Non-Null Torus Knotted Gravitational Waves from Gravitoelectromagnetism

I. V. Vancea; R. S. Facundo

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Non-Null Torus Knotted Gravitational Waves from Gravitoelectromagnetism

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims a torus-knotted monochromatic gravitational wave solution of the linearized vacuum Einstein equations.

desk verdict The central construction fails the paper's own gauge condition by a factor c^2; the claimed vacuum solution is not one. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10347 v1 pith:WYUWLBS7 submitted 2025-02-14 gr-qc hep-thmath-phmath.MP

R. S. Facundo , I. V. Vancea This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qchep-thmath-phmath.MP

keywords gravitoelectromagnetismtorusknotsgravitationalwaveslinearizedgravitynon-nulltoroidalfieldsGEMhelicityknottedmetricperturbation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims to construct a family of monochromatic gravitational waves, called NNTKGMW, that solve the linearized Einstein equations in vacuum and whose amplitudes carry torus-knot topology inherited from gravitoelectromagnetic potentials. The construction extends the standard gravitoelectromagnetic analogy, which normally applies only to the $h_{0\mu}$ components of a metric perturbation, to an ansatz that also fixes the spatial components $h_{ij}$. If the solution holds, vacuum weak-field gravity would admit knotted wave configurations analogous to the known non-null toroidal knotted solutions of Maxwell's equations, with the winding numbers of the gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic field lines encoded in every component of the perturbed metric. The paper also computes the associated Riemann and Ricci tensors, the geodesic equation, and GEM helicity quantities.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the extended gravitoelectromagnetic ansatz, which identifies metric perturbation components as $\tilde{h}_{00}=\Phi/c^2$, $\tilde{h}_{0i}=A_i/c^2$, and $\tilde{h}_{ij}=-\eta_{ij}\Phi/c^2+2\gamma_{ij}/c^4$. Combined with the transverse gauge conditions $\partial_0 \Phi + \partial_i A^i = 0$ and $-\partial_i \Phi + \partial_0 A_i = -2 c^{-2} \partial^j \gamma_{ij}$, this ansatz turns the linearized vacuum equations into wave equations for $\Phi$, $A_i$, and $\gamma_{ij}$. The torus-knot topology enters through the non-null knot amplitude $a(k)$ obtained from Fourier-transformed gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic fields, with a gauge choice $\Phi=0$ called the knot gauge. The spatial sector is generated by the symmetrized product formula $\gamma_{ij}(x;k)=k_{(i} a_{j)}(k)e^{-ikx}/k_0$, whose tracelessness is said to follow from the transversality of the GEM wave.

What would settle it

Directly substitute $\gamma_{ij}(x;k)=k_{(i} a_{j)}(k)e^{-ikx}/k_0$ into equation (2.11) with $\Phi=0$, or into the harmonic gauge condition $\tilde{h}^{i\nu}{}_{,\nu}=0$, keeping the speed of light explicit. A leftover factor of $c^2$ and a relative sign mismatch between the gradient and time-derivative terms would settle that the claimed metric is not a solution in the stated gauge.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is a non-null torus-knotted gravitational monochromatic wave solution of the linearized vacuum Einstein equations, parameterized by two pairs of coprime integers $(m,n)$ and $(l,s)$ and by a wave vector $k$. The GEM sector of the perturbation, $h_{0i}$, is built from Fourier transforms of the non-null torus-knotted gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic fields at the initial time, so the torus-knot data live in the wave amplitudes rather than in the phases. The spatial sector, $\gamma_{ij}$, is then fixed by the transverse gauge equations through the formula $\gamma_{ij}(x;k)=k_{(i} a_{j)}(k)e^{-ikx}/k_0$. The result is a full perturbative metric in which all components carry the knot topology, together with derived geometric objects (Riemann tensor, Ricci tensor, vanishing Ricci scalar) and geodesic equations whose leading terms are dominated by the gravitomagnetic sector. "Non-null" here means the fields are not null-field configurations; their invariants do not vanish.

Load-bearing premise

The construction stands or falls on whether the spatial-sector amplitude $\gamma_{ij}(x;k)=k_{(i} a_{j)}(k)e^{-ikx}/k_0$ really satisfies the transverse gauge condition (2.11); if it does not, the metric components do not describe a vacuum solution of the linearized Einstein equations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the solution is valid, every component of a linearized gravitational wave—not just the GEM sector—can encode torus-knot winding numbers, giving gravity a direct counterpart to non-null toroidal electromagnetic knots.
The family is infinite: distinct pairs of coprime integers $(m,n)$ and $(l,s)$ give distinct wave amplitudes, so the vacuum equations admit a countable set of topologically labeled gravitational wave modes.
The derived geodesic equations contain oscillatory, knot-dependent force terms; at leading order in $1/c^2$ the gravitomagnetic sector dominates test-particle motion.
Each solution comes with a dual metric obtained from electric–magnetic duality, so the same construction yields partner geometries whose Christoffel symbols and curvature follow from the same formulas.
The proposed spatial-sector helicities vanish, while the GEM-sector helicities scale with the integration volume, indicating that finite observables require regulating or superposing the monochromatic modes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: the same amplitude-Fourier route should generate linearized gravitational analogs of other electromagnetic knot families, such as Hopfion fields, by substituting their initial-time field configurations into the GEM potential and gauge equations.
Editorial inference: because the winding numbers are carried by amplitudes at a fixed time, a detector sensitive to the wavevector spectrum of a superposition of NNTKGMW modes could in principle distinguish different $(m,n,l,s)$ sectors by their angular and frequency patterns.
Editorial inference: the volume-divergent GEM helicities suggest that finite-energy wave packets built from these monochromatic modes are the natural objects for connecting topology to observable gravitational radiation; their finite helicities would then be the conserved charges to compute.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper's central claim doesn't survive contact with its own equations. The construction starts from the known non-null torus knot fields of Arrayás-Trueba, maps them through GEM to the h0μ sector, and then extends to the spatial metric γij. That extension step is the new piece, and it's a legitimate thing to try; the paper is clear about the gauge choices and the previous GEM literature.

The problem is in that step. To satisfy the transverse gauge condition (2.11) with Φ=0, the plane-wave ansatz requires ∂0Ai = -(2/c²)∂jγij. With Ai = ai e^{-ikx} and γij = k_(i aj) e^{-ikx}/k0, using k·a=0 and the dispersion relation, the left side is -i k0 ai e^{-ikx} and the right side is i k0 ai /c² e^{-ikx} (up to a sign). So equality forces c²=1 — not true. The coefficient in (3.9) is off by c²; the correct one would be c²/k0, not 1/k0. Since every geometric object in Section 4 is built from (3.9), the downstream formulas inherit the error.

The paper then reports nonzero Ricci components R0i and Rij in (4.10)-(4.11) while claiming the background is flat because R=0. Nonzero Rμν contradicts the claimed vacuum solution; vanishing R doesn't imply flatness. That's an internal inconsistency, not just a typo.

What's good: the idea of extending GEM knot solutions to the full metric is worth exploring, and the paper explicitly identifies the gauge conditions and the source of the ansatz. The derivation of the amplitude vectors f(k), g(k) from the known fields is straightforward. But as written, the solution doesn't exist.

For you: don't cite this version. It might be a useful reading-group example of how to check gauge conditions in linearized gravity — the c² mismatch is instructive. But it's not a reliable result. I'd recommend rejecting without further review; the error is central and easy to demonstrate, and the paper's own Ricci tensor is a red flag a referee would catch immediately. If the authors fix the coefficient and recompute the geometry, the idea might be salvageable, but the current manuscript shouldn't go forward.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a family of "non-null torus-knotted gravitational monochromatic waves" in linearized general relativity. It imports the torus-knotted electromagnetic solutions of Arrayás and Trueba and, through the extended gravitoelectromagnetic ansatz (2.8)-(2.9), identifies their amplitudes with the GEM sector \tilde{h}_{0\mu}; it then extends the solution to the spatial sector by the plane-wave ansatz (3.9). The paper computes the line element, Christoffel symbols, Riemann and Ricci tensors, Ricci scalar, and geodesic equations, and it constructs a dual GEM metric and GEM helicities. The central claim is that equations (3.7) and (3.9) provide a family of vacuum solutions of the linearized Einstein equations parameterized by the winding numbers (m,n,l,s) and the wave vector k.

Significance. If the construction were correct, it would supply a concrete example of torus-knotted topology in the full perturbative metric rather than in the h_{0\mu} sector alone, and the explicit Fourier amplitudes and helicity calculations would be useful reference material for the gravitoelectromagnetic analogy. The paper is also commendable for presenting the extended GEM ansatz in a self-contained way and for performing the Fourier transforms explicitly. However, the central consistency check fails: the proposed \gamma_{ij} does not satisfy the gauge condition, and the paper's own computed Ricci tensor is nonzero for a claimed vacuum solution. The main physical claim is therefore not supported.

major comments (3)

[3, Eq. (3.9) with Eq. (2.11)] The spatial-sector amplitude does not satisfy the gauge condition. In the knot gauge \Phi=0, equation (2.11) reduces to \partial_0 A_i = -(2/c^2)\partial_j \gamma_{ij}. Substituting A_i=a_i e^{-ikx} and \gamma_{ij}=k_{(i}a_{j)}e^{-ikx}/k_0, and using k\cdot a=0 and k_0^2=|k|^2, gives \partial_0 A_i=-i k_0 a_i e^{-ikx} and \partial_j\gamma_{ij}=i k_0 a_i/2\,e^{-ikx}. Equality in (2.11) therefore requires c^2=1. The paper neither sets c=1 nor restricts attention to units in which it does, and it retains powers of c throughout (2.8)-(2.9) and (4.5). With the sign of (2.11) corrected to the actual transverse-gauge component derived from (2.6), (2.8) and (2.9), the same substitution requires c^2=-1. Thus the central ansatz (3.9) is not a solution of the gauge equations, and every downstream quantity in Section 4 inherits this failure.
[2, Eq. (2.11)] Equation (2.11) contains a sign error in its derivation. From the transverse gauge (2.6) applied to (2.8) and (2.9) with \eta=\mathrm{diag}(+,-,-,-), the spatial component of the gauge condition is -\partial_0(A_i/c^2)+\partial_i(\Phi/c^2)+(2/c^2)\partial_j\gamma_{ij}=0, equivalently -\partial_i\Phi+\partial_0 A_i=(2/c^2)\partial_j\gamma_{ij}. The manuscript writes the right-hand side with the opposite sign. This is not a purely typographical issue, because the sign is used to justify the form of \gamma_{ij} in (3.9).
[4.2.2, Eqs. (4.10)-(4.11)] The reported Ricci tensor contradicts the claim of a vacuum solution. For a solution of the linearized vacuum Einstein equations, R_{\mu\nu}=0 must hold. Equations (4.10) and (4.11) give nonzero oscillatory components R_{0i} and R_{ij}, with no matter sources present anywhere. The text after (4.12) states that the vanishing Ricci scalar "indicates that the NNTKGMW background is flat"; this is incorrect, since R=0 does not imply R_{\mu\nu}=0 or Riemann=0. The nonzero Ricci components are a direct internal inconsistency with the abstract and Section 6, and they verify that the metric (4.5) does not solve the vacuum equations even before the gauge-condition problem is considered.

minor comments (4)

[3, after Eq. (3.1)] The dispersion relation is written as "kk=\omega^2-k^2=0", which silently sets c=1; if c is retained, as it is throughout the rest of the paper, the relation should read k_\mu k^\mu=\omega^2/c^2-k^2=0.
[4.3, Eq. (4.17)] In the second sine term of (4.17), the expression k_{[p}g_{j]} is repeated, and the symmetrized contribution k_{(p}g_{j)} appears to be missing; the displayed Christoffel symbol is therefore ambiguous.
[1, page 3] The phrase "we ak gravitational fields" is a typo for "weak gravitational fields".
[5.2, Eqs. (5.17)-(5.18)] The presence of the volume factor V_3 makes the displayed helicities divergent in the infinite-volume limit; the text acknowledges this, but it would be clearer to state that the finite integrands define helicity densities rather than finite total helicities.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the knot data and GEM ansatz are imported from external literature, and the one self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the sense defined by the review criteria. The non-null torus-knotted fields E and B are taken from the electromagnetic knot literature: the paper cites both the external work [10] (Arrayas and Trueba) and the authors' own [30] for the solution of the GEM equations in vacuum, with the external reference carrying the mathematical content. The GEM spatial ansatz is explicitly attributed to the external works [40,41]. The amplitude a(k) is then obtained by Fourier transform of E and B, and A_i(x;k) is obtained by direct substitution; the spatial amplitude gamma_ij is constructed from the gauge constraint (2.11). None of these steps assumes the target result, namely the full perturbative metric with torus-knotted amplitudes. The self-citation [30] is a secondary pointer and is not load-bearing for the central claim. There is, however, a serious internal-consistency problem: substituting the stated gamma_ij from Eq. (3.9) into the gauge condition (2.11) produces a c^2 mismatch, and the nonzero Ricci components in Eqs. (4.10) and (4.11) contradict the claimed vacuum solution. That is a correctness or falsifiability failure, not a circularity: the construction may be wrong as written, but it is not true by definition or by fit. Accordingly, the circularity score is 1, reflecting only the presence of a normal, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The claimed solution rests on the extended GEM ansatz, the knot gauge Phi=0, the identification of known EM knot fields as GEM fields, and an asserted form of gamma_ij that is not consistent with the gauge equations. The winding numbers, wave vector, and unit torus radius are free labels chosen by hand; no data fitting is involved, so the circularity burden is low despite reliance on the authors' earlier GEM knot work.

free parameters (3)

Winding numbers (m,n) and (l,s) = arbitrary coprime integer pairs
Define how many times the gravitomagnetic and gravitoelectric field lines wind around the two cycles of the unit torus; chosen by hand from the electromagnetic knot construction.
Wave vector k=(k1,k2,k3)
Continuous parameters labeling the monochromatic wave, subject to the dispersion relation omega^2=|k|^2; part of the solution family.
Torus radius = 1 (unit radius)
The paper sets the torus radius to unity throughout and notes that the radii are gauge-dependent; this is a scale choice that fixes the normalization of the knot fields.

assumptions (5)

standard math Linearized Einstein equations in the transverse gauge reduce to wave equations for each component of h-tilde (Eqs. 2.6-2.7).
Used to turn the vacuum field equations into box h-tilde = 0 with the gauge condition h-tilde^{mu nu}_{,nu}=0.
domain assumption Extended GEM ansatz: h-tilde_00=Phi/c^2, h-tilde_0i=A_i/c^2, h-tilde_ij=-eta_ij Phi/c^2+2 gamma_ij/c^4 (Eqs. 2.8-2.9).
Adopted from Bakopoulos-Kanti [40,41]; determines which metric perturbation components play the role of GEM potentials and defines the spatial sector.
domain assumption Knot gauge: Phi=0 and global Cartesian coordinates on Minkowski spacetime.
Imposed in Section 3 to make non-null torus knot solutions possible; the paper states this gauge ensures their existence.
domain assumption The initial GEM fields E and B are the non-null torus knot fields from Eqs. (3.3)-(3.4), taken from electromagnetic knot solutions [10,30].
Transfers known electromagnetic knot solutions to the GEM sector by the exact Maxwell-GEM analogy.
ad hoc to paper The spatial-sector amplitude gamma_ij = k_(i a_j)/k0 e^{-ikx} (Eq. 3.9) satisfies the gauge equations.
This is asserted without a correct derivation and is false as written: substituting (3.9) into the gauge equations gives a c^2 and sign inconsistency.

invented entities (2)

Dual perturbative metric h-tilde^dual
purpose: Encodes the dual GEM potentials C obtained from the electric-magnetic duality E -> cB, cB -> -E; used to define GEM helicities.
A formal mathematical construction by analogy with electrodynamics. The paper itself notes there is no consensus on the physical interpretation of the dual geometry.
Spatial-sector GEM helicity H_m^(s), H_e^(s)
purpose: Proposed generalization of GEM helicity to the gamma_ij sector; computed to vanish.
A new observable-like quantity defined by analogy with electromagnetic helicity; no independent experimental or theoretical handle is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Null Torus Knotted Gravitational Waves from Gravitoelectromagnetism." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WYUWLBS7

@misc{pith2026250210347,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Null Torus Knotted Gravitational Waves from Gravitoelectromagnetism},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WYUWLBS7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10347}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we construct a non-null torus-knotted gravitational monochromatic wave solution of the linearized Einstein equations in vacuum, employing the gravitoelectromagnetic (GEM) framework by analogy with classical electrodynamics. We derive the geometric objects, including the line element, the Riemann tensor, the Ricci tensor, the Ricci scalar, and the geodesic equation for this background. Also, we investigate two properties inherent to this solution due to its GEM origin: the dual GEM potential and GEM helicity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

[1]

Calcagni, M

G. Calcagni, M. Montobbio and G. Nardelli, A Route to nonlocal cosmology , Phys. Rev. D 76, 126001 (2007) [0705.3043]

arXiv 2007
[2]

Gravitational couplings of intrinsic spin,

B. Mashhoon, “Gravitational couplings of intrinsic spin,” Class. Qu ant. Grav. 17, 2399-2410 (2000). [CrossRef]

work page 2000
[3]

Gauge symmetry and gravitoelectromagnetism,

S. J. Clark and R. W. Tucker, “Gauge symmetry and gravitoelectromagnetism,” Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 4125-4158 (2000). [ CrossRef]

work page 2000
[4]

Gravitomagnetic eﬀects in the propagation of electromagnetic waves in variable gravitational ﬁelds of arbitrary moving and spinning bodies,

S. Kopeikin and B. Mashhoon, “Gravitomagnetic eﬀects in the propagation of electromagnetic waves in variable gravitational ﬁelds of arbitrary moving and spinning bodies,” Phys. Rev. D 65, 064025 (2002). [ CrossRef]

work page 2002
[5]

Gravitomagnetism and Its Measureme nt with Laser Ranging to the LAGEOS Satellites and GRACE Earth Gravity Models,

I. Ciufolini, et al. (2010). “Gravitomagnetism and Its Measureme nt with Laser Ranging to the LAGEOS Satellites and GRACE Earth Gravity Models,” in: Ciufolini, I., Mat zner, R. (eds) General Relativity and John Archibald Wheeler , Astrophysics and Space Science Library, 367, 371-434 (2010), Springer, Dordrecht

work page 2010
[6]

Gravitomagnetic eﬀects,

M. L. Ruggiero and A. Tartaglia, “Gravitomagnetic eﬀects,” Nuov o Cim. B 117, 743-768 (2002)

work page 2002
[7]

Superconductor in static gravit ational, electric and mag- netic ﬁelds with vortex lattice,

G. A. Ummarino and A. Gallerati, “Superconductor in static gravit ational, electric and mag- netic ﬁelds with vortex lattice,” Results Phys. 30, 104838 (2021). [ CrossRef]

work page 2021
[8]

Solutions of the Maxwell and Yang-Mills Equations A ssociated with Hopf Fibrings,

A. Trautman, “Solutions of the Maxwell and Yang-Mills Equations A ssociated with Hopf Fibrings,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 16, 561 (1977). [ CrossRef]

work page 1977

Show all 46 references

[9]

A Topological Theory of the Electromagnetic Fie ld,

A. F. Ra˜ nada, “A Topological Theory of the Electromagnetic Fie ld,” Lett. Math. Phys. 18, 97-106 (1989). [CrossRef]

1989
[10]

A class of non-null toroidal elec tromagnetic ﬁelds and its relation to the model of electromagnetic knots,

M. Arrayas and J. L. Trueba, “A class of non-null toroidal elec tromagnetic ﬁelds and its relation to the model of electromagnetic knots,” J. of Phys. A 48, 025203 (2014). [ CrossRef]

2014
[11]

Exchange of helicity in a knotted electromagnetic ﬁeld,

M. Arrayas and J. L. Trueba, “Exchange of helicity in a knotted electromagnetic ﬁeld,” Annalen Phys. 524, 71-75 (2012). [ CrossRef]

2012
[12]

Collision of two hopﬁons,

M. Array´ as and J. L. Trueba, “Collision of two hopﬁons,” J. Phys. A 50, no.8, 085203 (2017). [CrossRef] 20

2017
[13]

On the Fibration Deﬁned by theField Lines of a Knotted Class of Electromagnetic Fields at a Particular Time,

M. Array´ as and J. L. Trueba, “On the Fibration Deﬁned by theField Lines of a Knotted Class of Electromagnetic Fields at a Particular Time,” Symmetry 9, no.10, 218 (2017). [ CrossRef]

2017
[14]

Time evolving poten tials for electromagnetic knots,

A. F. Ra˜ nada, A. Tiemblo and J. L. Trueba, “Time evolving poten tials for electromagnetic knots,” Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 14, no.05, 1750073 (2017). [ CrossRef]

2017
[15]

Kn otted solutions for linear and nonlinear theories: electromagnetism and ﬂuid dynamics,

D. W. F. Alves, C. Hoyos, H. Nastase and J. Sonnenschein, “Kn otted solutions for linear and nonlinear theories: electromagnetism and ﬂuid dynamics,” Phys. Lett. B 773, 412-416 (2017). [CrossRef]

2017
[16]

The method of Fourier transforms applied to electromagnetic knots,

M. Array´ as and J. L. Trueba, “The method of Fourier transforms applied to electromagnetic knots,” Eur. J. Phys. 40, 014205 (2018). [ CrossRef]

2018
[17]

Finsler geometries from topological electromagnetism,

A. V. Cri¸ san and I. V. Vancea, “Finsler geometries from topological electromagnetism,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.6, 566 (2020). [ CrossRef]

2020
[18]

Nonlinear dynamics of a charged particle in a strong non-null knot wave background,

A. V. Cri¸ san and I. V. Vancea, “Nonlinear dynamics of a charged particle in a strong non-null knot wave background,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35, no.21, 2050113 (2020). [ CrossRef]

2020
[19]

Gravitoelectromagnetism,

R. Maartens and B. A. Bassett, “Gravitoelectromagnetism,” C lass. Quant. Grav. 15, 705 (1998). [CrossRef]

1998
[20]

Linked and K notted Gravitational Radi- ation,

A. Thompson, J. Swearngin and D. Bouwmeester, “Linked and K notted Gravitational Radi- ation,” J. Phys. A 47, 355205 (2014). [ CrossRef]

2014
[21]

C lassiﬁcation of Electromag- netic and Gravitational Hopﬁons by Algebraic Type,

A. Thompson, A. Wickes, J. Swearngin and D. Bouwmeester, “C lassiﬁcation of Electromag- netic and Gravitational Hopﬁons by Algebraic Type,” J. Phys. A 48, no.20, 205202 (2015). [CrossRef]

2015
[22]

Anti-Self-Dual Spacetimes , Gravitational Instantons and Knotted Zeros of the Weyl Tensor,

S. Sabharwal and J. W. Dalhuisen, “Anti-Self-Dual Spacetimes , Gravitational Instantons and Knotted Zeros of the Weyl Tensor,” JHEP 07, 004 (2019). [ CrossRef]

2019
[23]

A new construction of rational ele ctromagnetic knots,

O. Lechtenfeld and G. Zhilin, “A new construction of rational ele ctromagnetic knots,” Phys. Lett. A 382, 1528-1533 (2018). [ CrossRef]

2018
[24]

On rational electromagnetic ﬁelds,

K. Kumar and O. Lechtenfeld, “On rational electromagnetic ﬁelds,” Phys. Lett. A 384, 126445 (2020). [CrossRef]

2020
[25]

On a remarkable electromagnetic ﬁeld in the Einstein Universe,

J. Kopi´ nski and J. Nat´ ario, “On a remarkable electromagnetic ﬁeld in the Einstein Universe,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 49, no.6, 81 (2017). [ CrossRef]

2017
[26]

On the existence of the ﬁeld line solutions of the Ein stein-Maxwell equations,

I V. Vancea, “On the existence of the ﬁeld line solutions of the Ein stein-Maxwell equations,” Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys., 15, 1850054 (2017). [ CrossRef] 21

2017
[27]

Simple description of generalized electromagnetic and gravita- tional hopﬁons,

T. Smo/suppress lka and J. Jezierski, “Simple description of generalized electromagnetic and gravita- tional hopﬁons,” Class. Quant. Grav. 35, no.24, 245010 (2018). [ CrossReﬀ]

2018
[28]

Hopﬁon solutions in gravity and a null ﬂuid/gravity conjec- ture,

D. W. F. Alves and H. Nastase, “Hopﬁon solutions in gravity and a null ﬂuid/gravity conjec- ture,” [arXiv:1812.08630 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[29]

On spacetime foliation s and electromagnetic knots,

W. C. e. Silva, E. Goulart and J. E. Ottoni, “On spacetime foliation s and electromagnetic knots,” J. Phys. A 52, no.26, 265203 (2019). [ CrossRef]

2019
[30]

Gravitoelectromagne tic Knot Fields,

A. Cri¸ san, C. Godinho and I. Vancea, “Gravitoelectromagne tic Knot Fields,” Universe 7, no.3, 46 (2021). [ CrossRef]

2021
[31]

Gravitomagnetic helicit y,

D. Bini, B. Mashhoon and Y. N. Obukhov, “Gravitomagnetic helicit y,” Phys. Rev. D 105, no.6, 064028 (2022). [ CrossReﬀ]

2022
[32]

A complementary covariant approach to gravito- electromagnetism,

S. Giardino, “A complementary covariant approach to gravito- electromagnetism,” Rev. Mex. Fis. 68, no.1, 010702 (2022). [ CrossRef]

2022
[33]

Knots in elec tromagnetism,

M. Array´ as, D. Bouwmeester and J. L. Trueba, “Knots in elec tromagnetism,” Phys. Rept. 667, 1-61 (2017). [ CrossRef]

2017
[34]

Field Line Solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell Equat ions,

I. V. Vancea, “Field Line Solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell Equat ions,” [arXiv:1911.04486 [physics.class-ph]]. [CrossRef]

1911 arXiv
[35]

Cosmological electromagnetic Hopﬁons,

S. A. Hojman and F. A. Asenjo, “Cosmological electromagnetic Hopﬁons,” Phys. Scripta 99, no.5, 055514 (2024). [ CrossRef]

2024
[36]

Hopﬁon-like solutions inde Sitter spacetime,

A. Grzela, J. Jezierski and T. Smo/suppress lka, “Hopﬁon-like solutions inde Sitter spacetime,” Class. Quant. Grav. 41, no.22, 225010 (2024). [ CrossRef]

2024
[37]

A Gravito-electromagnet ic analogy based on tidal tensors,

L. Filipe Costa and C. A. R. Herdeiro, “A Gravito-electromagnet ic analogy based on tidal tensors,” Phys. Rev. D 78, 024021 (2008). [ CrossRef]

2008
[38]

Reference Frames and t he Physical Gravito- Electromagnetic Analogy,

L. F. O. Costa and C. A. R. Herdeiro, “Reference Frames and t he Physical Gravito- Electromagnetic Analogy,” IAU Symp. 261, 31-39 (2010). [ CrossRef]

2010
[39]

Gravito-electromagnetic analo gies,

L. F. O. Costa and J. Natario, “Gravito-electromagnetic analo gies,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 46, 1792 (2014). [CrossRef]

2014
[40]

From GEM to Electromagnetism,

A. Bakopoulos and P. Kanti, “From GEM to Electromagnetism,” Ge n. Rel. Grav. 46, 1742 (2014). [CrossRef] 22

2014
[41]

Novel Ansatzes and Scalar Quant ities in Gravito- Electromagnetism,

A. Bakopoulos and P. Kanti, “Novel Ansatzes and Scalar Quant ities in Gravito- Electromagnetism,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 49, no.3, 44 (2017). [ CrossRef]

2017
[42]

Time-Varying Gravitomagnetism,

B. Mashhoon, “Time-Varying Gravitomagnetism,” Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 085014 (2008). [CrossRef]

2008
[43]

Gravitoelectromagnetism: A Brief review,

B. Mashhoon, “Gravitoelectromagnetism: A Brief review,” [arXiv :gr-qc/0311030 [gr-qc]]. [CrossRef]

arXiv
[44]

Gravitation,

C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler, “Gravitation,” W. H . Freeman, (1973)

1973
[45]

The electromagnetic helicity,

J. L. Trueba and A. F. Ra˜ nda “The electromagnetic helicity,” Eu r. J. of Phys., 17 (1996) no.3, 141. [CrossRef]

1996
[46]

Vacuum decomposition of E instein’s theory and knot topology of vacuum space-time,

Y. M. Cho, F. H. Cho and J. H. Yoon, “Vacuum decomposition of E instein’s theory and knot topology of vacuum space-time,” Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 055003, (2013). [ CrossRef] 23

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Calcagni, M

G. Calcagni, M. Montobbio and G. Nardelli, A Route to nonlocal cosmology , Phys. Rev. D 76, 126001 (2007) [0705.3043]

arXiv 2007

[2] [2]

Gravitational couplings of intrinsic spin,

B. Mashhoon, “Gravitational couplings of intrinsic spin,” Class. Qu ant. Grav. 17, 2399-2410 (2000). [CrossRef]

work page 2000

[3] [3]

Gauge symmetry and gravitoelectromagnetism,

S. J. Clark and R. W. Tucker, “Gauge symmetry and gravitoelectromagnetism,” Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 4125-4158 (2000). [ CrossRef]

work page 2000

[4] [4]

Gravitomagnetic eﬀects in the propagation of electromagnetic waves in variable gravitational ﬁelds of arbitrary moving and spinning bodies,

S. Kopeikin and B. Mashhoon, “Gravitomagnetic eﬀects in the propagation of electromagnetic waves in variable gravitational ﬁelds of arbitrary moving and spinning bodies,” Phys. Rev. D 65, 064025 (2002). [ CrossRef]

work page 2002

[5] [5]

Gravitomagnetism and Its Measureme nt with Laser Ranging to the LAGEOS Satellites and GRACE Earth Gravity Models,

I. Ciufolini, et al. (2010). “Gravitomagnetism and Its Measureme nt with Laser Ranging to the LAGEOS Satellites and GRACE Earth Gravity Models,” in: Ciufolini, I., Mat zner, R. (eds) General Relativity and John Archibald Wheeler , Astrophysics and Space Science Library, 367, 371-434 (2010), Springer, Dordrecht

work page 2010

[6] [6]

Gravitomagnetic eﬀects,

M. L. Ruggiero and A. Tartaglia, “Gravitomagnetic eﬀects,” Nuov o Cim. B 117, 743-768 (2002)

work page 2002

[7] [7]

Superconductor in static gravit ational, electric and mag- netic ﬁelds with vortex lattice,

G. A. Ummarino and A. Gallerati, “Superconductor in static gravit ational, electric and mag- netic ﬁelds with vortex lattice,” Results Phys. 30, 104838 (2021). [ CrossRef]

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Solutions of the Maxwell and Yang-Mills Equations A ssociated with Hopf Fibrings,

A. Trautman, “Solutions of the Maxwell and Yang-Mills Equations A ssociated with Hopf Fibrings,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 16, 561 (1977). [ CrossRef]

work page 1977