1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: \usepackage{natbib}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8: \begin{abstract}
9:
10: Several groups have recently computed the gravitational radiation
11: recoil produced by the merger of two spinning black holes. The
12: results suggest that spin can be the dominant contributor to the kick,
13: with reported recoil speeds of hundreds to even thousands of
14: kilometers per second. The parameter space of spin kicks is large,
15: however, and it is ultimately desirable to have a simple formula that
16: gives the approximate magnitude of the kick given a mass ratio, spin
17: magnitudes, and spin orientations. As a step toward this goal, we
18: perform a systematic study of the recoil speeds from mergers of black
19: holes with mass ratio $q\equiv m_1/m_2=2/3$ and dimensionless spin
20: parameters of $a_1/m_1$ and $a_2/m_2$ equal to 0 or 0.2, with
21: directions aligned or anti-aligned with the orbital angular momentum.
22: We also run an equal-mass $a_1/m_1=-a_2/m_2=0.2$ case, and find good
23: agreement with previous results. We find that, for currently reported
24: kicks from aligned or anti-aligned spins, a simple kick formula
25: inspired by post-Newtonian analyses can reproduce the numerical
26: results to better than $\sim$10\%.
27:
28: \end{abstract}
29:
30: \keywords{black hole physics -- galaxies: nuclei -- gravitational waves --- relativity }
31:
32: \title{Modeling kicks from the merger of non-precessing black-hole binaries}
33: %\date {February 13, 2007}
34: \author{John G. Baker, William~D.~Boggs \altaffilmark{1}, Joan Centrella, Bernard~J.~Kelly,
35: Sean T. McWilliams \altaffilmark{1}, M.~Coleman Miller \altaffilmark{2}, James~R. van~Meter}
36: \affil{Laboratory for Gravitational Astrophysics,
37: NASA Goddard Space Flight
38: Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771}
39: \altaffiltext{1}{University of Maryland, Department of Physics, College
40: Park, Maryland 20742-4111}
41: \altaffiltext{2}{University of Maryland, Department of Astronomy,
42: College Park, Maryland 20742-2421}
43: \maketitle
44:
45: \section{Introduction}
46:
47: In the past two years, numerical relativity has undergone a revolution
48: such that now multiple codes are able to stably evolve the last few
49: cycles of the inspiral, merger, and ringdown of two black holes
50: \citep{Bruegmann:2003aw,Pretorius:2005gq,
51: Campanelli:2005dd,Campanelli:2006gf,Baker:2006yw,Baker:2005vv}. An
52: important astrophysical output of such simulations is the net recoil
53: due to asymmetric emission of gravitational radiation, because this
54: has major implications for the growth of supermassive black holes in
55: hierarchical merger scenarios
56: \citep{Mer04,BMQ04,Hai04,MQ04,YM04,Vol05,Lib05,MAS05} as well as the
57: evolution of seed black holes and current-day intermediate-mass black
58: holes \citep{Tan00,MH02a,MH02b,MT02a,MT02b,MC04,GMH04,GMH06,OL06,OOR07}.
59: Analytical calculations \citep{Per62,
60: Bek73,Fit83,FD84,RR89,W92,FHH04,BQW05,DG06} have now been
61: augmented with full numerical results for non-spinning
62: black holes with different mass ratios \citep{HSL06,Baker06,
63: Gonzalez06},
64: for black holes with equal masses and spins initially
65: orthogonal to the orbital plane
66: \citep{Herrmann07,Koppitz07}, for black holes with equal
67: masses and spins initially parallel to the orbital
68: plane\citep{Gonzalez07,Campanelli:2007cg}, for black holes with equal
69: masses and spins initially oriented at some angle between the orbital
70: plane and the orbital angular momentum\citep{Herrmann:2007ex,Tichy},
71: and for black holes with unequal masses and spins initially either
72: parallel to the orbital plane or oriented at some angle between the
73: orbital plane and the orbital angular momentum
74: \citep{Campanelli07}.
75:
76: The parameter space for kicks with spin is large, so for astrophysical
77: purposes it is important to have a simple parameterized formula for
78: the kick that can be included in simulations of N-body dynamics or
79: cluster and galaxy mergers. For non-spinning black holes, the classic
80: \cite{Fit83} formula $v\propto\eta^2(\delta m/M)$ does a
81: reasonable job (although not perfect; see \citealt{Gonzalez06} for
82: numerical results), where for black hole masses $m_1$ and $m_2\geq m_1$
83: we define $M=m_1+m_2$, $\delta m=m_2-m_1$, and $\eta=m_1m_2/M^2$.
84: Initial explorations of equal-mass spin kicks also show evidence of
85: simplicity, with fits linear in spin reproducing the results of
86: \cite{Herrmann07} and \cite{Koppitz07}. This encourages us to explore
87: a more general class of kicks.
88:
89: Spins that are aligned (prograde) with the orbital angular momentum
90: may be of particular interest because it has been argued that
91: interaction with accretion disks will tend to align spins during
92: ``wet'' mergers \citep{Bogdanovic:2007hp}. The only previous numerical
93: studies for a black hole with an aligned spin were carried out by
94: \cite{Herrmann07} and \cite{Koppitz07}, which considered only cases
95: where the spin of the second black hole was anti-aligned (retrograde)
96: with the angular momentum and the masses of the black holes were
97: equal. Here we compute the kick speeds from a $q\equiv m_1/m_2=2/3$
98: mass-ratio set of mergers, with spin parameters of 0 or 0.2, and
99: directions either aligned (prograde) or anti-aligned (retrograde) with
100: the orbital angular momentum. The symmetry of the configuration
101: therefore guarantees that the kick direction is in the orbital plane.
102: We find a formula that matches all of our kick speeds, and those of
103: \cite{Herrmann07} and \cite{Koppitz07}, to within $\sim 10$\%. If the
104: in-plane kicks can be generalized straightforwardly to more general
105: orientations, and added to kicks perpendicular to the orbital plane,
106: there is the prospect of simple astrophysical modeling of the
107: gravitational rocket effect for arbitrary black hole mergers. In
108: \S~2 we describe our initial data and methodology. In \S~3 we present our results, and
109: discuss the implications of these simulations.
110:
111: \section{Initial Data and Methodology}
112:
113: In the following, we use geometrized units where Newton's
114: gravitational constant $G$ and the speed of light $c$ are set to unity
115: so that all relevant quantities can be represented in terms of their
116: mass-scaling. For example, 1 $M_\odot$ is equivalent to a distance
117: of $1.4771 \times 10^5 {\rm cm}$, and a time of $4.9272 \times 10^{-6}
118: {\rm s}$. Accordingly we express distances in terms of $M$, the
119: initial (ADM) mass of the system.
120:
121: We simulated inspiraling black-hole binaries of various mass ratios
122: and spins, with the same initial coordinate separation in each case.
123: In these cases our initial mass ratio approximated either $2/3$ or
124: unity. Our simulations were performed with our finite differencing
125: code {\tt Hahndol} \citep{Imbiriba:2004tp}, which solves a 3+1
126: formulation of Einstein's equations. Adaptive mesh refinement and
127: most parallelization was handled by the software package {\tt
128: Paramesh} \citep{paramesh}. For initial data we used the
129: \cite{Brandt97b} Cauchy surface for black hole punctures, as computed
130: by the second-order-accurate, multigrid elliptic solver {\tt AMRMG}
131: \citep{Brown:2004ma}. We evolved this data with the standard
132: Baumgarte-Shapiro-Shibata-Nakamura
133: \citep{Nakamura87,Shibata95,Baumgarte98,Imbiriba:2004tp} evolution
134: equations, modified only slightly with dissipation terms as in
135: \cite{Huebner99} and constraint-damping terms as in \cite{Duez:2004uh}.
136: Our gauge conditions were chosen according to the ``moving puncture''
137: method, as in \cite{vanMeter:2006vi}. Time-integration was performed
138: with a fourth-order Runge-Kutta algorithm, and spatial differencing
139: with fourth-order-accurate mesh-adapted differencing
140: \citep{Baker:2005xe}. Interpolation between refinement regions was
141: fifth-order-accurate.
142:
143: To explore the parameter space of non-precessing spin configurations
144: with some mass-ratio dependence, we have performed simulations for
145: seven different data sets of black holes with unequal masses, as well
146: as one equal-mass case. The initial-data parameters for these eight
147: data sets are given in Table~\ref{tab:initial}. The spins in these
148: simulations were always orthogonal to the orbital plane. Our choice of
149: initial tangential momenta was informed by a quasi-circular
150: post-Newtonian (PN) approximation \citep{Damour:2000we}.
151:
152: Numerically, we can only directly specify the ``puncture'' masses
153: $m_{1p}$ and $m_{2p}$ of the two holes; to determine each hole's
154: physical (horizon) mass $m$, we first locate its apparent horizon
155: (using an adapted version of the {\tt AHFinderDirect} code; see
156: \citealt{Thornburg:2003sf}), and then apply the
157: \cite{Christodoulou70} formula:
158: %
159: \begin{equation}
160: m^2 = m^2_{irr} + J^2/4m^2_{irr},
161: \end{equation}
162: %
163: where $J$ is the magnitude of the spin angular momentum of the hole,
164: $m_{irr} = \sqrt{A_{AH}/16\pi}$, and $A_{AH}$ is the area of the
165: apparent horizon.
166:
167: The parameters relevant to our discussion -- the mass ratio $q \equiv
168: m_1/m_2$ and the dimensionless spin parameters $\hat{a}_1 \equiv
169: a_1/m_1$ and $\hat{a}_2 \equiv a_2/m_2$ -- are listed in the first
170: eight rows of Table~\ref{tab:results}. We have striven to maintain $q
171: = 2/3$ in all of our unequal-mass simulations.
172:
173: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrr}
174: \tablecolumns{7}
175: \tablewidth{0pt}
176:
177: \tablecaption{Initial data parameters. Runs are labeled ``EQ'' for equal mass and
178: ``NE'' for unequal mass. $J_1$ and $J_2$ are the spin angular momenta
179: of the two holes, either aligned (positive) or anti-aligned (negative)
180: with the orbital angular momentum. $m_{p1}$ and $m_{p2}$ are the
181: directly specified puncture masses of the holes. $P$ is the initial
182: transverse momentum on each hole, while $L$ is the initial coordinate
183: separation of the punctures. \label{tab:initial}}
184: \tablehead{\colhead{Run} & \colhead{$J_1 (M^2)$} & \colhead{$J_2 (M^2)$} & \colhead{$m_{p1} (M)$} & \colhead{$m_{p2} (M)$} & \colhead{$P$ (M)} & \colhead{$L$ (M)}}
185: \startdata
186: ${\rm NE}_{--}$ & -0.032 & -0.072 & 0.374 & 0.586 & 0.119 & 7.05 \\
187: ${\rm NE}_{-+}$ & -0.032 & 0.072 & 0.374 & 0.586 & 0.119 & 7.05 \\
188: ${\rm NE}_{0-}$ & 0.000 & -0.072 & 0.374 & 0.586 & 0.119 & 7.05 \\
189: ${\rm NE}_{00}$ & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.382 & 0.584 & 0.119 & 7.05 \\
190: ${\rm NE}_{0+}$ & 0.000 & 0.072 & 0.374 & 0.586 & 0.119 & 7.05 \\
191: ${\rm NE}_{+-}$ & 0.032 & -0.072 & 0.374 & 0.586 & 0.119 & 7.05 \\
192: ${\rm NE}_{++}$ & 0.032 & 0.072 & 0.374 & 0.586 & 0.119 & 7.05 \\
193: ${\rm EQ}_{+-}$ & 0.050 & -0.050 & 0.480 & 0.480 & 0.124 & 7.00 \\
194: \enddata
195: \end{deluxetable}
196:
197: The grid spacing in the finest refinement region, around each black
198: hole, was $h_f=3M/160$, with the exception of our nonspinning
199: unequal-mass case, which was one of a set of runs described previously
200: \citep{Baker06}, and for which we used $h_f=M/40$. The extraction
201: radius was at $R=45M$ in every case except for the nonspinning case,
202: where it was at $R=50M$. For one of our new physical configurations
203: (NE$_{++}$) we also extracted at $R=40M$, finding a final kick within
204: $0.8 {\rm km s^{-1}}$ of that extracted at $R=45M$. Assuming a radially
205: dependent error that falls off as $1/R$, as found in a similar kick
206: computation \citep{Gonzalez07}, this implies that the kick extracted
207: at $R=45M$ is within $8\%$ of what would be computed at infinite
208: radius. Also for this physical configuration we ran a higher
209: resolution, $h_f=M/64$, to verify that the lower resolution of
210: $h_f=3M/160$ would be sufficient. We found satisfactory convergence
211: of the Hamiltonian constraint (Fig.\ref{fig:hamconv}) and consistency
212: of the radiated momentum (Fig.\ref{fig:kickconv}).
213:
214: \begin{center} \begin{figure}
215: \includegraphics*[scale=0.35,angle=-90]{f1.eps}
216: \caption{L1 norm of the Hamiltonian constraint for the case of unequal masses with
217: prograde spins (${\rm NE}_{++}$) at two different resolutions,
218: computed on a domain extending to $|x_i|=48M$, which includes our
219: wave-extraction surface. The finest level, containing nonconvergent
220: points near the puncture, has been excluded. The lower resolution,
221: $h_f=3M/160$, has been scaled such that for third-order convergence it
222: should superpose with the $h_f=M/64$ curve. }
223: \label{fig:hamconv}
224: \end{figure}
225: \end{center}
226:
227: \begin{center} \begin{figure}
228: \includegraphics*[scale=0.35,angle=-90]{f2.eps}
229: \caption{The total radiated momentum for the case of unequal masses with
230: prograde spins (${\rm NE}_{++}$) at two different resolutions. The
231: curves have been shifted slightly in time to line up the peaks, for
232: comparison of the merger dynamics. The agreement is better than $5\%$
233: for most of the evolution and better than $2\%$ through the merger and
234: final kick ($t>300M$).}
235: \label{fig:kickconv}
236: \end{figure}
237: \end{center}
238:
239: The thrust $dP^i/dt$ imparted by the radiation was derived
240: by \cite{Newman:1981fn}, and is computed
241: from a surface integral of the squared time-integral of the
242: radiative Weyl scalar $\psi_4$ times the unit radial vector,
243: as given explicitly by \cite{Campanelli:1998jv}:
244: %
245: \begin{eqnarray}
246: \frac{dP^i}{dt} &=& \lim_{R \rightarrow \infty} \left\{ \frac{R^2}{4 \pi} \oint d\Omega \frac{x^i}{R} \left| \int^t_{-\infty} dt \, \psi_4 \right|^2
247: \right\}. \label{eqn:thrust_formula}
248: \end{eqnarray}
249: %
250: To perform the angular integration in (\ref{eqn:thrust_formula}), we
251: use the second-order Misner algorithm described in
252: \cite{Misner:1999ab} and \cite{Fiske:2005fx}. This result is then
253: integrated numerically to give the total radiated momentum $P^i$; to
254: obtain the final velocity of the merged remnant black hole, we divide
255: $P^i$ by the final black-hole mass, as computed from the difference of
256: the initial ADM mass and the total radiated energy.
257:
258: \section{Results and Discussion}
259:
260: In Fig. \ref{fig:all_kicks} we present the aggregated recoil kick from
261: each of our simulations. The kicks obtained range from $\sim 60 {\rm
262: km s^{-1}}$, in the case where the larger hole's spin is aligned, and the
263: smaller anti-aligned, with the orbital angular momentum, to $\sim 190
264: {\rm km s^{-1}}$, when the alignments are reversed. The kicks possess a
265: common profile, with the bulk of the momentum radiated over $\sim
266: 50\,M$ before merger. In all but the equal-mass case (${\rm
267: EQ}_{+-}$), we observe a sharp monotonic rise in kick over $40\,M$,
268: followed by a substantial ``un-kick''. That is, around the time of
269: merger and ringdown, we often observe a sudden thrust in momentum that
270: is directed counter to the momentum that had accumulated during
271: inspiral. In the ${\rm EQ}_{+-}$ case, this un-kick is absent. We
272: summarize the final kicks for each of our configurations in the first
273: eight rows of Table~\ref{tab:results}.
274: %
275: \begin{center}
276: \begin{figure}
277: \includegraphics*[scale=0.35,angle=0]{f3.eps}
278: \caption{Aggregated recoil kicks from all runs listed in Table
279: \ref{tab:initial}. The merger time for each binary matches the peak
280: in its kick profile; the relative delay in merger times between data
281: sets differing in initial spins is consistent with the results of
282: \cite{Campanelli:2006uy}. All configurations show a marked
283: "un-kick" after the peak, with the exception of the equal-mass case,
284: ${\rm EQ}_{+-}$.}
285: \label{fig:all_kicks}
286: \end{figure}
287: \end{center}
288:
289: It has been noted by \cite{Campanelli:2006uy} that the presence of
290: spins on black holes in an inspiraling binary can significantly extend
291: or reduce the time to merger, depending on whether the spins are
292: aligned or anti-aligned with the orbital angular momentum. We observe
293: a similar trend in merger times, as illustrated in the peak of the
294: aggregated recoil kicks. This tendency had been also been expected
295: based on PN calculations which show that the last stable orbit is
296: pushed to smaller radius, implying later merger, for aligned spins
297: \citep{Damour:2001tu}. Note that, although resolution can also affect
298: merger time, for these short runs we have sufficiently resolved the
299: dynamics that numerical error in merger time appears negligible
300: compared to the effect of spin, as demonstrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:kickconv}.
301:
302: Our simulation results, together with data reported by other groups,
303: allow us to consider a simple description of the total kick for
304: arbitrary mass ratio when the two black holes spins are aligned or
305: anti-aligned with the system's orbital angular momentum.
306:
307: Several recent papers \citep{Herrmann07,Koppitz07,Choi07} have
308: suggested that the kick velocity resulting from comparable-mass binary
309: black hole mergers may be approximately described in terms of a simple
310: scaling dependence consistent with the scaling in the leading-order
311: post-Newtonian approximation treatment \citep{Kidder95a}. For kicks
312: generated by non-spinning black holes of unequal masses, this produces
313: the Fitchett scaling, which provides a reasonable approximation to
314: recent numerical simulation results \citep{Gonzalez06}. Recent papers
315: on spinning black hole mergers suggest that the kicks from nearly
316: equal-mass mergers may scale linearly, through the quantity
317: $\Delta=q\hat{a}_1-\hat{a}_2$, with spins that are either aligned or
318: anti-aligned with the orbital angular momentum
319: \citep{Herrmann07,Koppitz07}. For head-on collisions, \cite{Choi07}
320: have shown that the PN expressions describe the scaling of the
321: spin-asymmetry kick and its relation to the kick induced by
322: mass-asymmetry, correctly predicting the relative directions of the
323: two kick contributions and supporting the idea that the effects of
324: asymmetries in spins and masses can be considered independently.
325:
326: For inspiraling mergers, with the assumption that the radial velocity
327: is small compared to the tangential velocity, the PN prediction for
328: the cases we consider is that the instantaneous thrust generated by
329: the spin-asymmetry will be aligned with that of the mass-asymmetry,
330: though the relative size of these effects may vary as the merger
331: proceeds. Unlike the head-on collision case, the direction of thrust
332: should vary as the system revolves in inspiraling mergers, so that we
333: cannot infer that the net effects of spin- and mass-asymmetry will
334: produce collinear contributions to the overall kick. Motivated by
335: these observations we will consider our data with the hypothesis that
336: the magnitudes of the kicks induced by spin- and mass-asymmetries each
337: scale independently with the PN-predicted scaling, but that the
338: directional alignment of these two contributions to the kick may
339: differ by some angle $\theta$. The total kick may then be of the form
340: %
341: \begin{eqnarray}
342: v& = &V_0[32\,q^2/(1+q)^5] \nonumber \\
343: && \times \sqrt{(1-q)^2 + 2\,(1-q)\,K\,\cos\theta + K^2 },
344: \label{eqn:kick_formula}
345: \end{eqnarray}
346: %
347: where $K = k\,(q\hat{a}_1-\hat{a}_2)$. The parameter $V_0$ gives the
348: overall scaling of the kick (note that the factor in brackets becomes
349: unity for $q=1$), while $k$ gives the relative scaling of the kick
350: contributions from spin- and mass-asymmetries. This expression amounts
351: to a generalization of the post-Newtonian-inspired kick formula
352: discussed by \cite{FHH04} and \cite{Koppitz07}, which was consistent
353: with collinearity of the two kick contributions, $\theta=0$.
354:
355: We have tested the simple formula (\ref{eqn:kick_formula}) with our
356: own kick speeds, together with published kicks from \cite{Koppitz07}
357: and \cite{Herrmann07}, for a total of 17 independent data points.
358: Without more precise knowledge of the uncertainties for each
359: measurement it is not possible to do a true statistical fit. As a
360: substitute, however, we have obtained values for the three free
361: parameters $V_0$, $\theta$, and $k$ by minimizing the total of a
362: $\chi^2$-like quantity $\propto\sum_i (v_{\rm
363: pred,i}-v_{\rm num,i})^2/v_{\rm num,i}$, where $v_{\rm pred,i}$ is the
364: predicted, and $v_{\rm num,i}$ is the measured, kick speed for the
365: $i$th combination of parameters. The proportionality constant is
366: chosen so that the minimum of ``$\chi^2$'' is 14, equal to the number
367: of degrees of freedom.
368:
369: With this procedure, our best fit to all simulations currently
370: reported gives $V_0=276 {\rm km~s^{-1}}$, $\theta=0.58$ rad, and
371: $k=0.85$. The minimal regions containing 95\% of the probability for
372: each parameter are $V_0=267-294 {\rm km~s^{-1}}$, $\theta=0.45-0.65$
373: rad, and $k=0.8-0.89$. In Table~\ref{tab:results} we compare the
374: predictions of this formula to our results and those of other groups
375: who have explored prograde or retrograde spins. We see that this
376: simple formula performs well, with errors less than $\sim 10\%$ in all
377: cases.
378:
379: We can estimate the uncertainty in $\theta$, and judge how strongly we
380: can rule out a constant $\theta=0$, by making the conservative
381: assumption that all the numerical kick results have 10\% statistical
382: errors. A chi-squared analysis then indicates that at one standard
383: deviation $\theta=0.58\pm0.8$ rad. We also find that, formally,
384: $\theta=0$ is ruled out at $>5\sigma$ and $\theta=\pi/2$ (sum in
385: quadrature) is ruled out at $>12\sigma$, but this far from our best
386: values the error contours are clearly non-Gaussian. It is possible
387: that a more complicated model (e.g., one in which $\theta$ depends on
388: the mass ratio) is a better representation than $\theta$=constant, but
389: no motivation for this exists in the current data.
390:
391: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrr}
392: \tablecolumns{7}
393: \tablewidth{0pt}
394: \tablecaption{Predicted versus computed kick speed.
395: Runs labeled ``S0.\#\#'' are taken from \cite{Herrmann07}, while runs
396: labeled ``r\#'' are taken from \cite{Koppitz07}. \label{tab:results}}
397: \tablehead{\colhead{Run} & \colhead{$q$} & \colhead{$\hat{a}_1$} & \colhead{$\hat{a}_2$} & \colhead{$v_{num}$} & \colhead{$v_{pred}$} &
398: \colhead{$\frac{|\Delta v|}{v_{num}}$(\%)}}
399: \startdata
400: ${\rm NE}_{--}$ & 0.654 &-0.201 &-0.194 &116.3 &119.5 & 2.7\\
401: ${\rm NE}_{-+}$ & 0.653 &-0.201 & 0.193 & 58.5 & 58.2 & 0.5\\
402: ${\rm NE}_{0-}$ & 0.645 & 0.000 &-0.195 &167.7 &153.1 & 8.7\\
403: ${\rm NE}_{00}$ & 0.677 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 95.8 & 98.6 & 2.9\\
404: ${\rm NE}_{0+}$ & 0.645 & 0.000 & 0.194 & 76.9 & 71.7 & 6.8\\
405: ${\rm NE}_{+-}$ & 0.655 & 0.201 &-0.194 &188.6 &181.9 & 3.6\\
406: ${\rm NE}_{++}$ & 0.654 & 0.201 & 0.194 & 83.4 & 92.4 &10.8\\
407: \medskip
408: ${\rm EQ}_{+-}$ & 1.001 & 0.198 &-0.198 & 89.8 & 92.6 & 3.2\\
409: S0.05 & 1.000 & 0.200 &-0.200 & 96.0 & 93.8 & 2.3\\
410: S0.10 & 1.000 & 0.400 &-0.400 &190.0 &187.6 & 1.2\\
411: S0.15 & 1.000 & 0.600 &-0.600 &285.0 &281.5 & 1.2\\
412: \medskip
413: S0.20 & 1.000 & 0.800 &-0.800 &392.0 &375.3 & 4.3\\
414: r0 & 1.000 &-0.584 & 0.584 &260.0 &274.0 & 5.4\\
415: r1 & 0.917 &-0.438 & 0.584 &220.0 &220.8 & 0.3\\
416: r2 & 0.872 &-0.292 & 0.584 &190.0 &178.1 & 6.3\\
417: r3 & 0.848 &-0.146 & 0.584 &140.0 &141.9 & 1.4\\
418: r4 & 0.841 & 0.000 & 0.584 &105.0 &110.4 & 5.1\\
419: \enddata
420: \end{deluxetable}
421:
422: The success of our fit in describing the existing data suggests
423: that this simple expression may, for many astrophysical simulations,
424: adequately describe the dependence of the kicks on the portion of
425: mass-ratio and spin parameter space that we have studied. However,
426: recent simulations have suggested that the dominant component
427: of the kick may be out of the orbital plane
428: deriving from spins which lie in the orbital plane \citep{Campanelli07},
429: a configuration outside the parameter space we have studied.
430: \cite{Gonzalez07} have shown that such a configuration can produce
431: kicks which may exceed 2500~km~s$^{-1}$ directed out of the orbital
432: plane. These results apparently confirm the early predictions of
433: \cite{RR89} that out-of-plane kicks would be particularly significant.
434:
435: Since initial submission of this paper, \cite{Campanelli07} have
436: suggested a combined formula, which generalizes our formula
437: (\ref{eqn:kick_formula}) to include out-of-plane kicks ($v_{||}$ in
438: their notation) of the kind discussed above. If kick speeds $>1000
439: {\rm km~s^{-1}}$ are common in comparable-mass mergers of black holes
440: with substantial spin, this comes into apparent conflict with the
441: observation that essentially all galaxies with bulges appear to have
442: supermassive black holes in their cores, since galactic escape speeds
443: tend to be $<1000 {\rm km~s^{-1}}$ (see \citealt{FF05} for a review of
444: supermassive black holes and their correlation with galactic
445: properties). It seems unlikely that most supermassive black holes
446: have low enough spins to guarantee small kicks, given evidence such as
447: broad Fe K$\alpha$ lines from a number of black holes
448: \citep{Iwasawa96,Fab02,Miller02,RN03,RBG05,BR06} as well as overall
449: arguments from the inferred high average radiation efficiency of
450: supermassive black holes \citep{Sol82,YT02}. \cite{Bogdanovic:2007hp}
451: suggest that torques from gas-rich mergers tend to align the spins of
452: the holes, and thus lead to small kicks, but no known preferred
453: alignment exists for gas-poor mergers. More exploration of the
454: parameter space of spin kicks is clearly necessary.
455:
456: \acknowledgments
457:
458: This work was supported in part by NASA grant 06-BEFS06-19 and NSF
459: grant AST 06-07428. The simulations were carried out using Project
460: Columbia at the NASA Advanced Supercomputing Division (Ames Research
461: Center) and at the NASA Center for Computational Sciences (Goddard
462: Space Flight Center). B.J.K. was supported by the NASA Postdoctoral
463: Program at the Oak Ridge Associated Universities. S.T.M. was
464: supported in part by the Leon A. Herreid Graduate Fellowship.
465:
466: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
467:
468: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Baker et~al.}{Baker
469: et~al.}{2006a}]{Baker:2006yw}
470: Baker, J.~G., Centrella, J., Choi, D.-I., Koppitz, M., \& van Meter, J. 2006a,
471: Phys. Rev. D, 73, 104002
472:
473: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Baker et~al.}{Baker
474: et~al.}{2006b}]{Baker:2005vv}
475: Baker, J.~G., Centrella, J., Choi, D.-I., Koppitz, M., \& van Meter, J. 2006b,
476: Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 111102
477:
478: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Baker et~al.}{Baker
479: et~al.}{2006c}]{Baker06}
480: Baker, J.~G., Centrella, J., Choi, D.-I., Koppitz, M., van Meter, J. \& Miller, M.~C. 2006c,
481: ApJ, 653, L93
482:
483: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Baker \& van Meter}{Baker \& van
484: Meter}{2005}]{Baker:2005xe}
485: Baker, J.~G., \& van Meter, J.~R. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 104010
486:
487: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Baumgarte \& Shapiro}{Baumgarte \&
488: Shapiro}{1998}]{Baumgarte98}
489: Baumgarte, T.~W., \& Shapiro, S.~L. 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 024007
490:
491: \bibitem[{{Bekenstein}(1973)}]{Bek73}
492: {Bekenstein}, J.~D. 1973, ApJ, 183, 657
493:
494: \bibitem[{{Blanchet} et~al.(2005)}]{BQW05}
495: {Blanchet}, L., {Qusailah}, M.~S.~S., \& {Will}, C.~M. 2005, ApJ, 635, 508
496:
497: \bibitem[{{Bogdanovic et~al.}(2007)}]{Bogdanovic:2007hp}
498: {Bogdanovic}, T., {Reynolds}, C.~S., {Miller}, M.~C.
499: 2007, ApJ 661, L147
500:
501: \bibitem[{{Boylan-Kolchin} et~al.(2004)}]{BMQ04}
502: {Boylan-Kolchin}, M., {Ma}, C.-P., \& {Quataert}, E. 2004, ApJ, 613, L37
503:
504: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Brandt \& Br\"ugmann}{Brandt \&
505: Br\"ugmann}{1997}]{Brandt97b}
506: Brandt, S., \& Br\"ugmann, B. 1997, Phys. Rev. Lett., 78, 3606
507:
508: \bibitem[{{Brenneman} \& {Reynolds}(2006)}]{BR06}
509: {Brenneman}, L.~W., \& {Reynolds}, C.~S. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1028
510:
511: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Brown \& Lowe}{Brown \&
512: Lowe}{2005}]{Brown:2004ma}
513: Brown, J.~D., \& Lowe, L.~L. 2005, J. Comput. Phys., 209, 582
514:
515: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Br\"ugmann et~al.}{Br\"ugmann et~al.}{2004}]{Bruegmann:2003aw}
516: Br\"ugmann, B., Tichy, W., \& Jansen, N. 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 211101
517:
518: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Campanelli \& Lousto}{Campanelli \&
519: Lousto}{1999}]{Campanelli:1998jv}
520: Campanelli, M., \& Lousto, C.~O. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 124022
521:
522: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Campanelli et~al.}{Campanelli
523: et~al.}{2006a}]{Campanelli:2005dd}
524: Campanelli, M., Lousto, C.~O., Marronetti, P., \& Zlochower, Y. 2006a, Phys.
525: Rev. Lett., 96, 111101
526:
527: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Campanelli et~al.}{Campanelli et~al.}{2006b}]{Campanelli:2006gf}
528: Campanelli, M., Lousto, C.~O., \& Zlochower, Y. 2006b, Phys. Rev. D, 73,
529: 061501(R)
530:
531: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Campanelli et~al.}{Campanelli et~al.}{2006c}]{Campanelli:2006uy}
532: Campanelli, M., Lousto, C.~O., \& Zlochower, Y. 2006c, Phys. Rev. D, 74,
533: 041501
534:
535: \bibitem[{{Campanelli et~al.}(2007a)}]{Campanelli07}
536: {Campanelli}, M., {Lousto}, C.~O., {Zlochower}, Y., \&
537: {Merritt}, D. 2007a, ApJ, 659, L5
538:
539: \bibitem[{{Campanelli et~al.}(2007b)}]{Campanelli:2007cg}
540: {Campanelli}, M., {Lousto}, C.~0., {Zlochower}, Y., \&
541: {Merritt}, D. 2007b, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 231102
542:
543: \bibitem[{{Choi} {et~al.}(2007)}]{Choi07}
544: {Choi}, D., {Kelly}, B.~J., {Boggs}, W.~D., {Baker}, J.~G., {Centrella}, J., \&
545: {van Meter}, J. 2007, preprint (arXiv:gr-qc/0702016)
546:
547: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Christodoulou}{Christodoulou}{1970}]{Christod%
548: oulou70}
549: Christodoulou, D. 1970, Phys. Rev. Lett., 25, 1596
550:
551: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Damour}{Damour}{2001}]{Damour:2001tu}
552: Damour, T. 2001, Phys. Rev. D, 64, 124013
553:
554: \bibitem[{{Damour} \& {Gopakumar}(2006)}]{DG06}
555: {Damour}, T., \& {Gopakumar}, A. 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 124006
556:
557: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Damour, Jaranowski, \& Sch{\"a}fer}{Damour
558: et~al.}{2000}]{Damour:2000we}
559: Damour, T., Jaranowski, P., \& Sch{\"a}fer, G. 2000, Phys. Rev. D, 62, 084011
560:
561: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Duez, Shapiro, \& Yo}{Duez
562: et~al.}{2004}]{Duez:2004uh}
563: Duez, M.~D., Shapiro, S.~L., \& Yo, H.-J. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 104016
564:
565: \bibitem[{{Fabian} {et~al.}(2002)}]{Fab02}
566: {Fabian}, A.~C. et al. 2002, MNRAS, 335, L1
567:
568: \bibitem[{{Favata} et~al.(2004)}]{FHH04}
569: {Favata}, M., {Hughes}, S.~A., \& {Holz}, D.~E. 2004, ApJ, 607, L5
570:
571: \bibitem[{{Ferrarese} \& {Ford}(2005)}]{FF05}
572: {Ferrarese}, L., \& {Ford}, H. 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 116, 523
573:
574: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fiske et~al.}{Fiske
575: et~al.}{2005}]{Fiske:2005fx}
576: Fiske, D.~R., Baker, J.~G., van Meter, J.~R., Choi, D.-I., \& Centrella, J.~M.
577: 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 104036
578:
579: \bibitem[{{Fitchett}(1983)}]{Fit83}
580: {Fitchett}, M.~J. 1983, MNRAS, 203, 1049
581:
582: \bibitem[{{Fitchett} \& {Detweiler}(1984)}]{FD84}
583: {Fitchett}, M.~J., \& {Detweiler}, S. 1984, MNRAS, 211, 933
584:
585: \bibitem[{{Gonzalez} {et al.}(2007a)}]{Gonzalez06}
586: {Gonzalez}, J.~A., {Sperhake}, U., {Br\"ugmann}, B.,
587: {Hannam}, M.~D., {Husa}, S. 2007a, Phys. Rev. Lett., 98, 091101
588:
589: \bibitem[{{Gonzalez} {et al.}(2007b)}]{Gonzalez07}
590: {Gonzalez}, J.~A., {Hannam}, M.~D., {Sperhake}, U., {Br\"ugmann}, B.,
591: {Husa}, S. 2007b, Phys. Rev. Lett., 98, 231101
592:
593: \bibitem[{{G\"ultekin} et~al.(2004)}]{GMH04}
594: {G\"ultekin}, K., {Miller}, M.~C., \& {Hamilton}, D.~P. 2004,
595: ApJ, 616, 221
596:
597: \bibitem[{{G\"ultekin} et~al.(2006)}]{GMH06}
598: {G\"ultekin}, K., {Miller}, M.~C., \& {Hamilton}, D.~P. 2006,
599: ApJ, 640, 156
600:
601: \bibitem[{{Haiman}(2004)}]{Hai04}
602: {Haiman}, Z. 2004, ApJ, 613, 36
603:
604: \bibitem[{{Herrmann} et~al.(2007a)}]{Herrmann07}
605: {Herrmann}, F., {Hinder}, I., {Shoemaker}, D., {Laguna}, P.,
606: \& {Matzner}, R.~A. 2007a, ApJ 661, 430
607:
608: \bibitem[{{Herrmann} et~al.(2007b)}]{Herrmann:2007ex}
609: {Herrmann}, F., {Hinder}, I., {Shoemaker}, D., {Laguna}, P., {Matzner}, R.~A.
610: 2007b, arXiv:0706.2541 [gr-qc]
611:
612: \bibitem[{{Herrmann} et~al.(2007c)}]{HSL06}
613: {Herrmann}, F., {Shoemaker}, D., \& {Laguna}, P. 2007c, Class. Quantum Grav., 24, S33
614:
615: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{H{\"u}bner}{H{\"u}bner}{1999}]{Huebner99}
616: H{\"u}bner, P. 1999, Class. Quantum Grav., 16, 2823
617:
618: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Imbiriba et~al.}{Imbiriba
619: et~al.}{2004}]{Imbiriba:2004tp}
620: Imbiriba, B., et~al. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 124025
621:
622: \bibitem[{{Iwasawa} {et al.}(1996)}]{Iwasawa96}
623: {Iwasawa}, K. et al. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 1038
624:
625: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kidder}{Kidder}{1995}]{Kidder95a}
626: Kidder, L.~E. 1995, Phys. Rev. D, 52, 821
627:
628: \bibitem[{{Koppitz} {et al.}(2007)}]{Koppitz07}
629: {Koppitz}, M., {Pollney}, D., {Reisswig}, C., {Rezzolla}, L.,
630: {Thornburg}, J., {Diener}, P., \& {Schnetter}, E. 2007, gr-qc/0701163
631:
632: \bibitem[{{Libeskind} {et~al.}(2005)}]{Lib05}
633: {Libeskind}, N.~I., {Cole}, S., {Frenk}, C.~S. \& {Helly}, J.~C.
634: 2005, MNRAS, 368, 1381
635:
636: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{MacNeice et~al.}{MacNeice
637: et~al.}{2000}]{paramesh}
638: MacNeice, P., Olson, K., Mobarry, C., de~Fainchtein, R., \& Packer, C. 2000,
639: Computer Physics Comm., 126, 330
640:
641: \bibitem[{{Madau} \& {Quataert}(2004)}]{MQ04}
642: {Madau}, P., \& {Quataert}, E. 2004, ApJ, 606, L17
643:
644: \bibitem[{{Merritt} {et~al.}(2004)}]{Mer04}
645: {Merritt}, D., {Milosavljevic}, M., {Favata}, M., {Hughes}, S.~A.,
646: \& {Holz}, D.~E. 2004, ApJ, 607, L9
647:
648: \bibitem[{{Micic} et~al.(2006)}]{MAS05}
649: {Micic}, M., {Abel}, T., \& {Sigurdsson}, S. 2006, MNRAS 372, 1540
650:
651: \bibitem[{{Miller} {et al.}(2002)}]{Miller02}
652: {Miller}, J.~M. et al. 2002, ApJ, 570, L69
653:
654: \bibitem[{{Miller} \& {Colbert}(2004)}]{MC04}
655: {Miller}, M.~C., \& {Colbert}, E.~J.~M. 2004, IJMPD, 13, 1
656:
657: \bibitem[{{Miller} \& {Hamilton}(2002a)}]{MH02a}
658: {Miller}, M.~C., \& {Hamilton}, D.~P. 2002a, MNRAS, 330, 232
659:
660: \bibitem[{{Miller} \& {Hamilton}(2002b)}]{MH02b}
661: {Miller}, M.~C., \& {Hamilton}, D.~P. 2002b, ApJ, 576, 894
662:
663: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Misner}{Misner}{2004}]{Misner:1999ab}
664: Misner, C.~W. 2004, Class. Quantum Grav., 21, S243
665:
666: \bibitem[{{Mouri} \& {Taniguchi}(2002a)}]{MT02a}
667: {Mouri}, H., \& {Taniguchi}, Y. 2002a, ApJ, 566, L17
668:
669: \bibitem[{{Mouri} \& {Taniguchi}(2002b)}]{MT02b}
670: {Mouri}, H., \& {Taniguchi}, Y. 2002b, ApJ, 580, 844
671:
672: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Nakamura, Oohara, \& Kojima}{Nakamura, Oohara \& Kojima
673: }{1987}]{Nakamura87}
674: Nakamura, T., Oohara, K., \& Kojima, Y. 1987, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 90, 1
675:
676: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Newman \& Tod}{Newman \&
677: Tod}{1981}]{Newman:1981fn}
678: Newman, E.~T., \& Tod, K.~P. 1981, in General Relativity and Gravitation: One
679: hundred years after the birth of Albert Einstein, vol. 2, ed. A.~Held (Plenum
680: Press, NY), 1
681:
682: \bibitem[{{O'Leary} et~al.(2007)}]{OOR07}
683: {O'Leary}, R.~M., {O'Shaughnessy}, \& {Rasio}, F.~A. 2007,
684: Phys. Rev. D, in press (arXiv:astro-ph/0701887)
685:
686: \bibitem[{{O'Leary} et~al.(2006)}]{OL06}
687: {O'Leary}, R.~M., {Rasio}, F.~A., {Fregeau}, J.~M., {Ivanova}, N.,
688: \& {O'Shaughnessy}, R. 2006, ApJ, 637, 937
689:
690: \bibitem[{{Peres}(1962)}]{Per62}
691: {Peres}, A. 1962, Phys. Rev., 128, 2471
692:
693: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Pretorius}{Pretorius}{2005}]{Pretorius:2005gq}
694: Pretorius, F. 2005, Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, 121101
695:
696: \bibitem[{{Redmount} \& {Rees}(1989)}]{RR89}
697: {Redmount}, I.~H., \& {Rees}, M.~J. 1989, Commun. Astrophys., 14, 165
698:
699: \bibitem[{{Reynolds} et~al.(2005)}]{RBG05}
700: {Reynolds}, C.~S., {Brenneman}, L.~W., \& {Garofalo}, D. 2005,
701: Ap\&SS, 300, 71
702:
703: \bibitem[{{Reynolds} \& {Nowak}(2003)}]{RN03}
704: {Reynolds}, C.~S., \& {Nowak}, M.~A. 2003, Phys. Rep., 377, 389
705:
706: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Shibata \& Nakamura}{Shibata \&
707: Nakamura}{1995}]{Shibata95}
708: Shibata, M., \& Nakamura, T. 1995, Phys. Rev. D, 52, 5428
709:
710: \bibitem[{{So\l tan}(1982)}]{Sol82}
711: {So\l tan}, A. 1982, MNRAS, 200, 115
712:
713: \bibitem[{{Taniguchi} {et~al.}(2000)}]{Tan00}
714: {Taniguchi}, Y., {Shioya}, Y., {Tsuru}, T.~G., \& {Ikeuchi},
715: S. 2000, PASJ, 52, 533
716:
717: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Thornburg}{Thornburg}{2003}]{Thornburg:2003sf}
718: Thornburg, J. 2003, AIP Conf. Proc., 686, 247
719:
720: \bibitem[{{Tichy \& Marronetti}(2007)}]{Tichy}
721: {Tichy}, W. and {Marronetti}, P.
722: 2007, preprint (arXiv:gr-qc/0703075)
723:
724: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{van Meter et~al.}{van Meter
725: et~al.}{2006}]{vanMeter:2006vi}
726: van Meter, J.~R., Baker, J.~G., Koppitz, M., \& Choi, D.-I. 2006, Phys. Rev.
727: D, 73, 124011
728:
729: \bibitem[{{Volonteri} \& {Perna}(2005)}]{Vol05}
730: {Volonteri}, M., \& {Perna}, R. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 913
731:
732: \bibitem[{{Wiseman}(1992)}]{W92}
733: {Wiseman}, A.~G. 1992, PRD, 46, 1517
734:
735: \bibitem[{{Yoo} \& {Miralda-Escud\'e}(2004)}]{YM04}
736: {Yoo}, J., \& {Miralda-Escud\'e}, J. 2004, ApJ, 614, L25
737:
738: \bibitem[{{Yu} \& {Tremaine}(2002)}]{YT02}
739: {Yu}, Q., \& {Tremaine}, S. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 965
740:
741: \end{thebibliography}
742:
743: \end{document}
744: