1: \documentstyle[prd,floats,aps]{revtex}
2:
3: \input psfig
4: \pssilent
5:
6:
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: \begin{document}
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10:
11:
12: \title{Close limit evolution of Kerr-Schild type initial data for binary
13: black holes}
14:
15: \author{Olivier Sarbach}
16: \address{Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry,
17: Department of Physics,\\
18: The Pennsylvania State University, 104 Davey Lab, University Park, PA 16802.}
19:
20: \author{Manuel Tiglio}
21: \address{Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry,
22: Department of Physics and Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, \\
23: The Pennsylvania State
24: University, 525 Davey Lab, University Park, PA 16802.}
25:
26: \author{Jorge Pullin}
27: \address{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University, 202
28: Nicholson Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-4001.}
29: \maketitle
30:
31: \begin{abstract}
32: We evolve the binary black hole initial data family proposed by Bishop
33: {\em et al.} in the limit in which the black holes are close to each
34: other. We present an exact solution of the linearized initial value
35: problem based on their proposal and make use of a recently introduced
36: generalized formalism for studying perturbations of Schwarzschild black holes
37: in arbitrary coordinates to perform the evolution. We clarify the
38: meaning of the free parameters of the initial data family through the results
39: for the radiated energy and waveforms from the black hole collision.
40: \end{abstract}
41:
42:
43:
44: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
45: \section{Introduction}
46: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
47:
48: Collisions of binary black holes are expected to be one of the primary
49: sources of gravitational radiation to be detected by interferometric
50: gravitational wave detectors. Given the non-symmetric, time-dependent
51: nature of the problem, the only realistic hope of modeling a collision
52: is via numerical simulations. Unfortunately, given computer
53: limitations, it is expected that in the near future most evolutions
54: will have to start with the black holes quite close to each
55: other. This brings to the forefront the problem of specifying initial
56: data for the binary black hole collisions. Ideally, one would like to
57: have initial data representing ``astrophysically relevant''
58: situations, that is, resembling the situation the two black holes
59: would be in when they are in a realistic collision at the given
60: separation. Unfortunately, providing realistic data is tantamount to
61: solving the evolution problem. Since this cannot be done, one is left
62: with generating families of initial data based on mathematical or
63: computational convenience. Initial attempts to provide initial data
64: concentrated on solutions to the initial value problem that were
65: conformally flat \cite{C}. Conformally flat spatial metrics simplify
66: considerably the constraint equations but suffer from drawbacks, most
67: notably the inability to incorporate Kerr black holes, which are not
68: known to have conformally flat sections (for a perturbative proof of
69: non-existence, see \cite{price}). Recently, attention has been drawn
70: to the construction of initial data based on the Kerr--Schild form of
71: the Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics. These constructions have several
72: attractive properties: the slices are horizon-penetrating, which makes
73: them suitable for the application of the ``excision'' technique for
74: evolving black holes, and they can naturally incorporate boosted and
75: spinning black holes \cite{fd}.
76:
77: There have been two different
78: proposals to use Kerr--Schild coordinates for binary black holes. In the proposal of Huq,
79: Matzner and Shoemaker \cite{HMS},
80: two black holes individually in Kerr--Schild form were
81: superposed. In the proposal of Bishop {\em et al.} \cite{BIMW}
82: the superposition was
83: carried out in a way that the resulting superposed metric was in
84: Kerr--Schild form. This latter proposal has the property that in the
85: ``close limit'' in which the separation of the holes is small, the
86: metric is given by a distorted Kerr-Schild black hole.
87:
88: In this paper we will consider the evolution of the Bishop {\em et al.}
89: family of initial data in the close limit, by treating the
90: space-time as a small perturbation of a non-rotating Kerr--Schild black hole.
91: The evolution will be carried out using a recently introduced perturbative
92: formalism that allows to evolve Schwarzschild black holes in arbitrary
93: spherically symmetric coordinates \cite{ST}.
94: We will present an explicit solution to the initial value
95: problem posed by Bishop {\em et al.} in the close limit and use it to
96: compute the radiated energy in the black hole collision. This in turn
97: will help use clarify the meaning of free parameters that appear in
98: these families of data.
99:
100:
101:
102:
103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
104: \section{Kerr-Schild initial data}
105: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
106:
107: In their paper, Bishop {\em et al.} \cite{BIMW} assume that
108: at the initial slice, the three metric and the extrinsic
109: curvature are of Kerr-Schild (KS) type.
110: The KS space-time metric is defined by
111: \begin{displaymath}
112: g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} - 2V k_\mu k_\nu\, ,
113: \end{displaymath}
114: where $k_\mu$ is null.
115: The ``background'' metric $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ is taken to be the
116: Minkowski metric with coordinates $(t,\underline{x}) = (t,x^i)$ such that
117: $\eta_{tt} = -1$, $\eta_{ti} = 0$ and $\eta_{ij} = \delta_{ij}$.
118: The null vector $k_\mu$ satisfies $k_t = -1$ and
119: $k^i k_i = 1$, where $k^i = \delta^{ij} k_j$.
120: As an example, for the Schwarzschild geometry,
121: \begin{displaymath}
122: V = -\frac{M}{r}\, ,\;\;\;
123: k_i dx^i = -dr.
124: \end{displaymath}
125: For a KS metric, the three metric and extrinsic curvature
126: with respect to a slice $t = \mbox{const.}$ are
127: \begin{eqnarray}
128: \bar{g}_{ij} &=& \delta_{ij} - 2V k_i k_j,
129: \label{Eq-KSgK1}\\
130: K_{ij} &=& -\frac{1}{\alpha}\partial_t \left( V k_i k_j \right)
131: + 2\alpha \left[ V k^s \nabla_s \left( V k_i k_j \right) -
132: \nabla_{(i} \left( V k_{j)} \right) \right],
133: \label{Eq-KSgK2}
134: \end{eqnarray}
135: where $\alpha = (1 - 2V)^{-1/2}$ is the lapse and where
136: $\nabla$ refers to the flat metric $\delta_{ij}\,$.
137: Bishop {\em et al.}'s solution procedure consists in inserting
138: (\ref{Eq-KSgK1},\ref{Eq-KSgK2}) into the constraint equations
139: and to solve the resulting equations for $V$, $\dot{V} = \partial_t V$
140: and $\dot{k}_i = \partial_t k_i$, where $k_i$ is assumed to be given.
141: ($k_i$ has only two independent components since $k^i k_i = 1$.)
142: Below, we review the discussion of these equation where a
143: particular ansatz is made for $k_i$ representing two nearby
144: non-rotating and non-spinning black holes.
145:
146:
147:
148: \subsection{Two black hole data}
149:
150: A single Schwarzschild black hole can be represented as
151: \begin{displaymath}
152: k_i = \frac{\nabla_i \phi}{|\nabla\phi|}\, , \;\;\;
153: |\nabla\phi|^2 = \delta^{ij} \nabla_i\phi\cdot\nabla_j\phi,
154: \end{displaymath}
155: with $\phi = 1/r$.
156: For two black holes, Bishop {\em et al.} make the ansatz
157: \begin{displaymath}
158: \phi(\underline{x}) = \frac{M_1}{ |\underline{x} -
159: \underline{x}_1 | } + \frac{M_2}{ |\underline{x} - \underline{x}_2 | }\, ,
160: \end{displaymath}
161: where $\underline{x}_{1,2}$ denote the position of the black hole $1,2$
162: which has mass $M_{1,2}$.
163: If the black holes are located at $\underline{x}_i = a_i(0,0,1)$, with
164: $a_1 > 0 > a_2$, $\phi$ may be expanded in a sum over multipoles:
165: \begin{equation}
166: \phi(r,\vartheta) = \sum\limits_{\ell=0}^{\infty}
167: \frac{ M_1 a_1^\ell + M_2 a_2^\ell}{r^{\ell+1}} P_\ell(\cos\vartheta),
168: \label{Eq-TwoBHExp}
169: \end{equation}
170: where $P_\ell$ denote standard Legendre polynomials and where
171: $(r,\vartheta,\varphi)$ are polar coordinates for $\underline{x}$.
172: It is important to note that the expansion (\ref{Eq-TwoBHExp})
173: is only valid for $r > \max\{a_1,-a_2\}$.
174:
175: Defining the separation parameter
176: \begin{displaymath}
177: \varepsilon = \frac{a_1 - a_2}{M}\, ,
178: \end{displaymath}
179: where $M = M_1 + M_2$ is the total mass,
180: and imposing the center of mass condition $M_1 a_1 + M_2 a_2 = 0$,
181: the close limit of (\ref{Eq-TwoBHExp}) becomes
182: \begin{displaymath}
183: \phi = \frac{M}{r} + \varepsilon^2\frac{ M M_1 M_2}{r^3}
184: P_2(\cos\vartheta) + {\cal O}(\varepsilon^3/r^4).
185: \end{displaymath}
186: As a result, to first order in $\varepsilon^2$, $k_i$ is given by
187: \begin{equation}
188: k_r = 1, \;\;\;
189: k_A = \varepsilon^2\frac{M_1 M_2}{r} \hat{\nabla}_A P_2\, ,
190: \label{Eq-Exp1}
191: \end{equation}
192: where here and in the following, $A = \vartheta,\varphi$.
193: The remaining amplitudes are expanded according to
194: \begin{equation}
195: V = -\frac{M}{r} + \varepsilon^2 v(r) P_2\, , \;\;\;
196: \dot{V} = \varepsilon^2\dot{v}(r) P_2\, , \;\;\;
197: \dot{k}_A = \varepsilon^2\dot{k}(r) \hat{\nabla}_A P_2\, .
198: \label{Eq-Exp2}
199: \end{equation}
200: (In Bishop {\em et al.}'s notation: $\dot{v} = v_T$ and $\dot{k} = -k_T$.)
201: Introducing this into the constraint equations, and keeping only
202: terms of the order $\varepsilon^2$, one obtains the equations
203: \begin{eqnarray}
204: 0 &=& -\dot{v} + \frac{3M}{r^2}\left( 1 + \frac{2M}{r} \right)\dot{k}
205: - \frac{3}{r}v - \frac{6M M_1 M_2}{r^5}(r - M),\label{Eq-C1}\\
206: 0 &=& -v' - \frac{4}{r} v + \frac{6M^2}{r^3} \dot{k}
207: - \frac{6M M_1 M_2}{r^5}(r - M), \label{Eq-C2}\\
208: 0 &=& - M \dot{k}' + v + \frac{2M}{r} \dot{k} + \frac{6M M_1 M_2}{r^3}\, .
209: \label{Eq-C3}
210: \end{eqnarray}
211: Here, a prime denotes differentiation with respect to $r$.
212: The system (\ref{Eq-C2},\ref{Eq-C3}) can be re-expressed as
213: a single second order equation. Introducing the dimensionless
214: quantities $x = r/M$ and $\mu = M_1 M_2/M^2$, this equation reads
215: \begin{equation}
216: 0 = -v_{xx} - \frac{5}{x} v_x + \frac{6}{x^3} v + \frac{6\mu}{x^6}(3x + 2).
217: \label{Eq-KeyEq}
218: \end{equation}
219: Once we have solved this equation, the remaining amplitudes
220: $\dot{k}$ and $\dot{v}$ are obtained from (\ref{Eq-C1}) and
221: (\ref{Eq-C2}), respectively.
222:
223:
224: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
225: \subsection{The solutions of equation (\ref{Eq-KeyEq})}
226: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
227: A particular solution of (\ref{Eq-KeyEq}) is given by
228: \begin{displaymath}
229: v(x) = -\frac{2\mu}{3}\left( 1 - \frac{2}{x} +
230: \frac{3}{x^2} + \frac{3}{x^3} \right).
231: \end{displaymath}
232: In order to find the solutions of the homogeneous equation, one
233: performs the transformations $x = 24/z^2$, $v(x) = z^4 u(z)$,
234: which yields the Bessel differential equation
235: \begin{displaymath}
236: 0 = z^2 u_{zz} + z u_z - (16 + z^2) u.
237: \end{displaymath}
238: The solutions are a linear combination of the Bessel functions
239: $J_4(iz)$ and $Y_4(iz)$. While $J_4(iz)$ behaves as $z^4$ for
240: small $|z|$, $Y_4(iz)$ has the expansion \cite{Walter}
241: \begin{eqnarray}
242: Y_4(iz) &=& -\frac{96}{\pi}\, z^{-4}\left( 1 - \frac{z^2}{12} +
243: \frac{z^4}{192}
244: -\frac{z^6}{2304} + {\cal O}(z^8\log z)\right)
245: \nonumber\\
246: &=& -\frac{1}{6\pi}\, x^2\left( 1 - \frac{2}{x} + \frac{3}{x^2}
247: -\frac{6}{x^3} + {\cal O}(x^{-4}\log x)\right)
248: \label{Eq-Y4Exp}
249: \end{eqnarray}
250: near $z = 0$.
251: Thus, the general solution to (\ref{Eq-KeyEq}) is $v(x) = \mu \hat{v}(x)$, with
252: \begin{equation}
253: \hat{v}(x) = -\frac{2}{3}\left( 1 - \frac{2}{x} +
254: \frac{3}{x^2} + \frac{3}{x^3} + \frac{C_1}{x^2} Y_4( i\sqrt{24/x} ) \right)
255: + \frac{C_2}{x^2} J_4( i\sqrt{24/x} ) .
256: \label{Eq-vSol}
257: \end{equation}
258: While $v$ is regular at $x = \infty$ for any values of the constants
259: $C_1$, $C_2$, equation (\ref{Eq-C2}) shows that in order for $\dot{k}$
260: to be regular at $x = \infty$, it is necessary that $v$ decays at
261: least as fast as $x^{-2}$. Comparing the expansion (\ref{Eq-Y4Exp})
262: with (\ref{Eq-vSol}) one sees that by choosing $C_1 = 6\pi$, one can
263: get rid of all terms which decay slower than $x^{-3}$. By looking at
264: gauge-invariant expressions, we will show later that this choice is
265: indeed necessary in order to get an asymptotic flat
266: solution. Therefore, $C_1$ is fixed by physical means. The role of
267: the constant $C_2$ is discussed below.
268:
269:
270: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
271: \subsection{The Zerilli amplitudes}
272: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
273:
274: In Ref. \cite{ST}, we have recently derived a gauge-invariant
275: generalization of the Zerilli equation which allows to study
276: perturbations on a Schwarzschild background written in any spherically
277: symmetric coordinates. In Appendix A of this paper we have written
278: the perturbed metric in terms of the generalized Zerilli function
279: $\psi $, that one obtains using the formalism of \cite{ST} for the
280: case at hand: $l=2$, even parity perturbations of a KS
281: background. This metric is a solution of Einstein's vacuum equations
282: provided the Zerilli function $\psi$ satisfies
283: \begin{equation}
284: \ddot{\psi } =
285: \frac{x-2}{x+2}\psi ^{''} + \frac{2}{x(x+2)} (\psi' - \dot{\psi }) +
286: \frac{4}{x+2}\dot{\psi '} -
287: \frac{6(3+6x+4x^2+4x^3)}{x^2(x+2)(3+2x)^2}\psi
288: \label{zerilli_equation}
289: \end{equation}
290: where $\psi = \psi(\tau, x)$, $\tau:= t/M$, and now $\dot{\psi } = \partial _{\tau} \psi $,
291: $\psi ' = \partial _x \psi $.
292:
293: In order to evolve the KS
294: initial data, we have to relate the amplitudes $v$, $\dot{v}$ and $\dot{k}$
295: to the scalars $\psi$ and $\dot{\psi}$ (introduced in \cite{ST})
296: which satisfy the Zerilli equation (\ref{zerilli_equation}).
297: Using the expansions (\ref{Eq-Exp1},\ref{Eq-Exp2}) in
298: the expressions (\ref{Eq-KSgK1},\ref{Eq-KSgK2}),
299: it is straightforward to calculate $\psi$ and $\dot{\psi}$ using the
300: formulae given in \cite{ST}. The result is
301: \begin{eqnarray}
302: \psi &=& M \mu \left[ \frac{x^3\hat{v} - 6 }{3x(2x + 3)} \right] \, ,
303: \label{Eq-psi}\\
304: \dot{\psi} &=& -\mu\left[ \frac{ 2x^3(2x - 1) \hat{v} +
305: x^4(x - 2) \hat{v}' + 6(x-1) }{6x^2(2x+3)} \right]\, , \nonumber
306: \end{eqnarray}
307: where we have also used (\ref{Eq-C2}) in order to eliminate $\dot{k}$.
308: Since $\psi$ is gauge-invariant, it is clear that the free constants
309: $C_1$ and $C_2$ appearing in $v(x)$ cannot represent a gauge freedom.
310: In order to have an asymptotic flat solution, $v(x)$ must vanish at
311: infinity. As discussed in the previous subsection, this fixes the
312: value of the constant $C_1$. In this case, $\psi$ and $\dot{\psi}$
313: fall off like $x^{-2}$ at infinity. The constant $C_2$ is still free
314: and will determine different sets of initial data as one chooses its
315: value. The radiation content, as we will see, depends on $C_2$. The
316: constant is therefore clearly associated with the ``spurious
317: radiation'' that the initial data contains with respect to
318: ``astrophysically relevant'' initial data. One could probably
319: determine this content by evolving the initial data set backwards in
320: time. This calculation would be possible (at least for a limited
321: amount of time) within the confines of the close approximation
322: if the black holes are initially very close. One could therefore
323: follow the space-time backwards for a short time and see if
324: incoming radiation is present at a finite distance of the holes.
325: We have not performed such a study, but it is feasible (we
326: thank Jeff Winicour for bringing this to our attention).
327:
328: It should be noticed that the initial data for the Zerilli function
329: diverges in the limit $x\rightarrow 0$ for all values of $C_2$, so one
330: cannot single out a preferred value of this constant by demanding the
331: initial data to be finite in this limit (even though, as already
332: mentioned, the multipole expansion is, in any case, valid only for $r
333: > \max\{a_1,-a_2\}$).
334:
335:
336: \subsection{The linearized apparent horizon equation}
337: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
338:
339: Bishop {\em et al.} have argued that the position of the apparent
340: horizon is related to the constant $C_2$. Here we perform a linearized
341: analysis of the position of the horizon, to clarify the meaning of
342: their finding.
343:
344: Given initial data $\bar{g}_{ij}$, $K_{ij}$ on a space-like slice $\Sigma$,
345: the location of an apparent horizon (AH) can be determined by the equation
346: \begin{equation}
347: \bar{\nabla}_i s^i - K_{ij} s^i s^j + K = 0,
348: \label{Eq-AHF}
349: \end{equation}
350: where $s^i$ is the unit outward normal to the AH.
351: If the AH is given by $f(\underline{x}) = 0$ for some function
352: $f$ on $\Sigma$, we have $s_i = \lambda \bar{\nabla}_i f$, where $\lambda^{-2}
353: = \bar{\nabla}^i f\bar{\nabla}_i f$.
354: For KS initial data of the form (\ref{Eq-KSgK1},\ref{Eq-KSgK2}),
355: it was assumed in \cite{BIMW} that the AH coincides with a
356: surface $S$ which is orthogonal to $k_i\,$. In this case, $s_ i =
357: -k_i/\alpha$, and one can check that equation (\ref{Eq-AHF})
358: is compatible with the result in \cite{BIMW}, i.e. $S$ is an AH if
359: $V = -1/2$ on $S$.
360:
361: For spherically symmetric initial data,
362: \begin{eqnarray}
363: \bar{g}_{ij} dx^i dx^j &=& \gamma(r)^2 dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega^2,
364: \nonumber\\
365: K_{ij} dx^i dx^j &=& p(r)\gamma(r)^2 dr^2 + q(r) r^2 d\Omega^2\, ,
366: \nonumber
367: \end{eqnarray}
368: we must have $s_r = \gamma$, $s_A = 0$, and the AH equation (\ref{Eq-AHF})
369: yields $q = -1/(r\gamma)$. It is not difficult to show (either by
370: using the KS form of the Schwarzschild metric or more generally by integrating
371: the constraint equations) that this is equivalent to $r = 2M$, where
372: $M$ is the ADM mass.
373: We now want to linearize the AH equation around a spherically
374: symmetric background and to find the deviation of the AH from $r = 2M$.
375: In the linear regime, we expect that the location of the AH can be
376: described by the image of the circle $|\underline{x}| = 2M$
377: under a map of the form
378: \begin{displaymath}
379: \underline{x} \mapsto \underline{x} - \epsilon^2
380: D(\underline{x})\frac{\underline{x}}{r}\, .
381: \end{displaymath}
382: The deviation function $D(\underline{x})$ is related to the function
383: $f(\underline{x})$ as follows:
384: \begin{displaymath}
385: 0 = f\left( \underline{x} - \epsilon^2 D(\underline{x})\frac{\underline{x}}{r} \right)
386: = f^{(0)}(\underline{x}) + \epsilon^2\left[ \delta f(\underline{x}) - \partial_r f^{(0)}(\underline{x})
387: D(\underline{x}) \right],
388: \end{displaymath}
389: where $f^{(0)}(\underline{x})$ is a function describing the AH
390: to zeroth order (for example $f^{(0)}(\underline{x}) = r - 2M$).
391: Using also $\lambda = \gamma(\partial_r f)^{-1}$, we obtain
392: $D(\underline{x}) = \lambda\delta f/\gamma$.
393:
394: On the other hand, for linear perturbations around a spherically
395: symmetric background, the normalization of $s^i$ yields
396: $\delta s_r = \gamma h/2$ while equation (\ref{Eq-AHF}) gives
397: \begin{equation}
398: 0 = \hat{\nabla}^A\left( \gamma\delta s_A - q_A \right) - r h
399: + \frac{r^2}{2} k' + \gamma r^2 V_k\, ,
400: \end{equation}
401: where $h$, $k$, $q_A$ and $V_k$ are defined by
402: \begin{displaymath}
403: h = \gamma^{-2}\delta g_{rr}\, , \;\;\;
404: q_B = \delta g_{rB}\, , \;\;\;\
405: k = \bar{g}^{AB}\delta g_{AB}\, , \;\;\;
406: V_k = \delta(\bar{g}^{AB} K_{AB}) .
407: \end{displaymath}
408: In terms of the function $f$, $s_A = \delta(\lambda\partial_A f) = \gamma\partial_A D$,
409: and the linearized AH equation finally becomes
410: \begin{eqnarray}
411: \gamma^2\hat{\Delta} D = \hat{\nabla}^A q_A + r h - \frac{r^2}{2} k' - \gamma r^2 V_k\, .
412: \end{eqnarray}
413: Performing a multipolar decomposition of $D(\underline{x})$, this
414: equation becomes a set of algebraic equations for $D$.
415: Evaluating for the KS data proposed in Section II A, we find that
416: \begin{equation}
417: D(\underline{x}) = \alpha^2\left( \frac{\alpha^2}{3} ( 3r + 2M) v(r)
418: - \frac{4M M_1 M_2}{r^2} \right) P_2(\cos\vartheta).
419: \end{equation}
420:
421:
422:
423:
424: So we see that the position of the apparent horizon
425: is given by the image of the circle $x = 2$ under the map
426: \begin{displaymath}
427: \underline{x} \mapsto \underline{x} -
428: \varepsilon^2\hat{D}(\underline{x})\,\frac{\underline{x}}{x}
429: \end{displaymath}
430: where the deviation function $\hat{D}(\underline{x})$ can be expressed
431: algebraically in terms of the perturbed three metric and extrinsic
432: curvature. For a KS metric and $x=2$,
433: \begin{displaymath}
434: \hat{D}(\underline{x}) = \frac{\mu}{2} \left( \frac{4}{3}\hat{v}(2) - 1 \right) P_2(\cos\vartheta).
435: \end{displaymath}
436: It is now clear that the deviation function depends on the value
437: of the constant $C_2\,$. In particular, we can choose $C_2$ such
438: that $\hat{D}(x=2)$ vanishes.
439:
440: A way to see that the meaning of the constant $C_2$ is not just
441: a choice in the position of the apparent horizon is to notice that
442: once one has fixed the values of $M_1$ and $M_2$, the KS form of the
443: metric completely fixes the coordinates on the KS slice (at least to
444: linear order). Indeed, a gauge mode must satisfy the constraint
445: equations (\ref{Eq-C1},\ref{Eq-C2},\ref{Eq-C3}). On the other hand,
446: the general solution to these equations is completely determined by
447: $v(x)$, which cannot contain gauge modes since it is related to the
448: gauge-invariant amplitude $\psi$ according to (\ref{Eq-psi}).
449: Therefore, we have two possibilities to fix the coordinate location of
450: the apparent horizon (at $x=2$, say): The first possibility is to
451: perform an infinitesimal coordinate transformation such that the
452: apparent horizon appears unperturbed relative to the Schwarzschild
453: horizon. In this case, the initial data will not have KS form
454: anymore. The second possibility is to adjust the constant $C_2$ such
455: that the apparent horizon is at the location we desire. Clearly,
456: these two methods are different since the former corresponds to a
457: gauge transformation, while the latter corresponds to a true physical
458: change in the initial data, as we anticipated before. So indeed the
459: constant $C_2$ is related to the position of the apparent horizon as
460: was noticed by Bishop {\em et al.}, but through a genuine change (not
461: just a gauge change) in the initial data.
462:
463: \begin{figure}[h]
464: \centerline{\hbox{\psfig{file=zerinit1.eps,height=50mm}
465: \psfig{file=zerdoti1.eps,height=50mm}}}
466: \caption{The initial value of the Zerilli function and its time
467: derivative. $C_2 = 0$ is nonvanishing, as may appear due to the
468: choice of scale of the figures.}
469: \end{figure}
470:
471:
472:
473:
474: Figures 1 and 2 show the initial data for the Zerilli function and its time
475: derivative for different values of $C_2$. In the next section we shall analyze
476: the dependence of the total radiated energy and waveforms on $C_2$.
477:
478:
479: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
480: \section{Evolution}
481: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
482:
483: An expression for the radiated energy in terms of gauge-invariant
484: quantities is given in \cite{ST}. Since here we have expanded all
485: perturbations with respect to the Legendre polynomial
486: $P_2(\cos\vartheta) = \sqrt{4\pi/5}\, Y^{20}(\vartheta)$, this energy
487: expression becomes
488: \begin{displaymath}
489: \frac{dE}{du} = \frac{6}{5}\,\dot{\psi}^2 \; ,
490: \end{displaymath}
491: with $\dot{\psi }$ being evaluated in the radiative zone.
492:
493: We have written a code that solves our generalized Regge-Wheeler and Zerilli
494: equations. As a consistency check, we have evolved the close limit of some
495: maximally sliced initial data (which can be seen as perturbations of
496: Schwarzschild in usual coordinates), being able to reproduce previous values
497: for the total radiated energy (e.g. Misner's initial data \cite{pp}, or
498: boosted black holes \cite{baker}).
499:
500: The code is a standard second order dissipative, finite differencing,
501: one. In the case of a KS background we perform excision, i.e. we place
502: the inner boundary inside the black hole, and in that way avoid giving
503: boundary conditions there. In figure 3 we show the Zerilli function, scaled by $\mu$
504: (i.e. $\psi / \mu$) versus time, extracted at $r=100M$ for two different values of $C_2$.
505: {}From that plot one can notice, for example, the typical ringing
506: frequency for Schwarzschild black holes.
507:
508:
509: \begin{figure}[h]
510: \centerline{\psfig{file=waves1.eps,height=60mm}}
511: \caption{The radiated waveforms at $r=100M$ for two different values
512: of $C_2$. As usual in close limit collisions, the waveform is
513: dominated by the fundamental quasi-normal mode.}
514: \end{figure}
515:
516: Given the linearity of Zerilli's equation, and the form of the KS
517: initial data, the dependence of the Zerilli function on the parameters
518: of the problem is
519: $$
520: \dot{\psi} (t,r) = \epsilon ^2 \mu \left(\dot{\psi}
521: _{a}(t,r) + C_2 \dot{\psi } _{b}(t,r)\right)
522: $$
523: where the functions $\psi _{a}$ and $\psi _{b}$ are
524: dimensionless. Accordingly, the total radiated energy is
525: $$
526: E = \frac{6 \epsilon ^4\mu ^2}{5}\left(\int
527: _0^{\infty}\dot{\psi_{a}}^2 dt + C_2 ^2 \int _0^{\infty} \dot{\psi
528: _{b}}^2dt + 2 C_2 \int _0^{\infty}\dot{\psi _{a}} \dot{\psi
529: _{b}}dt\right) $$
530: Therefore one needs to perform only three
531: runs to obtain the complete dependence of the radiated energy on the
532: free parameters. The result is
533: $$
534: E = \epsilon ^4 M \mu ^2 \left( 3.6 \times 10^{-4} +
535: 5.2\times 10^{-7}C_2 ^2 - 2.2
536: \times 10^{-5}C_2 \right)
537: $$
538: The quantity $E/(\epsilon ^4 M \mu ^2)$, as a (quadratic) function of $C_2$,
539: has a local minimum at $C_2 \approx 21$, where it takes the value
540: $E/(\epsilon ^4 M \mu ^2) \approx 1.3 \times 10^{-4}$. This function is plotted
541: in figure 3.
542:
543:
544: \begin{figure}[h]
545: \centerline{\psfig{file=energy1.eps,height=60mm}}
546: \caption{The radiated energy (in units of $\epsilon^4 M\mu^2$) as a
547: function of $C_2 $. As a rough comparison, if we consider equal mass
548: black holes ($\mu=1$), and take the ``separation'' $\epsilon=1$ and
549: identify it with the ``separation in the conformal background
550: geometry'' for two Brill--Lindquist black holes (for a more physical
551: picture, a conformal separation of less than $0.8M$ corresponds to a
552: common apparent horizon for the Brill--Lindquist family), the latter
553: would radiate around $10^{-5}M$, which is rougly similar to the
554: radiation we get for the minimum value of $C_2$.}
555: \end{figure}
556:
557: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
558: \section{Discussion}
559: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
560:
561: We have evolved the initial value family of Bishop {\em et al.} in the
562: limit in which the black holes are close to each other by treating the
563: spacetime as a single distorted Kerr--Schild black hole and solving
564: the linearized Einstein equations for the distortion. The evolution
565: sheds further light on the role of the integration constants present
566: in the family.
567:
568: An obvious question to ask would be ``does this family contain
569: more/less radiation than other families'' (for instance the Misner
570: data). Unfortunately, the family has explicit free parameters and
571: therefore the comparison is highly dependent on the arbitrary values
572: of these parameters. This should not be misinterpreted as a problem:
573: it just highlights that the initial value problem for binary black
574: holes inevitably contains ambiguities. Some proposals may resolve the
575: ambiguities based on aesthetic criteria, but from a physical point of
576: view that is not more satisfactory than simply picking values for the
577: constants involved. These issues could be better understood if one
578: evolved the systems backwards in time and tried to establish the
579: amount of incoming radiation. The present results should be of
580: interest in the calibration of numerical codes based on the
581: Kerr-Schild coordinate system. Experiments with the Maya binary black
582: hole code \cite{maya} to compare results are currently under way.
583:
584: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
585: \begin{acknowledgments}
586: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
587: This work was supported in part by the Swiss National Science Foundation, by
588: grants NSF-PHY-0090091, NSF-PHY-9800973, by Fundaci\'on Antorchas,
589: by the Eberly Family Research Fund at Penn State and the Horace C.
590: Hearne Jr. Institute of Theoretical Physics.
591: We wish to thank Jeff Winicour for comments and for helping us clarify
592: an earlier version of the paper.
593: After completing this work we learnt that Carsten K\"ollein at Albert
594: Einstein Institute performed a perturbative evolution of this same
595: family of initial data in his M.Sc. thesis (unpublished) using the
596: Teukolsky equation. We thank Manuela Campanelli for bringing this to
597: our attention.
598: \end{acknowledgments}
599:
600:
601: \appendix
602: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
603: \section{Perturbed metric for a KS background}
604: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
605: For the particular case in which the background metric is KS, the
606: perturbed $l=2$ even metric in the Regge--Wheeler gauge, in terms of
607: the Zerilli function, is
608: \begin{eqnarray*}
609: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
610: g_{rr} &=& 1 + \frac{2}{x} + \frac{\delta }{M}\left[
611: \frac{6(x+2)(3+6x+4x^2+4x^3)}{(3+2x)^2x^3}\psi +
612: \frac{4(4x^2+9x+3)}{x^2(3+2x)}\dot{\psi } - \right. \\
613: & & \left. \frac{2(2x^3+2x^2+15x+6)}{x^2(3+2x)}\psi ' - 2x\psi ^{''}
614: \right]Y^{20}(\vartheta) \\
615: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
616: & & \\
617: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
618: g_{rt } &=& \frac{2}{x} + \frac{\delta }{M} \left[
619: \frac{12(3+6x+4x^2+4x^3)}{x^3(3+2x)^2}\psi +
620: \frac{4(2x^2-6x-3)}{x^2(3+2x)}\psi ' - \right. \\
621: & & \left. \frac{2(x+2)(2x^2-3-6x)}{x^2(3+2x)}\dot{\psi } -
622: 2x\dot{\psi '} \right ]Y^{20}(\vartheta) \\
623: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
624: & & \\
625: g_{\theta \theta } &=& x^2 + \frac{\delta }{M} \left[-\frac{12(x+1+x^2)}{3+2x}\psi -
626: 4x\dot{\psi } - 2x(x-2)\psi ' \right]Y^{20}(\vartheta) \\
627: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
628: & & \\
629: g_{\phi \phi } &=& g_{\theta \theta } \sin ^2{\theta } \\
630: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
631: & & \\
632: g_{tt} &=& -1 + \frac{2}{x} + \frac{\delta }{M}\left[
633: \frac{6(4+x^2)(3+6x+4x^2+4x^3)}{(3+2x)^2x^3(x+2)}\psi +
634: \frac{4(5x^2+15x+6)}{x^2(3+2x)(x+2)}\dot{\psi } - \right. \\
635: & & \left. \frac{2(2x^4-2x^3-5x^2+24x+12)}{x^2(3+2x)(x+2)}\psi ' -
636: 2x\frac{x-2}{x+2}\psi^{''} - \frac{8x}{x+2} \dot{\psi '}\right]Y^{20}(\vartheta)
637: \\
638: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
639: \end{eqnarray*}
640: where $\delta $ is a perturbative parameter.
641:
642:
643:
644:
645:
646:
647:
648:
649:
650:
651:
652: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
653: \begin{references}
654: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
655:
656: \bibitem{C}G. Cook, Living Rev.\ Rel.\ {\bf 3}, 5 (2000).
657:
658: \bibitem{price} A. Garat and R. H. Price, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 124011 (2000).
659:
660: \bibitem{fd} For an alternative approach that incorporates Kerr black
661: holes with control on spurious radiation, plus the additional
662: advantage of having proofs for the existence and regularity of the
663: initial data, as well as knowing how to give boundary conditions to
664: these data, see S. Dain and H. Friedrich in, gr-qc/0103030;
665: gr-qc/0012023; gr-qc/0102047.
666:
667: \bibitem{HMS} R.~A.~Matzner, M.~F.~Huq and D.~Shoemaker,
668: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 024015 (1999).
669:
670: \bibitem{BIMW}
671: N.T. Bishop, R. Isaacson, M. Maharaj, and J. Winicour,
672: Phys. Rev. {\bf D57}, 6113 (1998).
673:
674: \bibitem{ST}
675: O. Sarbach and M. Tiglio,
676: Phys. Rev. {\bf D64}, 084016 (2001).
677:
678: \bibitem{Walter}
679: W. Walter,
680: {\it Ordinary Differential Equations}
681: (Springer, New York 1998).
682:
683: \bibitem{pp} R. Price and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72}, 3297 (1994).
684:
685: \bibitem{baker} J. Baker et. al. Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55}, 829 (1997).
686:
687: \bibitem{maya} {\tt http://www.astro.psu.edu/nr/}
688: \end{references}
689:
690:
691:
692: \end{document}
693: