\overline{\zeta }}(\alpha +i\beta )=0,$$
(4.42)
with $`\zeta =y+iz`$. In addition, combining (4.15), (4.20), (4.24) and (4.27) we find that $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}`$ and $`B^{ab}`$ must also satisfy the Cauchy–Riemann equations. Thus we have,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^{33}}{y}\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^{23}}{z}=0,$$
(4.43)
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^{23}}{y}+\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^{33}}{z}=0,$$
(4.44)
and,

$$\frac{B^{33}}{y}\frac{B^{23}}{z}=0,$$
(4.45)
$$\frac{B^{23}}{y}+\frac{B^{33}}{z}=0.$$
(4.46)
This appearance of the Cauchy–Riemann equations is to be expected when working with shear–free null hypersurfaces , .

Next we examine the integrability condition (4.9). To evaluate this equation we first need to calculate $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}s_{ab}`$ and $`\dot{s}_{ab}+\theta s_{ab}`$. The only non–vanishing Christoffel symbols for the line element (2.1) are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{14}^1=\dot{A}/A`$ , $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{24}^2=\dot{B}/B`$ , $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{34}^3=\dot{C}/C`$ , $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}^4=A\dot{A}`$ , $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{22}^4=B\dot{B}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{33}^4=C\dot{C}`$ . Using these and the fact that $`B=C`$ we find that

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{\beta }^{}s_{ab}=0,{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{4}^{}s_{ab}=0,$$
(4.47)
where $`\beta `$ takes values 1, 2, 3 and

$$\dot{s}_{ab}+\theta s_{ab}=\frac{s_{ab}}{t}+\frac{\dot{A}}{A}s_{ab}.$$
(4.48)
Then Eq. (4.9) yields the following:

$$\frac{1}{A}A_{1ab}+B_{ab}=\frac{1}{A^2}\left(\frac{}{x}+\frac{}{T}\right)(As_{ab}),$$
(4.49)
with $`T(t)`$ introduced in (2.20), and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}A_{2ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{ab}}{y}}+(\sigma _{(2)}\sigma _{(1)})\{s_{22}(\delta _b^1\delta _a^2+\delta _a^1\delta _b^2)`$ (4.50)
$`+s_{23}(\delta _a^1\delta _b^3+\delta _b^1\delta _a^3)\},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}A_{3ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{ab}}{z}}+(\sigma _{(2)}\sigma _{(1)})\{s_{23}(\delta _b^1\delta _a^2+\delta _a^1\delta _b^2)`$ (4.51)
$`+s_{33}(\delta _a^1\delta _b^3+\delta _b^1\delta _a^3)\}.`$
Since $`A_{cab}`$ is orthogonal to $`u^c`$ on all its indices we also have,

$$A_{4ab}=0,A_{c4b}=0,A_{ca4}=0.$$
(4.52)
With these equations for $`A_{cab}`$ it is easily shown that Eqs. (4.11), (4.17) and the last of (4.37) are identically satisfied.

We now turn our attention to (4) and (4). We first note that,

$$s^b{}_{q}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{b}^{}\lambda _m=0,$$
(4.53)
and

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{a}^{}s^{ab}=0.$$
(4.54)
Then (4) reduces to,

$$(A_m{}_{}{}^{b}{}_{q}{}^{}A_q{}_{}{}^{b}{}_{m}{}^{})\lambda _b+(\sigma ^b{}_{q}{}^{}s_{mb}^{}\sigma ^b{}_{m}{}^{}s_{qb}^{})\dot{\varphi }=0.$$
(4.55)
For convenience we shall define,

$$X_{(b)mq}:=A_m{}_{}{}^{b}{}_{q}{}^{}A_q{}_{}{}^{b}{}_{m}{}^{}=X_{(b)qm}.$$
(4.56)
This allows us to write (4.55) as,

$$X_{(b)mq}\lambda _b+(\sigma ^b{}_{q}{}^{}s_{mb}^{}\sigma ^b{}_{m}{}^{}s_{qb}^{})\dot{\varphi }=0.$$
(4.57)
After a simple calculation using (4.49)–(4.52) we find that the non–zero components of $`X_{(b)mq}`$ are $`X_{(2)12}=X_{(3)13}`$ and $`X_{(2)13}=X_{(3)12}`$ with

$$X_{(2)12}=\frac{1}{B^2}\left\{AB_{22}+\frac{1}{A}\left(\frac{}{x}+\frac{}{T}\right)(As_{22})A(\sigma _{(2)}\sigma _{(1)})s_{22}\right\},$$
(4.58)
and

$$X_{(2)13}=\frac{1}{B^2}\left\{AB_{23}+\frac{1}{A}\left(\frac{}{x}+\frac{}{T}\right)(As_{23})A(\sigma _{(2)}\sigma _{(1)})s_{23}\right\},$$
(4.59)
As a result of this $`X_{(b)mq}\lambda _b=0`$ and (4.57) reduces to

$$\sigma ^b{}_{q}{}^{}s_{mb}^{}\sigma ^b{}_{m}{}^{}s_{qb}^{}=0.$$
(4.60)
This is clearly an identity since $`\sigma _{(2)}=\sigma _{(3)}`$ and $`s_{22}=s_{33}`$, $`s_{23}=s_{32}`$ are the only non–zero components of $`s_{ab}`$. Thus we have now shown that (4) is identically satisfied. That (4) is also identically satisfied can be seen as follows: $`B^{ab}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}`$ satisfy the same equations as $`s^{ab}`$ and so we have,

$$\sigma ^a{}_{m}{}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{aq}^{}\sigma ^a{}_{q}{}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{am}^{}=0$$
(4.61)
$$\sigma ^a{}_{m}{}^{}B_{aq}^{}\sigma ^a{}_{q}{}^{}B_{am}^{}=0.$$
(4.62)
Then Eq. (4) becomes

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{b}^{}(A_m{}_{}{}^{b}{}_{q}{}^{}A_q{}_{}{}^{b}{}_{m}{}^{})=0,$$
(4.63)
which we write as

$$X_{(c)mq;c}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mc}^dX_{(c)qd}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{dc}^cX_{(d)mq}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{qc}^dX_{(c)dm}=0,$$
(4.64)
where $`X_{(c)mq}`$ is given by (4.56). Substituting for $`X_{(c)mq}`$ from (4.58)–(4.59) and using the Christoffel symbols which were listed after (4.46) we find that this equation is an identity.

At this point the equations we have left to satisfy are (4.4), (4.29), and (4.42)–(4.46). As we mentioned previously (4.29) is extremely complicated and to simplify the calculations which follow it is convenient to make use of the null tetrad in the background space–time which was introduced in (2). In terms of this tetrad $`s^{ab}`$ can be written (because $`s^a{}_{a}{}^{}=0`$, $`s^{ab}u_b=0`$, $`s^{ab}k_b=0`$ and so $`s^{ab}l_b=0`$)

$$s^{ab}=\overline{s}m^am^b+s\overline{m}^a\overline{m}^b,$$
(4.65)
with

$$\overline{s}=B^2(\alpha +i\beta ).$$
(4.66)
Since $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}`$ and $`B^{ab}`$ also satisfy the conditions given immediately before (4.65) we can write,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}=\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}m^am^b+\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{m}^a\overline{m}^b,$$
(4.67)
with

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}=B^2(\mathrm{\Pi }^{33}+i\mathrm{\Pi }^{23}),$$
(4.68)
and

$$B^{ab}=\overline{}m^am^b+\overline{m}^a\overline{m}^b,$$
(4.69)
where

$$\overline{}=B^2(B^{33}+iB^{23}).$$
(4.70)
We recall that $`\sigma _{ab}m^am^b`$, which was first introduced in (4.34), is a gauge–invariant first order small variable and we can write it as

$$\sigma _{ab}m^am^b=\kappa F(\varphi ),$$
(4.71)
for some function $`\kappa `$. Multiplying the second of (4) by $`m^am^b`$ and replacing $`\sigma _{ab}m^am^b`$ by the right–hand side of (4.71) we find (after noting that $`\dot{m}^a=0`$ since $`m^a{}_{;d}{}^{}=\dot{B}B^1u^am_d`$ and $`m_a`$ is orthogonal to $`u^a`$)that

$$\kappa =s,$$
(4.72)
and

$$=\dot{s}+\theta s.$$
(4.73)
We now have an equation for $``$ in terms of $`s`$ but for clarity we shall refrain from replacing $``$ in the equations which follow by the right–hand side of this equation until the end. Repeating the above calculation on the first of (4) yields

$$A_{cab}m^am^b={}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}s,$$
(4.74)
which is identically satisfied as a consequence of (4.49)–(4.52) and (4.73).

We also need to express $`\stackrel{~}{E}^{ab}`$ and $`H^{ab}`$ on this tetrad. It follows from (4.21) and the expressions for $`s^{ab}`$, $`B^{ab}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}`$ given above that

$$\stackrel{~}{E}^{ab}=\overline{\stackrel{~}{E}}m^am^b+\stackrel{~}{E}\overline{m}^a\overline{m}^b,$$
(4.75)
where

$$\overline{\stackrel{~}{E}}=\left(\frac{1}{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}\overline{}\right)F+\left(\frac{1}{A}\overline{s}\right)F^{}.$$
(4.76)
We note in passing that, making use of (4.71)–(4.72) and (4.74)–(4.75), we can write $`E_{ab}^{}`$ in (4.36) as

$$E_{ab}^{}=\overline{E}^{}m^am^b+E^{}\overline{m}^a\overline{m}^b,$$
(4.77)
with

$$\overline{E}^{}=\left(\frac{1}{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}\overline{}+\frac{\dot{A}}{A}\overline{s}\right)F+\frac{1}{A}\overline{s}F^{}.$$
(4.78)
Now we consider $`H^{ab}`$. First, substituting for $`A_{cab}`$ from Eqs. (4.49)–(4.52) in (4.12) we observe that $`H^{ab}=0`$ except for

$`H^{22}=H^{33}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{(\sigma _{(2)}\sigma _{(1)})s^{23}+B^{23}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A^2B^4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{T}}\right)(As_{23})\right\}F`$ (4.79)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}s^{23}F^{},`$
and

$`H^{23}=H^{32}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{(\sigma _{(2)}\sigma _{(1)})s^{33}B^{22}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A^2B^4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{T}}\right)(As_{33})\right\}F`$ (4.80)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}s^{22}F^{},`$
where $`/T=A(/t)`$. Then in terms of the null tetrad we can write

$$H^{ab}=\overline{H}m^am^b+H\overline{m}^a\overline{m}^b,$$
(4.81)
with

$`\overline{H}`$ $`=`$ $`i\left\{(\sigma _{(2)}\sigma _{(1)})\overline{s}+\overline{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A^2B^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{T}}\right)(AB^2\overline{s})\right\}F`$ (4.82)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\overline{s}F^{}.`$
We note that since $`s^{ab}`$, $`B^{ab}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}`$ satisfy the Cauchy–Riemann equations, $`\overline{s}`$, $`\overline{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ are independent of $`\overline{\zeta }`$. But $`\overline{H}`$ and $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{E}}`$ are derived from these quantities and thus they are also independent of $`\overline{\zeta }`$.

Next we wish to express $`W^{bt}`$ given by (3) on the null tetrad but first we need to examine $`h_a^{(b}\eta ^{t)rsd}u_rH^a_{s;d}`$. Using (4.81) and recalling that $`m^a{}_{;d}{}^{}=\dot{B}B^1u^am_d`$ we deduce that

$$h_a^b\eta ^{trsd}u_rH^a{}_{s;d}{}^{}=\eta ^{trsd}u_r\overline{H}_{,d}m^bm_s+\eta ^{trsd}u_rH_{,d}\overline{m}^b\overline{m}_s.$$
(4.83)
Taking into account that $`H/\zeta =0`$ we find that, with respect to the null tetrad, we can write

$$H_{,d}=\sqrt{2}B^1H_{\overline{\zeta }}\overline{m}_dA^1(H_x+H_T)u_d+H_x\varphi _{,d},$$
(4.84)
where $`H_{\overline{\zeta }}=H/\overline{\zeta }`$, $`H_x=H/x`$ and $`H_T=H/T`$. Putting this into (4.83) yields

$$h_a^b\eta ^{trsd}u_rH^a{}_{s;d}{}^{}=\frac{i}{A}(\overline{H}_xm^bm^tH_x\overline{m}^b\overline{m}^t),$$
(4.85)
which is symmetric in $`b`$ and $`t`$. We are now in a position to write $`W^{bt}`$ in terms of the null tetrad. We find it convenient to introduce a new variable $``$ which is defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{E}^{bt}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^{bt}=\overline{m}^b\overline{m}^t+\overline{}m^bm^t.$$
(4.86)
It is easily seen (using (4.67) and (4.76) ) that

$$=(\mathrm{\Pi })F+A^1sF^{}.$$
(4.87)
Then replacing $`E^{bt}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^{bt}`$ and $`h_a^{(b}\eta ^{t)rsd}u_rH^a_{s;d}`$ in (3) by (4.85) and (4.86) respectively gives (since $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}m^a=0`$ and $`\dot{m}^a=0`$)

$`W^{bt}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\dot{\overline{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\theta iA^1\overline{H}_x\right)m^bm^t+\overline{}m_fm^{(t}\sigma ^{b)f}`$ (4.88)
$`+`$ $`\left(\dot{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\theta +iA^1H_x\right)\overline{m}^b\overline{m}^t+\overline{m}_f\overline{m}^{(t}\sigma ^{b)f}.`$
But a simple calculation shows that

$$m_fm^{(t}\sigma ^{b)f}=\sigma _{(2)}m^bm^t=\left(\frac{\dot{B}}{B}\frac{1}{3}\theta \right)m^bm^t,$$
(4.89)
and thus we can write,

$$W^{bt}=\overline{W}m^bm^t+W\overline{m}^b\overline{m}^t,$$
(4.90)
where

$$\overline{W}=\frac{1}{AB}\frac{}{t}(AB\overline{})\frac{i}{A}\overline{H}_x.$$
(4.91)
Substituting from (4.82) and (4.87) reveals,

$$\overline{W}=PF+QF^{},$$
(4.92)
with

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{AB}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\{AB(\overline{}+\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }})\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}(\sigma _{(2)}\sigma _{(1)})\overline{s}_x`$ (4.93)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\overline{}_x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A^3B^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{T}}\right)(AB^2\overline{s}_x),`$
and

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}(\sigma _{(2)}\sigma _{(1)})\overline{s}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A^3B^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{T}}\right)(AB^2\overline{s})`$ (4.94)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A^2}}\overline{s}_x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{AB}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}(B\overline{s}).`$
We now turn our attention to Eq.(4.29). We first observe that since $`\sigma _{(2)}=\sigma _{(3)}`$, $`\sigma _{(1)}+2\sigma _{(2)}=0`$, and $`s^{22}=s^{33}`$, $`s^{32}=s^{23}`$ are the only non–zero components of $`s^{ab}`$, the coefficient of $`F^{}`$ in Eq.(4.29) vanishes identically. Therefore

$`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}W^{bt}`$ $`=`$ $`3(\sigma ^2A_c{}_{}{}^{bt}+\sigma ^b{}_{f}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{f}{}_{s}{}^{}A_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{st}+\sigma ^b{}_{f}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{st}A_c{}_{}{}^{f}_s`$ (4.95)
$`+\sigma ^f{}_{s}{}^{}\sigma _{}^{st}A_c{}_{}{}^{b}{}_{f}{}^{}h^{bt}\sigma _a{}_{}{}^{d}\sigma _{}^{af}A_{cfd})F.`$
Using (4.49)–(4.52) in this we find, after a lengthy calculation, that the coefficient of $`F`$ on the right hand side vanishes and so we are left with

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}W^{bt}=0.$$
(4.96)
Thus from (4.90) (since $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}m^a=0`$) we have

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}\overline{W}=0,$$
(4.97)
which implies that

$$\frac{\overline{W}}{x}=0,\frac{\overline{W}}{\zeta }=0,\frac{\overline{W}}{\overline{\zeta }}=0.$$
(4.98)
Substitution of $`\overline{W}`$ from (4.92) into the first of (4.98) and using the arbitrariness of $`F(\varphi )`$ we find that we must have $`P=0`$ and $`Q=0`$. Hence $`\overline{W}=0`$ and the other two equations in (4.98) are identically satisfied. We find it convenient now to write,

$$\overline{s}=\frac{1}{A}𝒢(\zeta ,x,t),$$
(4.99)
where $`𝒢`$ is an analytic function of $`\zeta `$. This follows from (4.42) and (4.66). Then from (4.94) with $`Q=0`$ we obtain *an equation for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$*, namely,

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}=\frac{2}{A^2}\left(D𝒢+A\frac{\dot{B}}{B}𝒢\right).$$
(4.100)
Here the operator $`D`$ is given by $`D=/x+A/t=/x+/T`$. It follows from this and (4.68) that $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{33}+i\mathrm{\Pi }^{23}`$ is analytic in $`\zeta `$ and so (4.43) and (4.44) are automatically satisfied.

We now consider (4.93) with $`P=0`$. Substituting for $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ and $`\overline{}`$ from (4.73) and (4.100) respectively results in the following *wave–equation for $`𝒢(\zeta ,x,t)`$*:

$$D^2𝒢+A\left(\frac{\dot{B}}{B}\frac{\dot{A}}{A}\right)D𝒢=0.$$
(4.101)
We note that we have made use of the field equations (2.3)–(2.5) (with $`B=C`$) to write the equation in this form.

The only equation remaining to be satisfied is (4.4). We shall first examine the case when $`a=1`$. Using (4.49)–(4.52) and recalling the only non–zero Christoffel symbols for the line–element (2.1) with $`B=C`$ given prior to Eq.(4.47) above, we find that (4.4) with $`a=1`$ reduces to

$$(\sigma _{(2)}\sigma _{(1)})\left(\frac{}{t}(As_{ab})+\frac{s_{ab}}{x}2A\frac{\dot{B}}{B}s_{ab}\right)=0.$$
(4.102)
Multiplying this equation by $`m^am^b`$ and noting that $`m^a{}_{,d}{}^{}=\dot{B}B^1m^au_d`$ yields

$$(\sigma _{(2)}\sigma _{(1)})D𝒢=0.$$
(4.103)
It is easily checked that Eq.(4.103) is equivalent to Eq.(4.102). We are interested here in an anisotropic universe and for this reason we cannot have $`\sigma _{(2)}=\sigma _{(1)}`$ (we already have $`\sigma _{(2)}=\sigma _{(3)}`$ and if we also put $`\sigma _{(2)}=\sigma _{(1)}`$ the result is an isotropic universe). Thus (4.103) gives us a remarkably simple first order wave–equation,

$$D𝒢=0,$$
(4.104)
from which we can conclude that $`𝒢=𝒢(\zeta ,xT(t))`$. Now (4.101) is automatically satisfied. We note that if the background cosmology is isotropic then the line–element (2.1) is simplified to $`A=B=C=t^{2/3}=R(t)`$ (say). In this case $`\sigma _{(2)}=\sigma _{(1)}`$ and so (4.103) is satisfied while the wave–equation for $`𝒢(\zeta ,x,t)`$ is (4.101) specialised to

$$D^2𝒢=0,$$
(4.105)
and (4.100) becomes

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}=\frac{2}{R^2}\left(D𝒢+\dot{R}𝒢\right).$$
(4.106)
These are precisely the equations (5.37) and (5.36) found in  when our general formulation for studying shear–free gravitational radiation in isotropic cosmologies is specialised to apply to perturbations of the Einstein–de Sitter universe.

We have yet to examine (4.4) when $`a=2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$ or $`4`$. The case when $`a=4`$ is identically satisfied as a consequence of (4.52). To check that (4.4) is satisfied when $`a=2`$ or $`a=3`$ we first multiply across by $`m^am^b`$. Noting that $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}m^a=0`$ this yields

$`{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{A}_{cab}m^am^b2\sigma ^f{}_{b}{}^{}A_{fac}^{}m^am^b+2\sigma ^f{}_{b}{}^{}A_{afc}^{}m^am^b`$ (4.107)
$`+\sigma ^f{}_{c}{}^{}A_{fab}^{}m^am^b+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\theta A_{cab}m^am^b.`$
with $``$ given by Eq.(4.70). Then using

$$\frac{}{t}(A_{cab}m^am^b)=\left(\frac{A_{cab}}{t}\right)m^am^b2\frac{\dot{B}}{B}A_{cab}m^am^b,$$
(4.108)
we find after a straightforward calculation that (4.107) is identically satisfied.

Now that $`s^{ab}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}`$ and $`B^{ab}`$ are known we can calculate $`E^{}`$ and $`H`$ and form the gauge–invariant electric and magnetic parts of the perturbed Weyl tensor which are given by (4.71) and (4.81) respectively. We can write the result compactly as

$$E_{ab}^{}+iH_{ab}=2\left\{\left(\frac{\dot{A}}{A^2}\frac{\dot{B}}{AB}\right)𝒢+\frac{1}{A^2}\frac{}{x}(𝒢F)\right\}m_am_b.$$
(4.109)
The scalar product of this complex–valued tensor with itself clearly vanishes and this is the algebraic property one expects the gauge–invariant part of the perturbed Weyl tensor to have if the perturbations describe gravitational waves \[cf. Eq.(5.42) in  to which Eq.(4.109) specialises when the background cosmology is Einstein–de Sitter\].

## 5 Discussion

The feature that makes this study of shear–free gravitational radiation propagating through a Bianchi I anisotropic universe so much more complicated than the corresponding study when the universe is isotropic  is the unavailability to us of the full perturbed shear of the matter world–lines as an Ellis–Bruni variable. This is in turn due to the central role played by the perturbed shear of the matter world–lines along with the perturbed anisotropic stress of the matter distribution in the study of gravitational waves. Nevertheless this paper demonstrates that these difficulties can be circumvented and the final result, which is summarised in the perturbed anisotropic stress (4.100) and the gauge–invariant perturbation of the Weyl tensor (4.107), with the function $`𝒢`$ involved in both satisfying (4.101) and (4.102), is easily surveyable. These perturbed quantities have been calculated with the aid of the basic Ellis–Bruni variables listed in (4). This is because $`A_{cab},G_{cab},B_{ab},C_{ab}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}`$ appearing in (4) are now all known in terms of $`𝒢`$: with $`s_{ab}`$ given by (4.65) and (4.99) we have $`C_{ab}`$ and $`G_{cab}`$ given by (4.5) and (4.6). In addition $`B_{ab}`$ is given by (4.69), (4.73) and (4.99) while $`A_{cab}`$ is given by (4.50)–(4.52) and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}`$ is obtained from (4.67) and (4.100). At this level the most significant difference between the perturbations of the anisotropic universe compared to those of the isotropic universe is that in the former case the final wave equation to be satisfied by $`𝒢`$ is *first order* whereas it is *second order* in the latter case. It is clear from (4.103) that the anisotropy in the shear of the matter world–lines of the background is directly responsible for this.

Finally we see from (2.23) that the null hypersurfaces $`\varphi =\mathrm{constant}`$ in the anisotropic background have null geodesic generators *with shear* provided $`\sigma _{(2)}\sigma _{(3)}`$. It is informative to carry out an analysis in parallel with that of section IV in this case. The calculations are briefly outlined in Appendix B. The significant conclusion is that the gauge–invariant part of the perturbed Weyl tensor does *not* possess all of the algebraic properties associated with gravitational waves having propagation direction $`\varphi _{,a}`$ in the anisotropic background. For example, we cannot have $`H^{ab}\varphi _{,b}`$ vanishing if the null hypersurfaces $`\varphi (x^a)=\mathrm{constant}`$ we are working with have shear. Therefore we cannot interpret the perturbations as describing gravitational waves in this case. This observation suggests to us the possibility of constructing a *non–vacuum* generalisation of the Goldberg–Kerr theorem  which will also generalise the theorem of Szekeres  expressing the non–existence of Petrov Type N dust–filled universes. This will be discussed on another occasion.

## Acknowledgment

One of us (E.O’S) wishes to thank Enterprise Ireland and IRCSET for financial support.

## Appendix A Notation and Useful Equations

Throughout this paper we use the notation and sign conventions of  and we take the speed of light to be unity. We consider a four dimensional space–time manifold with metric tensor components $`g_{ab}`$ , in a local coordinate system $`\{x^a\}`$, and a preferred congruence of world–lines tangent to the unit time–like vector field with components $`u^a`$ (with $`u^au_a=1`$). With respect to this 4–velocity field the energy–momentum–stress tensor $`T^{ab}`$ can be decomposed as

$$T^{ab}=\mu u^au^b+ph^{ab}+q^au^b+q^bu^a+\pi ^{ab},$$
(A.1)
where

$$h^{ab}=g^{ab}+u^au^b,$$
(A.2)
is the projection tensor and

$$q^au_a=0,\pi ^{ab}u_a=0,\pi ^a{}_{a}{}^{}=0.$$
(A.3)
Then $`\mu `$ is interpreted as the total energy density measured by an observer with 4–velocity $`u^a`$, $`q^a`$ is the energy flow (such as heat flow) measured by this observer, $`p`$ is the isotropic pressure and $`\pi ^a_b`$ is the trace–free anisotropic stress (due, for example, to viscosity). After absorbing the coupling constant into the energy–momentum–stress tensor Einstein’s field equations can be written as

$$R_{ab}\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}R=T_{ab},$$
(A.4)
where $`R_{ab}=R_a{}_{}{}^{c}_{bc}`$ are the components of the Ricci tensor and $`R`$ is the Ricci scalar.

We indicate covariant differentiation with a semicolon, partial differentiation by a comma and covariant differentiation in the direction of $`u^a`$ by a dot. As usual square brackets denote skew–symmetrisation and round brackets denote symmetrisation. Thus the 4–acceleration of the time–like congruence is

$$\dot{u}^a:=u^a{}_{;b}{}^{}u_{}^{b}.$$
(A.5)
With respect to $`u^a`$ and $`h_{ab}`$ , $`u_{a;b}`$ can be decomposed into

$$u_{a;b}=\omega _{ab}+\sigma _{ab}+\frac{1}{3}\theta h_{ab}\dot{u}_au_b,$$
(A.6)
where

$$\omega _{ab}:=u_{[a;b]}+\dot{u}_{[a}u_{b]},$$
(A.7)
is the vorticity tensor of the congruence,

$$\sigma _{ab}:=u_{(a;b)}+\dot{u}_{(a}u_{b)},$$
(A.8)
is the shear tensor of the congruence and

$$\theta :=u^a{}_{;a}{}^{},$$
(A.9)
is the expansion (or contraction) of the congruence.

Finally in this section we give the equations obtained when the Bianchi identities, written compactly as

$$C^{abcd}{}_{;d}{}^{}=R^{c[a;b]}\frac{1}{6}g^{c[a}R^{;b]}$$
(A.10)
are projected along and orthogonal to $`u^a`$. They are the div–$`E`$ equation,

$`h_g^bE^{gd}{}_{;f}{}^{}h_{d}^{f}+3\omega ^sH_s^b\eta ^{bapq}u_a\sigma ^d{}_{p}{}^{}H_{qd}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}h_c^b\mu ^{,c}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\pi ^{bd}{}_{;d}{}^{}+u^b\sigma _{cd}\pi ^{cd}3\omega ^{bd}q_d+\sigma ^{bd}q_d{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\theta q^b+\pi ^{bd}\dot{u}_d\},`$ (A.11)
the div–$`H`$ equation,

$`h_g^bH^{gd}{}_{;f}{}^{}h_{d}^{f}3\omega ^sE_s^b+\eta ^{bapq}u_a\sigma ^d{}_{p}{}^{}E_{qd}^{}=(\mu +p)\omega ^b`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^b{}_{qac}{}^{}u_{}^{q}q^{a;c}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^b{}_{qac}{}^{}u_{}^{q}(\omega ^{dc}+\sigma ^{dc})\pi ^a{}_{d}{}^{},`$ (A.12)
the $`\dot{E}`$–equation,

$`h_f^b\dot{E}^{fg}h_g^t+h_a^{(b}\eta ^{t)rsd}u_rH_{s;d}^a2H_s^{(b}\eta ^{t)drs}u_d\dot{u}_r`$
$`E_s^{(t}\omega ^{b)s}3E_s^{(t}\sigma ^{b)s}+h^{tb}E^{dp}\sigma _{dp}+\theta E^{bt}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mu +p)\sigma ^{tb}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}h^{tb}\{\dot{\mu }+\theta (\mu +p)\}q^{(b}\dot{u}^{t)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u^{(b}\dot{q}^{t)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q^{(t;b)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\omega ^{c(b}+\sigma ^{c(b}\}u^{t)}q_c+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\theta u^{(t}q^{b)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{\pi }^{bt}+\pi ^{c(b}u^{t)}\dot{u}_c`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\omega ^{c(b}+\sigma ^{c(b}\}\pi ^{t)}{}_{c}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\theta \pi ^{bt},`$ (A.13)
and the $`\dot{H}`$–equation,

$`h_f^b\dot{H}^{fg}h_g^th_a^{(b}\eta ^{t)rsd}u_rE_{s;d}^a+2E_s^{(b}\eta ^{t)drs}u_d\dot{u}_r`$
$`H_s^{(t}\omega ^{b)s}3H_s^{(t}\sigma ^{b)s}+h^{tb}H^{dp}\sigma _{dp}+\theta H^{bt}=q^{(t}\omega ^{b)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^{(t}{}_{rad}{}^{}\{\omega ^{b)d}+\sigma ^{b)d}\}u^rq^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^{(b}{}_{rad}{}^{}\pi _{}^{t)a;d}u_r`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta ^{(b}{}_{rad}{}^{}u_{}^{t)}u^r\{\omega ^{cd}+\sigma ^{cd}\}\pi ^a{}_{c}{}^{}.`$ (A.14)
## Appendix B Null Hypersurfaces with Shear

We note from (2.23) that the null hypersurfaces $`\varphi =\mathrm{constant}`$ have null geodesic generators *with shear* provided $`\sigma _{(2)}\sigma _{(3)}`$. We briefly describe in this appendix the perturbations analogous to those of Section IV in this case. Equations (4)–(4.32) still apply and we shall again assume that $`B^{ab}\varphi _{,b}=0`$ (the reason for this is given before (4.37)). Now recalling that $`s^{ab}`$ is orthogonal to $`u_a`$ and trace–free it follows from (4.10) and (4.18) that $`s^{ab}`$ has only one independent component $`s^{23}=s^{32}`$. $`B^{ab}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{ab}`$ are also orthogonal to $`u_a`$ and trace–free and satisfy the same equations as $`s^{ab}`$. Thus they also have only one independent component, $`B^{23}=B^{32}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{23}=\mathrm{\Pi }^{32}`$. On account of this, the Cauchy–Riemann equations (4.40)–(4.46) now read,

$$\frac{s^{23}}{y}=0,\frac{s^{23}}{z}=0,$$
(B.1)
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^{23}}{y}=0,\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^{23}}{z}=0,$$
(B.2)
$$\frac{B^{23}}{y}=0,\frac{B^{23}}{z}=0.$$
(B.3)
In the present context ($`\sigma _{(2)}\sigma _{(3)}`$) equations (4.49)–(4.52) which we derived from (4.9) are modified to:

$`A_{1ab}`$ $`=`$ $`(\delta _a^2\delta _b^3+\delta _a^3\delta _b^2)\left\{AB_{23}+{\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}}{x}}+\dot{A}s_{23}+A{\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}}{t}}\right\},`$ (B.4)
$`A_{2ab}`$ $`=`$ $`As_{23}(\sigma _{(3)}\sigma _{(1)})(\delta _a^1\delta _b^3+\delta _a^3\delta _b^1),`$ (B.5)
$`A_{3ab}`$ $`=`$ $`As_{23}(\sigma _{(2)}\sigma _{(1)})(\delta _a^1\delta _b^2+\delta _a^2\delta _b^1),`$ (B.6)
and

$$A_{4ab}=0,A_{a4b}=0,A_{ab4}=0.$$
(B.7)
It follows immediately from these equations that (4.11) and (4.17) are identically satisfied. Using these equations in (4.12)–(4.14) we find that $`H_{ab}=0`$ except for

$`H_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{BC}}s_{23}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{C}}{C}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}}{B}}\right)F,`$ (B.8)
$`H_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}}{C}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}B}{AC}}\right)s_{23}+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{C}}B_{23}{\displaystyle \frac{B}{A^2C}}D(As_{23})\right\}F{\displaystyle \frac{B}{AC}}s_{23}F^{},`$
$`H_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}C}{AB}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{C}}{B}}\right)s_{23}{\displaystyle \frac{C}{B}}B_{23}+{\displaystyle \frac{C}{A^2B}}D(As_{23})\right\}F+{\displaystyle \frac{C}{AB}}s_{23}F^{}.`$
Here the operator $`D`$ is given by $`D=/x+A/t`$. We note that as a consequence of these equations we have

$$H^{ab}\varphi _{,b}=\delta _a^1\frac{s_{23}}{B}(\sigma _{(3)}\sigma _{(2)})F0.$$
(B.11)
Thus one of the algebraic properties of the gauge–invariant part of the perturbed Weyl tensor, namely $`H^{ab}\varphi _{,b}=0`$ , which we expect to hold if the perturbations describe gravitational waves having the null hypersurfaces $`\varphi =\mathrm{constant}`$ as the histories of their wave–fronts, is not possible unless the null hypersurfaces are shear–free.

We now consider (3). First, a straightforward but tedious calculation gives,

$$h_{a(b}\eta _{t)}{}_{}{}^{rsd}u_{r}^{}H^a{}_{s;d}{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{x}(\frac{B}{AC}H_{33}\frac{C}{AB}H_{22})(\delta _b^2\delta _t^3+\delta _b^3\delta _t^2).$$
(B.12)
Then substituting for $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{ab}`$ and $`H_{ab}`$ from (4.21) and (B8)–(B10) respectively in (3) and making use of (B.12) yields

$$W_{bt}=(PF+QF^{})(\delta _b^2\delta _t^3+\delta _b^3\delta _t^2),$$
(B.13)
where (after recalling that $`\sigma _{(1)}+\sigma _{(2)}+\sigma _{(3)}=0`$)

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}(\mathrm{\Pi }_{23}B_{23})+\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}}{B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{C}}{C}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}}{A}}\right\}(\mathrm{\Pi }_{23}B_{23})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_{23}}{x}}`$ (B.14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A^3}}D\left(A{\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}}{x}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2A}}\sigma _{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}}{x}},`$
and

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{23}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2A}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}}{B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{C}}{C}}\right)s_{23}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A^3}}D(As_{23})`$ (B.15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2A}}\sigma _{(1)}s_{23}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{23}}{x}}.`$
Remembering that the only non–zero components of the background $`\sigma _{ab}`$ are $`\sigma _{(1)}=\sigma ^1_1`$, $`\sigma _{(2)}=\sigma ^2_2`$ and $`\sigma _{(3)}=\sigma ^3_3`$, and substituting for $`A_{cab}`$ from (B4)–(B7) we find that, in this case, the right–hand side of (4.29) vanishes identically. Thus we have

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}_{c}^{}W_{bt}=0.$$
(B.16)
It is easily shown, using the Cauchy–Riemann equations and the non–zero Christoffel symbols given before (4.47) that this equation is identically satisfied when $`c=2,3`$ or $`4`$. However when $`c=1`$ it implies,

$$\frac{W_{bt}}{x}=0.$$
(B.17)
It follows from this and (B.13) that $`P=0`$ and $`Q=0`$. Similar to the shear–free case we now find it convenient to define

$$s_{23}=\frac{1}{A}𝒢(x,t),$$
(B.18)
and

$$B_{23}=\frac{1}{A}(x,t).$$
(B.19)
Then from (B.15) with $`Q=0`$ we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{23}=\frac{2}{A^2}D𝒢+\frac{1}{A}\left(\frac{\dot{B}}{B}+\frac{\dot{C}}{C}\right)𝒢.$$
(B.20)
Finally we examine Eq. (4.4) when the null geodesic generators of the hypersurfaces have shear (i.e. when $`\sigma _{(2)}\sigma _{(3)}`$). When $`c=2`$ or $`c=3`$ we find, after a lengthy calculation utilising (B4)–(B7), that $``$ in (B.19) is now given by

$$=2𝒢_t+\frac{1}{A}𝒢_x\left(\frac{\dot{B}}{B}+\frac{\dot{C}}{C}\right)𝒢,$$
(B.21)
where $`𝒢_t=𝒢/t`$ and $`𝒢_x=𝒢/x`$. We note that this equation is valid if and only if $`\sigma _{(1)}\sigma _{(2)}`$ and $`\sigma _{(1)}\sigma _{(3)}`$. Then substituting for $`A_{cab}`$ and $``$ from (B4)–(B7) and (B.21) respectively in (4.4) with $`c=1`$ yields

$$\frac{1}{A^2}D^2𝒢\frac{1}{A}\left(\frac{\dot{B}}{B}\frac{\dot{C}}{C}\right)D𝒢\left(\frac{\dot{A}\dot{B}}{AB}+\frac{\dot{A}\dot{C}}{AC}3\frac{\dot{B}\dot{C}}{BC}\right)𝒢=0,$$
(B.22)
where we have used the field equations (2.3)–(2.5) to simplify the coefficient of $`𝒢`$. Eqs. (B.20) and (B.21) allow us to write,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{23}B_{23}=\frac{1}{A^2}𝒢_x,$$
(B.23)
and

$$\frac{1}{A}\frac{B_{23}}{x}=\frac{2}{A^2}G_{tx}\frac{1}{A^3}𝒢_{xx}+\frac{1}{A^2}\left(\frac{\dot{B}}{B}+\frac{\dot{C}}{C}\right)𝒢_x.$$
(B.24)
Using these two equations it is a simple calculation to show that (B14) with $`P=0`$ is identically satisfied. We note that (4.4) with $`c=4`$ gives $`0=0`$.

The basic Ellis–Bruni variables listed in (4) are now determined in terms of $`𝒢`$, with $`𝒢(x,t)`$ given by (B.22).The only non–vanishing component of $`s_{ab}`$ is given by (B.18) and of $`B_{ab}`$ by (B.19) and (B.21), with the corresponding component of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}`$ given by (B.20). As in section IV, $`C_{ab}`$ and $`G_{cab}`$ are obtained from (4.5) and (4.6) while $`A_{cab}`$ is given by (B.4)–(B.7) in this case.


format: text

text:
# Tiling Spaces are Inverse Limits

## 1. Background

In the last few years, it has become clear that many spaces of tilings of $`^d`$ can be viewed as inverse limit spaces. Anderson and Putnam \[AP\] began this program for substitution tilings. Given a substitution, they showed that the corresponding space of tilings of $`^d`$ is the inverse limit of a branched $`d`$-manifold $`K`$ under an expansive map from $`K`$ to itself. If the substitution has a property called “forcing the border” \[Kel\], then the manifold $`K`$ is constructed by stitching all the tile types together along possible common boundaries. If the substitution does not force the border, then the construction is similar, only using collared tiles. (A collared tile is a tile that is labeled by the pattern of tiles that touch it). For this construction to work, the tilings must involve only a finite number of tile types (up to translation), meeting full-face to full-face. In particular, the construction does not apply to tilings like the pinwheel \[Rad\], where tiles appear in an infinite number of orientations.

Ormes, Radin and Sadun \[ORS\] extended the Anderson-Putnam construction to substitution tilings of $`^d`$ on which the entire Euclidean group acts continuously. Tiles may appear in arbitrary orientations, but there can only be a finite number of tile types up to Euclidean motion, and tiles must meet full-face to full-face. The branched manifold has dimension $`d(d+1)/2`$, which is the dimension of the Euclidean group.

In this construction, a cell in the branched manifold $`K`$ is not a tile. Rather, a cell is the product of a (possibly collared) tile with $`SO(d)`$, modulo any (finite!) rotational symmetry that the tile might have. This gives a description of all the ways a tile containing the origin may be placed. The substitution (call it $`\sigma `$) replaces each oriented tile with a union of oriented tiles, giving a map from $`K`$ to itself. Such a union of tiles is called a supertile of order 1. The substitution applied to a supertile of order 1 gives a supertile of order 2, and so on.

A point $`(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{})`$ in the inverse limit $`_\sigma K`$ is a consistent description of a tiling, with $`x_0`$ telling how the origin sits inside a tile, $`x_1`$ telling how the origin sits inside a supertile of order 1, and $`x_n`$ telling how the origin sits inside a supertile of order $`n`$. If the substitution forces its border (or if we are using collared tiles), the sequence $`(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{})`$ gives a consistent description of a unique tiling of $`^d`$.

More recently, Gähler \[Gäh\] and Bellissard, Benedetti and Gambaudo \[BBG\] have each applied inverse limit methods to tilings that need not be generated by a substitution. If $`x`$ is a tiling of $`^d`$ that has finitely many tile types up to translation, meeting full-face to full-face, then the continuous hull of $`x`$ (i.e., the closure of the translational orbit of $`x`$) is the inverse limit of a sequence of compact branched manifolds $`K_0`$, $`K_1`$, $`K_2`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, under a sequence of maps $`\sigma _n:K_nK_{n1}`$, where each branched manifold $`K_n`$ is the union of (marked) tiles from the original tiling. Of the two constructions, Gähler’s is conceptually simpler, but that of Bellissard, Benedetti and Gambaudo appears to be calculationally stronger, leading to results such as gap-labeling theorems \[BBG\].

This paper is an extension of Gähler’s construction to tilings of arbitrary Riemannian homogeneous spaces, with general symmetry group. The generalization of the Bellissard-Benedetti-Gambaudo approach to arbitrary spaces is being done independently by Benedetti and Gambaudo \[BG\].

## 2. Theorem and Proof

Before stating and proving the result, we must establish some notation. Let $`M`$ be a Riemannian homogeneous space (such as $`^d`$, $`^d`$, $`𝐇^2`$, $`𝐇^2\times ^3`$, etc.), and pick a point to be the origin. Let $`G`$ be the group of isometries of $`M`$, let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a closed subgroup of $`G`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ be the subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that fixes the origin. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a collection of tilings of $`M`$. We give $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the topology that two tilings are $`ϵ`$-close if they agree on a ball of size $`1/ϵ`$ around the origin, up to the action of an $`ϵ`$-small element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is closed under the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a union of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-orbits), and that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is compact. This implies that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has finite local complexity, up to the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

###### Theorem.

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the inverse limit of a sequence of compact branched manifolds $`K_1,K_2,\mathrm{}`$ and continuous maps $`\sigma _n:K_nK_{n1}`$. The dimension of the branched manifold is the dimension of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The idea of the proof is quite simple. A point in the $`n`$-th approximant $`K_n`$ is a description of a tile containing the origin, its nearest neighbors (sometimes called the “first corona”), its second nearest neighbors (the “second corona”) and so on out to the $`n`$-th nearest neighbors. (For these purposes, tiles that meet at a point are considered nearest neighbors.) The map $`\sigma _n:K_nK_{n1}`$ simply forgets the $`n`$-th corona. A point in the inverse limit is then a consistent prescription for constructing a tiling out to infinity. In other words, it is a tiling.

What remains is to actually construct $`K_n`$ out of geometric pieces and show that $`K_n`$ is a branched manifold.

First suppose that the tiles are polytopes that meet full-face to full-face. We consider two tiles $`t_1`$, $`t_2`$ in (possibly different) tilings of $`M`$ to be equivalent if a patch of the first tiling, containing $`t_1`$ and its first $`n`$ coronas, is identical, up the the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, to a similar patch around $`t_2`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has finite local complexity, there are only finitely many equivalence classes, each of which is called an $`n`$-collared tile.

For each $`n`$-collared tile $`t_i`$, we consider how such a tile can be placed around the origin. Let $`s_it_i`$ be the set of points where the origin may sit. By finite local complexity, there can only be a finite number of connected components to $`s_i`$, and each component is a submanifold of $`t_i`$ with the same dimension as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. If $`t_i`$ does not admit any symmetry, then for each point $`ps_i`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ acts simply transitively on the ways to place $`t_i`$ down with the spot $`p`$ landing at the origin. The set of ways to place $`t_i`$ is therefore a principal $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ bundle over $`s_i`$, which we denote $`E_i`$. The cell $`C_iK_n`$ associated with $`t_i`$ is then exactly $`E_i`$.

If there are no topological obstructions to trivializing this bundle, we make the identification

(1)
$$C_i=E_i=s_i\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_0.$$

If $`M`$ is flat, then there is a canonical trivialization of the frame bundle, and this descends to a canonical product (1). If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts transitively on $`M`$, then $`s_i=t_i`$ is contractible, and the decomposition (1), while not canonical, is guaranteed to exist. Although there do exist tilings where neither of these conditions are met, the author knows of no examples where $`C_i`$ fails to be trivializable.

If $`t_i`$ admits a discrete symmetry (e.g., is a regular $`n`$-gon in a tiling of $`^2`$ or $`𝐇^2`$), then more than one point in $`s_i\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ may describe the same placement of a tile containing the origin. In that case, the cell associated to $`t_i`$ is the quotient of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ bundle $`E_i`$ by the symmetry. That is,

(2)
$$C_i=E_i/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{t_i}(=s_i\times _{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{t_i}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0,\text{ if }E_i\text{ is trivializable}),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{t_i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is the group of symmetries of $`t_i`$. Since $`t_i`$ is a collared tile, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{t_i}`$ must be a discrete subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. (Even if a tile had a continuous symmetry, its first corona could not.) By construction, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{t_i}`$ acts without fixed points on $`E_i`$, so the interior of $`C_i`$ is indeed a manifold. (For instance, if $`M=^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the Euclidean group, then $`C_i`$ is a Seifert fibered space. There may be multiple fibers over points of symmetry, but the total space is smooth.)

A patch of a tiling in which the origin is on the boundary of two or more tiles is described by points on the boundary of two or more cells, and these points must be identified. The branched manifold $`K_n`$ is the disjoint union of the cells $`C_i`$, modulo this identification. Since we are using $`n`$-collared tiles with $`n1`$, each of the points being identified carries complete information about the placement of all the tiles that meet the origin, together with their first $`n1`$ coronas.

We must show that a neighborhood of such a branch point is the union of topological disks whose tangent spaces may be identified. Each such disk is obtained by taking a patch of a tiling in which the above data is actually realized, and considering its orbit under the action of a neighborhood of the identity in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This shows that the dimension of $`K_n`$ is the dimension of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Finally, we remove the assumption that the tiles are polytopes that meet full-face to full-face. To a tiling by other shapes we may associate a pattern of marked points, where a special point is chosen from each tile and labeled by the type of that tile. The Voronoi cells of those points are then polytopes whose faces, properly subdivided, meet full-face to full-face. The original tiling and the tiling by Voronoi cells are mutually locally derivable \[BSJ\], and so are described by the same topological space, and hence by the same inverse limit structure.

In this construction, the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ acts naturally on each space $`K_n`$, and the maps $`\sigma _n`$ are equivariant, from which it follows that

###### Corollary.

The space $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ of tilings modulo rotation is the inverse limit of a sequence of compact branched orbifolds $`K_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$.

## 3. Examples

1. If $`M=\mathrm{\Gamma }=^d`$, then we have a $`^d`$ subshift. The total space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a Cantor set. The $`n`$-th approximant $`K_n`$ is a finite collection of points, corresponding to a decomposition of the Cantor set into a finite number of clopen sets. This decomposition becomes finer as $`n\mathrm{}`$, and the Cantor set is recovered as the inverse limit.
2. If $`M=^d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=^d`$, then (up to a fixed translation) $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a space of tilings of $`^d`$ by square tiles centered at the lattice points. This is a different description of the previous example. In these examples, note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ does not have to be the hull of a single tiling, and that the $`^d`$ action need not be minimal. The $``$ subshift on two letters, in which one of the letters appears at most twice, is neither minimal nor the closure of a single orbit, but is an inverse limit space.
3. The ($`d`$-fold) suspension of a $`^d`$ subshift has $`M=\mathrm{\Gamma }=^d`$. This is a space of tilings of $`^d`$ by unit cubes oriented parallel to the coordinate axes.
4. A $`^d`$ subshift may be suspended in some directions but not in others. For instance, the suspension of a $`^2`$ subshift in the $`x`$ direction is a space of tilings of $`^2`$ by square tiles, meeting full-face to full-face, whose centers have integral $`y`$ coordinate. In this case $`M=^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\times `$.
5. The Penrose tiling space, or any other tiling of $`^d`$ with a finite set of prototiles up to translation, has $`M=\mathrm{\Gamma }=^d`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is trivial and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the full translation group, the cells $`C_i`$ can be identified with the collared tiles $`t_i`$ themselves. This is precisely Gähler’s construction. As was shown in \[SW\], such a space is homeomorphic to the suspension of a $`^d`$ subshift.
6. The pinwheel tiling space \[Rad\] has $`M=^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the 2-dimensional Euclidean group \[ORS\].
7. In tiling hyperbolic space, there are a number of interesting choices for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a discrete group, then we have the analog of a subshift, associating letters to a discrete set of points in the space being tiled. At the other extreme, one can take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to be the entire group of isometries of $`𝐇^n`$.
8. One dimensional orientable hyperbolic attractors are either solenoids or one dimensional tiling spaces \[W, AP\]. However, the dyadic solonoid can be viewed as a tiling space, of $`𝐇^2`$ rather than $`^1`$, following a construction of Penrose \[Pen\]. See figure 1. In the upper-half-plane model, the basic tile looks like a rectangle, with the sides of the rectangle geodesics, with the top and bottom edges horocyclic, and with the size chosen such that the bottom edge has twice the length of the top edge. Here the group is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=`$, acting on $`𝐇^2`$ by $`(n,t)(x,y)=(t+2^nx,2^ny)`$.
9. More generally, any geometric substitution in $`^d`$ gives rise to a space of tilings of $`𝐇^{d+1}`$, with group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=^d`$. As with the dyadic solenoid, it doesn’t matter whether the substitution is invertible, since the $``$ action enforces the hierarchy. Chaim Goodman-Strauss has adapted this construction to produce a strongly aperiodic set of prototiles for $`𝐇^2`$ \[G-S1\], and to develop a general formalism for describing tilings of hyperbolic space \[G-S2\].

## 4. Conclusions and open problems

The inverse limit structure of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ implies that the Čech cohomology $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the direct limit of $`H^{}(K_n)`$ under the pullback maps $`\sigma _n^{}`$. Every element of $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the pullback, under the natural projection $`\pi _n:\mathrm{\Omega }K_n`$, of a cohomology class in $`K_n`$, for $`n`$ sufficiently large. If (and only if) $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is finitely generated, then for $`n`$ large enough the entire cohomology of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the quotient of $`H^{}(K_n)`$ by the kernel of $`\pi _n^{}`$.

To make effective use of this principle, however, requires specific knowledge of the tiling space in question. For substitution tilings, it is easiest to work with the Anderson-Putnam inverse limit construction, rather than that constructed here, although in fact the two are shift equivalent. For cut-and-project tilings with sufficiently nice “windows”, Gähler \[Gäh\] has shown that $`\pi _n^{}`$ is actually an isomorphism in cohomology for $`n`$ sufficiently large, with the required size of $`n`$ computable from the geometry of the window.

The inverse limit structure of tiling spaces is related to a possible fiber bundle structure. Locally, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ looks like a piece of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ times a Cantor set. Can these neighborhoods be stitched together to yield a fiber bundle (with Cantor set fiber) over a compact manifold? Is that manifold the quotient of the identity component of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by a co-compact subgroup? When $`M=\mathrm{\Gamma }=^d`$, the answer to both questions is yes \[SW\], but the general case is not known.

## 5. Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the organizers and participants in the August 2002 conference on Aperiodic Order, Dynamical Systems, Operator Algebras and Topology at the University of Victoria, British Columbia. The results of this paper are a direct consequence of the talks at that conference (especially those of Franz Gähler and Jean-Marc Gambaudo) and the discussions that ensued. Additional thanks to Charles Radin and Michael Baake for assistance with the manuscript. This work was partially supported by the Texas Advanced Research Program.