1: \documentclass[twocolumn,floatfix,showpacs,prd,aps,tightenlines]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{psfrag}
5: \usepackage{dcolumn}
6: \usepackage{bm}
7:
8: \newcommand{\tg}{\tilde\gamma}
9: \newcommand{\tG}{\tilde\Gamma}
10: \newcommand{\tA}{\tilde A}
11: \newcommand{\tK}{\tilde K}
12: \newcommand{\lb}{{\cal L}_\beta}
13: \newcommand{\dt}{\partial_0}
14: \newcommand{\tr}{\mbox{tr}}
15: \newcommand{\psibl}{\psi_{BL}}
16: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
17: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
18: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
19: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
20: \newcommand{\KMS}{\rm km\,s^{-1}}
21: \newcommand{\vz}{v_\|}
22: \newcommand{\avg}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle}
23:
24: \newcommand{\LAZEV}{{\it LazEv}}
25:
26: \begin{document}
27:
28:
29: \title{Further insight into gravitational recoil}
30:
31: \author{Carlos O. Lousto}
32: \affiliation{Center for Computational Relativity and Gravitation,
33: School of Mathematical Sciences,
34: Rochester Institute of Technology, 78 Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester,
35: New York 14623}
36:
37:
38: \author{Yosef Zlochower}
39: \affiliation{Center for Computational Relativity and Gravitation,
40: School of Mathematical Sciences,
41: Rochester Institute of Technology, 78 Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester,
42: New York 14623}
43:
44: \date{\today}
45:
46: \begin{abstract}
47: We test the accuracy of our recently proposed empirical formula to
48: model the recoil velocity imparted to the merger remnant of spinning,
49: unequal-mass black-hole binaries. We study three families of
50: black-hole binary configurations, all with mass ratio q=3/8 (to
51: maximize the unequal-mass contribution to the kick) and spins aligned
52: (or counter aligned) with the orbital angular momentum, two with
53: spin configurations chosen to minimize the spin-induced tangential and
54: radial accelerations of the trajectories respectively, and a third
55: family where the trajectories are significantly altered by spin-orbit
56: coupling. We find good agreement between the measured and predicted recoil
57: velocities for the first two families, and
58: reasonable agreement for the third. We also re-examine our original
59: generic binary configuration that led to the discovery of extremely
60: large spin-driven recoil velocities and inspired our empirical formula,
61: and find reasonable agreement between the predicted and measured
62: recoil speeds.
63:
64: \end{abstract}
65:
66: \pacs{04.25.Dm, 04.25.Nx, 04.30.Db, 04.70.Bw} \maketitle
67:
68: \section{Introduction}
69:
70:
71:
72: Thanks to recent breakthroughs in the full non-linear numerical
73: evolution of black-hole-binary
74: spacetimes~\cite{Pretorius:2005gq,Campanelli:2005dd,Baker:2005vv}, it
75: is now possible to accurately simulate the merger process and examine
76: its effects in this highly non-linear
77: regime~\cite{Campanelli:2006gf,
78: Baker:2006yw,Campanelli:2006uy,Campanelli:2006fg,Campanelli:2006fy,
79: Pretorius:2006tp,Pretorius:2007jn,Baker:2006ha,Bruegmann:2006at,
80: Buonanno:2006ui,Baker:2006kr,Scheel:2006gg,Baker:2007fb,Marronetti:2007ya,
81: Pfeiffer:2007yz}. Black-hole binaries will radiate between $2\%$ and
82: $8\%$ of their total mass and up to $40\%$ of their angular momenta,
83: depending on the magnitude and direction of the spin components,
84: during the
85: merger~\cite{Campanelli:2006uy,Campanelli:2006fg,Campanelli:2006fy}.
86: In addition, the radiation of net linear momentum by a black-hole
87: binary leads to the recoil of the final remnant
88: hole~\cite{Campanelli:2004zw, Herrmann:2006ks,
89: Baker:2006vn,Sopuerta:2006wj,Gonzalez:2006md,
90: Sopuerta:2006et,Herrmann:2006cd,Herrmann:2007zz,Herrmann:2007ac,
91: Campanelli:2007ew,Koppitz:2007ev,Choi:2007eu,Gonzalez:2007hi,
92: Baker:2007gi,Campanelli:2007cga,Berti:2007fi,Tichy:2007hk,
93: Herrmann:2007ex,Brugmann:2007zj,Schnittman:2007ij,Krishnan:2007pu,
94: HolleyBockelmann:2007eh,Pollney:2007ss},
95: which can have astrophysically important effects
96: \cite{Redmount:1989,Merritt:2004xa,Campanelli:2007ew,Gualandris:2007nm,HolleyBockelmann:2007eh,Kapoor76}.
97:
98:
99:
100: Merging black-hole binaries will radiate net linear momentum if the two
101: black holes are not symmetric. This asymmetry can be due to unequal
102: masses, unequal spins, or a combination of the two. A non-spinning
103: black-hole binary will thus only radiate net linear momentum if the
104: component masses are not equal. However, the maximum recoil in this
105: case (which occurs when the mass ratio is $q\approx0.36$) is a
106: relatively small $\sim175\ \KMS$~\cite{Gonzalez:2006md}. The
107: complementary case, where the black holes have equal masses but
108: unequal spins was first reported in~\cite{Herrmann:2007ac} and
109: \cite{Koppitz:2007ev}. In the former case the authors calculated the
110: recoil velocity for equal-mass, quasi-circular binaries with
111: equal-amplitude, anti-parallel spins aligned with the orbital angular
112: momentum direction, while in the latter case the authors used the same
113: general configuration but varied the
114: amplitude of one of the spins. In both the above cases the authors
115: extrapolated a maximum possible recoil (which is tangent to the
116: orbital plane) of $~\sim 460\ \KMS$ when the two holes have maximal
117: spin. At the same time, our group
118: released a paper on the first simulation of a generic black-hole
119: binaries with unequal masses and spins, where the spins were not
120: aligned with the orbital angular momentum~\cite{Campanelli:2007ew}. That
121: configuration had a mass ratio of 1:2, with the larger black hole
122: having spin $a/m = 0.885$ pointing $45^\circ$ below the orbital plane
123: and the smaller hole having negligible spin. The black holes displayed spin
124: precession and spin flips and a measured recoil velocity of $475\
125: \KMS$, mostly along the orbital angular momentum direction.
126: It was thus found that the recoil normal to the orbital plane (due to spin
127: components lying in the orbital plane) can be larger than the in-plane
128: recoil originating from either the unequal-masses or the spin components
129: normal to the orbital plane. The maximum possible recoil arises from
130: equal-mass, maximally spinning holes with spins in the orbital plane and
131: counter-aligned. This maximum recoil, which will be normal to the orbital
132: plane, is nearly $4000\ \KMS$.
133:
134: In~\cite{Campanelli:2007ew} we introduced the following
135: heuristic model for the
136: gravitational recoil of a merging binary.
137: \begin{equation}\label{eq:empirical}
138: \vec{V}_{\rm recoil}(q,\vec\alpha_i)=v_m\,\hat{e}_1+
139: v_\perp(\cos(\xi)\,\hat{e}_1+\sin(\xi)\,\hat{e}_2)+\vz\,\hat{e}_z,
140: \end{equation}
141: where
142: \begin{subequations}
143: \begin{equation}\label{eq:vm}
144: v_m=A\frac{q^2(1-q)}{(1+q)^5}\left(1+B\,\frac{q}{(1+q)^2}\right),
145: \end{equation}
146: \begin{equation}\label{eq:vperp}
147: v_\perp=H\frac{q^2}{(1+q)^5}\left(\alpha_2^\|-q\alpha_1^\|\right),
148: \end{equation}
149: \begin{equation}\label{eq:vpar}
150: \vz=K\cos(\Theta-\Theta_0)\frac{q^2}{(1+q)^5}\left|\vec\alpha_2^\perp-q\vec\alpha_1^\perp\right|,
151: \end{equation}
152: \end{subequations}
153: $A = 1.2\times 10^{4}\ \KMS$~\cite{Gonzalez:2006md},
154: $B = -0.93$~\cite{Gonzalez:2006md},
155: here we find $H = (6.9\pm0.5)\times 10^{3}\ \KMS$,
156: $\vec{\alpha}_i=\vec{S}_i/m_i^2$,
157: $\vec S_i$ and $m_i$ are the spin and mass of
158: hole $i$, $q=m_1/m_2$ is the mass ratio of the smaller to larger mass hole,
159: the index $\perp$ and $\|$
160: refer to perpendicular and parallel to the orbital angular momentum
161: respectively at the effective moment of the maximum generation of
162: the recoil (around merger time),
163: $\hat{e}_1,\hat{e}_2$ are orthogonal unit vectors in the
164: orbital plane, and $\xi$ measures the angle between the ``unequal mass''
165: and ``spin'' contributions to the recoil velocity in the orbital plane.
166: The angle $\Theta$ was defined as the angle between the in-plane
167: component of $\vec \Delta\equiv (m_1+m_2)({\vec S_2}/m_2 -{\vec S_1}/m_1)$
168: and the infall direction at merger.
169: The form of Eq.~(\ref{eq:vm}) was proposed
170: in~\cite{1983MNRAS.203.1049F,Gonzalez:2006md},
171: while the form of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:vperp})~and~(\ref{eq:vpar}) was
172: proposed in~\cite{Campanelli:2007ew}
173: based on the post-Newtonian expressions in~\cite{Kidder:1995zr}.
174: In Ref~\cite{Campanelli:2007cg} we
175: determined that
176: $K=(6.0\pm0.1)\times 10^4\ \KMS$.
177: Although $\xi$ may in general depend strongly on the configuration,
178: the results of~\cite{Choi:2007eu} and post-Newtonian calculations show that $\xi$ is
179: $90^\circ$ for headon collisions, and the results presented here
180: indicate that $\xi \sim 145^\circ$ for a wide range of quasi-circular
181: configurations.
182: A simplified version of Eq.~(\ref{eq:empirical}) that
183: models the magnitude of $V_{\rm recoil}$ was independently proposed
184: in~\cite{Baker:2007gi}, and a simplified form of Eq.~(\ref{eq:empirical})
185: for the equal-mass aligned spin case was proposed in~\cite{Koppitz:2007ev}.
186:
187: Our heuristic formula~(\ref{eq:empirical}) describing the recoil
188: velocity of a black-hole binary remnant as a function of the
189: parameters of the individual holes has been theoretically verified in
190: several ways. In~\cite{Campanelli:2007cg} the $\cos{\Theta}$ dependence
191: was established and was confirmed in~\cite{Brugmann:2007zj} for
192: binaries with larger initial separations. In Ref.~\cite{Herrmann:2007ex}
193: the decomposition into spin
194: components perpendicular and parallel to the orbital plane was
195: verified, and in~\cite{Pollney:2007ss} it was found that the quadratic-in-spin
196: corrections to the in-plane recoil velocity are less than
197: $20\ \KMS$.
198:
199:
200: Consistent and independent recoil velocity
201: calculations have also been obtained for equal-mass binaries with
202: spinning black holes that have spins aligned/counter-aligned with the
203: orbital angular momentum~\cite{Herrmann:2007ac,Koppitz:2007ev}. Recoils
204: from the merger of non-precessing unequal mass black-hole binaries have been
205: modeled in~\cite{Baker:2007gi}.
206:
207:
208:
209:
210: The net in-plane remnant recoil velocity arises both from the
211: asymmetry due to unequal masses, which given its $z\to-z$ symmetric
212: behavior, only contributes to recoil along the orbital plane, and
213: the asymmetry produced by the black-hole spin
214: component perpendicular to the orbital plane. Even if we can parametrize
215: the contribution of each of these two components of the recoil in terms
216: of only one angle, $\xi$, the modeling of it appears in principle very
217: complicated. $\xi$ may depend on the mass ratio ($q$) of the holes,
218: as well as their individual spins $S^z_1$ and $S^z_2$, but also on their
219: orbital parameters such as initial coordinates and momenta,
220: or initial separation and eccentricity. We clearly have to reduce
221: the dimensionality of this parameter space as part of the modeling process.
222: In order to do so, we shall choose a model for $\xi$ that only depends on
223: $q$ and $\Delta^z$ for quasi-circular orbits. We then perform simulations
224: to determine how accurately this reduced-parameter-space model for $\xi$
225: reproduces the observed recoil velocities and find that
226: $\xi\approx145^\circ$, independent of either $q$ or $\Delta^z$.
227:
228:
229:
230: The paper is organized as follows, in Sec.~\ref{sec:techniques}
231: we
232: review the numerical techniques used for the evolution of
233: the black-hole binaries and the analysis of the physical
234: quantities extracted at their horizons.
235: In Sec.~\ref{sec:pn} we review the
236: post-Newtonian dynamics of binary systems in order to
237: motivate our study of equivalent trajectories for unequal
238: mass, nonspinning and spinning holes. We focus on
239: four families of such configurations. In Sec.~\ref{sec:ID} we give
240: the initial data parameters for these families.
241: The results of the evolution of
242: those configurations are given in Sec.~\ref{sec:res}, where we
243: also introduce a novel analysis of the trajectories of
244: the punctures and of the waveform phase to model the
245: angle $\xi$ in our heuristic formula Eq.~(\ref{eq:empirical}).
246: In Sec.~\ref{sec:gen} we analyze the generic configuration
247: that led us to discover the large recoil velocities produced
248: by the spin projection on the orbital plane of the binary.
249: Here we use more refined tools to analyze
250: the individual hole spins and momenta near merger time, when
251: most of the recoil is generated. We end the paper with
252: a Discussion section pointing out the need for further
253: runs with higher accuracy to improve our first results,
254: and an Appendix including the post-Newtonian analysis
255: of the maximum recoil configuration.
256:
257:
258:
259:
260: \section{Techniques}
261: \label{sec:techniques}
262:
263: We use the puncture approach~\cite{Brandt97b} along with the {\sc
264: TwoPunctures}~\cite{Ansorg:2004ds} thorn to compute initial data. In
265: this approach the 3-metric on the initial slice has the form
266: $\gamma_{a b} = (\psi_{BL} + u)^4 \delta_{a b}$, where $\psi_{BL}$ is
267: the Brill-Lindquist conformal factor, $\delta_{ab}$ is the Euclidean
268: metric, and $u$ is (at least) $C^2$ on the punctures. The
269: Brill-Lindquist conformal factor is given by
270: $
271: \psi_{BL} = 1 + \sum_{i=1}^n m_{i}^p / (2 |\vec r - \vec r_i|),
272: $
273: where $n$ is the total number of `punctures', $m_{i}^p$ is the mass
274: parameter of puncture $i$ ($m_{i}^p$ is {\em not} the horizon mass
275: associated with puncture $i$), and $\vec r_i$ is the coordinate location of
276: puncture $i$. We evolve these black-hole-binary data-sets using the
277: {\sc LazEv}~\cite{Zlochower:2005bj} implementation of the moving
278: puncture approach~\cite{Campanelli:2005dd}. In our version of the
279: moving puncture approach~\cite{Campanelli:2005dd,Baker:2005vv} we replace the
280: BSSN~\cite{Nakamura87,Shibata95, Baumgarte99} conformal exponent
281: $\phi$, which has logarithmic singularities at the punctures, with the
282: initially $C^4$ field $\chi = \exp(-4\phi)$. This new variable, along
283: with the other BSSN variables, will remain finite provided that one
284: uses a suitable choice for the gauge. An alternative approach uses
285: standard finite differencing of $\phi$~\cite{Baker:2005vv}.
286:
287: We use the Carpet~\cite{Schnetter-etal-03b,carpet_web} mesh refinement
288: driver to provide a `moving boxes' style mesh refinement. In this
289: approach refined grids of fixed size are arranged about the
290: coordinate centers of both holes. The Carpet code then moves these
291: fine grids about the computational domain by following the
292: trajectories of the two black holes.
293:
294: We obtain accurate, convergent waveforms and horizon parameters by
295: evolving this system in conjunction with a modified 1+log lapse and a
296: modified Gamma-driver shift
297: condition~\cite{Alcubierre02a,Campanelli:2005dd}, and an initial lapse
298: $\alpha(t=0) = 2/(1+\psi_{BL}^{4})$.
299: The lapse and shift are evolved with
300: \begin{subequations}
301: \label{eq:gauge}
302: \begin{eqnarray}
303: \partial_t - \beta^i \partial_i) \alpha &=& - 2 \alpha K\\
304: \partial_t \beta^a &=& B^a \\
305: \partial_t B^a &=& 3/4 \partial_t \tilde \Gamma^a - \eta B^a.
306: \label{eq:Bdot}
307: \end{eqnarray}
308: \end{subequations}
309: These gauge conditions require careful treatment of $\chi$, the
310: inverse
311: of the three-metric conformal factor,
312: near the puncture in order for the system to remain
313: stable~\cite{Campanelli:2005dd,Campanelli:2006gf,Bruegmann:2006at}. In
314: Ref.~\cite{Gundlach:2006tw} it was
315: shown that this choice of gauge leads to a strongly hyperbolic
316: evolution system provided that the shift does not become too large.
317:
318:
319: We use {\sc AHFinderdirect}~\cite{Thornburg2003:AH-finding} to locate
320: apparent horizons.
321: We measure the magnitude of the horizon spin using the Isolated
322: Horizon algorithm detailed in~\cite{Dreyer02a}. This algorithm is
323: based on finding an approximate rotational Killing vector (i.e.\ an
324: approximate rotational symmetry) on the horizon, and given this
325: approximate Killing vector $\varphi^a$, the spin magnitude is
326: \begin{equation}\label{isolatedspin}
327: S_{[\varphi]} = \frac{1}{8\pi}\oint_{AH}(\varphi^aR^bK_{ab})d^2V
328: \end{equation}
329: where $K_{ab}$ is the extrinsic curvature of the 3D-slice, $d^2V$ is the
330: natural volume element intrinsic to the horizon, and $R^a$ is the
331: outward pointing unit vector normal to the horizon on the 3D-slice.
332: We measure the
333: direction of the spin by finding the coordinate line joining the poles
334: of this Killing vector field using the technique introduced
335: in~\cite{Campanelli:2006fy}. Our algorithm for finding the poles of
336: the Killing vector field has an accuracy of $\sim 2^\circ$
337: (see~\cite{Campanelli:2006fy} for details).
338:
339: We also use an alternative quasi-local measurement of the spin and
340: linear momentum of the individual black holes in the binary that is
341: based on the
342: coordinate rotation and translation vectors~\cite{Krishnan:2007pu}.
343: In this approach the spin components of the horizon are given by
344: \begin{equation}
345: S_{[i]} = \frac{1}{8\pi}\oint_{AH} \phi^a_{[i]} R^b K_{ab} d^2V,
346: \label{eq:coordspin}
347: \end{equation}
348: where
349: $\phi^i_{[\ell]} = \delta_{\ell j} \delta_{m k} r^m \epsilon^{i j k}$,
350: and $r^m = x^m - x_0^m$ is the coordinate displacement from the centroid
351: of the hole,
352: while the linear momentum is given by
353: \begin{equation}
354: P_{[i]} = \frac{1}{8\pi}\oint_{AH} \xi^a_{[i]} R^b (K_{ab} - K \gamma_{ab}) d^2V,
355: \label{eq:coordmom}
356: \end{equation}
357: where
358: $\xi^i_{[\ell]} = \delta^i_\ell$.
359:
360: We measure radiated energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum, in
361: terms of $\psi_4$, using the formulae provided in
362: Refs.~\cite{Campanelli99,Lousto:2007mh}. However, rather than using
363: the full $\psi_4$ we decompose it into $\ell$ and $m$ modes and solve
364: for the radiated linear momentum, dropping terms with $\ell \geq 5$. The
365: formulae in Refs.~\cite{Campanelli99,Lousto:2007mh} are valid at $r=\infty$. We obtain highly
366: accurate values for these quantities by solving for them on spheres of
367: finite radius (typically $r/M=25, 30, 35, 40$), fitting the results to
368: a polynomial dependence in $l=1/r$, and extrapolating to $l=0$. We
369: perform fits based on a linear and quadratic dependence on $l$, and
370: take the final values to be the average of these two extrapolations
371: with the differences being the extrapolation error.
372:
373:
374: We obtain a new determination of $H$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:vperp})
375: using results from simulations performed by the
376: NASA/GSFC~\cite{Baker:2007gi}, PSU~\cite{Herrmann:2007ac}, and
377: AEI/LSU~\cite{Pollney:2007ss} groups. The simulations performed by
378: these groups include runs with $q=1$, and thus provide an accurate
379: measurement of $v_\perp$. We calculate $H$ for each simulation
380: (via $H= v_\perp (\alpha_2^\| - \alpha_1^\|) (1+q)^5/q^2$) and take
381: the weighted average $\avg{H}\pm \delta\avg{H}$, where
382: \begin{eqnarray}
383: \avg{X^n} &=& \sum_i {X_i}^n w_i, \nonumber \\
384: w_i &=& \frac{(\delta X_i)^{-2}}{\sum_j (\delta X_i)^{-2}},\nonumber \\
385: \delta \avg{X} &=& \sqrt{\avg{X^2} - \avg{X}^2},
386: \label{eq:avg}
387: \end{eqnarray}
388: $X$ is the quantity to be averaged, $n$ is some specified
389: power, and
390: $\delta X_i$ is the uncertainty in a particular measurement
391: of $X$. Note that we weight $H$ and $H^2$ by the same $w_i$.
392: We find $\avg{H} = (6895 \pm 513)\ \KMS$.
393: Figure~\ref{fig:H2} shows the values of $H$ obtained from each simulation
394: as well as the average value of $H$.
395: We can see that based
396: on the AEI/LSU data, which take into account the initial recoil
397: at the beginning of the full numerical simulations, one could
398: fit linear corrections to $H$. However, the deviations from $H={\rm const}$
399: are only significant near $D=q^2/(1+q)^5(\alpha_2^\| - q \alpha_1^\|)=0$, when
400: the spin-induced recoil is small (and hence the relative error in
401: the spin-induced recoil is large). The absolute differences between
402: the predicted and measured
403: recoil velocities for the AEI/LSU results are within $20\ \KMS$
404: when we take $H=6895\ \KMS$.
405: \begin{figure}
406: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{H2.eps}
407: \caption{The value of $H$ calculated by inverting Eq.~(\ref{eq:vperp})
408: as determined from simulations by the AEI, PSU, and
409: NASA/GSFC groups. The thick line is the weighted average and the thin
410: lines are the expected uncertainty in the average.}
411: \label{fig:H2}
412: \end{figure}
413:
414: \section{Post-Newtonian analysis}
415: \label{sec:pn}
416: In order to compare results from the recoil due to unequal masses and
417: those due to spin effects as well, we will study systems with similar
418: orbital trajectories. Since the radiated momentum due to unequal masses is
419: a function of the orbital acceleration, these systems will all exhibit
420: very similar unequal-mass contributions to the net recoil, which allows
421: us to isolate the spin-induced contributions to the recoil.
422: To generate families of binaries with similar trajectories we use
423: the formulae for the leading order post-Newtonian accelerations and
424: choose configurations that minimize the effects of the spins on the
425: trajectories, but have non-negligible spin contributions
426: to the net recoil.
427:
428: The relative one-body accelerations can be written as~\cite{Kidder:1995zr}
429: \begin{equation}
430: {\vec a} = {\vec a}_N + {\vec a}_{PN} + {\vec a}_{2PN}+ {\vec a}_{RR}
431: + {\vec a}_{SO} + {\vec a}_{SS},
432: \label{accel}
433: \end{equation}
434: with
435: \newpage
436: \begin{widetext}
437: \begin{subequations}
438: \begin{equation}\label{eq:aN}
439: {\vec a}_N = - {m \over r^2} {\hat n} ,
440: \end{equation}
441: \begin{equation}\label{eq:aPN}
442: {\vec a}_{PN}= - {m \over r^2} \left\{ {\hat n} \left[
443: (1+3\nu)v^2 - 2(2+\nu){m \over r} - {3 \over 2} \nu \dot r^2 \right]
444: -2(2-\nu) \dot r {\vec v} \right\} ,
445: \end{equation}
446: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:a2PN}
447: {\vec a}_{2PN} = - {m \over r^2} \biggl\{ && {\hat n} \biggl[ {3 \over 4}
448: (12+29\nu) ( {m \over r} )^2
449: + \nu(3-4\nu)v^4 + {15 \over 8} \nu(1-3\nu)\dot r^4
450: \nonumber \\ && \mbox{}
451: - {3 \over 2} \nu(3-4\nu)v^2 \dot r^2
452: - {1 \over 2} \nu(13-4\nu) {m \over r} v^2
453: - (2+25\nu+2\nu^2) {m \over r} \dot r^2 \biggr]
454: \nonumber \\ && \mbox{}
455: - {1 \over 2} \dot r {\vec v}
456: \left[ \nu(15+4\nu)v^2 - (4+41\nu+8\nu^2)
457: {m \over r} -3\nu(3+2\nu) \dot r^2 \right] \biggr\} ,
458: \end{eqnarray}
459: \begin{equation}\label{eq:aRR}
460: {\vec a}_{RR} = {8 \over 5} \nu {m^2 \over r^3} \left\{ \dot r {\hat n}
461: \left[ 18v^2 + {2 \over 3} {m \over r} -25 \dot r^2 \right] - {\vec v}
462: \left[ 6v^2 - 2
463: {m \over r} -15 \dot r^2 \right] \right\} ,
464: \end{equation}
465: \begin{equation}\label{eq:aSO}
466: {\vec a}_{SO} = {1 \over r^3} \left\{ 6 {\hat n} [( {\hat n} \times
467: {\vec v} ) {\cdot} (2{\vec S} + {\delta m \over m}{\vec \Delta} )]
468: - [ {\vec v} \times (7
469: {\vec S}+3{\delta m \over m}{\vec \Delta})]
470: + 3 \dot r [ {\hat n} \times
471: (3{\vec S} + {\delta m \over m}{\vec \Delta} )] \right\} ,
472: \end{equation}
473: \begin{equation}\label{eq:aSS}
474: {\vec a}_{SS} = - {3 \over \mu r^4} \biggl\{ {\hat n} ({\vec S_1 \cdot
475: \vec S_2}) + {\vec S_1} ({\hat n \cdot \vec S_2}) + {\vec S_2} ({\hat n \cdot
476: \vec S_1}) - 5 {\hat n} ({\hat n \cdot \vec S_1})({\hat n \cdot \vec S_2})
477: \biggr\} ,
478: \end{equation}
479: \end{subequations}
480: \end{widetext}
481: where ${\vec x} \equiv {\vec x_1}-{\vec x_2}$, ${\vec v}={d{\vec x}/dt}$,
482: ${\hat n}\equiv{{\vec x}/r}$, $m=m_1+m_2$, $\mu \equiv m_1m_2/m$, $\nu \equiv
483: \mu /m$, $\delta m \equiv m_1 - m_2$, ${\vec S} \equiv {\vec S_1}+{\vec S_2}$,
484: and ${\vec \Delta} \equiv m({\vec S_2}/m_2 -{\vec S_1}/m_1)$, and an overdot
485: denotes $d/dt$.
486:
487: The first four terms in Eq.~(\ref{accel}) correspond to the Newtonian,
488: first-post-Newtonian (1PN), second-post-Newtonian, and radiation
489: reaction contributions to the equations of motion.
490: The last two terms in Eq.~(\ref{accel}) are the spin-orbit $(SO)$ and
491: spin-spin $(SS)$ contributions to the acceleration.
492:
493: The radiated linear momentum due to the motion of the two holes
494: has the form~\cite{Kidder:1995zr}
495: \begin{eqnarray}
496: {\dot {\vec P}}_N = && - {8 \over 105} {\delta m \over m}
497: \nu^2 \left( {m \over r}
498: \right)^4 \biggl\{ \dot r { \hat n} \left[ 55v^2 -45\dot r^2 + 12 {m \over
499: r}
500: \right] \nonumber \\ && \mbox{}
501: + {\vec v} \left[ 38\dot r^2 - 50v^2 - 8 {m \over r} \right] \biggr\},
502: \end{eqnarray}
503: plus higher post-Newtonian terms~\cite{wiseman:1992dv},
504: while the radiated linear momentum due to spin-orbit effects has the
505: form
506: \begin{eqnarray}
507: \label{eq:PSOdot}
508: {\dot {\vec P}}_{SO} = && - {8 \over 15} {\mu^2 m \over r^5}
509: \Bigl\{ 4 \dot r ({\vec v \times \vec\Delta})
510: - 2v^2 ({\hat n \times \vec\Delta}) \nonumber \\ && \mbox{}
511: - ({\hat n \times \vec{v}}) \left[ 3\dot r ({ \hat n \cdot \vec\Delta})
512: + 2 ({\vec{v} \cdot \vec\Delta}) \right] \Bigr\}.
513: \end{eqnarray}
514: Note also that the spin-spin coupling does not
515: contribute to the radiated linear momentum to this order.
516:
517: In order to best study and model how the final remnant
518: recoil velocity depends on the
519: mass ratio and spins, we will chose configurations with black holes
520: spinning along the orbital angular momentum. In this way the
521: orbital plane will not precess and we can write~\cite{Kidder:1995zr}
522: \begin{equation}\label{eq:S}
523: \vec S = \vec S_1 + \vec S_2 = S^z \hat z, \\
524: \end{equation}
525: and
526: \begin{equation}\label{eq:v}
527: \vec v = \dot{r}\hat{n}+r\omega\hat\lambda, \\
528: \end{equation}
529: where ${\vec L_N} \equiv \mu ({\vec x \times \vec{v}})$ is the
530: Newtonian orbital angular momentum, ${\hat \lambda} = {\hat L_N \times
531: \hat n}$ with ${\hat L_N} = {\vec L_N}/|{\vec L_N}|$, and $\omega=d\phi/dt$ is
532: defined as the orbital angular velocity.
533:
534: Taking into account that the velocity remains in the orbital plane,
535: i.e. Eq.~(\ref{eq:v}), we find that the spin-orbit acceleration (\ref{eq:aSO})
536: is given by
537: \begin{equation}\label{eq:aSOorbit}
538: {\vec a}_{SO}^\perp = {1 \over r^3} \left\{ r\omega\left(5S^z+3{\delta m \over m}{\Delta}^z\right) {\hat n} -2\dot{r}S^z\hat\lambda\right\} ,
539: \end{equation}
540: and the radiated linear momentum is given by
541: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:PSOorbit}
542: {\dot {\vec P}}_{SO}^\perp = {16 \over 15} {\mu^2 m \Delta^z\over r^5}
543: \Bigl\{ (\dot r^2-r^2\omega^2) \hat\lambda
544: - 2\dot r r\omega\hat n \Bigr\},
545: \end{eqnarray}
546: and
547: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:PNorbit}
548: {\dot {\vec P}}_N = && - {8 \over 105} {\delta m \over m}
549: \nu^2 \left( {m \over r}
550: \right)^4 \biggl\{ \dot r { \hat n} \left[ 5r^2\omega^2 -2\dot r^2 + 4 {m \over
551: r}
552: \right] \nonumber \\ && \mbox{}
553: - r\omega{\hat\lambda} \left[50r^2\omega^2+ 12\dot r^2 + 8 {m \over r} \right] \biggr\}.
554: \end{eqnarray}
555: Note that if we take the scalar product of these two instantaneous radiated momenta
556: we obtain
557: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:PNPSO}
558: {\dot {\vec P}}_N \cdot {\dot {\vec P}}_{SO}^\perp / ({\dot {P}}_N {\dot {P}}_{SO}^\perp)
559: &&= \cos(\xi_{PN}^{inst}) \nonumber\\
560: &&=
561: -\omega f(r,\dot{r},\omega)/\sqrt{|g(r,\dot{r},\omega)|},
562: \end{eqnarray}
563: where
564: $f=4r\dot{r}^4+(8m+24r^3\omega^2)\dot{r}^2
565: -r^2\omega^2(4m+25r^3\omega^2)$
566: and
567: $g(r,\dot{r},\omega)=4\dot{r}^6-(16m-124r^3\omega^2-r)\dot{r}^4/r+
568: (16m^2+232r^3\omega^2m+1225r^6\omega^4+2r^4\omega^2)\dot{r}^2/r^2
569: +\omega^2(64m^2+800r^3\omega^2m+2500r^6\omega^4+r^4\omega^2)$.
570: The fact that the factor of $\Delta^z$
571: drops out
572: of Eq.~(\ref{eq:PNPSO}) suggests that $\xi$ (which is the angle between the
573: cumulative radiated linear momenta) will depend only weakly on the spins
574: through their affects on the orbital motion. Binaries with similar orbital
575: trajectories should therefore have similar values for
576: $\xi$. Note that $\xi$ may still be a strong function of trajectory
577: and $q$.
578:
579: We will now turn to the question of identifying a subset of physical
580: parameters of the binary that produce similar trajectories for
581: unequal-mass, non-spinning and unequal-mass, spinning binaries in
582: order to compare their recoil velocities and extract the spin
583: contribution to the total recoil.
584:
585: \subsection{similar radial trajectories}
586:
587: An analysis of how $\xi$ depends on configuration is greatly simplified
588: if the trajectories of the spinning binaries are similar to
589: the trajectory for a non-spinning binary with the same mass ratio.
590: In order to accomplish this, we use the post-Newtonian expression
591: for the spin-orbit induced acceleration Eq.~(\ref{eq:aSOorbit}), and
592: choose configuration that minimize its effect.
593:
594: The radial component of the spin-orbit induced acceleration will vanish if
595: $5S^z+3{\delta m \over m}{\Delta}^z=0$. This leads to the
596: condition
597: \begin{equation}\label{eq:F=0}
598: F=(3q+2)+(3+2q)\tilde{\alpha}=0,
599: \end{equation}
600: where $\tilde{\alpha}=q\alpha_1/\alpha_2$ can take any positive or negative value.
601: However, if we consider the algebraic average over the range $0\leq q \leq 1$
602: at fixed $F$ we find
603: \begin{equation}
604: \avg{\tilde{\alpha}}=\frac12\left[\tilde{\alpha}(q=0)+\tilde{\alpha}(q=1)\right]
605: =\frac{4}{15}F-\frac{5}{6},
606: \end{equation}
607: and that $\tilde{\alpha} = \avg{\tilde{\alpha}}$ when $q=3/8$ (independent of
608: $F$).
609:
610: We will thus study configurations with this mass
611: ratio (which also produces a nearly maximum recoil velocity of
612: $\approx175\ \KMS$ for non-spinning unequal mass black hole binaries~\cite{Gonzalez:2006md}).
613:
614: Hence the first family of black-hole-binary configurations that we will study
615: is given by the
616: choice
617: \begin{equation}\label{eq:F0q38}
618: F=0,\quad q=3/8,
619: \end{equation}
620: thus
621: \begin{equation}\label{eq:9/20}
622: \alpha_2/\alpha_1=-q(3+2q)/(2+3q)=-9/20.
623: \end{equation}
624: The total spin of the binary will in general be non-vanishing with
625: \begin{equation}\label{eq:SF0}
626: S^z/m^2=(\alpha_2+q^2\alpha_1)/(1+q)^2=4\alpha_2/11.
627: \end{equation}
628:
629: \subsection{similar tangential trajectories}
630:
631: We can also choose a configuration where the tangential component of the
632: acceleration due to the spin-orbit coupling vanishes,
633: i.e.
634: \begin{equation}\label{eq:S=0}
635: S^z=S^z_1+S^z_2=0.
636: \end{equation}
637: This translates into the condition
638: \begin{equation}\label{eq:9/64}
639: \alpha_2/\alpha_1=-q^2=-9/64
640: \end{equation}
641: when $q=3/8$.
642: Note that now, the radial acceleration, as parametrized by $F$, is non vanishing
643: \begin{equation}\label{eq:55/8}
644: F=(3q+2)+(3+2q)q\alpha_1/\alpha_2=-55/8.
645: \end{equation}
646: Thus, for $q\neq1$, we cannot make both the radial and
647: tangential components of the spin-orbit acceleration vanish at the same time
648: by a simple choice of physical parameters of the binary.
649:
650: \section{Initial Configurations}
651: \label{sec:ID}
652:
653: We choose quasi-circular initial configurations with mass ratio
654: $q=m_1/m_2=3/8$ from four
655: families of parameters that we will denote by Q, F, S, and A. The Q-series has
656: initially non-spinning holes, the F-series has $F=0$ (See Eq.~(\ref{eq:F=0}));
657: hence zero PN spin-orbit-induced radial acceleration,
658: the S-series has total spin $\vec S=0$; hence zero PN spin-orbit-induced
659: tangential acceleration, and the A-series has neither $F=0$
660: nor $S=0$; hence both spin-obit-induced accelerations are non-vanishing.
661: The puncture masses were fixed by requiring that the total ADM mass of
662: the system be 1 and that the mass ratio of the horizon masses be 3/8. The initial
663: data parameters for these configurations are given in Tables~\ref{table:ID1} and \ref{table:ID2}.
664: We obtained initial data parameters by choosing spin and linear
665: momenta consistent with 3PN quasi-circular orbits for binaries with mass ratio
666: $q=3/8$ and then solve for the Bowen-York ansatz for the initial 3-metric and extrinsic curvature.
667: This method was pioneered by the Lazarus project ~\cite{Baker:2002qf}
668: (See Fig.~35 there), and then
669: used in the rest of the breakthrough papers~\cite{Campanelli:2006uy,
670: Campanelli:2006fg,Campanelli:2006fy,Campanelli:2007cg,Lousto:2007mh,
671: Krishnan:2007pu} by the authors (in Ref.~\cite{Campanelli:2007ew}
672: we used the PN expressions for the radial component of the momentum
673: as well).
674:
675:
676:
677: \begin{widetext}
678:
679: \begin{table}
680: \caption{Initial data parameters for quasi-circular orbits with orbital frequency
681: $\omega/M=0.05$. All sets have mass ratio $q=m_{1}^H/m_{2}^H=3/8$. The `F' series has
682: $\alpha=\alpha_2/\alpha_1=-9/20$ (hence $F=q\alpha_1/\alpha_2(2q+3)+3q+2=0$), and the `S' series
683: has $\vec S = \vec S_1 + \vec S_2 = 0$.
684: The punctures are located along the
685: $x$-axis with momenta $\vec P_1 = (0, P,0)$ and $\vec P_2 = (0,-P,0)$, and spins $\vec S_i$ along
686: the $z$-axis. $m_{i}^p$ are the puncture masses, $m_{i}^H$ are the horizon masses.}
687: \begin{ruledtabular}
688: \begin{tabular}{llllllll}
689: Config & $\rm Q_{38}$ & $\rm F_{+0.2}$ & $\rm F_{-0.2}$ & $\rm F_{+0.4}$ & $\rm F_{-0.4}$ & $\rm S_{+0.64}$ & $\rm S_{-0.64}$ \\
690: \hline
691: $x_1/M$ &-4.7455652&-4.6889329 &-4.8008847 &-4.6310312 &-4.8548401 &-4.5310235 &-4.9561392\\
692: $x_2/M$ &1.7604572 &1.8161037 &1.7042740 &1.8711650 &1.6475993 &1.897592 &1.6168224\\
693: $S_1^z/M^2$ &0.0000000&0.015219622 &-0.015222140&0.030437161 &-0.030447242 &0.048726127 &-0.048689700\\
694: $S_2^z/M^2$ &0.0000000&-0.048702791 &0.048710847 &-0.097398914&0.097431175 &-0.048726127 &0.048689700\\
695: $P/M$ &0.10682112&0.10707929 &0.10656747 &0.10734244 &0.10631792 &0.10676349 &0.10692958\\
696: $L^z/M^2$ &0.69498063&0.6965546816 &0.6932382744&0.6979616178&0.6913258658 &0.6863415524 &0.7028440196\\
697: $J/M^2$ &0.69498063&0.6630715129 &0.7267269819&0.6309998643&0.7583097987 &0.6863415524 &0.7028440196\\
698: $m_{1}^p/M$&0.257487827988&0.25319314 &0.253279647&0.239665153&0.239816706&0.205915971&0.206131153\\
699: $m_{2}^p/M$&0.718534207968&0.71621170 &0.716211394&0.709030409&0.70903488&0.715832591&0.715746409\\
700: $m_{1}^H/M$ &0.27582974&0.27577886 &0.275791869&0.275757065&0.27577578&0.2756959&0.27558121\\
701: $m_{2}^H/M$ &0.73541100&0.73541402 &0.735444371&0.735334919&0.735402505&0.7351861&0.734888095\\
702: $\alpha_1^z$&0.000&0.20012582 &-0.20013825&0.4002982516&-0.400383662&0.6411766&-0.64119084\\
703: $\alpha_2^z$&0.000&-0.090053523&0.0900619119&-0.180130779&0.18015874&-0.090153&0.09015883\\
704: $M_{\rm ADM}/M $&1.00001&1.00001 &0.999997 &1.00001 &0.999997 &1.00001 & 0.999991\\
705:
706: \end{tabular} \label{table:ID1}
707: \end{ruledtabular}
708: \end{table}
709: \end{widetext}
710:
711: \begin{table}
712: \caption{
713: Initial data parameters for quasi-circular orbits with orbital frequency
714: $\omega/M=0.05$. All sets have mass ratio $q=m_{1}^H/m_{2}^H=3/8$. The punctures are located along the
715: $x$-axis with momenta $\vec P_1 = (0, P, 0)$ and $P_2 = (0,-P,0)$, and spins $\vec S_i$ along
716: the $z$-axis. $m_{i}^p$ are the puncture masses, $m_{i}^H$ are the horizon masses.
717: In this series neither $F$ nor $S$ vanishes.}
718: \begin{ruledtabular}
719: \begin{tabular}{lllllll}
720: Config & $\rm A_{+0.9}$ & $\rm A_{-0.9}$ \\
721: \hline
722: $x_1/M$ &-4.5443438&-4.8662563\\
723: $x_2/M$ &1.573114&1.9275192\\
724: $S_1^z/M^2$ &0.0000000&0.0000000\\
725: $S_2^z/M^2$ &0.48873779&-0.48581609\\
726: $P/M$ &0.10276465&0.11089309\\
727: $L^z/M^2$ &0.6286584770&0.7533827395\\
728: $J/M^2$ &1.117396265&0.2675666537\\
729: $m_{1}^p/M$ &0.2545666&0.2545806\\
730: $m_{2}^p/M$ &0.2822299&0.284150275\\
731: $m_{1}^H/M$ &0.2733564&0.2726292\\
732: $m_{2}^H/M$ &0.728824&0.7270093\\
733: $\alpha_1^z$&0.0000000&0.00000\\
734: $\alpha_2^z$&0.920196524 &-0.9192121\\
735: $M_{\rm ADM}/M $ &1.000000 &0.999991\\
736: \end{tabular} \label{table:ID2}
737: \end{ruledtabular}
738: \end{table}
739:
740: \section{Results}
741: \label{sec:res}
742:
743: We evolved all configurations given in Tables~\ref{table:ID1}~and~\ref{table:ID2}
744: using 10 levels of refinement with a finest resolution of $h=M/80$ and
745: outer boundaries at $320M$ except configuration $\rm A_{+0.9}$, where we
746: used an additional coarse level to push the outer boundaries to $640M$. In all
747: cases, except where noted otherwise, we set the free Gamma-driver parameter
748: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Bdot})
749: to $\eta=6/M$~\cite{Alcubierre02a,Campanelli:2005dd}.
750:
751: In a generic simulation both the unequal mass and spin components of
752: the recoil are functions of the trajectory. To single out each
753: individual effect we perform runs chosen to follow similar
754: trajectories. In order to compare recoil velocity directions between
755: these runs we need to rotate each system so that the final plunge
756: (where most of the recoil is generated) occurs along the same
757: direction. We do this in two ways. First, as demonstrated in
758: Fig.~\ref{fig:rot_fig_a2}, we plot the puncture trajectory difference
759: $\vec r = \vec r_1 - \vec r_2$ (where $\vec r_i (t)$ is the coordinate
760: location of puncture $i$ at time $t$) for each case and rotate the
761: trajectories by an angle $\Phi_{\rm track}$ so that they all line up
762: with the $\rm Q_{38}$ trajectory during the late inspiral and merger
763: phases. Note that by taking the differences between trajectories we
764: remove effects due to the wobble motion of the center of mass. Second,
765: we measure the phase of the dominant $(\ell=2,m=2)$ mode of $\psi_4$
766: at the point of peak amplitude and take half the phase difference
767: between each case and $\rm Q_{38}$ (a rotation of $\phi$ about the
768: $z$-axis will introduce a phase difference of $-2\phi$ in the $m=2$
769: components of $\psi_4$). We denote this latter rotation angle by
770: $\Phi_{\psi_4}$. We get reasonable agreement between these two
771: measures of the rotation angle (See Table~\ref{table:rot_compare}).
772: This type of rotation may also be needed when comparing results from
773: different resolutions of the same configuration (i.e.\ when the phase
774: error, but not the amplitude error, is large). In
775: Table~\ref{table:q38-q38-comp} we give the components of the recoil
776: velocity for a set of $Q_{38}$ simulations with $\eta=2/M$. This value
777: of $\eta$ leads to a poorer effective resolution than for our standard
778: choice of $\eta=6/M$. Consequently there is a relatively large phase
779: error in the low resolution results. After performing the rotation,
780: the recoil velocities agree to within errors.
781:
782: Note that there is no rotation which will make the $A_{+0.9}$ or
783: $A_{-0.9}$ trajectories line up with the $Q_{38}$ trajectory. In these
784: cases the hangup-effect~\cite{Campanelli:2006uy} due to spin-obit
785: coupling significantly alters the trajectories (See
786: Fig.~\ref{fig:rot_fig_a9}).
787:
788: Once we have found the correct rotation angle we obtain $\xi$ via
789: \begin{eqnarray}
790: \tilde{\vec V}_{\rm recoil} &=& R[\Phi] \vec V_{\rm recoil}, \nonumber \\
791: \tilde{\vec V}_{\rm spin} &=& \tilde {\vec V}_{\rm recoil} - \vec V_{Q38}, \nonumber\\
792: \cos(\xi) &=& \tilde{\hat V}_{\rm spin}\cdot\hat V_{Q38},
793: \label{eq:xi_from_v}
794: \end{eqnarray}
795: where $\vec V_{\rm recoil}$ is the measured recoil velocity,
796: $R[\Phi]$ rotates $\vec V_{\rm recoil}$ by an angle $\Phi$
797: in the $xy$ plane, and $\vec V_{Q38}$ is the recoil of the
798: $Q_{38}$ configuration. Note that when $\alpha^\|_2 - q \alpha^\|_1 < 0$
799: we need to replace $\xi$ by $\pi - \xi$ in
800: formula~(\ref{eq:xi_from_v}) since the coefficient $v_\perp$
801: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:empirical}) is negative. We calculate
802: two different values of $\xi$, $\xi_{\rm track}$ and $\xi_{\psi_4}$,
803: based on the rotation angles $\Phi_{\rm track}$ and ${\Phi_{\psi_4}}$
804: respectively. We obtain an additional measurement of $\xi$ by solving
805: for $\cos \xi $ using Eq.~(\ref{eq:empirical}) and the measured values
806: of the recoil magnitude.
807: We denote
808: this latter measurement of $\xi$, which is unaffected by rotations,
809: by $\xi_{\rm Formula}$,
810: where
811: \begin{equation}\label{eq:xiformula}
812: \xi_{\rm Formula} = \cos^{-1} \left[\frac{v^2-v_m(q)^2 -
813: v_\perp(q,{\alpha_1}^\|, {\alpha_2}^\|)^2}
814: {2 v_m(q)\,v_\perp(q,{\alpha_1}^\|, {\alpha_2}^\|)}\right],
815: \end{equation}
816: $v_m$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:vm}), $v_\perp$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:vperp}),
817: and $v$ is the measured magnitude of the recoil velocity.
818:
819: \begin{table}
820: \caption{The rotation angle needed to align the trajectories of
821: each simulation with the $Q_{38}$ simulation as measured directly
822: from the orbital trajectories ($\Phi_{\rm track}$)
823: and using the phase of the waveform at the
824: point of maximum amplitude ($\Phi_{\psi_4}$).
825: Note that $\Phi_{\psi_4}$ provides the
826: rotation angle modulo $180^\circ$. }
827: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
828: \hline\hline
829: Config & $\Phi_{\rm track}$ & $\Phi_{\psi_4}$ &
830: $|\Phi_{\rm track}-\Phi_{\psi_4}|$ \\
831: \hline
832: $\rm F_{+0.2}$ & $25^\circ$ & $34.5^\circ$ & $9.5^\circ$ \\
833: $\rm F_{-0.2}$ & $-28^\circ$ & $-35.5^\circ$ & $7.5^0$\\
834: $\rm F_{+0.4}$ & $56^\circ$ & $63.1^\circ$ & $7.1^\circ$ \\
835: $\rm F_{-0.4}$ & $-44^\circ$ & $-40.0^\circ$ & $4.0^\circ$ \\
836: $\rm S_{+0.64}$ & $5^\circ$ & $9.7^\circ$ & $4.7^\circ$\\
837: $\rm S_{-0.64}$ & $56^\circ$ & $44.6^\circ$ & $ 11.4^\circ$\\
838: $\rm A_{+0.9}$ & $***$ & $12.3^\circ$ & $***$\\
839: $\rm A_{-0.9}$ & $***$ & $-15.9^\circ$ & $***$\\
840: \hline\hline
841: \end{tabular} \label{table:rot_compare}
842: \end{table}
843:
844: \begin{table}
845: \caption{Results of the recoil velocity for the $\rm Q_{38}$ configuration
846: with $\eta=2/M$ at two different resolutions. After correcting
847: for the phase error, equivalent to a rotation, the two recoils agree. Here `$\rm R_{track}$' denotes
848: the velocity after rotating by the angle $\Phi_{\rm track}$ and
849: `$R_{\psi_4}$' denotes
850: the velocity after rotating by the angle $\Phi_{\psi_4}$.}
851: \begin{tabular}{lcccc}
852: \hline\hline
853: $h$ & $\Phi_{\rm track}$ & $\Phi_{\psi_4}$ & $V_{x}$ & $V_{y}$\\
854: \hline
855: $M/80$ & $34^\circ$ & $36.5^\circ$ & $-163\pm12$&$-46\pm11$\\
856: $M/80$ $R_{\psi_4}$ & *** & *** & $-103\pm12$&$-134\pm11$\\
857: $M/80$ $\rm R_{track}$ & *** & *** & $-109\pm12$&$-129\pm11$\\
858: $M/100$ & $0$ & $0$ & $-109\pm14$&$-133\pm12$\\
859: \hline\hline
860: \end{tabular} \label{table:q38-q38-comp}
861: \end{table}
862:
863:
864:
865:
866: We summarize the results of our simulations in Tables~\ref{table:resultsI}
867: and~\ref{table:resultsII}. All configuration, with the exception of the
868: `A' series, have radiated energies in the range
869: $E_{\rm rad}/M = 0.021\pm0.002$ and radiated angular momenta in the
870: range $J_{\rm rad}/M^2 = 0.15\pm0.01$, which is consistent with these
871: trajectories being essentially the same for all configurations
872: (See Fig.~\ref{fig:rot_fig_a2}).
873:
874:
875: \begin{widetext}
876:
877: \begin{figure}
878: \caption{The trajectory differences $\vec r = \vec r_1 - \vec r_2$ for
879: the `F' and `S' series rotated so that the late-inspiral
880: matches the $\rm Q_{38}$
881: trajectory. The plots show the rotation angle $\Phi_{\rm track}$}
882:
883: \includegraphics[width=2.7in]{rot_fig_a2.eps}
884: \label{fig:rot_fig_a2}
885: \includegraphics[width=2.7in]{rot_fig_am2.eps}
886:
887: \includegraphics[width=2.7in]{rot_fig_a4.eps}
888: \includegraphics[width=2.7in]{rot_fig_am4.eps}
889:
890: \includegraphics[width=2.7in]{rot_fig_a64.eps}
891: \includegraphics[width=2.7in]{rot_fig_am64.eps}
892: \end{figure}
893:
894:
895: \begin{figure}
896: \caption{The trajectory differences $\vec r = \vec r_1 - \vec r_2$ for
897: the `A' series, as well as $\rm Q_{38}$. Note that there is no angle
898: $\Phi_{\rm track}$ that will make the late-time trajectories
899: overlap. Here the spin-orbit hang-up effect changes
900: the orbital trajectory significantly.}
901: \includegraphics[width=2.7in]{rot_fig_a9.eps}
902: \label{fig:rot_fig_a9}
903: \includegraphics[width=2.7in]{rot_fig_am9.eps}
904: \end{figure}
905:
906: \begin{table}
907: \caption{The recoil velocities (prior to any rotation),
908: radiated energy and angular momentum,
909: and $\xi$ for the `Q' and `F' series. $\xi_{\rm track}$ is calculated
910: using $\Phi_{\rm track}$ and Eq.~(\ref{eq:xi_from_v}), $\xi_{\psi_4}$
911: is calculated
912: using $\Phi_{\psi_4}$ and Eq.~(\ref{eq:xi_from_v}), $\xi_{\rm Formula}$
913: is calculated from the given recoil magnitude using Eq.~(\ref{eq:xiformula}).
914: $|\vec V^{\rm pred}_{\rm track}|$, $|\vec V^{\rm pred}_{\psi_4}|$, and
915: $|\vec V^{\rm pred}_{\rm avg}|$ are
916: the recoil velocities as predicted by
917: Eq.~(\ref{eq:empirical}) with $\xi = \xi_{\rm track}$, $\xi=\xi_{\psi_4}$,
918: and $\xi = \avg{\xi}$ respectively.
919: }
920: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
921: \hline\hline
922: Config & $\rm Q_{38}$ & $\rm F_{+0.2}$ & $\rm F_{-0.2}$ & $\rm F_{+0.4}$ & $\rm F_{-0.4}$ \\
923: \hline
924: $E_{\rm rad}/M$ &$0.0210\pm0.0003$&$0.0202\pm0.0003$&$0.0219\pm0.0004$&$0.0193\pm0.0002$&$0.0228\pm0.0004$ \\
925: $J_{\rm rad}/M^2$ &$0.1503\pm0.0030$&$0.1471\pm0.0005$&$0.1576\pm0.0015$&$0.1399\pm0.0016$&$0.1625\pm0.0010$ \\
926: $V^x[\KMS]$ &$-94\pm11$&$-177\pm10$&$-15\pm14$&$-223\pm12$&$15\pm14$ \\
927: $V^y[\KMS]$ &$-141\pm5$&$-85\pm12$&$-155\pm5$&$33\pm18$&$-127\pm4$ \\
928: $|\vec V|[\KMS]$&$169.5\pm7.4$ &$196.4\pm10.4$ &$155.7\pm7.2$ &$225.4\pm12.2$ &$127.9\pm4.3$ \\
929: \hline
930: $\xi_{\rm track}$[deg] &$0^\circ$ &$(143\pm31)^\circ$ &$(178\pm73)^\circ$ &$(147\pm20)^\circ$ & $(169\pm21)^\circ$ \\
931: $\xi_{\psi_4}$[deg] &$0^\circ$ &$(154\pm43)^\circ$ &$(127\pm41)^\circ$ &$(173\pm25)^\circ$ & $(179\pm21)^\circ$ \\
932: $\xi_{\rm Formula}$[deg] &$0^\circ$ &$(127\pm26)^\circ$ &$(131\pm15)^\circ$ &$(134\pm20)^\circ$ & $(144\pm6)^\circ$ \\
933: \hline
934: $|\vec V^{\rm pred}_{\rm track}|[\KMS]$&175 &$202\pm9$ &$142\pm3$ &$232\pm10$ &$112\pm9$ \\
935: $|\vec V^{\rm pred}_{\psi_4}|[\KMS]$&175 &$205\pm9$ &$158\pm21$ &$240\pm5$ &$110\pm5$ \\
936: $|\vec V^{\rm pred}_{\rm avg}|[\KMS]$&175 &$203\pm3$ &$150\pm4$ &$231\pm5$ &$127\pm8$ \\
937: \hline\hline
938: \end{tabular} \label{table:resultsI}
939: \end{table}
940: \end{widetext}
941:
942: \begin{widetext}
943:
944: \begin{table}
945: \caption{The recoil velocities (prior to any rotation), radiated energy and angular momentum, and
946: $\xi$ for the `S' and `A' series. Note that although we report the
947: calculated values for $\xi$ based on $\Phi_{\psi_4}$ for the
948: `A' series, here $\xi$ is not well defined because
949: the unequal mass component of the recoil is not
950: given by the $Q_{38}$ recoil. $\xi_{\rm track}$ is calculated
951: using $\Phi_{\rm track}$ and Eq.~(\ref{eq:xi_from_v}), $\xi_{\psi_4}$
952: is calculated
953: using $\Phi_{\psi_4}$ and Eq.~(\ref{eq:xi_from_v}), $\xi_{\rm Formula}$
954: is calculated from the given recoil magnitude using Eq.~(\ref{eq:xiformula}).
955: $|\vec V^{\rm pred}_{\rm track}|$, $|\vec V^{\rm pred}_{\psi_4}|$, and
956: $|\vec V^{\rm pred}_{\rm avg}|$ are
957: the recoil velocities as predicted by
958: Eq.~(\ref{eq:empirical}) with $\xi = \xi_{\rm track}$, $\xi=\xi_{\psi_4}$,
959: and $\xi = \avg{\xi}$ respectively.
960: }
961: \begin{tabular}{lcccc}
962: \hline\hline
963: Config & $\rm S_{0+0.64}$ & $\rm S_{-0.64}$ & $\rm A_{+0.9}$ & $\rm A_{-0.9}$ \\
964: \hline
965: $E_{\rm rad}/M$ &0.0209$\pm 0.0003$&$0.0203\pm0.0002$&$0.050668\pm0.000974$&$0.01274\pm0.00003$\\
966: $J_{\rm rad}/M^2$ &$0.152\pm0.0007$&$0.146\pm0.001$&$0.2999857\pm0.00708$&$0.092\pm0.001$\\
967: $V^x[\KMS]$ &$-122\pm18$&$-119\pm5$&$13\pm30$&$48\pm24$ \\
968: $V^y[\KMS]$ &$-181\pm15$&$31\pm4$&$-63\pm2$&$-340\pm8$ \\
969: $|\vec V|[\KMS]$&$218.3\pm16.0$ &$123.0\pm4.9$ &$64.1\pm5.9$ &$343.4\pm8.6$ \\
970: \hline
971: $\xi_{\rm track}$[deg] &$(160\pm31)^\circ$ &$(148\pm11)^\circ$ &$***$ &$***$ \\
972: $\xi_{\psi_4}$[deg] &$(142\pm28)^\circ$ &$(137\pm7)^\circ$ &$(158\pm7)^\circ$ &$(93\pm7)^\circ$ \\
973: $\xi_{\rm Formula}$[deg] &$(124\pm22)^\circ$ &$(150\pm7)^\circ$ &$(159\pm2)^\circ$ &$(149\pm19)^\circ$ \\
974: \hline
975: $|\vec V^{\rm pred}_{\rm track}|[\KMS]$&$237\pm10$ &$125\pm10$ &$***$ &$***$\\
976: $|\vec V^{\rm pred}_{\psi_4}|[\KMS]$&$230\pm16$ &$135\pm7$ &$68\pm22$ &$259\pm18$\\
977: $|\vec V^{\rm pred}_{\rm avg}|[\KMS]$&$231\pm5$ &$127\pm8$ &$108\pm28$ &$340\pm9$\\
978: \hline\hline
979: \end{tabular} \label{table:resultsII}
980: \end{table}
981: \end{widetext}
982:
983:
984: We obtain weighted averages for $\xi$ for the `F' and `S' series
985: of $\avg{\xi_{\rm track}} = (152\pm9)^\circ$, $\avg{\xi_{\psi_4}} = (143\pm14)^\circ$,
986: and $\avg{\xi_{\rm Formula}} = (144\pm7)^\circ$, where we use Eq.~(\ref{eq:avg})
987: to obtain the weighted average and uncertainty.
988: These weighted averages are consistent with the measured values of
989: $\xi$. The weighted average over all three measurements of $\xi$ is
990: $\avg{\xi} = (145\pm10)^\circ$.
991: Interestingly, $\avg{\xi}$ provides an accurate prediction for the
992: recoil velocity of the $A_{-0.9}$ configuration. This result is unexpected
993: because the recoil due
994: to unequal masses is a function of the mass ratio and the trajectories
995: (i.e.\ the accelerations of the masses over time). For the `F' and
996: `S' configuration the trajectories are very similar to $Q_{38}$, and
997: hence the unequal mass components of the recoil are expected to be
998: very similar to $Q_{38}$. However,
999: the spin-orbit coupling induced hangup effect in both $A_{+0.9}$ and
1000: $A_{-0.9}$ greatly affects the trajectories (See Fig.~\ref{fig:rot_fig_a9}),
1001: as well as the radiated energy and angular
1002: momenta. If we consider the radiated linear momentum
1003: averaged over an orbit, then we see that the slower the inspiral (i.e.\
1004: the closer to a closed orbit), the
1005: smaller the average recoil. Hence we expect that $A_{+0.9}$ will
1006: have a smaller unequal-mass recoil than $Q_{38}$, while $A_{-0.9}$
1007: will have a larger one. To
1008: quantify how much the orbits close we take the average of
1009: $\vec r = \vec r_1 - \vec r_2$ over the trajectory from the beginning of
1010: each simulation until $|\vec r| \sim 0.1$.
1011: The
1012: resulting averages $|\avg{\vec r}|$ for the `Q', `F', `S', and
1013: `A' families are given in Table~\ref{table:ravg}. The mean and
1014: standard deviation of $|\avg{\vec r}|$ for the `Q', `F', and `S' configurations
1015: is $|\avg{\vec r}| = 0.865\pm0.070$. The $A_{+0.9}$ and $A_{-0.9}$ configuration
1016: lie $7.1\sigma$ and $7.6\sigma$ below and above this mean respectively,
1017: while the results for the other configurations lie within $1.4\sigma$ of
1018: the mean.
1019:
1020: \begin{table}
1021: \caption{The average value $|\avg{\vec r}|$ of the trajectories for
1022: each configuration. The larger the value of $|\avg{\vec r}|$ the
1023: slower the inspiral.
1024: }
1025: \begin{tabular}{llllll}
1026: \hline\hline
1027: Config & $|\avg{\vec r}|$ & Config & $|\avg{\vec r}|$ & Config & $|\avg{\vec r}|$\\
1028: $Q_{38}$ & $0.858303$ & $F_{+0.2}$ & $0.902234$ & $F_{-0.2}$ & $0.7982157$\\
1029: $F_{+0.4}$ & $0.936172$ & $F_{-0.4}$ & $0.76745$ & $S_{+0.64}$ & $0.845197$\\
1030: $S_{-0.64}$ & $0.95333$ & $A_{+0.9}$ & $0.365654$ & $A_{-0.9}$ & $1.39869$\\
1031: \hline\hline
1032: \end{tabular} \label{table:ravg}
1033: \end{table}
1034:
1035:
1036:
1037:
1038:
1039: As seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:XivsDelta} the angle $\xi$ appears, at least
1040: qualitatively, to be independent of $\Delta$. This is in agreement
1041: with our post-Newtonian analysis in Eq.~(\ref{eq:PNPSO}). It is also
1042: consistent with our intuition that similar trajectories imply similar
1043: angles between the unequal-mass and spin contributions
1044: to the recoil, and it seems that the small differences in the trajectories
1045: produce some scatter on the values, but this is apparently
1046: mostly due to the numerical error generated during the simulations. It
1047: would be interesting to use this value of $\xi$ to model the recoil
1048: velocity distribution in galaxies.
1049:
1050:
1051:
1052: \begin{figure}
1053: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{XivsDelta.eps}
1054: \caption{$\xi$ versus $\Delta/m = S_2/m_2 - S_1/m_1$ as calculated in this work
1055: for a mass ratio $q=3/8$ and
1056: from the data published by the NASA/GSFC group for a mass ratio $q=2/3$
1057: provided in Ref.~\cite{Baker:2007gi}.
1058: We plot $\xi_{\rm track}$, $\xi_{\psi_4}$, and $\xi_{\rm Formula}$ for the
1059: `F' and `S' configurations and $\xi_{\rm Formula}$ for `A' configurations.
1060: The thick horizontal line and the two thin horizontal line show the average value
1061: $\avg{\xi}$ and its uncertainty (as calculated in this work from our
1062: simulations).
1063: The data displays significant scatter, but appears to be
1064: consistent with $\xi = {\rm const}$.
1065: }
1066: \label{fig:XivsDelta}
1067: \end{figure}
1068:
1069:
1070: \section{generic evolution reanalyzed}
1071: \label{sec:gen}
1072:
1073: In light of our new understanding about the modeling of the recoil
1074: velocity, we re-examine our original generic binary configuration,
1075: which we denote by SP6. The SP6 configuration has a mass ratio of
1076: $q=1/2$ with the larger hole having specific-spin $a/m = 0.885$
1077: and spin pointing $45^\circ$ below the orbital plane, and the smaller
1078: hole having negligible spin. We also evolved a similar configuration, which
1079: we will denote by SP6R, that is identical to SP6, but with the spin
1080: rotated by $90^\circ$ about the $z$-axis. We evolved both
1081: configurations using the same grid structure as in the previous
1082: section, but used $\eta=2/M$ rather than $6/M$. This choice of smaller
1083: $\eta$ has the effect of reducing the effective resolution, but makes
1084: calculations of the quasi-local linear momentum and spin direction more
1085: accurate (See Ref.~\cite{Krishnan:2007pu}) by reducing coordinate
1086: distortions. The initial data parameters for the two configurations
1087: are given in Table~\ref{table:id_sp6}. The drop in effective resolution when
1088: reducing $\eta$ from $6/M$ to $2/M$ is significant. In our simulations we
1089: found that a $Q_{38}$, $\eta=2/M$ run with central resolution of $M/100$ had
1090: a slightly
1091: larger waveform phase error than an equivalent $M/80$ resolution
1092: run with $\eta=6/M$, while an $M/80$ run with $\eta=2/M$ displayed a
1093: significant phase error. We have found in general that, with our choice
1094: of gauge, the coordinate dependent measurements, such as spin and linear
1095: momentum direction, become more accurate as $\eta$ is reduced (and
1096: $h\to 0$). However, if $\eta$ is too small ($\eta \lesssim 1/M$), the runs
1097: may become unstable. Similarly, if $\eta$ is too large ($\eta \gtrsim 10/M$),
1098: then grid stretching effects can cause the remnant horizon to continuously
1099: grow, eventually leading to an unacceptable loss in accuracy at late-times.
1100: We have found that a value of $\eta= 6/M$ provides both very high accuracy
1101: in the computed waveform at modest resolutions, while keeping the
1102: remnant horizon size nearly fixed at late-times.
1103:
1104:
1105:
1106: \begin{table}
1107: \caption{Initial data parameters for the SP6 and SP6R
1108: configurations. $m_p$ is the puncture mass parameter of the two holes.
1109: SP6 has spins $\vec S_1 = (0, S, -S)$ and $\vec S_2 = (0,0,0)$,
1110: momenta $\vec P = \pm (P_r, P_\perp, 0)$, puncture positions $\vec x_1 = (x_+, d, d)$ and
1111: $\vec x_2 = (x_-, d, d)$, masses $m_1$ and $m_2$, and
1112: $M_{\rm ADM}/M = 1.00000\pm0.00001$. SP6R has the same
1113: parameters as SP6 with the exception that
1114: $\vec S_1 = (-S, 0, -S)$.
1115: }
1116: \begin{tabular}{llllll}
1117: \hline\hline
1118: $m_p/M$ & $0.3185$ & $d/M$ & $0.0012817$ & $m_1/M$ & $0.6680$\\
1119: $x_+/M$ & $2.68773$ & $P_r/M$ & $-0.0013947$ & $m_2/M$ & $0.3355$\\
1120: $x_-/M$ & $-5.20295$ & $P_\perp/M$ & $0.10695$ & $S/M^2$ & $0.27941$\\
1121: \hline\hline
1122: \end{tabular} \label{table:id_sp6}
1123: \end{table}
1124:
1125:
1126: We measure a net recoil of $V_{\rm recoil} = 375\pm18\ \KMS$ and
1127: $V_{\rm recoil} = 848\pm20\ \KMS$ for SP6 and SP6R respectively.
1128:
1129: The analysis of the recoil in SP6 and SP6R is complicated by the fact
1130: that the orbital plane precesses significantly during the merger.
1131: Thus, we cannot associate the $xy$ components of the recoil with the
1132: in-plane recoil (as was done tentatively in Ref.~\cite{Campanelli:2007ew}). In
1133: order to measure the precession of the orbital plane we need an
1134: accurate measurement of the orbital angular momentum. Here we use the
1135: approximate formula
1136: \begin{equation}
1137: \label{eq:coordang}
1138: \vec L_{\rm orbit} = \sum_i \vec r_i \times \vec P_i,
1139: \end{equation}
1140: where $\vec r_i$ is the coordinate location of puncture $i$ and
1141: $\vec P_i$ is the quasi-local momentum~\cite{Krishnan:2007pu}, given
1142: by Eq.~(\ref{eq:coordmom}), of black hole $i$.
1143: In
1144: Fig.~\ref{fig:sp6_orb_mom} we show the orbital angular momentum of the SP6
1145: configuration versus time. Note the rapid change in direction near
1146: merger (a common horizon was first detected at $t=207.4M$),
1147: and as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:sp6_kick_v_time_noburst},
1148: most of the recoil is generated about $3M$ to $30M$ after merger
1149: (here we assume that waveform features seen at $t=\tau$
1150: for an observer at $r=40M$ were generated by dynamics near the horizons at
1151: $t\sim \tau - 40M$). This rapid change in direction has a strong
1152: effect on the computed
1153: recoil due to the $\cos \Theta$ and $\cos \xi$
1154: dependence of $v_{\rm recoil}$. That is, rapid physical changes in the orbital
1155: plane and spin direction, lead to relatively large
1156: errors in the direction (but not magnitude) of both the spin and
1157: orbital angular momenta when the resolution is below some threshold. This in
1158: turn, leads to relatively large errors in the measured recoil. Thus
1159: it is not surprising that this new calculation of the recoil velocity for
1160: SP6 is $100\ \KMS$ smaller than the value we reported
1161: in~\cite{Campanelli:2007ew} (note that we used a higher effective
1162: resolution in~\cite{Campanelli:2007ew}, thus we expect those values
1163: to be more accurate).
1164: These large errors will not be observed in more symmetric binaries
1165: where either the spin or angular momentum axes are fixed.
1166: \begin{figure}
1167: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{sp6_lhat_v_time.eps}
1168: \caption{The normalized orbital angular momentum vector
1169: $\vec \ell = \vec L / |\vec L|$ versus time for the SP6 configuration up
1170: to merger.
1171: Note the rapid change in the direction at late times.}
1172: \label{fig:sp6_orb_mom}
1173: \end{figure}
1174:
1175:
1176: We can obtain an approximate measurement of $\alpha_\|$ and $\alpha_\perp$
1177: using Eq.~(\ref{eq:coordang}) and the measured direction of the spin.
1178: This estimation is only approximate due to the coordinate dependent nature
1179: of both calculations. We find that for SP6, $\alpha_\|$ and $\alpha_\perp$
1180: vary little over the course of the run
1181: with values at merger of $\alpha_\| = -0.62\pm0.03$ and $\alpha_\perp =
1182: 0.62 \pm0.03$ (which are within errors of the initial values).
1183: However, the SP6R configuration does show a definite
1184: change in $\alpha$ over time, with merger values of
1185: $\alpha_\| = -0.69\pm0.03$ and $\alpha_\perp = 0.54\pm0.03$.
1186: We can use Eq.~(\ref{eq:empirical}) to give estimates for the predicted
1187: recoil velocity if we make the following assumptions: (1) $\xi = \avg{\xi}$,
1188: (2) $\Theta$ for SP6R is rotated by $\pi/2$ radians with respect to
1189: SP6, and (3) $\Theta_0$ is the same for SP6 and SP6R. Given these assumptions
1190: and the above range of the values for $\alpha_\|$ and $\alpha_\perp$, we
1191: can perform a non-linear least-squares fit of the recoil magnitude for
1192: SP6 and SP6R to obtain $\Theta_0$. The resulting predictions for the
1193: recoil magnitude are $V_{\rm SP6} = (500\pm60)\ \KMS$ and
1194: $V_{\rm SP6R} = (1120\pm130)\ \KMS$. Both predictions are within $2 \sigma$ of
1195: the actual measured values and have an absolute error of $32\%$.
1196: If we fix $\alpha_\|$ and $\alpha_\perp$ to their average values and
1197: vary our guess for $\xi$ over the range $(0, 360^\circ)$, we find that
1198: the predicted values for $V_{\rm SP6}$ and $V_{\rm SP6R}$ lie in the
1199: ranges $(462, 495)\KMS$ and $(1048, 1120)\KMS$ respectively.
1200:
1201:
1202:
1203: \begin{figure}
1204: \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{sp6_kick_v_time_ignore_burst.eps}
1205: \caption{The recoil speed ($V = |\vec V|$) for the SP6 configuration
1206: as measured from $\psi_4$
1207: at $r=40M$ as
1208: a function of time, as well as the time derivative of the recoil speed
1209: ($dV/dt = \hat V \cdot \dot{\vec V}$), and the
1210: magnitude of $\psi_4$. Here the initial data burst is
1211: excluded from the calculation. Note that peak in $dV/dt$ is located
1212: between $t=250M$ and $t=270M$ and occurs about $2M$ latter than the
1213: peak in $|\psi_4|$. A common horizon was first detected at $t=207.4M$,
1214: strongly suggesting that most of the recoil velocity is built up around
1215: merger time (since the observer is at $r=40M$, features in the waveform
1216: at time $t=\tau$ originated
1217: near the horizon(s) at time $t\sim\tau -40M$).}
1218: \label{fig:sp6_kick_v_time_noburst}
1219: \end{figure}
1220:
1221:
1222:
1223:
1224:
1225:
1226:
1227:
1228:
1229: The SP6 configuration demonstrated that the in-plane
1230: component of the spin can be the dominant contribution to the recoil.
1231: Given this observation, it becomes very important to accurately model
1232: this recoil. In Appendix~\ref{sec:PNAppendix} we derive a post-Newtonian
1233: model for the recoil produced by this in-plane component and show that it
1234: predicts the $\cos \Theta$ dependence in our empirical formula.
1235:
1236:
1237:
1238: \section{Discussion}
1239:
1240: Interestingly, most of the recoil velocity imparted to the remnant is
1241: generated at around merger time (more precisely, as seen in
1242: Fig.~\ref{fig:sp6_kick_v_time_noburst}, within the first
1243: few tens of $M$ after merger. See also Refs.~\cite{Baker:2006vn,
1244: Campanelli:2007ew,Brugmann:2007zj}.),
1245: a nonlinear regime where post-Newtonian
1246: approximations
1247: are not expected to work, but where the `Lazarus' approach
1248: \cite{Baker:2000zh,Baker:2001nu,Baker:2001sf,Baker:2002qf,
1249: Baker:2003ds,Campanelli:2005ia}
1250: can be successfully applied~\cite{Campanelli:2004zw}.
1251:
1252: Although an accurate modeling of $\xi$ is challenging, starting from
1253: an ansatz that $\xi = \xi(q,\Delta)$, we have found that, for
1254: quasi-circular orbits, $\xi$ is
1255: qualitatively independent of either $\Delta$ or $q$ for $q=3/8$,
1256: $q=2/3$ (based on the results of Ref.~\cite{Baker:2007gi}), and
1257: $q=1/2$ (based on SP6). Note that the $\xi$ that we measure is
1258: consistent with a similar parameter introduced in
1259: Ref.~\cite{Baker:2007gi}, where they found $\xi=147^\circ$ (in our
1260: notation), based on a least-squares fit of the magnitude of the recoil
1261: versus a simplified version of Eq.~(\ref{eq:empirical}).
1262: We know from the results for headon collision (where $\xi = \pi/2$),
1263: that $\xi$ is a function of eccentricity. However, for quasi-circular
1264: orbits, it appears to vary only marginally with either $q$ or $\Delta$.
1265: Further long-term simulations with high-accuracy
1266: (including extrapolations to $h\to0$ and $\eta\to0$) and
1267: further separated binaries will be needed in
1268: order to obtain a highly accurate model for $\xi$.
1269: In particular, the $\eta\to0$ limit will be important because
1270: the recoil depends sensitively on the linear momenta and spin
1271: directions of
1272: the individual black holes near merger (where gauge effects are most
1273: severe), and hence we need to take the $\eta\to0$ limit in order to
1274: accurately measure $\vec \alpha$, $\vec L$, and $\Theta$.
1275: Nevertheless, our
1276: simple formula holds with enough accuracy for astrophysical applications.
1277: In particular we have seen that the determination of an average value for the
1278: angle $\xi$ of $145^o$ seems to work not only for the
1279: $F$ and $S$ sequences, but also when we move off of these sequences
1280: towards more generic binaries. However, the formula should definitely
1281: be used with caution in an untested regime, especially when the trajectories
1282: are significantly altered by spin-orbit effects.
1283:
1284:
1285:
1286: \acknowledgments
1287: We thank the referee for many helpful suggestions in improving
1288: the text. We gratefully acknowledge NSF for financial support
1289: from grants PHY-0722315, PHY-0722703, PHY-0714388, PHY-653303.
1290: Computational resources were provided by Lonestar cluster at TACC
1291: and by NewHorizons at RIT.
1292:
1293: \appendix
1294: \section{Post-Newtonian modeling}\label{sec:PNAppendix}
1295:
1296: Here we provide a brief post-Newtonian analysis of the configurations
1297: that maximize the recoil velocity for spinning black holes.
1298: The spin-orbit-coupling (SO) contribution to the radiated linear momentum
1299: is given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:PSOdot}).
1300:
1301: We will restrict our analysis to planar orbits.
1302: Hence we have
1303: \begin{equation}\label{eq:vagain}
1304: \vec v = \dot{r}\hat{n}+r\omega\hat\lambda,
1305: \end{equation}
1306: where ${\hat \lambda} = {\hat L_N \times
1307: \hat n}$, ${\hat L_N} = {\vec L_N}/|{\vec L_N}|$, $\omega$ is
1308: the orbital angular velocity, and ${\vec L_N} \equiv \mu ({\vec x \times \vec{v}})$ is the
1309: Newtonian orbital angular momentum.
1310: We shall take ${\hat L_N}\equiv \hat{z}$. Hence
1311: \begin{equation}
1312: \hat{\lambda}=\hat{z}\times\hat{n}\quad{\rm and}\quad
1313: \hat{n}\times\hat{\lambda}=\hat{n}\times(\hat{z}\times\hat{n})=\hat{z}
1314: \end{equation}
1315:
1316: We observe that the third and fourth terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq:PSOdot})
1317: only contribute to the recoil along the $z$-axis since
1318: \begin{equation}
1319: \hat{n}\times\vec{v}=r\omega\hat{z}
1320: \end{equation}
1321: This contribution to the recoil velocity might well be the leading one, hence, in order
1322: to maximize the total recoil we seek to align, as much as possible, the first two
1323: terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq:PSOdot}) with the $z$-axis. This is achieved by having
1324: the spin of the black holes lie in the orbital plane, i.e.
1325: \begin{equation}
1326: \vec\Delta=\Delta_n\hat{n}+\Delta_\lambda\hat{\lambda}.
1327: \end{equation}
1328: We then explicitly obtain the following products
1329: \begin{eqnarray}
1330: \vec{v}\times\Delta&=&(\dot{r}\Delta_\lambda-r\omega\Delta_n)\hat{z},\\
1331: \hat{n}\times\Delta&=&\Delta_\lambda\hat{z},\\
1332: \vec{v}\cdot\vec\Delta&=&\dot{r}\Delta_n+r\omega\Delta_\lambda.
1333: \end{eqnarray}
1334:
1335: Plugging this into Eq.~(\ref{eq:PSOdot}) we find
1336: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:PSOdotZ}
1337: {\dot {\vec P}}_{SO}^{\ \|}=- {8 \over 15} {\mu^2 m \over r^5}
1338: \Bigl\{(2\dot{r}^2-4r^2\omega^2)\Delta_\lambda
1339: -9\dot{r}r\omega\Delta_n
1340: \Bigr\}\hat{z}.
1341: \end{eqnarray}
1342:
1343: This clearly displays the fact that the recoil will be maximized when $\Delta$
1344: takes the maximum magnitude (equal mass and opposite maximally rotating black holes)
1345: and varies sinusoidally with its projection along the line joining the holes.
1346: Note that if we define the angle between $\hat{n}$ and $\vec\Delta$ as $\theta$
1347: we can write the above equation as
1348: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:PSOdottheta}
1349: {\dot {\vec P}}_{SO}^{\ \|}&=&A(r)|\Delta|\cos\theta+B(r)|\Delta|\sin\theta\nonumber\\
1350: &=&C(r)|\Delta|\cos(\theta-\theta_0(r)).
1351: \end{eqnarray}
1352: This $\cos \theta$ dependence in the recoil was the motivation for
1353: proposing the now-verified $\cos \Theta$ dependence in our empirical
1354: formula Eq.~(\ref{eq:vpar}) for the recoil.
1355:
1356: Note that this analysis applies to the radiated linear
1357: momentum flux. Hence we have assumed that the larger the radiated
1358: linear momentum flux, the larger the total radiated linear momentum.
1359:
1360:
1361: It is also interesting to see if the unexpectedly large magnitude of the
1362: maximum out-of-plane recoil, compared to the in-plane recoil, can be
1363: understood using the post-Newtonian expression for the radiated linear
1364: momentum, i.e.\ Eqs.~(\ref{eq:PSOorbit})~and~(\ref{eq:PSOdotZ})
1365: (See Ref.~\cite{Schnittman:2007ij} for a similar analysis). To do
1366: this, we used the post-Newtonian formulae for the radiated linear
1367: momentum along with the numerical trajectories for runs with the spins
1368: in the plane and perpendicular to the plane. We found that the
1369: post-Newtonian formulae predicted that the maximum out-of plane
1370: recoil will be approximately twice (almost 9/4) as large, rather than
1371: (the observed) $\approx8$ times as large, as the maximum in-plane
1372: recoil. Thus we see that the magnitude of the out-of plane recoil
1373: arises from nonlinear dynamics at merger not fully captured by the
1374: post-Newtonian formalism. One may then conclude that, while the
1375: post-Newtonian approximation gives the correct dependence of the
1376: recoil on the physical parameters, such as the scaling of the recoil
1377: velocities with the components of the spins parallel and perpendicular
1378: to the angular momentum, it is much less accurate when describing the
1379: amplitude of the recoils. Thus we find that post-Newtonian formalisms
1380: provides the correct form for our semi-empirical
1381: formula~(\ref{eq:empirical}), but does not provide accurate
1382: measurements of the magnitudes of the constants in that formula.
1383:
1384: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}
1385: \bibliography{../../Lazarus/bibtex/references}
1386:
1387:
1388:
1389:
1390: \end{document}
1391:
1392: