format: text

text:
# Holomorphic forms on threefolds

## §1 introduction

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective variety over the complex number field $``$. Let $`\omega H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^i)`$ be a nontrivial global holomorphic differential $`i`$-form. We would like to understand the nature of zero locus of $`\omega `$ in terms of the birational geometry of $`X`$. On one hand algebraic varieties are birationally classified according to their Kodaira dimensions using high multiples of holomorphic form of top degree-the canonical bundle and Mori’s theory of extremal contractions and flips are birational operations done to part of the base locus of (multiples of ) canonical bundle, on the other hand very little is known about the impact of zero locus of holomorphic forms of lower degree has on the birational geometry of the underlying variety. The first question one may ask is: What makes $`\omega `$ to have zero locus? It is proved in \[Z\] that for any global holomorphic 1-form $`0\omega H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X)`$, the zero locus $`Z(\omega )`$ is not empty provided that the canonical bundle $`K_X`$ is ample. It is natural to suspect that the same conclusion should hold for varieties of general type.

Indeed we propose two conjectures:

###### Demonstration Conjecture 1

Assume $`X`$ is of general type and $`0\omega H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)`$. Then $`Z(\omega )\varphi `$.

and more precisely

###### Demonstration Conjecture 2

Assume there is a subspace $`V`$ of dimension $`k`$ in $`H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X)`$ for some $`1k\text{dim}(X)`$ and $`Z(\omega )=\varphi `$ for any $`0\omega V`$. Then the Kodaira dimension of $`X`$ is bounded from above by $`\text{dim}(X)k`$.

These conjectures are trivially true for curves. As an exercise we ask readers to check them for surfaces. The purpose of the present paper is to verify that they also hold in dimension $`3`$ by proving:

###### Theorem 1

Let $`X`$ be a threefold of general type. For any global holomorphic 1-form $`0\omega H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X)`$, its zero locus $`Z(\omega )`$ is not empty.

and

###### Theorem 2

Let $`X`$ be a threefold admitting a $`k`$-dimensional subspace $`VH^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)`$ such that $`z(\omega )=\mathrm{}`$ for any $`0\omega V`$. Then the Kodaira dimension of $`X`$ is at most $`3k`$.

Some of the techniques used in proving these results can not be generalized to higher dimensions. We plan to discuss similar results in higher dimensions using different tools in a future paper.

In contrast to the result on 1-forms, there are examples (see section 4 below) of threefolds with ample canonical bundle and carrying nowhere vanishing 2-forms. Using a completely different approach and viewing a 2-form as a meromorphic vector field, we have

###### Theorem 3

Let $`X`$ be a threefold of general type. $`\omega H^0(X,K_X\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2)`$ is a canonically twisted holomorphic 2-form. Then the zero locus $`Z(\omega )`$ of $`\omega `$ is not empty.

###### Demonstration Acknowledgments

. We thank S. Keel, J. McKernan, and M. Reid for their interest in and comments on our results.

## §2 Proof of Theorem 1

The following result uses the classification of extremal contractions in dimension 3. It is related to the ideas used in \[L\] and reduces the proof of Theorem 1 to those $`X`$ admitting smooth minimal models.

###### Lemma 2.1

Assume $`X`$ is smooth and of general type. If $`X`$ does not admit a smooth minimal model, then every holomorphic 1-form on $`X`$ has nonempty zero locus.

###### Demonstration Proof

Since $`K_X`$ is not nef, there is an extremal contraction $`\pi :XY`$. Let $`E`$ be the exceptional locus. Mori \[M\] says that $`f`$ is divisorial with the exceptional divisor $`^2`$ with normal bundle $`𝒪(1)`$ or $`𝒪(2)`$ , $`^1\times ^1`$ with normal bundle $`𝒪(1)𝒪(1)`$, a cone $`E`$ over rational normal curve of degree 2 with normal bundle $`𝒪(1)`$, a $`^1`$ bundle over a smooth curve.

One has the following exact sequence

$$0N_{E/X}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X\mathrm{\Omega }_E0.$$

Note that unless $`E`$ is a $`^1`$ bundle over a smooth curve, $`H^0(E,\mathrm{\Omega }_E)=0`$. This implies that restrictions of a nontrivial global 1-form on $`E`$ provides a nontrivial global section of positive line bundle $`N_{E/X}^{}`$, which has nontrivial zero locus.

When $`E`$ is a $`^1`$ bundle over a smooth curve, the resulting $`Y`$ is smooth. From our assumption, $`K_Y`$ is not nef. One can repeat the argument done for $`X`$ and the process has to terminate after finitely many steps. So every holomorphic 1-form on $`X`$ has nonempty zero locus.

Remark. If $`X`$ admits a 1-form with isolated zeros, $`X`$ must be minimal. In \[L\] we showed that it is possible to have a nonminimal threefold carrying a 2-form with isolated zeros.

Thus we may assume that the canonical bundle of $`X`$ is nef and big. Let $`f:XY`$ be the birational morphism to the canonical model of $`X`$. $`Y`$ is known to have Gorenstein canonical singularities. Reid \[R1\] constructed explicitly a crepant resolution for such singularities. Let $`g:X^{}Y`$ be the resolution such that $`g`$ is crepant and $`X^{}`$ has at most isolated cDV points. Since both $`K_X`$ and $`K_X^{}`$ are nef, it is known that $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ are different by flops. One way to prove Theorem 1 is to show that any 1-form on $`X^{}`$ has to have nontrivial zero locus and flops do not change the existence of the zero locus.

Here we take a different approach using Kodaira-Akizuki-Nakano type vanishing theorem for semismall morphisms proved by Migliorini as in \[Mi\]. A birational morphism $`\varphi `$ is called semismall if for every irreducible component $`E`$ in the exceptional locus,

$$\text{codim}E\text{dim}\varphi ^1(p)$$

for any $`p\varphi (E)`$. For example in dimension 3 a semismall morphism contracts curves to points or divisor to curves.

###### Proposition 2.2(Theorem 4.6 in \[Mi\])

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective variety over $``$ with a semiample divisor $`L`$. Assume the morphism $`\varphi _{|mL|}`$ is semismall for some $`m>>0`$. Then

$$H^p(X,L^1\mathrm{\Omega }_X^q)=0$$

for $`p+q<`$ dim$`X`$.

The following general result deals with maps which contract divisors to points.

###### Lemma 2.3

Let $`\pi :XY`$ be a projective birational morphism with $`X`$ smooth and $`Y`$ normal. Assume an irreducible divisor $`EX`$ is contracted to a point. Let $`\omega H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X)`$. Then $`Z(\omega )`$ is not trivial along $`E`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Assume $`\pi (E)=p`$. Let us embed a neighborhood of $`p`$ in some $`^N`$ so that $`p`$ is mapped to the origin $`O`$ and still call the composition $`\pi `$. For any $`qE`$, one has $`\pi ^{}:m_{O,^N}/m_{O,^N}^2m_{q,X}/m_{q,X}^2`$ between the differentials.

If $`q`$ is a singularity of $`E`$ and assume $`E`$ is locally defined by some $`f`$, then $`fm_{q,X}^2`$. This implies $`\pi ^{}=0`$ and $`qz(\omega )`$. If $`E`$ is smooth at $`q`$, then the rank of $`\pi ^{}`$ is either $`0`$ or $`1`$. When the rank is 0, again $`qz(\omega )`$. So we may reduce the proof of the desired result to the case in which the rank of $`\pi ^{}`$ is 1 along $`E`$ (in particular $`E`$ is smooth and $`\pi ^{}`$ of any element of $`m_{O,^N}/m_{O,^N}^2`$ is a scalar multiple of the class $`x_1+m_{q,X}^2`$ where $`x_1`$ locally defines $`E`$. The map $`m_{q,X}/m_{q,X}^2m_{q,E}/m_{q,E}^2`$ is simply dropping $`x_1`$ component, hence sending a scalar multiple of the class $`x_1+m_{Q,X}^2`$ to 0).

In this case $`qZ(\omega )`$ for any $`qE`$ implies that $`\omega `$ defines a nowhere vanishing section of $`N_{E/X}^{}`$. This is against the adjuction lemma of Kawamata in \[K\].

Now we can finish the proof of Theorem 1.

###### Theorem 2.4=Theorem 1

Let $`X`$ be a threefold of general type. For any global holomorphic 1-form $`0\omega H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X)`$, its zero locus $`Z(\omega )`$ is not empty.

###### Demonstration Proof

If $`K_X`$ is not nef, Lemma 2.1 says $`Z(\omega )`$ is not empty. Assume $`K_X`$ is nef, then $`K_X`$ is semiample. Let $`\varphi _m=\varphi _{mK_X}`$ for $`m>>0`$. By Lemma 2.3 we may assume $`\varphi _m`$ is semismall. Assuming $`Z(\omega )`$ is empty, one has exact sequence

$$0𝒪\stackrel{𝜔}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1\stackrel{\omega }{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2\stackrel{\omega }{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^30.$$

Arguing as in \[Z\], using Proposition 2.2 when $`L=K_X`$ one gets an embedding of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^3`$ into $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2`$. It follows that $`H^0(X,K_X^1\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2)0`$ which is impossible again by 2.2.

It is easy to construct a threefold of general type with ample canonical bundle admitting a 1-form whose zero locus is of dimension 0, 1, or 2.

## §3 Proof of Theorem 2

On a threefold $`X`$, the maximal dimension of a subspace $`VH^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)`$ with the property that any $`0\omega V`$ has no zero locus is 3 because the rank of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1`$ is $`3`$. By taking a product of a variety of general type and an Abelian variety, one gets examples of threefold of Kodaira dimension $`3k`$ and having a $`k`$-dimensional subspace of 1-forms with the property that any nonzero element has no zero.

###### Theorem 3.1=Theorem 2

Let $`X`$ be a threefold admitting a $`k`$-dimensional subspace $`VH^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)`$ such that $`z(\omega )=\mathrm{}`$ for any $`0\omega V`$. Then the Kodaira dimension of $`X`$ is at most $`3k`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

When $`k=1`$, the claim is implied by Theorem 1. When $`k=3`$, let $`\omega _1,\omega _2,\omega _3`$ be a basis of $`V`$, $`\omega _1\omega _2\omega _3`$ provides a nowhere zero section of $`K_X`$. So $`K_X`$ is trivial and $`\kappa (X)=0`$.

Let us assume $`k=2`$. By Lemma 2.1 we see that $`X`$ is minimal because of existence of $`V`$. We also know $`\kappa (X)3`$ by Theorem 1. Thus it is enough to show $`\kappa (X)2`$. Assuming the contrary holds. Let $`\varphi :XS`$ be the IItaka fibration defined by high multiples of $`K_X`$. $`\varphi ^1(s)`$ is an elliptic curve for a general $`sS`$. $`S`$ is surface of general type with at worst canonical singularities. Let $`\alpha :X\text{Alb}(X)`$ be the Albanese map. The existence of $`V`$ implies that $`\alpha (X)`$ is at least of dimension 2.

We consider two cases:

Case I. $`\alpha (\varphi ^1(s))`$ is a point for a general $`sS`$. In this case $`\alpha (X)`$ has dimension 2. Let $`XY\alpha (X)`$ be the Stein factorization of $`\alpha `$. It is easy to see that $`S`$ and $`Y`$ are birationally equivalent. In particular 1-forms on $`X`$ are pullbacks of 1-forms (on the smooth locus) of $`S`$. Assume the subspace $`V`$ has a basis $`\omega _1,\omega _2`$, which correspond to $`\omega _1^{},\omega _2^{}`$ on $`S`$. $`\omega _1^{},\omega _2^{}`$ span a 2-dimensional subspace $`V^{}`$ of $`H^0(S,\mathrm{\Omega }_S^1)`$ having the property that for any $`0\omega ^{}V^{}`$ the zero locus on the smooth locus of $`S`$ is empty. Then $`\omega _1^{}\omega _2^{}`$ generates a nowhere zero section of $`K_S`$ on the smooth locus. Hence $`\kappa (S)=0`$, a contradiction.

Case II. $`\alpha (\varphi ^1(s))`$ is a curve for a general $`sS`$. In this case $`0=\kappa (\varphi ^1(s))\kappa (\alpha (\varphi ^1(s))0`$. So $`\alpha (\varphi ^1(s))=E_s`$ is also an elliptic curve in $`A=\text{Alb}(X)`$. Since $`A`$ contains at most countably many sub Abelian varieties of dimension 1, $`E_s`$ are translations of a particular sub Abelian variety $`A_1`$ of dimension 1 . Let $`\pi :AA/A_1`$ be the quotient map. One has the following diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X& \stackrel{\alpha }{}& A\alpha (X)\\ \varphi & & \pi & & \\ S& & A/A_1\pi (\alpha (X))\end{array}$$

If $`\alpha (X)`$ is of dimension 3, $`\pi (\alpha (X))`$ is of dimension 2. Again let $`XY\pi (\alpha (X))`$ be the Stein factorization of $`\pi \alpha `$. $`S`$ is birationally equivalent to $`Y`$ and we are done by case I. If $`\alpha (X)`$ is of dimension 2, $`C=\pi (\alpha (X))`$ is of dimension 1 in the Abelian variety $`A/A_1`$. Let $`\omega _1^{},\omega _2^{}`$ be the 1-forms on $`A`$ which pullback to a basis of $`V`$. There is a nontrivial linear combination $`\omega ^{}=c_1\omega _1^{}+c_2\omega _2^{}`$ which is identically zero on the fibers of $`\pi `$. $`\omega ^{}`$ is a pullback of some $`\omega ^{\prime \prime }`$ on $`A/A_1`$. Assume $`C`$ is of general type and we may assume $`C`$ is smooth, $`\omega \mathrm{"}|C`$ vanishes at some point $`pC`$, which in turn implies $`c_1\omega _1+c_2\omega _2`$ vanishes on the fiber of $`\pi \alpha `$ in $`X`$ over $`p`$. If $`C`$ is smooth elliptic curve, the pullback of $`\omega ^{}=c_1\omega _1^{}+c_2\omega _2^{}`$ (which is the same as the pullback of $`\omega ^{\prime \prime }`$) would have a zero unless the morphism $`\pi \alpha `$ is smooth and $`\omega ^{\prime \prime }`$ does not vanish on $`C`$. So let us assume $`\pi \alpha `$ is smooth. Note that each fiber the morphism has to be a surface of general type in order to keeping $`\kappa (X)=2`$. Furthermore each fiber has to be minimal since $`K_X`$ is nef. Thus $`\pi \alpha :XC`$ represents a smooth family of minimal surfaces of general type over an elliptic curve. It has to be isotrivial thanks to Theorem 1.1 in \[Mi\]. So up to an étale covering, X is isomorphic to the product of $`C`$ and a fiber of $`\pi \alpha `$. It implies that $`V`$ contains a nonzero member $`\omega `$ coming from a 1-form on the fiber which is a surface of general type. As any 1-form on a surface of general type has to have a zero, $`Z(\omega )`$ contains a curve. A contradiction.

## §4 2-forms on threefolds of general type

After the discussion regarding zeros of 1-forms, it is quite natural to wonder whether similar results on 1-forms still hold true for higher orders forms, i.e;

Question: Let $`X`$ be a threefold of general type. Is it true that any global differential 2-form on $`X`$ must have nonempty zero locus?

Campana and Peternell \[CP\] constructed the following example which shows that a global section of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2`$ may not have zero locus even when $`K_X`$ is ample:

###### Demonstration Example

Let $`Y`$ be projective holomorphic symplectic fourfolds. Let $`X`$ be a hypersurface of sufficiently high degree. Then the nondegenerate 2-form on $`Y`$ provides a no where vanishing 2-form on $`X`$.

However by virtue of \[L\] it is known that when $`K_X`$ is not nef, any 2-form has nontrivial zero locus. It would be interesting to see whether there are examples with nef canonical bundle and a 2-form without any zero.

Here we will show that any canonically twisted 2-form $`\omega H^0(X,K_X\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2)`$ on a threefold of general type has nontrivial zero locus.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective variety of dimension $`n`$. $`\theta H^0(X,T_XL)`$ with isolated zeros. Then locally around each zero $`p`$, under coordinates $`z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_n`$, one can express $`\theta `$ as

$$\theta =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}f_is\frac{}{z_i}$$

where $`f_i`$ are holomorphic functions and s is a local section of $`L`$. The Jacobian at the zero is defined as

$$A_p=(\frac{f_i}{z_j})_{|p}$$

which is an $`n\times n`$ matrix. $`A_p`$ is invariant under coordinate change upto a nowhere zero holomorphic function. $`p`$ is nondegenerate if $`det(A_p)0`$.

The following lemma is a corollary of the residue theorem due to Bott (see \[C\]).

###### Lemma 4.1

Notations as above and assume $`\theta `$ has only nondegenerate zeros. Then

$$_X\overline{c}_1(T_XL)^n=\underset{p\text{ a zero}}{}\frac{(Tr(A_p))^n}{det(A_p)}$$

and

$$_X\overline{c}_n(T_XL)=\underset{p\text{ a zero}}{}\frac{det(A_p)}{det(A_p)}$$

where $`\overline{c}_r(T_XL)=c_r(T_X)+c_{r1}c_1(L)+\mathrm{}+c_1(L)^r`$.

Remark. Indeed Chern’s proof \[C\] shows that away from the zero locus, $`\overline{c}_1(T_XL)^n`$ and $`\overline{c}_n(T_XL)`$ can be written as derived differential forms. This fact is used in the proof of the following

###### Theorem 4.2=Theorem 3

Let $`X`$ be a threefold of general type. $`\omega H^0(X,K_X\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2)`$ is a canonically twisted holomorphic 2-form. Then the zero locus $`Z(\omega )`$ of $`\omega `$ is not empty.

###### Demonstration Proof

We may assume $`K_X`$ is nef since otherwise there is a divisorial extremal contraction and an analysis similar to that in section 2 of \[L\] shows that for all possible divisorial extremal contraction any canonically twisted 2-form has nontrivial zero locus along the exceptional divisor.

Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2`$ is isomorphic to $`K_XT_X`$, $`\omega `$ corresponds to a global section $`\theta `$ in $`H^0(X,2K_XT_X)`$, which can be viewed as a meromorphic vector field with coefficient in the line bundle $`2K_X`$. Assume $`\theta `$ (or equivalently $`\omega `$) does not have zero, the remark about the above lemma says

$$\overline{c}_1(2K_XT_X)^3=0.$$

However the left hand side is

$$\overline{c}_1(2K_XT_X)^3=(c_1(T_X)+c_1(2K_X))^3=K_X^3>0,$$

a contradiction.

Finally the geometric meaning of $`c_3(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2)`$ (which is $`c_3c_1c_2`$ of $`X`$) in terms of singularities appearing on a minimal model is explained in:

###### Theorem 4.3

Let $`X`$ be a threefold of general type. Assume $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2`$ admits a section $`\omega `$ with isolated nondegenerate zeros. Then $`c_3(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2)`$ is greater or equal to the number of singularities whose indices are bigger than $`1`$ on a minimal model.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`X_{min}`$ be a minimal model of $`X`$. Assuming $`\omega `$ is a 2-form with only isolated nondegenerate zeros on $`X`$. By \[L\], $`\omega `$ corresponds to a (global locally invariant) 2-form on $`X_{min}`$ not vanishing at the singularities whose indices are bigger than $`1`$. Moreover every such singularity produces at least one isolated zero on $`X`$. Bott’s residue formula, when taking the top Chern class, says

$$\overline{c}_3(K_XT_X)=\underset{p\text{ a zero}}{}\frac{det(A_p)}{det(A_p)}=\text{number of zeros of }\omega .$$

This implies

$$\overline{c}_3(K_XT_X)=c_3(T_X)+c_2(T_X)c_1(K_X)+c_1(T_X)c_1(K)^2+c_1(K_X)^3=c_3c_1c_2$$

$$\text{number of singularities whose indices are bigger than 1}.$$


text:
# Doping dependence of superconducting gap in YBa2Cu3Oy from universal heat transport

## Abstract

Thermal transport in the $`T0`$ limit was measured as a function of doping in high-quality single crystals of the cuprate superconductor YBa2Cu3Oy. The residual linear term $`\kappa _0/T`$ is found to decrease as one moves from the overdoped regime towards the Mott insulator region of the phase diagram. The doping dependence of the low-energy quasiparticle gap extracted from $`\kappa _0/T`$ is seen to scale closely with that of the pseudogap, arguing against a non-superconducting origin for the pseudogap. The presence of a linear term for all dopings is evidence against the existence of a quantum phase transition to an order parameter with a complex ( $`ix`$ ) component.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

thanks: Permanent address: Inst. Surf. Chem., N.A.S. Ukrainethanks: Current address: Department of Physics, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada J1K 2R1.

In $`d`$-wave superconductors the presence of nodes in the gap structure leads to the existence of quasiparticle excitations down to zero energy. The ability of these excitations to transport heat has been shown to be universal (i.e. independent of impurity scattering ) , and the residual linear term $`\kappa _0/T`$ in the thermal conductivity $`\kappa (T)`$ is a direct probe of the low-energy quasiparticle spectrum . At optimal doping in Bi-2212 the agreement between the value of the slope of the gap at the node obtained from $`\kappa _0/T`$ and that measured by ARPES is remarkable .

In this paper we investigate the doping dependence of $`\kappa _0/T`$ in the cuprate superconductor YBa2Cu3Oy (YBCO) and find that it decreases monotonically as one moves from overdoped to underdoped samples. The samples used in this study are all high-quality de-twinned single crystals, described elsewhere . Their $`T_c`$’s are 62, 44, 93.5 and 89 K for oxygen dopings $`y=6.54`$, 6.6, 6.95 and 6.99, respectively. Thermal conductivity measurements were made in a dilution refrigerator down to 40 mK, with current along the a-axis.

In Fig. 1, the thermal conductivity of each sample is plotted as $`\kappa /T`$ vs. $`T^2`$. To seperate out the electronic from the phononic contributions, we model $`\kappa `$ to be of the form $`\kappa =\kappa _{\mathrm{el}}+\kappa _{\mathrm{ph}}=AT+BT^\alpha `$. The $`T`$-linear electronic term is a well known result of $`d`$-wave superconductors , while the $`T^\alpha `$ term is an empirical fit to the phonon conductivity at low temperatures .

It is clear from Fig. 1 that the value of the linear term decreases monotonically as one moves from the slightly overdoped $`y=6.99`$ sample to the strongly underdoped $`y=6.54`$ sample (It becomes zero in the non-superconducting parent compound $`y=0`$.) The presence of such a linear term for all dopings excludes the possibility of a quantum phase transition from a pure $`d`$-wave form to a $`d+ix`$ state suggested by some authors, since the effect of such a transition would be to gap out the quasiparticle spectrum and hence eliminate any residual linear term.

From our measurements of $`\kappa _0/T`$ we can extract a measure of the quasiparticle gap in the following manner. The quasiparticle thermal conductivity of a $`d`$-wave superconductor at $`T0`$ is given by :

$$\frac{\kappa _0}{T}=\frac{k_B^2}{3\mathrm{}}\frac{n}{d}\left(\frac{v_F}{v_2}+\frac{v_2}{v_F}\right),$$
(1)
where $`n`$ is the number of $`\mathrm{CuO}_2`$ planes per unit cell and $`d`$ is the $`c`$-axis lattice constant. Here $`v_F`$ and $`v_2`$ are the quasiparticle velocities normal and tangential to the Fermi surface at the node, respectively. From ARPES measurements in cuprates, we note the the value of $`v_F`$ is doping independent over a broad range of dopings  and thus a study of the doping dependence of $`\kappa _0/T`$ is a study of the doping dependence of $`v_2`$, where $`v_2`$ is simply $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{}k_F}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }}{d\varphi }|_{node}`$, the slope of the superconducting gap at the nodes. In order to compare with measures of the gap maximum $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, we assume the pure $`d`$-wave form $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{cos2}\varphi `$ throughout the doping phase diagram, so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\mathrm{}k_Fv_2/2`$. In Fig. 2 we plot the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ vs. hole concentration $`p`$, estimated from $`T_c`$ . The value of the energy gap maximum in Bi-2212, determined by ARPES measurements in the superconducting state  and the normal state , is shown alongside our own data. For comparison, a plot of the weak-coupling BCS expectation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{BCS}}=2.14k_BT_c`$, is also displayed.

Despite a remarkable quantitative agreement with BCS theory in strongly overdoped cuprates , the value of the gap measured in the bulk at $`T=0`$ does not follow the trend expected from BCS theory in the underdoped regime, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ should scale with $`T_c`$. Rather, the gap seen by low energy quasiparticles follows closely the energy scale set by the pseudogap. This similarity in scaling points to a common origin, which allow us to say the following things on the nature of the pseudogap. First, due to the very existence of a residual linear term, the (total) gap seen in thermal conductivity at $`T0`$ is one that must have nodes. Secondly, it has a linear dispersion as in a $`d`$-wave gap (i.e. it has a Dirac-like spectrum). Thirdly, it is a quasiparticle gap and not just a spin gap. In summary these observations argue strongly for a superconducting origin to the pseudogap, and our measurements also rule out the possibility of a bulk order parameter of the type $`d+ix`$, appearing at a putative quantum phase transition.

This work was supported by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and NSERC of Canada.


text:
# Nonextensive Pesin identity. Exact renormalization group analytical results for the dynamics at the edge of chaos of the logistic map.

## Abstract

We show that the dynamical and entropic properties at the chaos threshold of the logistic map are naturally linked through the nonextensive expressions for the sensitivity to initial conditions and for the entropy. We corroborate analytically, with the use of the Feigenbaum renormalization group (RG) transformation, the equality between the generalized Lyapunov coefficient $`\lambda _q`$ and the rate of entropy production $`K_q`$ given by the nonextensive statistical mechanics. Our results advocate the validity of the $`q`$-generalized Pesin identity at critical points of one-dimensional nonlinear dissipative maps.

The nonextensive generalization of the Boltzmann Gibbs (BG) statistical mechanics ,  has recently raised much interest and provoked considerable debate  as to whether there is firm evidence for its applicability in circumstances where a system is out of the range of validity of the canonical BG theory. Recognition and understanding of the existence of such a limit of validity is a major concern in the development of present-day statistical physics. So, increased attention has been drawn to the examination of physical situations that do not satisfy the customary BG equilibrium conditions, e.g. insufficient randomness and limited or nonuniform motion over pertinent phase space that result in anomalous dynamical properties , . Within these several types of physical phenomena and connected model system properties , the critical states of one-dimensional non-linear dissipative maps stand out. It has become apparent  that they are bona fide examples where the predictions of the nonextensive generalization of the BG statistical mechanics are appropriate. Here we give analytical proof and numerical corroboration of the until now only conjectured  $`q`$-generalization of the Pesin identity between entropy production rate and Lyapunov exponent at the onset of chaos of unimodal maps. Beyond its intrinsic value as a means to study the dynamics of incipient chaotic states, this result has important implications regarding the suitability of the Tsallis entropy in describing a specific physical situation unreachable by BG statistics.

Recently, the predictions of the nonextensive theory have been rigorously proved for the pitchfork and tangent bifurcations and for the edge of chaos of logistic-type maps by means of the analytic renormalization group (RG) derivation  of the $`q`$-exponential expression,

$$\xi _t=\mathrm{exp}_q(\lambda _qt)[1(q1)\lambda _qt]^{1/(q1)},$$
(1)
for the sensitivity to initial conditions $`\xi _t`$ containing the entropic index $`q`$ and the $`q`$-generalized Lyapunov coefficient $`\lambda _q`$. Eq. (1) has been proposed  as the nonextensive counterpart to the usual exponential sensitivity $`\xi _t=\mathrm{exp}(\lambda _1t)`$ to initial conditions which prevails when the ordinary Lyapunov coefficient $`\lambda _1`$ is nonvanishing. (The BG exponential form is recovered when $`q1`$).

Pioneering work ,  on the dynamics at the edge of chaos of the logistic map was directed at the determination of the fluctuation spectrum of the algebraic Lyapunov coefficients $`\lambda _q`$. Here we focus on the entropic properties of trajectories at this state with the idea of investigating the existence of a generalized Pesin identity.

As a significant windfall of our RG calculations we now know the expressions for $`\lambda _q`$ at the mentioned critical states of logistic-like maps . These expressions have been interpreted in terms of the fixed-point map parameters and corroborated numerically via a priori calculations . Specifically, for the edge of chaos $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$ of the logistic map $`\lambda _q`$ (and $`q`$) are simply given by $`\lambda _q=\mathrm{ln}\alpha /\mathrm{ln}2`$ (and $`q=1\mathrm{ln}2/\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$) where $`\alpha `$ is the Feigenbaum’s universal constant that measures the power-law period-doubling spreading of iterate positions. Having reached this level of knowledge on $`\xi _t`$ and $`\lambda _q`$ it is only natural to enquire about its relationship with the entropic properties of trajectories at $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$. The Pesin formula that relates the Kolmogorov-Sinai (KS) entropy $`𝒦_1`$ (described below) and the Lyapunov coefficients of nonlinear maps has become an extremely useful tool for the quantitative analysis of the dynamics of chaotic states. This formula embodies the all-important connection between the loss of information measured by $`𝒦_1`$ and the Lyapunov coefficients $`\lambda _1^{(l)}`$ for chaotic states , . The general inequality $`𝒦_1\lambda _1^{(l)}`$ where the sum is over the $`\lambda _1^{(l)}>0`$ reduces for one-dimensional systems to the Pesin identity $`𝒦_1=\lambda _1`$, $`\lambda _1>0`$.

So, as a starting point we consider the $`q`$-generalized rate of entropy production $`K_q`$, defined via $`K_qt=S_q(t)S_q(0)`$, $`t`$ large, where

$$S_q\underset{i}{}p_i\mathrm{ln}_q\left(\frac{1}{p_i}\right)=\frac{1_i^Wp_i^q}{q1}$$
(2)
is the Tsallis entropy, and where $`\mathrm{ln}_qy(y^{1q}1)/(1q)`$ is the inverse of $`\mathrm{exp}_q(y)`$. In the limit $`q1`$ $`K_q`$ becomes $`K_1t^1[S_1(t)S_1(0)]`$ where $`S_1(t)=_{i=1}^Wp_i(t)\mathrm{ln}p_i(t)`$. In Eq. (2) $`p_i(t)`$ is the probability distribution obtained from the relative frequencies with which the positions of an ensemble of trajectories occur within cells $`i=1,\mathrm{},W`$ at iteration time $`t`$. The initial conditions for these trajectories have a prescribed distribution $`p_i(0)`$ and the phase space into which the map is defined is partitioned into a large number $`W`$ of disjoint cells of sizes $`l_i`$. As a difference from $`K_1`$ the KS entropy has a more elaborate definition since it considers the entire trajectories from their initial positions to the time limit $`t\mathrm{}`$ . The relationship between $`𝒦_1`$ and $`K_1`$ has been investigated for several chaotic maps  and it has been established that the equality $`𝒦_1=K_1`$ occurs during an intermediate stage in the evolution of the entropy $`S_1(t)`$, after an initial transient dependent on the initial distribution and before an asymptotic approach to a constant equilibrium value. The $`q`$-generalized KS entropy $`𝒦_q`$ is defined in the same manner as $`𝒦_1`$ but with the use of Eq. (2). Here we look into the analogous intermediate regime in which $`𝒦_q=K_q`$. As we shall see below it turns out to be sufficient to evaluate the rate $`K_q`$ for uniform initial distributions defined in a partition of equal-sized cells to establish the validity of the conjectured  form $`K_q=`$ $`\lambda _q`$ of the Pesin identity.

Next we recall that the logistic map, $`f_\mu (x)=1\mu x^2`$,$`1x1`$, exhibits several types of infinite sequences of critical points (with $`\lambda _1=0`$) as the control parameter $`\mu `$ varies across the interval $`0\mu 2`$. One such important sequence corresponds to the pitchfork bifurcations . The accumulation point of the pitchfork bifurcations is the Feigenbaum attractor that marks the dividing state between periodic and chaotic orbits, at $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}=1.40115\mathrm{}`$. A measure of the amplitudes of the periodic orbits is defined by the diameters $`d_n`$ ($`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$) of the ’bifurcation forks’ at the ’super-stable’ periodic orbits of lengths $`2^n`$ that contain the point $`x=0`$. These super-stable orbits occur at $`\overline{\mu }_n<\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$ and approach $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$ as $`\overline{\mu }_n\mu _{\mathrm{}}\delta ^n`$ ($`n`$ large) where $`\delta =0.46692\mathrm{}`$ is one of the two Feigenbaum’s universal constants. The diameter $`d_nf_{\overline{\mu }_n}^{(2^{n1})}(0)`$ is the iterate position closest to $`x=0`$ in such $`2^n`$-cycle. For large $`n`$ these distances have constant ratios $`d_n/d_{n+1}=\alpha `$, where $`\alpha =2.50290\mathrm{}`$ is the 2nd of the Feigenbaum’s constants . For clarity we use only the absolute values of positions so below $`d_n`$ means $`\left|d_n\right|`$.

The main points in the following analysis are: 1) We determine the evolution of all orbits at $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$, i.e. those with initial conditions $`x_{in}`$ belonging to the attractor, to the repeller, and to all other positions. 2) We obtain $`\xi _t`$ for any $`x_{in}`$ and find the remarkable property that Eq. (1) holds in general with the same fixed values for $`q`$ and $`\lambda _q`$ up to a time $`T=2^N`$ where $`N\mathrm{ln}x_{in}/\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$. 3) We observe that the position-independent form found for $`\lambda _q`$ implies that ensembles of trajectories expand in such a way that a uniform distribution of initial conditions remains uniform for all later times $`tT`$ where $`T`$ marks the crossover to an asymptotic regime. 4) As a consequence of this we establish the identity of the rate of entropy production $`K_q`$ with $`\lambda _q`$. We corroborate numerically all our findings.

In Fig. 1 we show the absolute values of the positions $`x_\tau `$ $`\left|f_\mu _{\mathrm{}}^{(\tau )}(x_{in})\right|`$ of two trajectories of the logistic map at $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$ in logarithmic scales. One corresponds to $`x_{in}=0`$; and the other one to $`x_{in}0.56023\mathrm{}`$, close to a repeller, the unstable solution of $`x=1\mu _{\mathrm{}}x^2`$. The 1st trajectory maps out the attractor while the 2nd exhibits a long-lived transient stretch as it falls into it. In Ref.  it was shown that a distinct fraction of the positions of the trajectory with $`x_{in}=0`$ consists of subsequences generated by the time subsequences $`\tau _k=2^n+2^{nk}`$, with $`k=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ and $`nk`$, and each of these exhibits the same power-law decay. The main subsequence ($`k=0`$) can be expressed (via a time variable shift $`t_0=\tau _01`$) as the $`q`$-exponential $`x_{t_0}=\mathrm{exp}_Q(\mathrm{\Lambda }_Qt_0)`$ with $`Q=1+\mathrm{ln}2/\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_Q=\mathrm{ln}\alpha /\mathrm{ln}2`$. The positions in the subsequences can be obtained from those belonging to the supercycles at $`\overline{\mu }_n<\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$. In particular, the subsequence for $`k=0`$ was identified as the diameter sequence $`x_{2^n}=d_n=`$ $`\alpha ^n`$. This property was shown to imply Eq. (1) with $`q=1\mathrm{ln}2/\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ and $`\lambda _q=\mathrm{ln}\alpha /\mathrm{ln}2`$. Notice that $`q=2Q`$ as $`\mathrm{exp}_q(y)=1/\mathrm{exp}_Q(y)`$.

We can extend considerably the above results. First, we note that the entire attractor can be decomposed into position subsequences associated with the same power-law decay, and that all subsequences are generated by the time subsequences $`\tau _k=(2k+1)2^{nk}`$. (The first position at $`\tau =2k+1`$ of each of the first $`8`$ subsequences can be identified among those labelled in Fig. 1). We make use of this time-position classification to point out that the positions $`x_{\tau _k}`$ of all trajectories with $`x_{in}<\alpha ^m`$, $`m=nk`$, are given by

$$x_{\tau _k}\left|g^{(\tau _k)}(x_{in})\right|\frac{g_k(0)}{\alpha ^m}+\frac{g_k^{\prime \prime }(0)}{2\alpha ^m}x_{in}^2,$$
(3)
where we have neglected terms of $`O(\alpha ^{3m}x_{in}^4)`$ and where $`g_kg^{(2k+1)}(x)`$ is the $`(2k+1)`$-th composition of the fixed-point map $`g(x)`$. Both $`g(x)`$ and $`g_k(x)`$ are solutions of the RG doubling transformation consisting of functional composition and rescaling, $`𝐑f(x)\alpha f(f(x/\alpha )`$. Eq. (3) is obtained by keeping the first two terms in the power-series expansion of $`g_k(x)`$  followed by use of $`g_k(x)=\alpha ^mg_k^{(2^m)}(x/\alpha ^m)`$ and the change of variable $`x_{in}\alpha ^mx`$. Considering a pair of initial conditions $`y_{in}`$ and $`x_{in}`$ in Eq. (3) yields

$$x_{\tau _k}(y_{in})x_{\tau _k}(x_{in})=[x_{2k+1}(y_{in})x_{2k+1}(x_{in})]\alpha ^m$$
(4)
For each subsequence $`k`$, the sensitivity $`\xi _{t_k}`$, defined as

$$\xi _{t_k}\underset{\left|y_{in}x_{in}\right|0}{lim}\frac{\left|x_{t_k}(y_{in})x_{t_k}(x_{in})\right|}{\left|x_{t_k=0}(y_{in})x_{t_k=0}(x_{in})\right|},$$
(5)
can be written, with use of the shifted time variable $`t_k\tau _k2k1`$ ($`nk`$), and observing that $`\alpha ^m=`$ $`(1+t_k/(2k+1))^{\mathrm{ln}\alpha /\mathrm{ln}2}`$, as the $`q`$-exponential

$$\xi _{t_k}=\mathrm{exp}_q\left[\lambda _q^{(k)}t_k\right],$$
(6)
where $`q=1\mathrm{ln}2/\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ and $`\lambda _q^{(k)}=\mathrm{ln}\alpha /((2k+1)\mathrm{ln}2)`$. The crossover time $`T=2^N`$ is determined from the condition $`x_{in}<\alpha ^N`$ in Eq. (3).

Let us consider next an ensemble of $`𝒩`$ trajectories with initial positions $`x_{in}`$ uniformly distributed along the interval $`[1l,1]`$, for transparency with $`1lg^{(3)}(0)`$. An arbitrary partition of $`[1l,1]`$ is made with a certain number $`I`$ of nonintersecting intervals of lengths $`l_i`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},I`$, with $`l=_il_i`$. For $`l`$ sufficiently small, under $`\tau _k=(2k+1)2^{nk}`$ iterations the lengths $`l_i`$ transform, according to Eq. (4), as $`l_i^{(\tau _k)}=\alpha ^ml_i`$. Since we also have $`l^{(\tau _k)}=\alpha ^ml`$, we observe that the interval ratios remain constant, that is $`l_i/l=l_i^{(\tau _k)}/l^{(\tau _k)}`$. Thus, the initial number of trajectories within each interval $`𝒩l_i/l`$ remains fixed for all times $`\tau <T`$, with the consequence that the original distribution is uniform for all times $`\tau <T`$.

We can now calculate the rate of entropy production. This is more easily done with the use of a partition of $`W`$ equal-sized cells of length $`l`$. Fig. 2 provides a striking corroboration of the time constancy of uniformity. This figure shows in logarithmic scales the evolution of a distribution $`p_i(\tau )`$ of positions of an ensemble of trajectories at $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$ beginning from a uniform distribution $`p_i(1)`$ of initial positions contained within a single cell of size $`l`$ adjacent to $`x=1`$. If we denote by $`W_{t_k}`$ the number of cells that the ensemble occupies at the shifted time $`t_k`$ and by $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_{t_k}`$ the total length of the interval these adjacent cells form, we have $`W_{t_k}=\mathrm{\Delta }x_{t_k}/l`$ and in the limit $`l0`$ (since $`W_{t_k}=(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{t_k}/\mathrm{\Delta }x_{t_k=0})(\mathrm{\Delta }x_{t_k=0}/l)`$) we obtain the remarkably simple result $`W_{t_k}=`$ $`\xi _{t_k}`$. As the distribution is uniform, and recalling Eq. (6) for $`\xi _{t_k}`$, the entropy is given by $`S_q(t_k)=\mathrm{ln}_qW_{t_k}=\lambda _q^{(k)}t_k,`$while

$$K_q^{(k)}=\lambda _q^{(k)},$$
(7)
as $`W_{t_k=0}=1`$. Eq. (7) is our main result. The numerical results shown in Fig. 3 substantiate and bring to light in a dramatic manner the validity of the $`q`$-generalized Pesin identity at $`\mu _{\mathrm{}}`$.

An interesting observation about the structure of the nonextensive formalism is that the equiprobability entropy expression $`\mathrm{ln}_qW_t`$ can be obtained not only from $`S_q`$ in Eq. (2) but also from

$$S_Q^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{W}{}}p_i\mathrm{ln}_Q(p_i),$$
(8)
where $`S_Q^{}=S_{2Q}=S_q`$. The inverse property of the $`q`$-exponential reads $`\mathrm{ln}_qy=\mathrm{ln}_{2q}(1/y)`$ for the $`q`$-logarithm and as pointed out introduces a pair of conjugate indexes $`Q=2q`$ with the consequence that while some theoretical features are equally expressed by both $`S_q`$ and $`S_Q^{}`$ some others appear only via the use of either $`S_q`$ or $`S_Q^{}`$. For instance, the canonical ensemble maximization of $`S_Q^{}`$ with the customary constraints $`_{i=1}^Wp_i=1`$ and $`_{i=1}^Wp_iϵ_i=U`$, where $`ϵ_i`$ and $`U`$ are configurational and average energies, respectively, leads to a $`Q`$-exponential weight (with $`Q>1`$ when $`q<1`$). On the other hand the partition function is obtained via the optimization of $`S_q`$. The mutual Eqs. (2) and (8) elegantly generalize the BG entropy.

We summarize our arguments and findings. Critical states with vanishing $`\lambda _1`$ in dissipative one-dimensional nonlinear maps display power law $`\xi _t`$. It is natural to expect this to imply a corresponding power law rate of entropy production linked to the dynamics of ensembles of trajectories. A connection between these two properties suggests an extension of the Pesin identity $`𝒦_1=\lambda _1`$, $`\lambda _1>0`$ that incorporates the case $`\lambda _1=0`$. But, interestingly, to study this situation formally one is required to develop a theory beyond the usual BG scheme for chaotic states that supplies generalizations for both the KS entropy and the Lyapunov exponent. One known source is the nonextensive statistics constructed around the Tsallis entropy $`S_q`$ as this offers specific and practicable expressions for these quantities. To make a meaningful analysis of this problem it is indispensable to carry out an explicit a priori determination of all quantities involved and here we have proved that this is indeed the case for a specific but prototypical example, the onset of chaos of the logistic map. We have shown  that the Feigenbaum RG method, from which the static fixed-point solution $`g(x)`$ was originally obtained, is also capable of delivering dynamical properties, most visibly the sensitivity $`\xi _t`$. It is important to stress that the derivation of $`\xi _t`$ does not use in any way the nonextensive formalism and for this reason it constitutes an independent corroboration of the expression for $`\xi _t`$ suggested by this theory. With an analytical expression for $`\lambda _q`$ in hand a parallel expression for the rate of energy production $`K_q`$ was here obtained from two ingredients: i) a distribution function $`p_i(t)`$ of positions for an ensemble of trajectories and ii) the Tsallis entropy $`S_q`$. Our main result, the generalized identity $`K_q=\lambda _q`$, necessitates that the equiprobability entropy has the precise analytical form $`\mathrm{ln}_qW_t`$ (with $`q=1\mathrm{ln}2/\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$) and to this extent distinguishes the Tsallis expression $`S_q`$ from other alternatives, including the BG $`S_1`$.

We have shown for the first time that the Pesin identity holds rigorously, albeit in a generalized form, for incipient chaotic states. Because the entropic index $`q`$ (as is the case of $`\lambda _q`$ and its identity $`K_q`$) is obtainable in terms of the Feigenbaum’s $`\alpha `$ we are able to address the much-asked question regarding the manner in which the index $`q`$ and related quantities are determined in a physical application. The generic chaotic state is that associated to $`\lambda _1>0`$, but it is evident that the critical state with $`\lambda _1=0`$ carries with it completely different physics. The analysis was specifically carried out for the Feigenbaum attractor of the logistic map but our findings clearly have a universal validity for the entire class of unimodal maps and its generalization to other degrees of nonlinearity. In a more general context our results indicate a limit of validity to the BG theory based on $`S_1`$ and the appropriateness of the nonextensive $`S_q`$ for this kind of critical dynamic states.

Acknowledgments. We would like to thank C. Tsallis and L.G. Moyano for useful discussions and encouragement, as well as the warm hospitality of the management of the Dolomites Refuge “Pian de Fontana”, where part of this work was inspired. AR was partially supported by CONACyT grant P40530-F (Mexican agency). FB has benefitted from partial support by CAPES, PRONEX, CNPq, and FAPERJ (Brazilian agencies).


text:
# Electromagnetic Waves in a Rotating Frame of Reference

## 1 Introduction

Electrodynamics of accelerated media and various electromagnetic measurements in non-inertial frames have been discussed from various points of view by a number of authors (see - and the references cited therein). We are interested in the phenomena associated with the coupling of photon spin with the rotation of the observer; therefore, this paper is devoted to a detailed discussion of helicity-rotation coupling.

Imagine an observer or a measuring device $`D`$ at the origin of a global inertial frame in Minkowski spacetime. The term “observer” will be used throughout in an extended sense to include any relevant measuring device; hence, as employed here an observer is not necessarily sentient. In terms of inertial coordinates $`x^\mu =(ct,x,y,z)`$, the background metric is $`ds^2=\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu `$, where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the Minkowski metric tensor with signature $`+2`$. Units are chosen such that $`c=1`$; nevertheless, we keep $`c`$ in many of the formulas for the sake of clarity. Let the observer $`D`$ refer its observations to spatial axes that rotate uniformly with frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$; that is, $`D`$ rotates uniformly while its center of mass is at rest at the origin of spatial coordinates. Choosing the fixed axis of rotation to be the $`z`$-axis, we can write the tetrad frame of the class of rotating observers at rest on the axis of rotation as

$`\lambda _{(0)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(1,0,0,0),`$
$`\lambda _{(1)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(0,\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,0),`$ (1)
$`\lambda _{(2)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(0,\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,0),`$
$`\lambda _{(3)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,1),`$
where $`\varphi =\mathrm{\Omega }t+\phi `$. Here $`\phi `$ is a constant angular parameter for each observer; for the reference observer $`D`$, we choose $`\phi _D=0`$.

Consider now a geodesic coordinate system established along the worldline of the fiducial observer $`D`$ . That is, at any instant of proper time $`t`$ along the worldline of $`D`$ at event $`x_D^\mu `$, we consider the spacelike hyperplane orthogonal to the worldline. Let $`x^\mu `$ be the inertial coordinates at an event on this hyperplane and $`x^\mu `$ be the corresponding coordinates with respect to the geodesic coordinate system. Then $`x^0=ct`$ and $`x^i=(x^\mu x_D^\mu )\lambda _\mu ^{(i)}`$. This geometric construction provides the justification for the use of the standard coordinate transformation $`x^\mu x^\mu `$, where

$`t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`t,`$
$`x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`x\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t+y\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t,`$ (2)
$`y^{}`$ $`=`$ $`x\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t+y\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t,`$
$`z^{}`$ $`=`$ $`z.`$
We are interested in the results of measurements of the class of fundamental observers (i.e. those at rest) in this rotating coordinate system. Each such observer is noninertial and rotates uniformly with speed $`\beta c=\mathrm{\Omega }\rho `$ on a circle of radius $`\rho =\sqrt{x^2+y^2}`$ around the $`z`$-axis. The tetrad frame $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\alpha )}^\mu `$ of a fundamental observer can be obtained from (1) by a Lorentz transformation (see Figure 1)

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(0)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\gamma [\lambda _{(0)}^\mu +\beta \lambda _{(2)}^\mu ]`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(1)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{(1)}^\mu `$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(2)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\gamma [\lambda _{(2)}^\mu +\beta \lambda _{(0)}^\mu ]`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(3)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{(3)}^\mu .`$
Thus we have

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(0)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (1,\beta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\beta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,0),`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(1)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(0,\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,0),`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(2)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (\beta ,\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,0),`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(3)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,1),`$
where $`\gamma =(1\beta ^2)^{1/2}`$ and (4) reduces to (1) for $`\rho =0`$. The worldlines representing these fundamental rotating observers that are static in the rotating coordinate system fill an open cylindrical region in Minkowski spacetime around the worldline of $`D`$; the boundary of this region is the light cylinder given by $`\rho =c/\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The light cylinder is a timelike hypersurface; therefore, observers inside this cylinder can in principle communicate with the outside world without any difficulty.

Expressed in terms of the $`(t^{},x^{},y^{},z^{})`$ coordinate system, the tetrad of the fundamental observer at $`x^{}=\rho \mathrm{cos}\phi ,y^{}=\rho \mathrm{sin}\phi `$ and $`z^{}=z`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(0)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (1,0,0,0),`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(1)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(0,\mathrm{cos}\phi ,\mathrm{sin}\phi ,0),`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(2)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(\gamma \beta ,\gamma ^1\mathrm{sin}\phi ,\gamma ^1\mathrm{cos}\phi ,0),`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(3)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,1).`$
Moreover, the spacetime metric in the rotating frame is given by
$`ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }^{}(x^{})dx^\mu dx^\nu `$, where

$$(g_{\mu \nu }^{})=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1+\mathrm{\Omega }^2(x^2+y^2)& \mathrm{\Omega }y^{}& \mathrm{\Omega }x^{}& 0\\ \mathrm{\Omega }y^{}& 1& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{\Omega }x^{}& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right]$$
(6)
and the rotating coordinates are admissible within the light cylinder. The limitations of spacetime measurements by rotating observers have been discussed in detail in . In this paper, we are interested in the electromagnetic measurements of rotating observers. Imagine an electromagnetic radiation field characterized by the Faraday tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ in the inertial frame. For the sake of simplicity we assume that $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is complex and the actual field is Re$`(F_{\mu \nu })`$. This simplifying assumption is adopted throughout this paper, since all of the field operations that we consider are linear. The standard assumption in the theory of special relativity regarding what an accelerated observer would measure is the *hypothesis of locality*, namely, the supposition that a noninertial observer is at each instant equivalent to an otherwise identical momentarily comoving inertial observer. Along its worldline, the noninertial observer thus passes through a continuous infinity of hypothetical momentarily comoving inertial observers . The decomposition of $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ into its Fourier components each with wave vector k and frequency $`\omega =c|𝐤|`$ implies that at each instant of time the noninertial observer measures

$`\omega ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (\omega 𝐯𝐤),`$ (7)
$`𝐤^{}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐤+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v^2}}(\gamma 1)(𝐯𝐤)𝐯{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^2}}\gamma \omega 𝐯,`$ (8)
according to the standard relativistic formulas for Doppler effect and aberration. Since $`\omega ^{}`$ and $`\text{k}^{}`$ in general change with time from one instant to the next and a few periods of the wave must be registered by the observer in any case before $`\omega ^{}`$ and $`𝐤^{}`$ can be determined, we conclude that the instantaneous formulas (7)-(8) are only valid for $`\omega \mathrm{}`$, i.e. in the *eikonal limit*. Alternatively, the hypothesis of locality may be employed for the instantaneous measurement of the electromagnetic field

$$F_{(\alpha )(\beta )}=F_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\alpha )}^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\beta )}^\nu ,$$
(9)
which could then be subjected to the nonlocal process of Fourier analysis to reveal the frequency and wave vector content of the field. This procedure will be illustrated using concrete examples in Section 2. In Section 3 we consider the field equations for $`F_{\mu \nu }^{}`$, which has the interpretation of the Faraday tensor in the curvilinear coordinate system. According to the fundamental observers in the rotating frame, the observables are still

$$F_{(\alpha )(\beta )}=F_{\mu \nu }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\alpha )}^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\beta )}^\nu ,$$
(10)
so that $`F_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ is an auxiliary field. That is, $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ in (9) is the field measured by the fundamental static inertial observers, but $`F_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ does not have a similar significance. The phenomena associated with spin-rotation-gravity coupling are briefly described in Section 4, which also contains a discussion of some of the observational consequences of spin-gravity coupling. Finally, we summarize our results and conclusions in Section 5.

## 2 Measurements of rotating observers

Let us consider the frequency and wave vector content of electromagnetic radiation on the basis of Fourier analysis of the measured field as described by the local equation (9). We assume that the plane monochromatic radiation field is given in the intertial frame by

$$𝐄(t,𝐫)=A(\widehat{𝐲}\pm i\widehat{𝐧})e^{i\omega (t\widehat{𝐤}𝐫)}$$
(11)
and $`𝐁=\widehat{𝐤}\times 𝐄`$, where $`A`$ is a constant complex amplitude and

$$\widehat{𝐤}=\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{𝐱}+\mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{𝐳},\widehat{𝐧}=\widehat{𝐤}\times \widehat{𝐲}=\mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{𝐱}+\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{𝐳}.$$
(12)
The upper (lower) sign in equation (11) indicates a positive (negative) helicity wave. We concentrate on the fiducial observer $`D`$ at $`𝐫=0`$ and compute $`F_{(\alpha )(\beta )}`$. It turns out that in this case $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$ simply transform as three-vectors under a rotation. It is therefore sufficient to consider the electric field measured by $`D`$, i.e. $`E_{(i)}=F_{(0)(i)}`$,

$`E_{(1)}=𝐄\widehat{𝐱^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`E_1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t+E_2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t,`$
$`E_{(2)}=𝐄\widehat{𝐲^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`E_1\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t+E_2\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t,`$ (13)
$`E_{(3)}=𝐄\widehat{𝐳^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`E_3.`$
Thus we find that

$`E_{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`A(\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }ti\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t)e^{i\omega t},`$
$`E_{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`A(\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t\pm i\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t)e^{i\omega t},`$ (14)
$`E_{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm iA\mathrm{sin}\theta e^{i\omega t}.`$
The Fourier analysis of these equations over all time results in $`\omega ^{}=\omega m\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`m=0,\pm 1`$. That is, $`E_{(1)}`$ and $`E_{(2)}`$ contain the frequency $`\omega ^{}=\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ with amplitudes $`(m=+1)`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{+(1)}^{}=\frac{1}{2}iA(1\pm \mathrm{cos}\theta ),\mathrm{\Psi }_{+(2)}^{}=\frac{1}{2}A(1\pm \mathrm{cos}\theta ),$$
(15)
respectively. For $`m=1`$, $`E_{(1)}`$ and $`E_{(2)}`$ contain the frequency $`\omega ^{}=\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with amplitudes

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{(1)}^{}=\frac{1}{2}iA(1\mathrm{cos}\theta ),\mathrm{\Psi }_{(2)}^{}=\frac{1}{2}A(1\mathrm{cos}\theta ),$$
(16)
respectively. For $`m=0`$, $`E_{(3)}`$ contains the frequency $`\omega ^{}=\omega `$ with amplitude $`\pm iA\mathrm{sin}\theta `$.

Comparing $`\omega ^{}=\omega m\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with equation (7), which implies that
$`\omega ^{}(`$Doppler$`)=\omega `$, we recognize that our result approaches the Doppler formula as $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega 0`$, i.e. in the ray limit. This circumstance is entirely analogous to the quasi-classical approximation in wave mechanics. In this connection, let us compute the average frequency measured by the observer $`D`$,

$$<\omega ^{}>=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }\omega ^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|^2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|^2}=(\omega \mathrm{\Omega })P_++\omega P_0+(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega })P_{},$$
(17)
where the summations contain five terms each involving the amplitudes mentioned above. We find that

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`2|A|^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }\omega ^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`2|A|^2(\omega \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$
$`P_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(1\pm \mathrm{cos}\theta )^2,`$ (18)
$`P_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,`$
$`P_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2,`$
so that $`<\omega ^{}>=\omega \mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cos}\theta `$.

It is important to provide proper physical interpretations for $`P_0`$ and $`P_\pm `$. To this end, let us recall that for a particle of spin $`\mathrm{}`$, the eigenstates of the particle with respect to the coordinate system $`(\widehat{𝐲},\widehat{𝐧},\widehat{𝐤})`$ can be transformed to the $`(\widehat{𝐱},\widehat{𝐲},\widehat{𝐳})`$ system using the matrix $`(𝒟_{mm^{}}^j)`$ for $`j=1`$ given by

$$\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & \frac{1}{2}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \frac{1}{2}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta & \frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta )\end{array}\right].$$
(19)
Thus a photon with definite helicity has an amplitude proportional to

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \mathrm{cos}\theta )\\ \pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \frac{1}{2}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )\end{array}\right],$$
(20)
where the upper (lower) sign refers to positive (negative) helicity. This result is simply obtained from the application of (19) on the helicity states and therefore corresponds to the first and third columns of (19) for positive and negative helicity states, respectively. Thus the probability that a photon of definite helicity has spin $`\mathrm{}`$ along the direction of rotation of the observer, i.e. $`m=1`$, is $`P_+`$ from (20) and (18). Similarly for spin zero along the $`z`$-axis, i.e. $`m=0`$, we get $`P_0`$ and for spin $`\mathrm{}`$ along the $`z`$-axis, i.e. $`m=1`$, we get from (20) the same result as $`P_{}`$ given in (18). It follows from a comparison of these results with (17) that in the formula $`\omega ^{}=\omega m\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`m\mathrm{}`$ represents the projection of photon spin along the rotation axis of the observer, so that there is a coupling between the spin of the photon and the rotation of the observer .

Using the helicity vector $`\widehat{𝐇}=\pm \widehat{𝐤}`$, the average frequency measured by the observer $`D`$ is $`<\omega ^{}>=\omega \widehat{𝐇}𝛀`$, which again illustrates the phenomenon of helicity-rotation coupling. Based on the quasi-classical derivation given here, this result is expected to hold in the eikonal approximation $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega <<1`$; moreover, it can be shown  that this result follows directly from (14) if we assume that the time scale for observations in the noninertial frame — which must necessarily extend over many periods of the wave — is much shorter than $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$.

Let us next consider the wave vector measured by the fiducial observer $`D`$. For this purpose, we need to consider an extended region, i.e. a cylindrical neighborhood around $`D`$ of radius $`\rho _0<c/\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and compute the Fourier integral

$$\widehat{F}_{(\alpha )(\beta )}(t,𝐤^{})=F_{(\alpha )(\beta )}(t,𝐫^{})e^{i𝐤^{}𝐫^{}}d^3r^{}$$
(21)
at a given time $`t`$. The integration is carried out over the region with $`0\rho <\rho _0`$, $`0\phi <2\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{}<z<\mathrm{}`$. We note here the operational problem of synchronization among the fundamental observers; this is related to the Sagnac effect  that is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the cylindrical region. Moreover, it is important to recognize that with data given over length $`L`$, only wavelengths less than $`L`$ can be determined with any accuracy . Since the fundamental observers employed in (21) are confined within the cylinder of radius $`\rho _0`$, our calculations would make sense for $`|k_x^{}|>\rho _0^1`$ and $`|k_y^{}|>\rho _0^1`$.

Computing the Faraday tensor $`F_{(\alpha )(\beta )}`$ as measured by the fundamental observers, we find using (9) that in general

$`E_{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (E_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi +E_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi )+\beta \gamma B_3,`$
$`E_{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`E_1\mathrm{sin}\varphi +E_2\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,`$
$`E_{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma E_3\beta \gamma (B_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi +B_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi ),`$
$`B_{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (B_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi +B_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi )\beta \gamma E_2,`$ (22)
$`B_{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`B_1\mathrm{sin}\varphi +B_2\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,`$
$`B_{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma B_3+\beta \gamma (E_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi +E_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi ).`$
In the inertial frame $`𝐄`$ is given by (11) and $`𝐁=i𝐄`$. Evaluating (22), we find that it is sufficient for the rest of this discussion to concentrate on the electric field

$$E_{(i)}=Ae_{(i)}e^{i\omega t+i𝐤𝐫},$$
(23)
where $`e_{(i)}`$ are given by

$`e_{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (i\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi +\mathrm{sin}\varphi +\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta ),`$
$`e_{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm i\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi +\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,`$ (24)
$`e_{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (\pm i\mathrm{sin}\theta +\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \pm i\beta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ).`$
The Fourier integral (21) then reduces to

$$\widehat{E}_{(i)}(t,𝐤^{})=2\pi A\delta (k_zk_z^{})e^{i\omega t}\widehat{e}_{(i)}.$$
(25)
Here $`\widehat{e}_{(i)}`$ is given by

$$\widehat{e}_{(i)}=_0^{\rho _0}_0^{2\pi }e_{(i)}e^{i\rho u\mathrm{cos}(\phi +\nu )}\rho 𝑑\rho 𝑑\phi ,$$
(26)
where $`u=\sqrt{u_x^2+u_y^2}`$,

$`u_x=u\mathrm{cos}\nu `$ $`=`$ $`k_x\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t+k_y\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }tk_x^{},`$ (27)
$`u_y=u\mathrm{sin}\nu `$ $`=`$ $`k_x\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t+k_y\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }tk_y^{}.`$ (28)
The integration over $`\phi `$ in (26) can be carried out using

$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}e^{i\rho u\mathrm{cos}(\phi +\nu )}𝑑\phi `$ $`=`$ $`2\pi J_0(\rho u),`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}\mathrm{cos}\varphi e^{i\rho u\mathrm{cos}(\phi +\nu )}d\phi `$ $`=`$ $`2\pi i\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t\nu )J_1(\rho u),`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}\mathrm{sin}\varphi e^{i\rho u\mathrm{cos}(\phi +\nu )}d\phi `$ $`=`$ $`2\pi i\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }t\nu )J_1(\rho u),`$ (31)
where $`J_n(\rho u)`$ is the Bessel function of order $`n`$. It is clear from (25) that $`k_z^{}=k_z`$ as measured by $`D`$. Moreover, in close analogy with (17), we define the average of any function $`Q(k_x^{},k_y^{})`$ measured by $`D`$ as

$$<Q(k_x^{},k_y^{})>=\frac{Q(k_x^{},k_y^{})𝒲𝑑k_x^{}𝑑k_y^{}}{𝒲𝑑k_x^{}𝑑k_y^{}},$$
(32)
where $`𝒲=|\widehat{e}_{(1)}|^2+|\widehat{e}_{(2)}|^2+|\widehat{e}_{(3)}|^2.`$

To carry out the remaining integrations, we make a further simplifying assumption, namely, that $`\rho _0c/\mathrm{\Omega }`$; this is consistent with the eikonal approximation. It then turns out that to lowest order, i.e. neglecting terms proportional to $`\beta 1`$ in (24) and setting $`\gamma 1`$, $`𝒲`$ is only a function of $`u`$. Thus $`<u_x>=<u_y>=0`$, so that $`<k_x^{}>=𝐤\widehat{𝐱^{}}`$ and $`<k_y^{}>=𝐤\widehat{𝐲^{}}`$ using (27) and (28), respectively. We therefore conclude that in this eikonal approximation $`<𝐤^{}>=𝐤`$ and $`<\omega ^{}>=\omega \widehat{𝐇}𝛀`$ for the observer $`D`$. Applying a somewhat extended form of the hypothesis of locality, we may argue that the measurement of any fundamental observer in the rotating frame is approximately related to that of $`D`$ by a Lorentz transformation . It follows that for such a fundamental observer with velocity $`𝐯`$,

$`<\omega ^{}>=\gamma [(\omega \widehat{𝐇}𝛀)𝐯𝐤],`$ (33)
$`<𝐤^{}>=𝐤+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v^2}}(\gamma 1)(𝐯𝐤)𝐯{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^2}}\gamma (\omega \widehat{𝐇}𝛀)𝐯.`$ (34)
The physical consequences of these results, i.e. the modified Doppler and aberration formulas, have been studied for interferometry with polarized light in rotating frames, Doppler tracking of spacecraft, etc. in . Moreover, the observational evidence for helicity-rotation coupling in the radio, microwave and optical domains is presented in .

Our analysis in this section started with the Fourier decomposition of the field (14) measured by the observer $`D`$. In fact, the analysis can be repeated for any uniformly rotating observer with the result that $`\omega ^{}=\gamma (\omega M\mathrm{\Omega })`$, where $`M=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$, is such that $`\mathrm{}M`$ is the $`z`$-component of the *total* angular momentum $`𝐉`$ of the radiation field. In the eikonal approximation $`𝐉=𝐋+𝐒`$, where $`𝐋=\mathrm{}𝐫\times 𝐤`$ and $`𝐒=\mathrm{}\widehat{𝐇}`$, so that with $`𝐯=𝛀\times 𝐫`$ we recover equation (33) in the eikonal approximation. Let us remark here that (33) and (34) are intermediate relations between the standard instantaneous Doppler and aberration formulas (7)-(8) and the results of Fourier analysis based on extended intervals of time and space. Therefore, (33) is valid for observations that extend over an interval of time $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$, while (34) is valid for measurements over a cylindrical region around the observer with radius $`c/\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The general formula $`\omega ^{}=\gamma (\omega M\mathrm{\Omega })`$ has a consequence that must be pointed out: $`\omega ^{}=0`$ if $`\omega =M\mathrm{\Omega }`$, i.e. the electromagnetic wave can stand completely still for the whole set of fundamental observers. That is, by a mere rotation the incident monochromatic radiation can be rendered static. This circumstance is contrary to the spirit of relativity theory, where light travels with speed $`c`$ regardless of the motion of inertial observers. In fact, there is no observational evidence to date that any noninertial observer can be comoving with an electromagnetic wave. In view of this situation, a nonlocal theory of accelerated observers has been developed that takes the past history of the observer into account and is based on the assumption that a basic radiation field can never stand completely still with respect to any observer \[18-20\]. To illustrate this nonlocal theory in the case of electrodynamics, we consider an observer that moves uniformly parallel to the $`y`$-axis with $`x=r`$ and speed $`c\beta =r\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for $`t<0`$, but at $`t=0`$ starts uniform rotation with frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on a circle of radius $`r`$ in the $`(x,y)`$-plane. The angle of rotation after time $`t>0`$ is given by $`\varphi =\mathrm{\Omega }t=\gamma \mathrm{\Omega }\tau `$, where $`\tau `$ is the proper time of the accelerated observer. According to the nonlocal theory, the field measured by the observer is given by (22) plus nonlocal contributions (that vanish as $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega 0`$) as follows

$`_1=E_{(1)}+\gamma ^2\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle _0^\tau }(\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^{}E_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^{}E_2)𝑑\tau ^{},`$
$`_2=E_{(2)}+\gamma \mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle _0^\tau }(\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^{}E_1+\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^{}E_2)𝑑\tau ^{},`$
$`_3=E_{(3)}\beta \gamma ^2\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle _0^\tau }(\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^{}B_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^{}B_2)𝑑\tau ^{},`$
$`_1=B_{(1)}+\gamma ^2\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle _0^\tau }(\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^{}B_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^{}B_2)𝑑\tau ^{},`$ (35)
$`_2=B_{(2)}+\gamma \mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle _0^\tau }(\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^{}B_1+\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^{}B_2)𝑑\tau ^{},`$
$`_3=B_{(3)}+\beta \gamma ^2\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle _0^\tau }(\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^{}E_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^{}E_2)𝑑\tau ^{}.`$
The physical predictions of nonlocal electrodynamics have been described in detail before (see - and the references cited therein); the theory agrees with all available observational data at present. In particular, the general result for spin-rotation coupling, $`\omega ^{}=\gamma (\omega M\mathrm{\Omega })`$, is valid except for the case in which $`\omega =M\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and according to the hypothesis of locality the radiation field becomes static and comoving with the uniformly rotating observers. Using (35), however, we find that $``$ and $``$ are not static for $`\omega ^{}=0`$ and behave as in the case of resonance. Moreover, the nonlocal theory predicts that helicity-rotation coupling in general affects the amplitude of the measured field as well. For instance, an observer rotating with frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the positive (negative) sense about the direction of propagation of a plane positive-helicity wave of frequency $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ would find that the amplitude of the field is larger (smaller) by a factor that is given approximately by $`1+\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega `$ $`(1\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega )`$. It is important to test experimentally such a prediction of the nonlocal theory of accelerated observers.

## 3 Wave propagation

To describe the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a rotating frame of reference, it is useful to employ the Skrotskii formalism -. Let $`F_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ be the Faraday tensor in terms of curvilinear coordinates such that $`F_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =F_{\rho \sigma }^{}dx^\rho dx^\sigma `$. We then require that the coordinates be quasi-Cartesian; in fact, this is the case in (6) since $`g_{\mu \nu }^{}\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ as $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$. Now consider the standard decompositions $`F_{\mu \nu }^{}(𝐄^{},𝐁^{})`$ and $`\sqrt{g^{}}F^{\mu \nu }(𝐃^{},𝐇^{})`$, so that Maxwell’s equations in the curvilinear coordinates — i.e. $`F_{\mu \nu ,\rho }^{}+F_{\nu \rho ,\mu }^{}+F_{\rho \mu ,\nu }^{}=0`$ and $`(\sqrt{g^{}}F^{\mu \nu })_{,\nu }=0`$ — take their flat spacetime form but in the presence of a “medium” with special constitutive properties characteristic of a gyrotropic medium. That is,

$`D_i^{}=ϵ_{ij}E_j^{}(𝐆\times 𝐇^{})_i,`$ (36)
$`B_i^{}=\mu _{ij}H_j^{}+(𝐆\times 𝐄^{})_i,`$ (37)
where the dielectric and permeability tensors are equal,

$$ϵ_{ij}=\mu _{ij}=\frac{\sqrt{g^{}}g^{ij}}{g_{00}^{}}$$
(38)
and the gyrotropic vector $`𝐆`$ — representing the rotational motion of the medium — is given by

$$G_i=\frac{g_{0i}^{}}{g_{00}^{}}.$$
(39)
Let us next define the Kramers vectors $`𝐅^\pm `$ and $`𝐒^\pm `$ in terms of the complex fields $`𝐄^{},𝐁^{},𝐃^{}`$ and $`𝐇^{}`$ as follows

$$𝐅^\pm =𝐄^{}\pm i𝐇^{},𝐒^\pm =𝐃^{}\pm i𝐁^{}.$$
(40)
The field equations may then be expressed as

$$^{}𝐒^\pm =0,^{}\times 𝐅^\pm =\pm i\frac{𝐒^\pm }{t}$$
(41)
and the constitutive relations become

$$S_k^\pm =ϵ_{kj}F_j^\pm \pm i(𝐆\times 𝐅^\pm )_k.$$
(42)
The “medium” under consideration here is stationary; therefore, it is useful to assume a temporal dependence of the form exp$`(i\omega t)`$ with $`\omega >0`$ for all field quantities. Here $`\omega `$ is the frequency of the mode under consideration. Equations (41) and (42) then reduce to a single wave equation for $`𝐅^\pm `$,

$$^{}\times 𝐅^\pm =\pm \omega (ϵ𝐅^\pm \pm i𝐆\times 𝐅^\pm ).$$
(43)
It is important to recognize that in the absence of the “medium”, $`𝐅^+`$ is the complex amplitude for a wave of positive helicity; that is, it represents a right circularly polarized (RCP) wave. On the other hand, $`𝐅^{}`$ is the complex amplitude for a wave of negative helicity; that is, it represents a left circularly polarized (LCP) wave. In what follows we will keep these designations even in the presence of the medium since they are recovered in the limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$.

According to the hypothesis of locality, the actual field strength measured by the observer is given by the projection of the Faraday tensor on the orthonormal tetrad frame of the observer; therefore, in agreement with (10),

$$F_{(\alpha )(\beta )}^{}=F_{\mu \nu }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\alpha )}^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\beta )}^\nu =F_{(\alpha )(\beta )},$$
(44)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(\alpha )}^\mu `$ is given by (5). We find that

$`E_{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (E_1^{}\mathrm{cos}\phi +E_2^{}\mathrm{sin}\phi ),`$
$`E_{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`E_1^{}\mathrm{sin}\phi +E_2^{}\mathrm{cos}\phi ,`$
$`E_{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma E_3^{},`$
$`B_{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^1(B_1^{}\mathrm{cos}\phi +B_2^{}\mathrm{sin}\phi )\beta \gamma E_3^{},`$ (45)
$`B_{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`B_1^{}\mathrm{sin}\phi +B_2^{}\mathrm{cos}\phi ,`$
$`B_{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^1B_3^{}+\beta \gamma (E_1^{}\mathrm{cos}\phi +E_2^{}\mathrm{sin}\phi ).`$
The nonlocal aspects of the measurement process may be taken into account as in (35).

It follows from the form of the metric (6) that $`\sqrt{g^{}}=1`$ and $`g^{ij}=\delta _{ij}(𝛀\times 𝐱^{})_i(𝛀\times 𝐱^{})_j`$; therefore, (38) and (39) imply that in this case

$$ϵ=\gamma ^2\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1\mathrm{\Omega }^2y^2& \mathrm{\Omega }^2x^{}y^{}& 0\\ \mathrm{\Omega }^2x^{}y^{}& 1\mathrm{\Omega }^2x^2& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right]$$
(46)
and

$$𝐆=\gamma ^2𝛀\times 𝐱^{},$$
(47)
where $`\gamma ^2=1\mathrm{\Omega }^2(x^2+y^2)`$. Introducing cylindrical coordinates $`(\rho ,\phi ,z)`$ such that $`x^{}=\rho \mathrm{cos}\phi ,y^{}=\rho \mathrm{sin}\phi `$ and $`z^{}=z`$, we find that (43) can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{F_z^\pm }{\phi }}{\displaystyle \frac{F_\phi ^\pm }{z}}i\omega \beta \gamma ^2F_z^\pm =\pm \omega \gamma ^2F_\rho ^\pm ,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_\rho ^\pm }{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_z^\pm }{\rho }}=\pm \omega F_\phi ^\pm ,`$ (48)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\rho }}(\rho F_\phi ^\pm ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{F_\rho ^\pm }{\phi }}+i\omega \beta \gamma ^2F_\rho ^\pm =\pm \omega \gamma ^2F_z^\pm .`$
Let us look for a solution of these equations that is of the form

$$𝐅^\pm =𝒜_\pm e^{i\omega t+ikz}e^{im\phi }𝐟^\pm ,$$
(49)
where $`𝒜_+`$ and $`𝒜_{}`$ are constant amplitudes, $`𝐟^\pm `$ depends only on the radial coordinate $`\rho `$, $`m`$ is an integer and $`k`$ is a constant wave number. The system (48) then reduces to

$`\pm a\gamma ^2f_\rho ^\pm +ibf_\phi ^\pm i({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\beta }}a\beta \gamma ^2)f_z^\pm =0,`$
$`ibf_\rho ^\pm af_\phi ^\pm {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\beta }}f_z^\pm =0,`$ (50)
$`i({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\beta }}a\beta \gamma ^2)f_\rho ^\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\beta }}(\beta f_\phi ^\pm )\pm a\gamma ^2f_z^\pm =0,`$
where $`a=\omega /\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`b=k/\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In the first two equations of (50), $`f_\rho ^\pm `$ and $`f_\phi ^\pm `$ can be expressed in terms of $`f_z^\pm `$ and $`\frac{df_z^\pm }{d\beta }`$; then, the substitution of these relations in the last equation results in a single second-order linear differential equation for $`f_z^\pm `$,

$$\frac{d^2f_z^\pm }{d\beta ^2}+\frac{1}{\beta }\frac{a^2b^2b^2\beta ^2}{a^2b^2+b^2\beta ^2}\frac{df_z^\pm }{d\beta }+𝒱_\pm (\beta )f_z^\pm =0,$$
(51)
where $`𝒱_\pm `$ is given by

$$𝒱_\pm =a^2\gamma ^2b^2\frac{1}{\beta ^2\gamma ^2}(ma\beta ^2\gamma ^2)^22b\gamma ^2\frac{a^2+mab^2}{a^2\gamma ^2b^2}.$$
(52)
In the physical region $`0\beta <1`$, (51) has regular singularities at $`\beta =0`$, $`\sqrt{1a^2/b^2}`$ for $`a^2<b^2`$ and $`\beta =1`$; therefore, one can in general find series solutions around any point using Frobenius’s method provided that such series solutions are convergent over the region of interest.

Let us note that near the axis of rotation, $`\beta 0`$, the behavior of $`f_z^\pm `$ can be determined from (51)-(52) to be $`f_z^\pm \beta ^p`$, where $`p^2=m^2`$. This is exactly the same as in the familiar case of the solution of the Schrödinger equation for an electron in a constant magnetic field. We choose $`p=|m|`$, so that $`f_z^\pm `$ is regular on the axis of rotation.

It is important to put equation (51) in a standard form. To this end, let us first assume that $`b=0`$. Then (51) takes the form of Bessel’s equation

$$\beta ^2\frac{d^2f_z^\pm }{d\beta ^2}+\beta \frac{df_z^\pm }{d\beta }+[(a+m)^2\beta ^2m^2]f_z^\pm =0.$$
(53)
Thus for radiation propagating orthogonal to the axis of rotation, the solutions are of the form $`f_z^\pm =J_m(\widehat{\beta })`$, where $`\widehat{\beta }=(a+m)\beta `$.

Let us next assume that $`a^2=b^20`$, corresponding to a wave propagating along the axis of rotation with $`\omega ^2=k^2`$. Then, equation (51) takes the form

$$\beta ^2\frac{d^2f_z^\pm }{d\beta ^2}\beta \frac{df_z^\pm }{d\beta }+m[(m+2a)\beta ^2(m\pm 2\frac{b}{a})]f_z^\pm =0.$$
(54)
For $`m=0`$, (54) has the simple solution $`f_z^\pm =\frac{1}{2}\beta ^2+K_\pm `$, where $`K_+`$ and $`K_{}`$ are integration constants. Equations (50) can then be used to calculate $`f_\rho ^\pm `$ and $`f_\phi ^\pm `$. To ensure that these functions do not diverge on the axis $`(\beta =0)`$, we must choose $`K_\pm =\pm \mathrm{\Omega }/k`$. It then follows that

$$f_\rho ^\pm =i(\pm \frac{1}{2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{k})\beta ,f_\phi ^\pm =\frac{1}{2}\frac{k}{\omega }\beta ,f_z^\pm =\frac{1}{2}\beta ^2\pm \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{k}$$
(55)
is a solution of (50) that disappears for $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$. We therefore have a solution of Maxwell’s equation in the rotating frame once we choose $`𝒜_+`$ and $`𝒜_{}`$ in (49); for the sake of simplicity, we consider a positive helicity wave with $`𝒜_+=1`$ and $`𝒜_{}=0`$. It is interesting to determine in this case the corresponding fields $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$ measured by the static inertial observers in the background global frame. A detailed calculation shows that in the inertial frame the electromagnetic field has positive helicity as well and is given by the real part of

$$𝐄=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{4k}\left[\begin{array}{c}ikx\omega y\\ \omega xiky\\ 2\end{array}\right]e^{i\omega t+ikz}$$
(56)
and $`𝐁=i𝐄`$. We note that in this case these free fields in the inertial frame with $`\omega ^2=k^2`$ are divergent for $`\rho \mathrm{}`$.

Finally, we consider the general case with $`b0`$ and $`a^2b^2`$. Let $`f_z^\pm =\beta ^{|m|}\psi _\pm (\xi )`$, where $`\xi =(1a^2/b^2)^1\beta ^2`$. Then, (51) implies that

$$\xi (1\xi )\psi _\pm ^{\prime \prime }+(1+|m|)(1\xi )\psi _\pm ^{}+[C(1\xi )\pm N]\psi _\pm =0,$$
(57)
where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`\xi `$ and

$$C=\frac{1}{4}(a^2b^2)[1(\frac{a+m}{b})^2],N=\frac{1}{2b}(a^2+mab^2).$$
(58)
It follows from the form of equation (57) that $`f_z^+`$ and $`f_z^{}`$ propagate differently in a rotating frame of reference. The helicity-rotation coupling is thus hidden in the solutions of these equations, which, to our knowledge, cannot in general be simply expressed in terms of the special functions of mathematical physics.

## 4 Spin-rotation-gravity coupling

It turns out that the phenomenon of helicity-rotation coupling is an instance of a general effect -. For the investigation of phenomena in a laboratory fixed on the rotating Earth, the Hamiltonian must be augmented by the spin-rotation-gravity term

$$H𝐒𝛀+𝐒𝛀_P,$$
(59)
where $`𝛀_P`$ is the gravitomagnetic precession frequency of an ideal gyroscope with its center of mass at rest in the laboratory and is given approximately by

$$𝛀_P=\frac{GJ}{c^2r^3}[3(\widehat{𝐫}\widehat{𝐉})\widehat{𝐫}\widehat{𝐉}].$$
(60)
It follows from (59) and the dependence of $`𝛀_P`$ on position that there must be an analogue of the Stern-Gerlach force

$$=(𝐒𝛀_P),$$
(61)
which is of gravitational origin and depends only on the spin of the particle. In the correspondence limit, this force can be deduced from the Mathisson-Papapetrou spin-curvature force . We note that classical spin is generally proportional to mass, whereas in the quantum theory spin is simply proportional to $`\mathrm{}`$. It follows from (61) that a neutron with spin up falls differently in the gravitational field of the Earth than a neutron with spin down. This equivalence-principle violating effect is very small ; due to its fundamental nature, however, it is interesting to illustrate this situation by computing the differential deflection angle of particles with spin in the exterior gravitational field of a rotating source as in Figure 2.

We assume that the particle starts from point $`P_i`$ and travels to point $`P_f`$ on a straight line with constant speed $`v`$; that is, to illustrate the differential deflection we neglect the usual deflection due to the attraction of gravity. In fact, the differential deflection evaluated below is expected to occur around the deflected path.

We are interested in computing the impulse

$$𝐈=_{P_i}^{P_f}𝑑t,$$
(62)
where

$$=\frac{3GJ}{c^2r^4}[5(𝐒\widehat{𝐫})(\widehat{𝐉}\widehat{𝐫})\widehat{𝐫}(𝐒\widehat{𝐉})\widehat{𝐫}(𝐒\widehat{𝐫})\widehat{𝐉}(\widehat{𝐉}\widehat{𝐫})𝐒].$$
(63)
Without any loss in generality, we may assume that the trajectory of the particle (or ray) is parallel to the $`x`$-axis with impact parameter $`R`$ in the ($`x`$,$`y`$)-plane as in Figure 2. A detailed calculation reveals that the transverse impulse due to the spin-gravity force is given by

$`I_y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{GJ}{c^2vR^3}}[(3s_16s_3+3s_5)S_x\widehat{J}_x+(6s_17s_3+3s_5)S_y\widehat{J}_y`$ (64)
$`(3s_1s_3)S_z\widehat{J}_z+(c_33c_5)(S_x\widehat{J}_y+S_y\widehat{J}_x)],`$
where

$$s_n=\mathrm{sin}^n\eta _f\mathrm{sin}^n\eta _i,c_n=\mathrm{cos}^n\eta _f\mathrm{cos}^n\eta _i$$
(65)
and the angle $`\eta `$ is defined as in Figure 2. Similarly,

$$I_z=\frac{GJ}{c^2vR^3}[c_3(S_x\widehat{J}_z+S_z\widehat{J}_x)(3s_1s_3)(S_y\widehat{J}_z+S_z\widehat{J}_y)].$$
(66)
Moreover, the tangential impulse is given by

$`I_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{GJ}{c^2vR^3}}[(2c_33c_5)S_x\widehat{J}_x+(c_3+3c_5)S_y\widehat{J}_yc_3S_z\widehat{J}_z`$ (67)
$`+(3s_16s_3+3s_5)(S_x\widehat{J}_y+S_y\widehat{J}_x)].`$
If the spin of the particle is in the direction of its motion, i.e. $`𝐒=(S_x,0,0)`$, then integration from $`\eta _i=\pi /2`$ to $`\eta _f=\pi /2`$ reveals that in the scattering case $`𝐈=0`$ and there is no differential deflection. This is in agreement with the result of  for the case of electromagnetic radiation. Next, let us consider the case of electromagnetic waves of definite helicity starting at the pole and propagating to infinity. With $`\widehat{𝐉}=(0,1,0)`$ and $`𝐒=(\pm \mathrm{},0,0)`$, we find $`I_x=I_z=0`$ and $`I_y=\pm 2GJ\mathrm{}/(c^3R^3)`$. Thus positive (negative) helicity radiation is differentially deflected away from (toward) the source such that the angle of separation of the RCP and LCP waves within the wave packet is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{2GJ\lambda }{\pi c^3R^3}$$
(68)
in agreement with . If the radiation starts from (0,$`R`$,0) as in the previous case but $`\widehat{𝐉}=(0,\mathrm{cos}\zeta ,\mathrm{sin}\zeta )`$, then $`I_x=0`$, but

$$I_y=\pm \frac{2GJ\mathrm{}}{c^2R^3}\mathrm{cos}\zeta ,I_z=\frac{GJ\mathrm{}}{c^2R^3}\mathrm{sin}\zeta ,$$
(69)
so that we recover (68) for $`\zeta =0`$.

Finally, let us consider two beams propagating from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ on the same path but polarized parallel and antiparallel to $`𝐉`$ such that $`\widehat{𝐉}=(0,0,1)`$ and $`𝐒=\pm \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}\widehat{𝐉}`$. Then, we find from (64)-(67) that $`I_x=I_z=0`$ and

$$I_y=\frac{2GJ\mathrm{}}{c^2vR^3},$$
(70)
so that the force is attractive (repulsive) when $`𝐉`$ and $`𝐒`$ are parallel (antiparallel) and the total deflection angle between the beams is $`4GJ\mathrm{}/(c^2vR^3P)`$, where $`P`$ is the momentum of the particle. As already pointed out in , such effects are very small in the field of the Earth, but could possibly become significant in the field of a neutron star or a black hole.

## 5 Discussion

It has been the purpose of this paper to clarify various aspects of the phenomenon of helicity-rotation coupling. This is of particular interest at present in connection with its applications in the Global Positioning System, where it is known as phase wrap-up , and the Doppler tracking of spacecraft . In the process of communicating with artificial satellites, circularly polarized radiation is generally employed and the source and the receiver both rotate. Therefore, the modifications in the standard Doppler and aberration formulas due to the coupling of photon spin with rotation should be taken into account in the analysis of satellite data.

References

 F.W. Hehl and Y.N. Obukhov, Foundations of Classical Electrodynamics (Birkhäuser, Boston, 2003)

 R. Neutze and G.E. Stedman, Phys. Rev. A 58(1998) 82

 Y.Q. Cai and G. Papini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 1259

 J. Van Bladel, Relativity and Engineering (Springer, Berlin, 1984)

 E.J. Post, Rev. Mod. Phys. 39 (1967) 475

 C.V. Heer, Phys. Rev. 134 (1964) A799

 B. Mashhoon and U. Muench, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 11 (2002) 532

 L.H. Ryder and B. Mashhoon, in: Proc. Ninth Marcel Grossmann Meeting (Rome, 2000), edited by V.G. Gurzadyan, R.T. Jantzen and R. Ruffini (World Scientific, Singapore, 2002), pp. 486-497

 B. Mashhoon, Phys. Lett. A 143 (1990) 176

 B. Mashhoon, Phys. Lett. A 145 (1990) 147

 A.R. Edmonds, Angular Momentum in Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1960), p. 57

 B. Mashhoon, Found. Phys. (Wheeler Festschrift) 16 (1986) 619

 B. Mashhoon, Phys. Lett. A 139 (1989) 103

 B. Mashhoon, Phys. Lett. A 306 (2002) 66

 G.E. Stedman, Rep. Prog. Phys. 60 (1997) 615

 B. Mashhoon, Phys. Lett. A 122 (1987) 299

 B. Mashhoon, R. Neutze, M. Hannam and G.E. Stedman, Phys. Lett. A 249 (1998) 161

 B. Mashhoon, Phys. Rev. A 47 (1993) 4498

 C. Chicone and B. Mashhoon, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 11 (2002) 309

 C. Chicone and B. Mashhoon, Phys. Lett. A 298 (2002) 229

 G.V. Skrotskii, Dokl. Akad. Nauk USSR 114 (1957) 73 \[Sov. Phys. - Dokl. 2 (1957) 226\]

 J. Plebanski, Phys. Rev. 118 (1960) 1396

 F. de Felice, Gen. Rel. Grav. 2 (1971) 347

 A.M. Volkov, A.A. Izmest’ev and G.V. Skrotskii, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 59 (1970) 1254 \[Sov. Phys. - JETP 32 (1971) 686\]

 B. Mashhoon, Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 2679

 B. Mashhoon, Class. Quantum Grav. 17 (2000) 2399

 G. Papini, in: Advances in the Interplay Between Quantum and Gravity Physics, edited by P.G. Bergmann and V. de Sabbata (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2002), pp. 317-338

 B. Mashhoon, Phys. Lett. A 173 (1993) 347

 N. Ashby, in: Proc. GR-15, Gravitation and Relativity: At the Turn of the Millennium, edited by N. Dadhich and J. Narlikar (Inter-University Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pune, India, 1997), pp. 231-258

 J.D. Anderson et al., Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 082004