1: % $Id: ID.tex,v 1.31 2002/06/07 12:02:01 harald Exp $

2: \documentclass[aps,prd,showpacs,twocolumn, groupedaddress,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

3: 

4: \usepackage{amsmath, amsfonts, graphicx}

5: 

6: \newcommand{\ve}[1]{{\bf #1}}

7: \newcommand{\Long}{\mathbb{L}}

8: \newcommand{\LapLong}{\Delta_\Long}

9: \newcommand{\tildeLapLong}{\tilde\Delta_\Long}

10: \newcommand{\TF}{\mbox{TF}}

11: 

12: 

13: \begin{document}

14: \title{Comparing initial-data sets for binary black holes}

15: 

16: \author{Harald P. Pfeiffer}

17: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York\ \ 14853}

18: \author{Gregory B. Cook}

19: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem,

20:          North Carolina\ \ 27109}

21: \author{Saul A. Teukolsky}

22: \affiliation{Columbia Astrophysics Laboratory, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027}

23: \altaffiliation[Permanent address: ]{Department of Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York\ \ 14853}

24: 

25: \date{\today}

26: 

27: \begin{abstract}

28:   We compare the results of constructing binary black hole initial

29:   data with three different decompositions of the constraint equations

30:   of general relativity.  For each decomposition we compute the

31:   initial data using a superposition of two Kerr-Schild black holes to

32:   fix the freely specifiable data.  We find that these initial-data sets

33:   differ significantly, with the ADM energy varying by as much as 5\%

34:   of the total mass.  We find that all initial-data sets currently

35:   used for evolutions might contain unphysical gravitational radiation

36:   of the order of several percent of the total mass.  This is

37:   comparable to the amount of gravitational-wave energy observed

38:   during the evolved collision.  More astrophysically realistic

39:   initial data will require more careful choices of the freely

40:   specifiable data and boundary conditions for both the metric and

41:   extrinsic curvature.  However, we find that the choice of extrinsic

42:   curvature affects the resulting data sets more strongly than the

43:   choice of conformal metric.

44: \end{abstract}

45: \pacs{04.25.Dm, 04.70.Bw} \maketitle

46: 

47: 

48: \section{Introduction}

49: 

50: Numerical evolutions of black holes have been improved slowly but

51: steadily over the last few years and now first attempts are being made

52: to extract physical information from these evolutions. Most notably

53: one wants to predict the gravitational radiation emitted during black

54: hole coalescence \cite{Baker-Bruegmann-etal:2001,Alcubierre:2001,

55: Baker-Campanelli-etal:astroph0202469}.

56: 

57: The quality of the initial data will be crucial to the success of the

58: predictions of the gravitational wave forms. Unphysical gravitational

59: radiation present in the initial data will contribute to the

60: gravitational waves computed in an evolution and might overwhelm the

61: true gravitational wave signature of the physical process under

62: consideration.  Therefore an important question is how to control the

63: gravitational wave content of initial-data sets, and how to specify

64: {\em astrophysically} relevant initial data with the appropriate

65: gravitational wave content, for e.g.\ two black holes orbiting each

66: other.  Unfortunately, assessing and controlling the gravitational wave

67: content of initial-data sets is not well understood at all.

68: 

69: The mere {\em construction} of an initial-data set alone is

70: fairly involved, since every initial-data set must satisfy a rather

71: complicated set of four partial differential equations, the so-called

72: constraint equations of general relativity.  The question of how to

73: solve these equations, and how to specify initial data representing

74: binary black holes in particular, has received considerable attention.

75: 

76: We consider in this paper three different approaches that transform

77: the constraint equations into elliptic equations: The

78: {\em conformal transverse-traceless (TT) decomposition}\cite{York:1979},

79: the {\em physical TT decomposition} \cite{ Murchadha-York:1974a,

80:   Murchadha-York:1974b, Murchadha-York:1976} and the {\em conformal

81:   thin sandwich decomposition}\cite{York:1999}.  These decompositions

82: split the variables on the initial-data surface into various pieces in

83: such a way that the constraint equations determine some of the pieces while

84: not restricting the others.  After these freely

85: specifiable pieces are chosen, the constraint equations are solved and the

86: results are combined with the freely specifiable pieces to yield a

87: valid initial-data set.

88: 

89: Any reasonable choice for the freely specifiable pieces will lead to a

90: valid initial-data set. Furthermore, any one of these decompositions

91: can generate any desired initial-data set, given the {\em correct}

92: choices of the freely specifiable pieces.  However, it is not clear

93: {\em what} choices of freely specifiable pieces lead to initial-data

94: sets with the desired properties.

95: 

96: The decompositions we consider here lead to four coupled nonlinear

97: elliptic partial differential equations. Since such equations are difficult to

98: solve, the early approach to constructing initial data was pragmatic:

99: One used the conformal TT decomposition with additional restrictions

100: on the freely specifiable pieces, most notably conformal flatness and

101: maximal slicing. These assumptions decouple the constraints

102: and allow for analytical solutions to the momentum

103: constraints, the so-called {\em Bowen-York extrinsic

104:   curvature}\cite{Bowen:1979,Bowen-York:1980,Kulkarni-Shepley-York:1983}. 

105: All that remains is to solve a single elliptic

106: equation, the Hamiltonian constraint.  This approach has been used in

107: several variations\cite{Thornburg:1987,Cook-Choptuik-etal:1993,

108:   Brandt-Brugmann:1997}.

109: 

110: However, these numerical simplifications come at a cost.

111: The freely specifiable pieces have been restricted to a small subset of

112: all possible choices.  One therefore can generate only a subset of

113: all possible initial-data sets, one that might not contain the desired

114: astrophysically relevant initial-data sets.

115: 

116: Over the last few years there have been additional developments:

117: Post-Newtonian results have indicated that binary black hole metrics

118: are not conformally flat\cite{Rieth:1997,

119: Damour-Jaranowski-Schaefer:2000b}.

120: With certain restrictions on the slicing, it has also been shown that a

121: single stationary spinning black hole cannot be represented with a

122: conformally flat spatial metric

123: \cite{Monroe:1976,Garat-Price:2000}.  In \cite{Pfeiffer-Teukolsky-Cook:2000},

124: it was shown that conformally flat initial data sets for spinning

125: binary black holes contain an unphysical contamination.  Moreover,

126: computations in spherical symmetry\cite{Lousto-Price:1998} indicated

127: that initial-data sets depend strongly on the choice of the extrinsic

128: curvature and that the use of the Bowen-York extrinsic curvature might

129: be problematic.

130: 

131: Therefore it is necessary to move beyond conformally flat initial data

132: and to explore different choices for the extrinsic curvature.  Matzner

133: et al\cite{Matzner-Huq-Shoemaker:1999} proposed a non-flat conformal

134: metric based on the superposition of two Kerr-Schild metrics; a

135: solution based on this proposal was obtained in

136: \cite{Marronetti-Matzner:2000}. This work demonstrated the existence

137: of solutions to the 3D set of equations, but did not examine the data

138: sets in any detail.

139: Refs.~\cite{Gourgoulhon-Grandclement-Bonazzola:2001a,Grandclement-Gourgoulhon-Bonazzola:2001b} obtained solutions to a

140: similar set of equations during the computation of quasi-circular

141: orbits of binary black holes.  However, these works assumed conformal

142: flatness.

143: 

144: In this paper we present a code capable of solving the three

145: above-mentioned decompositions of the constraint equations for

146: arbitrary choices of the freely specifiable pieces.  This code is

147: based on spectral methods which have been used successfully for several

148: astrophysical problems (see

149: e.g. \cite{Bonazzola-Gourgoulhon-etal:1993,

150: Bonazzola-Gourgoulhon-Marck:1998,

151: Kidder-Scheel-etal:2000,

152: Gourgoulhon-Grandclement-etal:2001, 

153: Kidder-Scheel-Teukolsky:2001, 

154: Ansorg-Kleinwaechter-Meinel:2002,

155: Grandclement-Gourgoulhon-Bonazzola:2001b}).  Our code is described in

156: detail in a separate paper\cite{Pfeiffer-Kidder-etal:2002}.

157: 

158:  We compute solutions of the different decompositions for the non-flat

159: conformal metric proposed in Ref.~\cite{Matzner-Huq-Shoemaker:1999}.

160: Each decomposition has certain choices for the freely specifiable

161: pieces and boundary conditions that seem ``natural'' and which we use

162: in our solutions.  We compare the computed initial-data sets with each

163: other and with the ``standard'' conformally-flat solution using the

164: Bowen-York extrinsic curvature. Our major results confirm that

165: \begin{enumerate}

166: \item\label{res:1}the different decompositions generate different

167: physical initial-data sets for seemingly similar choices for the

168: freely specifiable pieces.

169: \item the choice of extrinsic curvature is critical.

170: \end{enumerate}

171: The first result is certainly not unexpected, but each of these

172: factors can cause relative differences of several per cent in 

173: gauge-invariant quantities like the ADM-energy.

174: 

175: We also find that the conformal TT/physical TT decompositions generate

176: initial-data sets with ADM-energies $2-3$\% higher than data sets of

177: the conformal thin sandwich decomposition.  We demonstrate that this

178: higher ADM-energy is related to the choice of the freely specifiable part

179: of the extrinsic curvature.  In addition, we find that the solutions

180: depend significantly on the boundary conditions used.

181: 

182: The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we describe the

183: three decompositions. Section \ref{sec:FreePieces} explains how we

184: choose the freely specifiable data within each decomposition.  In

185: section \ref{sec:Implementation} we describe and test our elliptic

186: solver.  Section \ref{sec:Results} presents our results, which we

187: discuss in section \ref{sec:Discussion}.

188: 

189: 

190: \section{Decompositions of Einstein's equations and the constraint equations}

191: 

192: \subsection{3+1 Decomposition}

193: 

194: In this paper we use the standard 3+1 decomposition of Einstein's

195: equations. We foliate the spacetime with $t=\mbox{const}$

196: hypersurfaces and write the four-dimensional metric as

197: \begin{equation}

198:   ^{(4)}ds^2=-N^2\,dt^2+\gamma_{ij}(dx^i+N^idt)(dx^j+N^jdt),

199: \end{equation}

200: where $\gamma_{ij}$ represents the induced 3-metric on the

201: hypersurfaces, and $N$ and $N^i$ represent the lapse function and the

202: shift vector, respectively.  We define the extrinsic curvature $K_{ij}$

203: on the slice by 

204: \begin{equation}\label{eq:K}

205: {\bf K}=-\frac{1}{2}\,{\perp}\:{\cal L}_n{^{(4)}{\bf g}}

206: \end{equation}

207: where ${}^{(4)}{\bf g}$ is the space-time metric, $n$ the unit

208: normal to the hypersurface, and $\perp$ denotes the projection operator

209: into the $t=\mbox{const}$ slice.

210: Einstein's

211: equations divide into constraint equations, which constrain the data

212: $(\gamma_{ij}, K^{ij})$ on each hypersurface, and into evolution

213: equations, which determine how the data $(\gamma_{ij}, K^{ij})$ evolve

214: from one hypersurface to the next.

215: The constraint equations are 

216: \begin{align}

217:   \label{eq:HamiltonianConstraintPhysical}

218:   R+K^2-K_{ij}K^{ij}&=16\pi G\rho\\

219:   \label{eq:MomentumConstraint}

220:   \nabla_j\left(K^{ij}-\gamma^{ij}K\right)&=8\pi G j^i.

221: \end{align}

222: Eq.~(\ref{eq:HamiltonianConstraintPhysical}) is called the {\em

223:   Hamiltonian constraint}, and Eq.~(\ref{eq:MomentumConstraint}) is

224: referred to as the {\em momentum constraint}.  $K=\gamma_{ij}K^{ij}$

225: is the trace of the extrinsic curvature, $\nabla$ and $R$ denote the

226: three dimensional covariant derivative operator and the Ricci scalar

227: compatible with $\gamma_{ij}$. $\rho$ and $j^i$ are the energy and

228: momentum density, respectively. Both vanish for the vacuum spacetimes

229: considered here.

230: 

231: The evolution equation for $\gamma_{ij}$ is

232: \begin{equation}

233:   \label{eq:Evolution-gamma}

234:   \partial_t\gamma_{ij}=-2N K_{ij}+\nabla_iN_j+\nabla_jN_i,

235: \end{equation}

236: which follows from Eq.~(\ref{eq:K}).  There is a similar albeit

237: longer equation for $\partial_tK_{ij}$ which we will not need in this

238: paper. The choices of $N$ and $N^i$ are arbitrary. One can in

239: principle use any lapse and shift in the evolution off the

240: initial-data surface, although some choices of lapse and shift are better

241: suited to numerical implementation than others.

242: 

243: Later in this paper we will often refer to the trace-free piece of 

244: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Evolution-gamma}).  Denote the tracefree piece of a tensor

245: by $\TF(.)$, and define $\gamma\equiv\det \gamma_{ij}$.  From Eq.~(\ref{eq:Evolution-gamma}) and the fact that

246: $\delta\ln\gamma=\gamma^{kl}\delta\gamma_{kl}$, it follows that

247: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Evolution-gamma-TF}

248: \TF(\partial_t\gamma_{ij})

249: =\gamma^{1/3}\partial_t\left(\gamma^{-1/3}\gamma_{ij}\right)

250: =-2N A_{ij}+(\Long N)_{ij}.

251: \end{equation}

252: Here $A_{ij}=K_{ij}-\frac{1}{3}\gamma_{ij}K$ denotes the trace-free

253: extrinsic curvature, and

254: \begin{equation}

255:   \label{eq:DefinitionLong}

256:   (\Long N)^{ij}\equiv 

257:   \nabla^iN^j+\nabla^jN^i-\frac{2}{3}\gamma^{ij}\nabla_kN^k.

258: \end{equation}

259: $\Long$ always acts on a vector, so the 'N' in $(\Long N)^{ij}$ denotes

260: the shift vector $N^i$ and not the lapse $N$. 

261: 

262: \subsection{Decomposition of the constraint equations}

263: \label{sec:Decomposition}

264: 

265: Equations~(\ref{eq:HamiltonianConstraintPhysical}) and

266: (\ref{eq:MomentumConstraint}) constrain four degrees of freedom of the

267: 12 quantities $(\gamma_{ij}, K^{ij})$. However, it is not immediately

268: clear which pieces of $\gamma_{ij}$ and $K^{ij}$ are constrained and

269: which pieces can be chosen at will.  Several decompositions have been

270: developed to divide the 12 degrees of freedom into freely specifiable

271: and constrained pieces.  We will now review some properties of

272: the three decompositions we consider in this paper.

273: 

274: All three decompositions follow the York-Lichnerowicz approach and

275: use a conformal transformation on the

276: physical 3-metric $\gamma_{ij}$,

277: \begin{equation}

278:   \label{eq:ConformalMetric}

279:   \gamma_{ij}=\psi^4\tilde\gamma_{ij}.

280: \end{equation}

281: $\psi$ is called the {\em conformal factor}, $\tilde\gamma_{ij}$ the

282: {\em background metric} or {\em conformal metric}.  We will denote all

283: conformal quantities with a tilde. In particular, $\tilde\nabla$ is

284: the covariant derivative operator associated with $\tilde\gamma_{ij}$,

285: and $\tilde R_{ij}$ and $\tilde R$ are the Ricci tensor and Ricci

286: scalar of $\tilde\gamma_{ij}$.

287: 

288: The extrinsic curvature is split into its trace and trace-free part,

289: \begin{equation}

290:   \label{eq:SplitK_Aij}

291:   K^{ij}=A^{ij}+\frac{1}{3}\gamma^{ij}K.

292: \end{equation}

293: The three decompositions of the constraint equations we discuss in

294: this paper differ in how $A^{ij}$ is decomposed.  For each

295: decomposition, we discuss next the relevant equations, and describe

296: how we choose the quantities one has to specify before solving the

297: equations.  We use the conventions of \cite{Cook:2000}.

298: 

299: 

300: \subsubsection{Conformal TT Decomposition}

301: 

302: In this decomposition one first conformally transforms the traceless

303: extrinsic curvature,

304: \begin{equation}

305:   \label{eq:ConfTT-AijConfAij}

306:   A^{ij}=\psi^{-10}\tilde A^{ij},

307: \end{equation}

308: and then applies a TT decomposition with respect to the background

309: metric $\tilde\gamma_{ij}$:

310: \begin{equation}

311: \label{eq:ConfTT-Aij}

312: \tilde A^{ij}=\tilde A_{TT}^{ij}+(\tilde\Long X)^{ij}.

313: \end{equation}

314: The operator $\tilde\Long$ is defined by Eq.~(\ref{eq:DefinitionLong}) but

315: using the conformal metric $\tilde\gamma_{ij}$ and derivatives

316: associated with $\tilde\gamma_{ij}$. $\tilde A^{ij}_{TT}$ is

317: transverse with respect to the conformal metric, $\tilde\nabla_j\tilde

318: A^{ij}_{TT}=0$, and is traceless. 

319: 

320: Substituting Eqs.~(\ref{eq:ConfTT-AijConfAij}) and (\ref{eq:ConfTT-Aij})

321: into the momentum constraint (\ref{eq:MomentumConstraint}), one finds

322: that it reduces to an elliptic equation for $X^i$, whereas $\tilde

323: A^{ij}_{TT}$ is unconstrained. 

324: 

325: In order to specify the transverse-traceless tensor $\tilde

326: A^{ij}_{TT}$ one usually has to {\em construct} it from a general

327: symmetric trace-free tensor $\tilde M^{ij}$ by subtracting the

328: longitudinal piece.  As described in \cite{Cook:2000} one can

329: incorporate the construction of $\tilde A^{ij}_{TT}$ from $\tilde

330: M^{ij}$ into the momentum constraint, arriving at the following

331: equations:

332: 

333: \begin{gather}

334: \label{eq:ConfTT-1}

335:     \tilde\nabla^2\psi-\frac{1}{8}\psi\tilde R-\frac{1}{12}\psi^5K^2

336:     +\frac{1}{8}\psi^{-7}\tilde A_{ij}\tilde A^{ij}=-2\pi G\psi^5\rho,\\

337: \label{eq:ConfTT-2}

338:     \tildeLapLong V^i-\frac{2}{3}\psi^6\tilde\nabla^iK

339:     +\tilde\nabla_j\tilde M^{ij}=8\pi G\psi^{10}j^i,

340: \end{gather}

341: where $\tilde A^{ij}$ and the operator $\tildeLapLong$ are defined by

342: \begin{equation}

343: \label{eq:ConfTT-Aij_tilde}

344:   \tilde A^{ij}=(\tilde\Long V)^{ij}+\tilde M^{ij}

345: \end{equation}

346: and

347: \begin{equation}

348:   \label{eq:DefinitionLapLong}

349:   \tildeLapLong V^i\equiv\tilde\nabla_j(\tilde\Long V)^{ij}.

350: \end{equation}

351: 

352: After solving these equations for $\psi$ and $V^i$, one obtains the

353: physical metric $\gamma_{ij}$ from (\ref{eq:ConformalMetric}) and the

354: extrinsic curvature from

355: \begin{equation}

356: \label{eq:ConfTT-3}

357:     K^{ij}=\psi^{-10}\tilde A^{ij}+\frac{1}{3}\psi^{-4}\tilde\gamma^{ij}K. 

358: \end{equation}

359: We will refer to Eqs.~(\ref{eq:ConfTT-1}) and (\ref{eq:ConfTT-2})

360: together with (\ref{eq:ConfTT-Aij_tilde}), (\ref{eq:ConfTT-3}) and

361: (\ref{eq:ConformalMetric}) as the {\em conformal TT equations}.  In

362: these equations we are free to specify the background metric

363: $\tilde\gamma_{ij}$, the trace of the extrinsic curvature $K$, and a

364: symmetric traceless tensor $\tilde M^{ij}$.  The solution $V^i$ will

365: contain a contribution that removes the longitudinal piece from

366: $\tilde M^{ij}$ and the piece that solves the momentum constraint if

367: $\tilde M^{ij}$ were transverse-traceless.  

368: 

369: 

370: This decomposition has been the most important in the past, since if

371: one chooses a constant $K$ and if one considers vacuum spacetimes then

372: the momentum constraint (\ref{eq:ConfTT-2}) decouples from the

373: Hamiltonian constraint (\ref{eq:ConfTT-1}). Moreover, if one assumes

374: conformal flatness and $\tilde M^{ij}=0$, it is possible to write down

375: analytic solutions to Eq.~(\ref{eq:ConfTT-2}), the so-called

376: Bowen-York extrinsic curvature.  In that case one has to deal with

377: only one elliptic equation for $\psi$.  The Bowen-York extrinsic

378: curvature can represent multiple black holes with arbitrary momenta

379: and spins.  One can fix boundary conditions for $\psi$ by requiring

380: that the initial-data slice be inversion symmetric at both

381: throats\cite{Misner:1963,Cook:1991}.  In that case one has to modify the

382: extrinsic curvature using a method of images.  We will

383: include initial-data sets obtained with this approach below, where we

384: will refer to them as {\em inversion symmetric} initial data.

385: 

386: Reasonable choices for the freely specifiable pieces $\tilde\gamma_{ij}$, $K$,

387: $\tilde M^{ij}$ will lead to an initial-data set $(\gamma_{ij},

388: K^{ij})$ that satisfies the constraint equations. How should we choose

389: all these functions in order to obtain a desired physical

390: configuration, say a binary black hole with given linear momenta and

391: spins for the individual holes?  We can gain insight into this question

392: by considering how the conformal TT decompositions can recover a known

393: solution.

394: 

395: Suppose we have a known solution $(\gamma_{0\,ij}, K^{ij}_0)$

396: of the constraint equations. Denote the trace and trace-free parts of

397: this extrinsic curvature by $K_0$ and $A^{ij}_0$, respectively.  If we

398: set 

399: \begin{equation}

400: \tilde\gamma_{ij}=\gamma_{0\,ij},\quad K=K_0,

401: \quad\tilde M^{ij}=A^{ij}_0

402: \end{equation}

403: then 

404: \begin{equation}

405: \psi=1,\quad V^i=0

406: \end{equation}

407: trivially solve Eqs.~(\ref{eq:ConfTT-1}-\ref{eq:ConfTT-2}). Note

408: that we have to set $\tilde M^{ij}$ equal to the trace-free part of the

409: extrinsic curvature.

410: 

411: Now suppose we have a guess for a metric and an extrinsic curvature,

412: which ---most likely--- will not satisfy the constraint equations

413: (\ref{eq:HamiltonianConstraintPhysical}) and

414: (\ref{eq:MomentumConstraint}). Set $\tilde\gamma_{ij}$ to the guess

415: for the metric, and set $K$ and $\tilde M^{ij}$ to the trace and

416: trace-free piece of the guess of the extrinsic curvature.  By solving

417: the conformal TT equations we can compute $(\gamma_{ij}, K^{ij})$ that

418: satisfy the constraint equations.  If our initial guess is ``close''

419: to a true solution, we will have $\psi\approx 1$ and $V^i\approx 0$,

420: so that $\gamma_{ij}$ and $K^{ij}$ will be close to our initial guess.

421: 

422: Thus one can guess a metric and extrinsic curvature as well as

423: possible and then solve the conformal TT equations to obtain corrected

424: quantities that satisfy the constraint equations.

425: 

426: An artifact of the conformal TT decomposition is that one has no

427: direct handle on the transverse traceless piece with respect to the

428: {\em physical} metric.  For any vector $X^i$,

429: \begin{equation}\label{eq:ConformalLong}

430:   (\Long X)^{ij}=\psi^{-4}(\tilde\Long X)^{ij}.

431: \end{equation}

432: Thus, Eqs.~(\ref{eq:ConfTT-AijConfAij}) and (\ref{eq:ConfTT-Aij}) imply

433: \begin{equation}\label{eq:ConfTT-Decomposition-psi}

434:   A^{ij}=\psi^{-10}\tilde A^{ij}_{TT}+\psi^{-6}(\Long X)^{ij}.

435: \end{equation}

436: For any symmetric traceless tensor $S^{ij}$

437: \begin{equation}

438:   \label{eq:DecompositionSymmetricTrace-Free}

439:   \nabla_jS^{ij}=\psi^{-10}\tilde\nabla_j\left(\psi^{10}S^{ij}\right).

440: \end{equation}

441: Therefore the first term on the right hand side of

442: Eq.~(\ref{eq:ConfTT-Decomposition-psi}) is transverse-traceless with

443: respect to the physical metric, 

444: \begin{equation}

445:   \nabla_j\left(\psi^{-10}\tilde A^{ij}_{TT}\right)=0.

446: \end{equation}

447: However, the second term on the right hand side of

448: Eq.~(\ref{eq:ConfTT-Decomposition-psi}) is conformally weighted.

449: Therefore, Eq.~(\ref{eq:ConfTT-Decomposition-psi}) does not represent the

450: usual TT decomposition.

451: 

452:  

453: %****************************************************************

454: \subsubsection{Physical TT Decomposition}

455: %****************************************************************

456: 

457: In this case one decomposes the physical traceless extrinsic

458: curvature directly:

459: \begin{equation}

460:   \label{eq:PhysTT-Aij}

461:   A^{ij}=A^{ij}_{TT}+(\Long X)^{ij}.

462: \end{equation}

463: As above in the conformal TT decomposition, the momentum constraint

464: becomes an elliptic equation for $X^i$. We can again incorporate the

465: construction of the symmetric transverse traceless tensor

466: $A^{ij}_{TT}$ from a general symmetric tensor $\tilde M^{ij}$ into the

467: momentum constraint. Then one obtains the {\em physical TT equations}:

468: 

469: \begin{gather}

470: \label{eq:PhysTT-1}

471:     \tilde\nabla^2\psi-\frac{1}{8}\psi\tilde R-\frac{1}{12}\psi^5K^2

472:     +\frac{1}{8}\psi^{5}\tilde A_{ij}\tilde A^{ij}=-2\pi G\psi^5\rho,\\

473: \label{eq:PhysTT-2}

474:     \tildeLapLong V^i+6(\tilde\Long V)^{ij}\tilde\nabla_j\ln\psi

475:     -\frac{2}{3}\tilde\nabla^iK

476:     +\psi^{-6}\tilde\nabla_j\tilde M^{ij}=8\pi G\psi^4j^i,

477: \end{gather}

478: where $\tilde A^{ij}$ is defined by

479: \begin{equation}

480:     \tilde A^{ij}=(\tilde\Long V)^{ij}+\psi^{-6}\tilde M^{ij}.

481: \end{equation}

482: When we have solved (\ref{eq:PhysTT-1}) and (\ref{eq:PhysTT-2}) for

483: $\psi$ and $V^i$, the physical metric is given by

484: (\ref{eq:ConformalMetric}), and the extrinsic curvature is

485: \begin{equation}

486: \label{eq:PhysTT-3}

487: K^{ij}=\psi^{-4}\left(\tilde A^{ij}+\frac{1}{3}\tilde\gamma^{ij}K\right).

488: \end{equation}

489: 

490: We are free to specify the background metric $\tilde\gamma_{ij}$, the

491: trace of the extrinsic curvature $K$, and a symmetric traceless tensor

492: $\tilde M^{ij}$.  As with the conformal TT equations, the solution

493: $V^i$ will contain a contribution that removes the longitudinal piece

494: from $\tilde M^{ij}$ and a piece that solves the momentum constraint

495: if $\tilde M^{ij}$ were transverse-traceless.

496: 

497: These equations can be used in the same way as the conformal TT

498: equations.  Guess a metric and extrinsic curvature, set

499: $\tilde\gamma_{ij}$ to the guess for the metric, and $K$ and $\tilde

500: M^{ij}$ to the trace and trace-free pieces of the guess for the

501: extrinsic curvature. Then solve the physical TT equations to obtain a

502: corrected metric $\gamma_{ij}$ and a corrected extrinsic curvature

503: $K^{ij}$ that satisfy the constraint equations.

504: 

505: The transverse traceless piece of $K^{ij}$ (with respect to

506: $\gamma_{ij}$) will be the transverse traceless piece of

507: $\psi^{-10}\tilde M^{ij}$.  One can also easily rewrite the physical

508: TT equations such that $\psi^{-10}\tilde M^{ij}$ can be freely chosen

509: instead of $\tilde M^{ij}$.  So, in this decomposition we can directly

510: control the TT piece of the physical extrinsic curvature.  We have

511: chosen to follow \cite{Cook:2000} since it seems somewhat more natural

512: to specify two conformal quantities, $\tilde\gamma_{ij}$ and $\tilde

513: M^{ij}$ than to specify one conformal and one physical quantity.

514: 

515: 

516: %****************************************************************

517: \subsubsection{Conformal thin sandwich decomposition}

518: %****************************************************************

519: 

520: 

521: The conformal and physical TT decompositions rely on a tensor

522: splitting to decompose the trace-free part of the extrinsic curvature.

523: In contrast, the conformal thin sandwich decomposition simply defines

524:  $A^{ij}$ by Eq.~(\ref{eq:ConfTT-AijConfAij}) and the decomposition

525: \begin{equation}

526: \label{eq:SandwichTT-3}

527:   \tilde A^{ij}\equiv\frac{1}{2\tilde\alpha}

528: \left((\tilde\Long \beta)^{ij}-\tilde u^{ij}\right),

529: \end{equation}

530: where $\tilde u^{ij}$ is symmetric and tracefree.

531: Eq.~(\ref{eq:SandwichTT-3}) is motivated by

532: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Evolution-gamma-TF}): If one evolves an initial-data set

533: with $A^{ij}$ of the form (\ref{eq:SandwichTT-3}) using as lapse and

534: shift

535: \begin{equation}\label{eq:SandwichTT-LapseShift}

536: \begin{aligned}

537:   N&=\psi^6\tilde\alpha,\\

538:   N^i&=\beta^i,

539: \end{aligned}

540: \end{equation}

541: then 

542: \begin{equation}\label{eq:TF-sandwich}

543: %  \partial_t\tilde\gamma_{ij}

544: %  = \psi^{-4}\TF(\partial_t\gamma_{ij})

545: %  =\tilde u_{ij}.

546: \TF(\partial_t\gamma_{ij})=\psi^4\tilde u_{ij}.

547: \end{equation}

548: Therefore, the decomposition (\ref{eq:SandwichTT-3}) is closely

549: related to the kinematical quantities in an evolution. Although

550: $\tilde\alpha$ and $\beta^i$ are introduced in the context of initial

551: data, one usually refers to them as the ``conformal lapse'' and ``shift''.

552: While the form of Eq.~(\ref{eq:SandwichTT-3}) is similar in form to

553: the conformal and physical TT decompositions, there are differences.

554: In particular, $\tilde{u}^{ij}$ is {\em not} divergenceless.

555: 

556: Within the {\em conformal thin sandwich decomposition}, the constraint

557: equations take the form:

558: \begin{gather}

559: \label{eq:SandwichTT-1}

560:     \tilde\nabla^2\psi-\frac{1}{8}\psi\tilde R-\frac{1}{12}\psi^5K^2

561:     +\frac{1}{8}\psi^{-7}\tilde A_{ij}\tilde A^{ij}=-2\pi G\psi^5\rho\\

562: \tildeLapLong\beta^i-(\tilde\Long\beta)^{ij}\tilde\nabla_j\ln\tilde\alpha

563: -\frac{4}{3}\tilde\alpha\psi^6\tilde\nabla^iK

564: \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\nonumber\\

565: \label{eq:SandwichTT-2}

566: \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad -\tilde\alpha\tilde\nabla_j\Big(\frac{1}{\tilde\alpha}\tilde u^{ij}\Big)

567: =16\pi G\tilde\alpha\psi^{10}j^i

568: \end{gather}

569: Having solved Eqs.~(\ref{eq:SandwichTT-1}) and (\ref{eq:SandwichTT-2}) 

570: for $\psi$ and the vector $\beta^i$, one obtains the physical metric

571: from (\ref{eq:ConformalMetric}) and the extrinsic curvature from

572: \begin{equation}

573:     K^{ij}=\psi^{-10}\tilde A^{ij}+\frac{1}{3}\psi^{-4}\tilde\gamma^{ij}K.

574: \end{equation}

575: In this decomposition we are free to specify a conformal metric

576: $\tilde\gamma_{ij}$, the trace of the extrinsic curvature $K$, a

577: symmetric trace-free tensor $\tilde u^{ij}$ and a function $\tilde\alpha$.

578: 

579: It seems that the conformal thin sandwich decomposition contains

580: additional degrees of freedom in the form of the function

581: $\tilde\alpha$ and three additional unconstrained components of

582: $\tilde{u}^{ij}$. This is not the case.  The longitudinal piece of

583: $\tilde u^{ij}$ corresponds to the gauge choice of the actual shift

584: vector used in an evolution.  Thus $\tilde{u}^{ij}$ really only

585: contributes two degrees of freedom, just like $\tilde{M}^{ij}$ in the

586: conformal and physical TT decompositions.  Furthermore, we can reach

587: any {\em reasonable} physical solution $(\gamma_{ij}, K^{ij})$ with

588: any {\em reasonable} choice of $\tilde\alpha$; each choice of

589: $\tilde\alpha$ simply defines a new decomposition.  A forthcoming

590: article by York\cite{York:2002} will elaborate on these ideas.  Note

591: that for $\tilde \alpha=1/2$ we recover the conformal TT

592: decomposition.

593: 

594: 

595: Let us now turn to the question of how one should pick the freely

596: specifiable data in the conformal thin sandwich approach. 

597: We motivate our prescription again by considering how to recover a

598: known spacetime: Assume we are given a full four-dimensional spacetime

599: with 3+1 quantities $\gamma_{0\,ij}$, $K_0^{ij}$, $N_0^i$ and $N_0$.

600: Further assume the spacetime is stationary and the slicing is such that

601: $\partial_t\gamma_{ij}=\partial_tK_{ij}=0$.  An example for such a

602: situation is a Kerr black hole in Kerr-Schild or

603: Boyer-Lindquist coordinates.

604: 

605: Using $\partial_t\gamma_{0\,ij}=0$ in

606: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Evolution-gamma-TF}) yields a relation for the trace-free

607: extrinsic curvature

608: \begin{equation}

609:   A_0^{ij}=\frac{1}{2N_0}(\Long N_0)^{ij}.

610: \end{equation}

611: This is a decomposition of the form (\ref{eq:SandwichTT-3}) with

612: $\tilde u^{ij}=0$. Therefore, if we choose the freely specifiable data

613: for the conformal thin sandwich equations as 

614: \begin{equation}

615: \begin{aligned}

616: \tilde\gamma_{ij}&=\gamma_{0\,ij},&

617: \tilde\alpha&=N_0,\\

618: K&=K_0,&\tilde u^{ij}&=0,

619: \end{aligned}

620: \end{equation}

621: and if we use appropriate boundary conditions, then the solution of

622: the conformal thin sandwich equations will be $\psi=1$ and $\beta^i=N_0^i$.

623: As part of the solution, we obtain the shift vector needed for an

624: evolution to produce $\TF(\partial_t\gamma_{ij})=0$.

625: Not needing a guess for the trace-free extrinsic curvature, and having

626: the solution $\beta^i$ automatically provide an initial shift for

627: evolution, make the conformal thin sandwich equations very attractive.

628: 

629: In order to generate initial-data slices that permit an evolution with

630: zero time derivative of the conformal metric --- a highly desirable

631: feature for quasi-equilibrium data, or for a situation with holes

632: momentarily at rest --- one can proceed as follows: Set

633: $\tilde\gamma_{ij}$ and $K$ to the guess for the metric and trace of

634: extrinsic curvature, respectively. Set $\tilde\alpha$ to the

635: lapse function that one is going to use in the evolution, and set

636: $\tilde u^{ij}=0$. If these guesses are good, the conformal factor

637: $\psi$ will be close to 1, and $N=\psi^6\tilde\alpha$ as well as

638: $N^i=\beta^i$ give us the actual lapse function and shift vector to use in

639: the evolution.

640: 

641: \section{Choices for the freely specifiable data}

642: \label{sec:FreePieces}

643: 

644: 

645: \subsection{Kerr-Schild coordinates}

646: \label{sec:Choices:Kerr-Schild}

647: 

648: We base our choice for the freely specifiable data on a superposition of two

649: Kerr black holes in Kerr-Schild coordinates. In this section we

650: describe the Kerr-Schild solution and collect necessary

651: equations. We also describe how we compute the 3-metric, lapse, shift

652: and extrinsic curvature for a boosted black hole with arbitrary spin.

653: 

654: A Kerr-Schild metric is given by

655: \begin{equation}\label{eq:KerrSchild}

656:   g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+2Hl_\mu l_\nu,

657: \end{equation}

658: where $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ is the Minkowski metric, and $l_\mu$ is a

659: null-vector with respect to both the full metric and the Minkowski

660: metric: $g^{\mu\nu}l_\mu l_\nu=\eta^{\mu\nu}l_\mu l_\nu=0$.  The

661: 3-metric, lapse and shift are

662: \begin{align}

663:   \label{eq:KerrSchild-gamma}

664:   \gamma_{ij}&=\delta_{ij}+2Hl_il_j,\\

665:   N&=(1+2Hl^tl^t)^{-1/2},\\

666: \label{eq:KerrSchild-beta}

667:   N^i&=-\frac{2Hl^tl^i}{1+2Hl^tl^t}.

668: \end{align}

669: 

670: For a black hole at rest at the origin with mass $M$ and angular

671: momentum $M\vec a$, one has

672: \begin{align}

673:   H&=\frac{Mr^3}{r^4+(\vec a\cdot\vec x)^2},\\

674:   l^{\mbox{\footnotesize rest}}_\mu&=(1, \vec l_{\mbox{\footnotesize rest}}),\\

675:   \vec l_{\mbox{\footnotesize rest}}\;\,&=\frac{r\vec x-\vec a\times\vec x+(\vec a\cdot\vec x)\vec a/r}

676:               {r^2+a^2},

677: \end{align}

678: with

679: \begin{equation}

680:   r^2=\frac{\vec x^2-\vec a^2}{2}

681:        +\left(\frac{(\vec x^2- \vec a^2)^2}{4}

682:        +(\vec a\cdot\vec x)^2\right)^{1/2}.

683: \end{equation}

684: For a nonrotating black hole with $\vec a=0$, $H$ has a pole at the

685: origin, whereas for rotating black holes, $r$ has a ring singularity.

686: We will therefore have to excise from the computational domain a

687: region close to the center of the Kerr-Schild black hole.

688: 

689: Under a boost, a Kerr-Schild coordinate system transforms into a

690: Kerr-Schild coordinate system. Applying a Lorentz transformation with

691: boost velocity $v^i$ to $l^{\mbox{\footnotesize rest}}_\mu$, we obtain

692: the null-vector $l_\mu$ of the boosted Kerr-Schild coordinate system.

693: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:KerrSchild-gamma}-\ref{eq:KerrSchild-beta}) give then

694: the boosted 3-metric, lapse, and shift.  Since all time-dependence is

695: in the uniform motion, evolution with lapse $N$ and shift $N^i$ yields

696: $\partial_t\gamma_{ij}=-v^k\partial_k\gamma_{ij}$, and from

697: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Evolution-gamma}) one can compute the extrinsic curvature

698: \begin{equation}\label{eq:KerrSchild-Kij}

699:   K_{ij}=\frac{1}{2N}\left(v^k\partial_k\gamma_{ij}

700:          +\nabla_{\!i} N_j+\nabla_{\!j} N_i\right).

701: \end{equation}

702: 

703: If this initial-data set is evolved with the shift $N^i$, the black

704: hole will move through the coordinate space with velocity $v^i$.

705: However, if the evolution uses the shift vector $N^i+v^i$, the

706: coordinates will move with the black hole, and the hole will be at

707: rest in coordinate space.  The spacetime is nonetheless different from

708: a Kerr black hole at rest. The ADM-momentum will be $P^i_{ADM}=\gamma

709: M v^i$, where $M$ is the rest-mass of the hole and $\gamma=(1-\vec

710: v^2)^{-1/2}$.

711: 

712: \subsection{Freely specifiable pieces}

713: 

714: We want to generate initial data for a spacetime containing two black

715: holes with masses $M_{\!A,B}$, velocities $\vec v_{\!A,B}$ and spins

716: $M_{\!A}\vec a_A$ and $M_{\!B}\vec a_B$.

717: 

718: We follow the proposal of Matzner et al

719: \cite{Matzner-Huq-Shoemaker:1999, Marronetti-Matzner:2000} and base

720: our choices for the freely specifiable choices on two Kerr-Schild

721: coordinate systems describing two individual black holes.  The first

722: black hole with label A has an associated Kerr-Schild coordinate

723: system with metric

724: \begin{equation}

725:   \label{eq:KerrSchild-HoleA-gamma}

726: \gamma_{A\,ij}=\delta_{ij}+2H_{\!A}\,l_{A\,i}\,l_{A\,j},

727: \end{equation}

728: and with an extrinsic curvature $K_{\!A\,ij}$, a lapse $N_{\!A}$ and a

729: shift $N^i_A$. The trace of the extrinsic curvature is $K_A$. All

730: these quantities can be computed as described in the previous section,

731: \ref{sec:Choices:Kerr-Schild}. The second black hole has a similar set

732: of associated quantities which are labeled with the letter B.

733: 

734: For all three decompositions, we need to choose a conformal metric and

735: the trace of the extrinsic curvature. We choose

736: \begin{gather}

737:   \label{eq:BinaryKerrSchild-gamma}

738:   \tilde\gamma_{ij}=\delta_{ij}+2H_{\!A}\,l_{A\,i}\,l_{A\,j}

739:   +2H_{\!B}\,l_{B\,i}\,l_{B\,j}\\

740: K=K_{\!A}+K_B\label{eq:BinaryKerrSchild-K}

741: \end{gather}

742: The metric is singular at the center of each hole. Therefore we have

743: to excise spheres around the center of each hole from the

744: computational domain.  We now specify for each decomposition the

745: remaining freely specifiable pieces and boundary conditions.

746: 

747: \subsubsection{Conformal TT and physical TT decompositions}

748: 

749: For the conformal TT and physical TT decompositions we will be solving

750: for a correction to our guesses. 

751: As guess for the trace-free extrinsic curvature, we use a superposition

752: \begin{equation}

753:   \label{eq:BinaryKerrSchild-Mij}

754:   \tilde M^{ij}=\left(K^{(i}_{A\,k}+K^{(i}_{B\,k}

755:     -\frac{1}{3}\delta^{(i}_k(K_A+K_B)\right)\tilde\gamma^{j)k}.

756: \end{equation}

757: $\tilde M^{ij}$ is symmetric and trace-free with respect to the

758: conformal metric, $\tilde\gamma_{ij}\tilde M^{ij}=0$.  Solving for a

759: correction only, we expect that $\psi\approx 1$ and $V^i\approx 0$,

760: hence we use Dirichlet boundary conditions

761: \begin{equation}

762:   \label{eq:BC-ConfTT-PhysTT}

763:   \psi=1, \qquad V^i=0.

764: \end{equation}

765: 

766: \subsubsection{Conformal thin sandwich}

767: 

768: For conformal thin sandwich, we restrict the discussion to either two

769: black holes at rest, or in a quasi-circular orbit in corotating

770: coordinates.  In these cases, one expects small or even vanishing

771: time-derivatives, $\partial_t\gamma_{ij}\approx 0$, and so

772: Eq.~(\ref{eq:TF-sandwich}) yields the simple choice

773: \begin{equation}\label{eq:CTS-uij}

774: \tilde u^{ij}=0.

775: \end{equation}

776: 

777: The conformal 3-metric and the trace of the extrinsic curvature are

778: still given by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:BinaryKerrSchild-gamma}) and

779: (\ref{eq:BinaryKerrSchild-K}). Orbiting black holes in a corotating

780: frame will not move in coordinate space, therefore we do not boost the

781: individual Kerr-Schild metrics in this decomposition: $v^i_{A/B}=0$.

782: The lapse functions $N_{A/B}$ and the shifts $N^i_{A/B}$ are also for

783: unboosted Kerr-Schild black holes.

784:    

785: We use Dirichlet boundary conditions:

786: \begin{subequations}\label{eq:BC-sandwich}

787: \begin{align}

788: \psi&=1                            &&\mbox{all boundaries}\\

789: \label{eq:Sandwich-BC2}

790: \beta^i&=N_{\!A}^i                 &&\mbox{sphere inside hole A}\\

791: \beta^i&=N_B^i                     &&\mbox{sphere inside hole B}\\

792: \label{eq:Sandwich-BC4}

793: \beta^i&=\vec\Omega\times\vec r    &&\mbox{outer boundary}

794: \end{align}

795: \end{subequations}

796: 

797: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Sandwich-BC4}) ensures that we are in a corotating

798: reference frame; the cross-product is performed in flat space, and

799: $\vec\Omega=0$ corresponds to two black holes at rest.  Close to the

800: holes we force the shift to be the shift of a single black hole in the

801: hope that this choice will produce a hole that is at rest in

802: coordinate space.

803: 

804: 

805: For the conformal lapse we use

806: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Sandwich-N1}

807:   \tilde\alpha=N_{\!A}+N_B-1

808: \end{equation}

809: or

810: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Sandwich-N2}

811:   \tilde \alpha=N_{\!A}\;N_B.

812: \end{equation}

813: The first choice of $\tilde\alpha$ follows the philosophy of adding

814: quantities of each individual hole. However, $\tilde\alpha$ of

815: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Sandwich-N1}) becomes negative sufficiently close to the

816: center of each hole and is therefore a bad choice if the excised

817: spheres are small. The choice (\ref{eq:Sandwich-N2}) does not change

818: sign and has at large distances the same behavior (same $1/r$ term) as

819: (\ref{eq:Sandwich-N1}).

820: 

821: 

822: 

823: \section{Numerical Implementation}

824: \label{sec:Implementation}

825: 

826:   

827: We implemented an elliptic solver that can solve all three

828: decompositions we described above in complete generality.  The solver

829: uses domain decomposition and can handle nontrivial topologies. It is

830: based on pseudospectral collocation, that is, it expresses the

831: solution in each subdomain as an expansion in basis functions.  This

832: elliptic solver is described in detail in a separate paper

833: \cite{Pfeiffer-Kidder-etal:2002}.

834: 

835: \begin{figure}

836:   \includegraphics[scale=0.33, angle=90]{Fig1.eps}

837:     \caption{\label{fig:Domains}

838:       Structure of domains. Spherical shells around each excised

839:       sphere are surrounded by 43 rectangular blocks and another

840:       spherical shell.  The rectangular blocks touch each other and

841:       overlap with all three spherical shells.}

842: \end{figure}

843: 

844: From the computational domain we excise two spheres containing the

845: singularities of the Kerr-Schild metric close to the center of each

846: hole.  Around each of the excised spheres we place a spherical shell.

847: These shells are patched together with $5\times 3\times 3=45$

848: rectangular blocks, with the two blocks at the location of the spheres

849: removed. Around these 43 blocks, another spherical shell is placed

850: that extends far out, typically to an outer radius of $10^7M$.  In the

851: rectangular blocks, we expand in Chebyshev polynomials, while in the

852: spheres we use Chebyshev polynomials radially and spherical harmonics

853: for the angular variables.  This setup is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:Domains}.

854: 

855: The domain decomposition in Fig.~\ref{fig:Domains} is fairly

856: complicated. Even if the shells were made as large as possible, they do

857: not cover the full computational domain when the excised spheres are

858: close together.  Thus additional subdomains are needed in any case.

859: Choosing the 43 cubes as depicted allows for relatively small inner

860: shells and for a relatively large inner radius of the outer shell.

861: Thus each shell covers a region of the computational domain in

862: which the angular variations of the solution are fairly low, allowing

863: for comparatively few angular basis-functions.

864: 

865: The code can handle a general conformal metric. In principle, the user

866: needs to specify only $\tilde\gamma_{ij}$. Then the code computes

867: $\tilde\gamma^{ij}$, and ---using numerical derivatives--- the Christoffel

868: symbols, Ricci tensor and Riemann scalar.  For the special case of the

869: Kerr-Schild metric of a single black hole and the superposition of two

870: Kerr-Schild metrics, Eq.~(\ref{eq:BinaryKerrSchild-gamma}), we compute

871: first derivatives analytically and use numerical derivatives only to

872: compute the Riemann tensor.

873: 

874: The solver implements Eqs.~(\ref{eq:ConfTT-1}) and (\ref{eq:ConfTT-2})

875: for the conformal TT decomposition, Eqs.~(\ref{eq:PhysTT-1}) and

876: (\ref{eq:PhysTT-2}) for the physical TT decomposition, and

877: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:SandwichTT-1}) and (\ref{eq:SandwichTT-2}) for the

878: conformal thin sandwich decomposition.

879: 

880: After solving for $(\psi, V^i)$ [conformal TT and physical TT], or

881: $(\psi, \beta^i)$ [thin sandwich] we compute the physical metric

882: $\gamma_{ij}$ and the physical extrinsic curvature $K^{ij}$ of the

883: solution.  Utilizing these physical quantities $(\gamma_{ij},

884: K^{ij})$, we implement several analysis tools.  We evaluate the

885: constraints in the form of

886: Eq.~(\ref{eq:HamiltonianConstraintPhysical}) and

887: (\ref{eq:MomentumConstraint}), we compute ADM-quantities and we search

888: for apparent horizons. Note that these analysis tools are completely

889: independent of the particular decomposition; they rely only on

890: $\gamma_{ij}$ and $K^{ij}$.

891: 

892: Next we present tests ensuring that the various systems of equations

893: are solved correctly.  We also include tests of the

894: analysis tools showing that we can indeed compute constraints,

895: ADM-quantities and apparent horizons with good accuracy.

896: 

897:   

898: \subsection{Testing the conformal TT and physical TT decompositions}

899: 

900: We can test the solver by conformally distorting a known solution of

901: the constraint equations.  Given a solution to the constraint

902: equations $(\gamma_{0\,ij}, K^{ij}_0)$ pick functions

903: \begin{gather}

904:   \Psi>0,\qquad  W^i

905: \end{gather}

906: and set

907: \begin{align}

908:   \label{eq:Test-gamma}

909:   \tilde\gamma_{ij}&=\Psi^{-4}\gamma_{0\,ij},\\

910:   \label{eq:Test-K}

911:   K\;&=K_0,

912: \end{align}

913: and 

914: \begin{align}\label{eq:Test-ConfTT-M}

915: \tilde M^{ij}&=\Psi^{10}\left(K_0^{ij}-\frac{1}{3}\gamma_0^{ij}K_0\right)

916:                  -\Psi^4(\Long_0W)^{ij}

917: \intertext{for conformal TT or}

918: \label{eq:Test-PhysTT-M}

919: \tilde M^{ij}&=\Psi^{10}\left(K_0^{ij}-\frac{1}{3}\gamma_0^{ij}K_0

920:                  -(\Long_0W)^{ij}\right)

921: \end{align}

922: for physical TT.

923: With these freely specifiable pieces and appropriate boundary

924: conditions, a solution of the conformal TT equations

925: (\ref{eq:ConfTT-1}), (\ref{eq:ConfTT-2}) or the physical TT equations

926: (\ref{eq:PhysTT-1}), (\ref{eq:PhysTT-2}) will be

927: \begin{align}

928:   \psi&=\Psi\\

929:   V^i&=W^i.

930: \end{align}

931: From Eq.~(\ref{eq:ConformalMetric}) we recover our initial metric

932: $\gamma_{0\,ij}$, and from Eq.~(\ref{eq:ConfTT-3}) [conformal TT] or

933: Eq.~(\ref{eq:PhysTT-3}) [physical TT] we recover the extrinsic

934: curvature $K^{ij}_0$.

935: 

936: In our tests we used the particular choices

937: \begin{gather}

938: \label{eq:Psi}

939:   \Psi=1+\frac{8(r-2)}{36+x^2+0.9y^2+1.3(z-1)^2}\\

940: \label{eq:W^i}

941:   W^i=\frac{50(r-2)}{(6^4+r^4)} (-y, x, 1).

942: \end{gather}

943: 

944: \begin{figure}

945: \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{Fig2.eps}}

946: \caption{\label{fig:Testing-PlotDistortion}

947: Plot of the functions $\Psi$ and $W^i$ from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Psi}) 

948:   and (\ref{eq:W^i}).  The solid line depicts $\Psi$ along the

949:   positive $x$-axis, the short dashed line depicts $\Psi$ along the

950:   negative $z$-axis. The long dashed line is a plot of $W^y$ along the

951:   positive $x$-axis.}

952: \end{figure}

953: 

954: These functions are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:Testing-PlotDistortion}.

955: $\Psi$ varies between 0.8 and 1.5, $W^i$ varies between $\pm 0.5$, and

956: both take their maximum values around distance $\sim 7$ from the

957: center of the hole.  We used for $(\tilde\gamma_{0\,ij}, K^{ij}_0)$ a

958: single, boosted, spinning black hole in Kerr-Schild coordinates.

959: 

960: \begin{figure}

961: % this pic produced with /home/harald/Eric/Run/Neville/01Jul/05E/PlotConv.sm

962:   \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{Fig3.eps}}

963: \caption{\label{fig:Testing-ConfTT}

964:   Testing the solver for the conformal TT decomposition.

965:   Eqs.~(\ref{eq:ConfTT-1}-\ref{eq:ConfTT-2}) with freely specifiable

966:   data given by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Test-gamma}-\ref{eq:Test-ConfTT-M}) are

967:   solved in a single spherical shell with $1.5M<r<10M$. $N$ is the

968:   cube root of the total number of unknowns.  Plotted are the L2-norms

969:   of $\psi-\Psi$, $V^x-W^x$, and the residuals of Hamiltonian and

970:   momentum constraints, Eqs.~(\ref{eq:HamiltonianConstraintPhysical})

971:   and (\ref{eq:MomentumConstraint}).  }

972: \end{figure}

973: 

974: Figure~\ref{fig:Testing-ConfTT} shows results of testing the conformal

975: TT decomposition on a single spherical shell. The numerical solution

976: $(\psi, V^i)$ converges to the analytic solutions $(\Psi, W^i)$

977: exponentially with the number of basis functions as expected for a

978: properly constructed spectral method. Moreover, the reconstructed

979: metric and extrinsic curvature satisfy the constraints. 

980: 

981: \begin{figure}

982: % plot produced by /home/harald/Eric/Run/SP2/01Jul/07E/PlotConv.sm

983: \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{Fig4.eps}}

984: \caption{\label{fig:Testing-PhysTT}

985:   Physical TT decomposition with domain decomposition.

986:   Eqs.~(\ref{eq:PhysTT-1}), (\ref{eq:PhysTT-2}) with freely

987:   specifiable data given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:Test-gamma}, \ref{eq:Test-K},

988:   \ref{eq:Test-PhysTT-M}) are solved in multiple domains (one inner

989:   spherical shell, 26 rectangular blocks, one outer spherical shell).

990:   $N$ is the cube root of the total number of grid-points.  {\em diff}

991:   denotes the L2-norm of the difference of the solution and the

992:   solution at next lower resolution.  Triangles denote the L2-norm of

993:   the difference to the analytic solution.  The remaining symbols

994:   denote the errors of numerically extracted ADM-quantities. }

995: \end{figure}

996:  

997: Now we test the solver for the physical TT decomposition, and

998: demonstrate that we can correctly deal with multiple domains.  In this

999: example the computational domain is covered by an inner spherical

1000: shell extending for $1.5M\le r\le 10M$.  This shell is surrounded by

1001: 26 rectangular blocks that overlap with the shell and extend out to

1002: $x,y,z=\pm 25M$.  Finally another spherical shell covers the region

1003: $20M\le r\le 10^6M$.  As can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:Testing-PhysTT},

1004: the solution converges again exponentially.

1005: 

1006: For realistic cases we do not know the analytic solution and therefore

1007: need a measure of the error.  Our major tool will be the change in

1008: results between different resolution. In particular we consider the

1009: $L_2$ norm of the point-wise differences of the solution at some resolution

1010: and at the next lower resolution. This diagnostic is labeled by circles

1011: in Fig.~\ref{fig:Testing-PhysTT}.  Since the solution converges

1012: exponentially, these circles essentially give the error of the {\em

1013:   lower} of the two resolutions.

1014: 

1015: 

1016: In addition to testing the equations, this example tests domain

1017: decomposition and the integration routines for the ADM quantities.

1018: The ADM quantities are computed by the standard integrals at infinity

1019: in Cartesian coordinates,

1020: \begin{align}\label{eq:EADM}

1021: E_{ADM}&=\frac{1}{16\pi}\int_{\infty} 

1022:   \left(\gamma_{ij,j}-\gamma_{jj,i}\right)\,d^2S_i,\\

1023: \label{eq:JADM}

1024: J_{(\xi)}&=\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\infty}

1025:   \left(K^{ij}-\gamma^{ij}K\right)\xi_j\,d^2S_i.

1026: \end{align}

1027: For the $x$-component of the linear ADM-momentum, $\xi=\hat e_x$ in

1028: Eq.~(\ref{eq:JADM}).  The choice $\xi=x\hat e_y-y\hat e_x$ yields the

1029: $z$-component of the ADM-like angular momentum as defined by York

1030: \cite{York:1979}.  Since the space is asymptotically flat

1031: there is no distinction between upper and lower indices in

1032: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:EADM}) and (\ref{eq:JADM}). Note that

1033: Eq.~(\ref{eq:EADM}) reduces to the familiar monopole term

1034: \begin{equation}

1035: -\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\infty}\partial_r\psi\,dA

1036: \end{equation}

1037: {\em only} for quasi-isotropic coordinates.

1038: Our outer domain is large, but since

1039: it does not extend to infinity, we extrapolate $r\to\infty$.

1040: 

1041: For a Kerr black hole with mass $M$ and spin $\vec a$, that is boosted

1042: to velocity $\vec v$, the ADM-quantities will be

1043: \begin{align}

1044:   E_{ADM}&=\gamma M,\\

1045:   \vec P_{ADM}&=\gamma M\vec v,\\

1046: \label{eq:J-boostedBH}

1047:   \vec J_{ADM}&=\left[\gamma\vec a-(\gamma-1)\frac{(\vec a\,\vec v)\,\vec v}{\vec  v\,^2}\right]M,

1048: \end{align}

1049: where $\gamma=(1-\vec v\,^2)^{-1/2}$ denotes the Lorentz factor.

1050: Eq.~(\ref{eq:J-boostedBH}) reflects the fact that under a boost, the

1051: component of the angular momentum perpendicular to the boost-direction

1052: is multiplied by $\gamma$.

1053: 

1054: The example in Fig.~\ref{fig:Testing-PhysTT} uses 

1055: %$M=1.2$, 

1056: $\vec v=(0.2, 0.3, 0.4)$, and $\vec a=(-1/4, 1/4, 1/6)M$.  The

1057: evaluation of the angular momentum $J_z$ seems to be less accurate

1058: since our current procedure to extrapolate to infinity magnifies

1059: roundoff. We plan to improve this in a future version of the code.

1060: Until then we seem to be limited to an accuracy of $\sim 10^{-6}$.

1061: 

1062: 

1063: %****************************************************************

1064: \subsection{Testing conformal thin sandwich equations}

1065: %****************************************************************

1066: 

1067: The previous decompositions could be tested with a conformally

1068: distorted known solution.  In order to test the conformal thin

1069: sandwich decomposition we need to find an analytic decomposition of

1070: the form (\ref{eq:SandwichTT-3}).  To do this, we

1071: start with a stationary solution of Einstein's equations and boost it with

1072: uniform velocity $v^i$.  Denote the metric, extrinsic curvature, lapse

1073: and shift of this boosted spacetime by $\tilde\gamma_{0\,ij}$,

1074: $K^{ij}_0=A^{ij}_0 +\frac{1}{3}\gamma^{ij}_0K_0$, $N_0$ and $N^i_0$,

1075: respectively. Since we boosted the static solution, we will {\em not}

1076: find $\partial_t\gamma_{ij}=0$ if we evolve it with the shift $N^i_0$.

1077: However, all time-dependence of this spacetime is due to the uniform

1078: motion, so in the comoving reference frame specified by the

1079: shift $N^i_0+v^i$, we will find $\partial_t\gamma_{ij}=0$. In this

1080: case, Eq.~(\ref{eq:Evolution-gamma-TF}) yields 

1081: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Aij-boost}

1082: A^{ij}_0=\frac{1}{2N_0}(\Long(N_0+v))^{ij}.

1083: \end{equation}

1084: If we choose $\tilde \alpha=N_0$ and

1085: $\tilde u^{ij}=0$, the thin sandwich equations (\ref{eq:SandwichTT-1})

1086: and (\ref{eq:SandwichTT-2}) will thus be solved by $\psi=1$ and

1087: $\beta^i=N^i_0+v^i$.  Similar to the conformal TT and physical TT

1088: decomposition above, we can also conformally distort the metric

1089: $\gamma_{0\,ij}$.  Furthermore, we can consider nonvanishing $\tilde

1090: u^{ij}$. We arrive at the following method to test the solver for the

1091: conformal thin sandwich equations:

1092: 

1093: Given a boosted version of a stationary solution with shift $N_0^i$,

1094: lapse $N_0$, 3-metric $\gamma_{0\,ij}$, trace of extrinsic curvature

1095: $K_0$, and boost-velocity $v^i$. Pick any functions

1096: \begin{gather}

1097: \Psi>0\\

1098: W^i

1099: \end{gather}

1100: and set

1101: \begin{align}

1102: \label{eq:Test-Sandwich-gamma}

1103: \tilde\gamma_{ij}&=\Psi^{-4}\gamma_{0\,ij}\\

1104: K\;&=K_0\\

1105: \tilde\alpha\;\,&=\Psi^{-6}N_0\\

1106: \label{eq:Test-Sandwich-u}

1107: \tilde u^{ij}&=\Psi^4(\Long_0 W)^{ij}

1108: \end{align}

1109: Then a solution to the thin sandwich equations

1110: (\ref{eq:SandwichTT-1}-\ref{eq:SandwichTT-2}) will be

1111: \begin{align}

1112: \psi&=\Psi\label{eq:psi-static-boosted}\\

1113: \beta^i&=N_0^i+v^i+W^i\label{eq:beta-static-boosted}

1114: \end{align}

1115: assuming boundary conditions respecting this solution.

1116: 

1117: \begin{figure}

1118:  % plot generated by /home/harald/Run/Neville/01Jul/14A/PlotConv.sm

1119: \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{Fig5.eps}}

1120: \caption{\label{fig:Testing-Sandwich}

1121:   Testing thin sandwich decomposition with apparent horizon searches.

1122:   Equations~(\ref{eq:SandwichTT-1}) and (\ref{eq:SandwichTT-2}) with

1123:   freely specifiable data given by 

1124:   Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Test-Sandwich-gamma})--(\ref{eq:Test-Sandwich-u}) are solved

1125:   in a single spherical shell.  $N$ and {\em diff} as in 

1126:   Fig.~\ref{fig:Testing-PhysTT}.  Apparent horizon searches with different

1127:   surface expansion order $L$ were performed, and the errors of the 

1128:   apparent horizon mass $M_{AH}$ are plotted. }

1129: \end{figure}

1130: 

1131: Figure~\ref{fig:Testing-Sandwich} shows results of this test for a

1132: single spherical shell and a Kerr black hole with $\vec v=(0.2,

1133: -0.3, 0.1)$, $\vec a=(0.4, 0.3, 0.1)M$. The solution converges to the

1134: expected analytical result exponentially.  In addition, apparent

1135: horizon searches were performed. For the numerically found apparent

1136: horizons, the apparent horizon area $A_{AH}$ as well as the apparent

1137: horizon mass

1138: \begin{equation}

1139:   \label{eq:M_AH}

1140:   M_{AH}=\sqrt{\frac{A_{AH}}{16\pi}}

1141: \end{equation}

1142: were computed. The figure compares $M_{AH}$ to the expected value

1143: \begin{equation}

1144: M\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1-\frac{\vec a^2}{M^2}}\;\right)^{1/2}.

1145: \end{equation}

1146: As described in \cite{Baumgarte-Cook-etal:1996,

1147:   Pfeiffer-Teukolsky-Cook:2000}, the apparent horizon finder expands

1148: the apparent horizon surface in spherical harmonics up to a fixed

1149: order $L$.  For fixed $L$, the error in the apparent horizon mass is

1150: dominated by discretization error of the elliptic solver at low

1151: resolution $N$.  As $N$ is increased, the discretization error of the

1152: elliptic solver falls below the error due to finite $L$.  Then the

1153: error in $M_{AH}$ becomes independent of $N$. Since the expansion in

1154: spherical harmonics is {\em spectral}, the achievable resolution

1155: increases exponentially with $L$.  Note that for exponential

1156: convergence it is necessary to position the rays in the apparent

1157: horizon finder at the abscissas of Gauss-Legendre integration.

1158: 

1159: 

1160: \subsection{Convergence of binary black hole solutions}

1161: 

1162: \begin{figure}

1163:   % /home1/harald/Eric/Run/SP2/01Jul/09F/PlotConv.sm

1164:   \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{Fig6.eps}}

1165:   \caption{\label{fig:Convergence-09F}

1166:     Binary black hole with conformal TT decomposition. The residuals

1167:     of several quantities are plotted as a function of the cube root

1168:     of the total number of grid points. {\em diff} as in 

1169:     Fig.~\ref{fig:Testing-PhysTT}, {\em Ham} and {\em Mom} are the

1170:     residuals of Hamiltonian and momentum constraints.  $E_{ADM}$

1171:     denotes the difference between ADM-energy at resolution $N$ and

1172:     ADM-energy at highest resolution.}

1173: \end{figure}

1174: 

1175: Figure~\ref{fig:Convergence-09F} present the convergence of the solver

1176: in the binary black hole case. In this particular example, the

1177: conformal TT equations were solved for two black holes at rest with

1178: coordinate separation of $10M$.  The computational domain is structured

1179: as in Fig.~\ref{fig:Domains}.  The excised spheres have radius

1180: $r_{exc}=2M$, the inner spherical shells extend to radius $4M$. The

1181: rectangular blocks cover space up to $x,y,z=\pm 25M$, and the outer

1182: spherical shell extending from inner radius $20M$ to an outer radius

1183: of $R=10^7M$.

1184: 

1185: We do not use fall-off boundary conditions at the outer boundary; we

1186: simply set $\psi=1$ there.  This limits the computations presented in

1187: this paper to an accuracy of order $1/R\sim 10^{-7}$. 

1188: Figure~\ref{fig:Convergence-09F} shows that even for the next to

1189: highest resolution ($N\approx 80$) the solution will be limited by the

1190: outer boundary condition.  All results presented in the following

1191: section are obtained at resolutions around $N\approx 80$.  If the need

1192: arises to obtain solutions with higher accuracy, one can easily change

1193: to a fall-off boundary condition, or just move the outer boundary

1194: further out.

1195: 

1196: 

1197: %****************************************************************

1198: \section{Results}

1199: \label{sec:Results}

1200: %****************************************************************

1201: 

1202: The purpose of this paper is to compare the initial-data sets

1203: generated by different decompositions using simple choices for

1204: the freely specifiable pieces in each decomposition.  We solve 

1205: 

1206: $\bullet$ {\bf ConfTT:} Conformal TT equations (\ref{eq:ConfTT-1})

1207: and (\ref{eq:ConfTT-2}) with freely specifiable pieces and boundary

1208: conditions given by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:BinaryKerrSchild-gamma}),

1209: (\ref{eq:BinaryKerrSchild-K}), (\ref{eq:BinaryKerrSchild-Mij})

1210: and (\ref{eq:BC-ConfTT-PhysTT}).

1211:   

1212: $\bullet$ {\bf PhysTT:} Physical TT equations (\ref{eq:PhysTT-1})

1213: and (\ref{eq:PhysTT-2}) with same freely specifiable pieces and

1214: boundary conditions as ConfTT.

1215:   

1216: $\bullet$ {\bf CTS:} Conformal thin sandwich

1217: equations (\ref{eq:SandwichTT-1}) and (\ref{eq:SandwichTT-2}) with

1218: freely specifiable pieces and boundary conditions given by

1219: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:BinaryKerrSchild-gamma}), (\ref{eq:BinaryKerrSchild-K}),

1220: (\ref{eq:CTS-uij}) and (\ref{eq:BC-sandwich}). The lapse

1221: $\tilde\alpha$ is given by either Eq.~(\ref{eq:Sandwich-N1}), or by

1222: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Sandwich-N2}).

1223:   

1224: We will apply the terms ``ConfTT'', ``PhysTT'' and ``CTS'' only to

1225: these particular choices of decomposition, freely specifiable pieces

1226: and boundary conditions.  When referring to different freely

1227: specifiable pieces, or a decomposition in general, we will not use

1228: these shortcuts.  If we need to distinguish between the two choices of

1229: $\tilde\alpha$ in CTS, we will use ``CTS-add'' for the additive lapse

1230: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Sandwich-N1}) and ``CTS-mult''for the multiplicative

1231: lapse Eq.~(\ref{eq:Sandwich-N2}).

1232: Below in section \ref{sec:mConfTT} we will also introduce as a forth

1233: term ``mConfTT''.

1234: 

1235: \subsection{Binary black hole at rest}

1236: \label{sec:ResultsBHatRest}

1237: 

1238: 

1239: We first examine the simplest possible configuration: Two black holes

1240: at rest with equal mass, zero spin, and with some fixed proper

1241: separation between the apparent horizons of the holes.  We solve

1242: \begin{itemize}

1243: \item ConfTT

1244: \item PhysTT

1245: \item CTS (with both choices of $\tilde\alpha$).  

1246: \end{itemize}

1247: In the comparisons, we also include inversion symmetric conformally

1248: flat initial data obtained with the conformal-imaging formalism.

1249: 

1250: We excised spheres with radius $r_{exc}=2M$, which is close to the

1251: event horizon for an individual Eddington-Finkelstein black hole.

1252: This results in the boundary conditions being imposed close to, but

1253: within the apparent horizons of the black holes.  

1254: The centers of the excised spheres have

1255: a coordinate separation of $d=10M$.

1256: 

1257: We now discuss the solutions.  The conformal factor $\psi$ is very

1258: close to $1$ for each of the three decompositions. It deviates from

1259: $1$ by less than 0.02, indicating that a conformal metric based of a

1260: superposition of Kerr-Schild metrics does not deviate far from the

1261: constraint surface.

1262: 

1263: \begin{figure}

1264:   % created by Neville:~/DataEric/Run/SP2/PlotCuts.sm

1265: \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=.38]{Fig7.eps}}

1266: \caption{\label{fig:Compare-cuts}

1267:   The conformal factor $\psi$ along the axis connecting the holes for

1268:   several decompositions. $x$ measures the distance from the center of

1269:   mass, so that the excised sphere is located between $3<x<7$.

1270:   mConfTT is explained below in section \ref{sec:mConfTT}. The

1271:   solution of PhysTT is not plotted since it is within the line

1272:   thickness of ConfTT.  The insert shows an enlargement for large $x$.

1273:   }

1274: \end{figure}

1275: 

1276: Figure~\ref{fig:Compare-cuts} presents a plot of the conformal factor

1277: along the axis through the centers of the holes. One sees that $\psi$

1278: is close to $1$; however, between the holes ConfTT and CTS force

1279: $\psi$ in {\em opposite} directions. For CTS, $\psi>1$ between the

1280: holes, for ConfTT, $\psi<1$!  The contour plots in Fig.~\ref{fig:Contours} 

1281: also show this striking difference between the

1282: decompositions.

1283: 

1284: \begin{figure}

1285: \centerline{

1286: \includegraphics[scale=0.23]{Fig8a.eps}

1287: \includegraphics[scale=0.23]{Fig8b.eps}

1288: }

1289: \caption{\label{fig:Contours}

1290:   Black holes at rest: Contour plots of the conformal factor $\psi$

1291:   for ConfTT (left) and CTS-add (right). The circles denote the

1292:   excised spheres of radius $2$. }

1293: \end{figure}

1294: 

1295: \begin{table*}

1296: \caption{\label{tab:EADM}

1297:   Solutions of different decompositions for two black holes at rest.

1298:   Ham and Mom are  the rms residuals of the Hamiltonian 

1299:   and momentum constraint, $\ell$ is the proper separation between 

1300:   the apparent horizons. {\em mConfTT} represents the modified conformal TT

1301:   decomposition which is explained in section \ref{sec:mConfTT}. 

1302:   {\em inv. symm.} represents a conformally flat, time symmetric 

1303:   and inversion symmetric  solution of the Hamiltonian constraint.

1304: }

1305: \begin{ruledtabular}

1306: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}

1307:        & Ham & Mom & $E_{ADM}$ & $A_{AH}$ & $M_{AH}$ & $\ell$ & $\ell/m$ & $E_{ADM}/m$ & $E_{MPRC}/E_{ADM}$ & $E_b/\mu$ 

1308: \rule[-.65em]{0.em}{1.3em}\\\hline

1309: % ConfTT is 01Jul/09F

1310: ConfTT & $9\times 10^{-7}$ & $4\times 10^{-7}$ & 2.06486 & 57.7369 & 1.07175 & 8.062 & 3.761 & 0.9633 & 0.2660 & -0.1467\\

1311: % PhysTT is 01Jul/16A

1312: PhysTT & $9\times 10^{-7}$ & $3\times 10^{-7}$ & 2.06490 & 57.7389 & 1.07176 & 8.062 & 3.761 & 0.9633 & 0.2660 & -0.1467\\

1313: % Sandwich is 01Jun/27B, postprocessed on neville

1314: CTS-add  & $2\times 10^{-6}$ & $4\times 10^{-7}$ & 2.08121 & 62.3116 & 1.11340 & 8.039 & 3.610 & 0.9346 & 0.2434 & -0.2615\\ \hline

1315: % Sandwich mult is 01Nov/10A

1316: CTS-mult & $2\times 10^{-6}$ & $5\times 10^{-7}$ & 2.05851 & 60.8113 & 1.09991 & 8.080 & 3.672 & 0.9358 & 0.2444 & -0.2569\\

1317: % mConfTT is 01Nov/04B

1318: mConfTT & $3\times 10^{-6}$ & $1\times 10^{-6}$ & 2.0827 & 62.404 & 1.1142 &&& 0.9346 & 0.2434 & -0.2617\\ \hline

1319: inv. symm. & - & -       & 4.36387 & 284.851 & 2.38053 & 17.731 & 3.724 & 0.9166 & 0.2285 & -0.3337

1320: \end{tabular}

1321: \end{ruledtabular}

1322: \end{table*}

1323: 

1324: 

1325: The result of PhysTT was found to be almost identical with ConfTT.

1326: This is reasonable, since these two decompositions differ only in that

1327: in one case the TT decomposition is with respect to the conformal

1328: metric, and in the other case the TT decomposition it is with respect

1329: to the physical metric. Since $\psi\approx 1$, the conformal metric is

1330: almost identical to the physical metric, and only minor differences

1331: arise. In the following we will often use ConfTT/PhysTT when referring

1332: to both data sets.

1333: 

1334: We performed apparent horizon searches for these cases. For all

1335: data sets, the apparent horizon is outside the sphere with radius

1336: $2M$, that is outside the coordinate location for the apparent horizon

1337: in a single hole spacetime.

1338: For ConfTT/PhysTT, the radius of the apparent horizon surface is

1339: $\approx 2.05M$, for CTS it is $\approx 2.15M$.  We computed

1340: the apparent horizon area $A_{AH}$, the apparent horizon mass

1341: \begin{equation}

1342:   \label{eq:MAH}

1343:   M_{AH}=\sqrt{\frac{A_{AH}}{16\pi}}

1344: \end{equation}

1345: of either hole, and the combined mass of both holes, 

1346: \begin{equation}\label{eq:m}

1347:   m=2M_{AH}.

1348: \end{equation}

1349: There is no rigorous definition of the mass of an individual black

1350: hole in a binary black hole spacetime, and Eq.~(\ref{eq:MAH})

1351: represents the true mass on an individual black hole

1352: only in the limit of wide separation of the black holes.

1353: A hard upper limit on the possible gravitational radiation

1354: emitted to infinity during the coalescence process of a binary

1355: will be

1356: \begin{equation}\label{eq:MPRC}

1357:   E_{MPRC}=E_{ADM}-\sqrt{\frac{2A_{AH}}{16\pi}},

1358: \end{equation}

1359: where $2A_{AH}$ is the combined apparent horizon area of both holes.

1360: Thus, $E_{MPRC}$ represents the maximum possible radiation content

1361: (MPRC) of the initial data.  This, of course, makes the unlikely

1362: assumption that the binary radiates away all of its angular momentum.

1363: 

1364: We also compute the proper separation~$\ell$ between the apparent

1365: horizon surfaces along the straight line connecting the centers of the excised

1366: spheres.  In order to compare different data sets we consider the

1367: dimensionless quantities $\ell/E_{ADM}$, $E_{ADM}/m$ and

1368: $E_{MPRC}/E_{ADM}$.  We will also use $E_b/\mu$ which will be defined

1369: shortly.

1370: 

1371: Table~\ref{tab:EADM} summarizes these quantities for all three

1372: decompositions.  It also includes results for inversion symmetric

1373: initial data, which for black holes at rest reduces to the Misner

1374: data\cite{Misner:1963}\footnote{Although the Misner solution can be

1375:   obtained analytically, we found it more convenient to solve the

1376:   Hamiltonian constraint numerically.  The configuration in 

1377:   Table~\ref{tab:EADM} corresponds to a separation $\beta=12$ in terms of

1378:   \cite{Cook:1991}.}.  The results in Table~\ref{tab:EADM} are

1379: intended to represent nearly the {\em same} physical configuration.

1380: 

1381: From Table~\ref{tab:EADM}, one finds that the black holes have roughly

1382: the same dimensionless proper separation.  However, the scaled

1383: ADM-energy $E_{ADM}/m$ differs by as much as 4.7\% between the

1384: different data sets.  $E_{MPRC}/E_{ADM}$, which does not depend on any

1385: notion of individual black hole masses at all, differs by 16\% between

1386: the different data sets.

1387: 

1388: The inversion symmetric data has lowest $E_{ADM}/m$ and

1389: $E_{MPRC}/E_{ADM}$, CTS has somewhat larger values, and ConfTT/PhysTT

1390: lead to the biggest values for $E_{ADM}/m$ and $E_{MPRC}/E_{ADM}$.

1391: This indicates that, relative to the sizes of the black holes,

1392: ConfTT/PhysTT and CTS probably contain some excess energy.

1393: 

1394: A slightly different argument uses the binding energy which is defined

1395: as

1396: \begin{equation}

1397:   \frac{E_b}{\mu}\equiv\frac{E_{ADM}-2M_{AH}}{\mu},

1398: \end{equation}

1399: where $\mu=M_{AH}/2$ is the reduced mass.  Two Newtonian point masses

1400: at rest satisfy

1401: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Eb-Newton}

1402:   \frac{E_b}\mu = -\frac{1}{\ell/m}.

1403: \end{equation}

1404: From Table~\ref{tab:EADM} we see that for ConfTT/PhysTT, $|E_b/\mu| >

1405: (l/m)^{-1}$, and for CTS, $|E_b/\mu|\approx (l/m)^{-1}$. Since gravity

1406: in general relativity is typically {\em stronger} than Newtonian

1407: gravity, we find again that CTS and ConfTT/PhysTT contain too much

1408: energy relative to the black hole masses, ConfTT/PhysTT having even

1409: more than CTS.

1410: 

1411: The proper separation between the apparent horizons $\ell/m$ is about

1412: 4\% smaller for CTS than for ConfTT/PhysTT. By

1413: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Eb-Newton}) this should lead to a relative difference in binding

1414: energy of the same order of magnitude.  Since $E_b/\mu$ differs by

1415: almost a factor of two between the different decompositions, the

1416: differences in $\ell/m$ play only a minor role.

1417: 

1418: %****************************************************************

1419: \subsection{Configurations with angular momentum}

1420: \label{sec:resultOrbiting}

1421: %****************************************************************

1422: 

1423: Now we consider configurations which are approximating two black holes

1424: in orbit around each other. The conformal metric is still a

1425: superposition of two Kerr Schild metrics. The black holes are located

1426: along the $x$-axis with a coordinate separation $d$.  For

1427: ConfTT/PhysTT, we boost the individual holes to some velocity $\pm

1428: v\hat e_y$ along the $y$-axis. For CTS we go to a co-rotating frame

1429: with an angular frequency $\vec{\Omega}=\Omega\hat e_z$.  Thus, for

1430: each decomposition we have a two parameter family of solutions, the

1431: parameters being $(d,v)$ for ConfTT and PhysTT, and

1432: $(d,\Omega)$ for CTS.

1433: 

1434: By symmetry, these configuration will have an ADM angular momentum

1435: parallel to the $z$-axis which we denote by $J$. In order to compare

1436: solutions among each other, and against the conformally flat inversion

1437: symmetric data sets, we adjust the parameters $(d,v)$ and

1438: $(d,\Omega)$, such that each initial-data set has angular momentum

1439: $J/\mu m=2.976$ and a proper separation between the apparent horizons

1440: of $l/m=4.880$. In Ref.~\cite{Cook:1994}, these values were determined to be

1441: the angular momentum and proper separation of a binary black hole at

1442: the innermost stable circular orbit.

1443: 

1444: \begin{table*}

1445: \caption{\label{tab:EADM2}

1446: Initial-data sets generated by different decompositions for binary 

1447: black holes with the same angular momentum $J/\mu m$ and separation $\ell/m$.

1448: The mConfTT dataset is explained in section \ref{sec:mConfTT}. It should 

1449: be compared to CTS-add.

1450: }

1451: \begin{ruledtabular}

1452: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}

1453:  & parameters & $M_{AH}$ & $E_{ADM}$ & $J/\mu m$ & $\ell/m$ & $E_{ADM}/m$ & $E_{MPRC}/E_{ADM}$ & $E_b/\mu$

1454: \rule[-.65em]{0.em}{1.3em}\\\hline

1455: % ConfTT is /Eric/Run/SP2/01Okt/20B

1456: ConfTT & $d=11.899, v=0.26865$ & 1.06368 & 2.12035 & 2.9759 & 4.879 & 0.9967 & 0.2906 & -0.0132\\

1457: % PhysTT is /Eric/Run/SP2/01Nov/05E

1458: PhysTT & $d=11.899, v=0.26865$ & 1.06369 & 2.12037 & 2.9757 & 4.879 & 0.9967 & 0.2906 & -0.0132\\

1459: % sandwich4 is Eric/Run/SP2/01Okt/23A

1460: CTS-add  & $d=11.860, \Omega=0.0415$ & 1.07542 & 2.10391 & 2.9789 & 4.884 & 0.9782 & 0.2771 &-0.0873\\

1461: % sandwich4 is Eric/Run/SP2/01Nov/09D

1462: CTS-mult & $d=11.750, \Omega=0.0421$ & 1.06528 & 2.08436 & 2.9776 & 4.880 & 0.9783 & 0.2772 & -0.0867\\

1463: \hline

1464: mConfTT & $d=11.860, \Omega=0.0415$ & 1.0758 & 2.1061 & 3.011 & 4.883 & 0.979 & 0.278 & -0.085\\

1465: %mConfTT-inert & $d=11.899, v=0.26865$ & 1.1310 & 2.2006 & 2.592 & 4.578 & 0.973 & 0.273 & -0.108 \\\hline

1466: inv. symm.\footnote{Data taken from \cite{Cook:1994}} & & & & 2.976 & 4.880 & 0.9774 & 0.2766 & -0.09030

1467: \end{tabular}

1468: \end{ruledtabular}

1469: \end{table*}

1470: 

1471: Table~\ref{tab:EADM2} lists the parameters corresponding to this

1472: situation as well as results for each initial-data set\footnote{

1473:   Because of the Lorentz contraction, the apparent horizons for

1474:   ConfTT/PhysTT intersect the sphere with radius $2$. In order to have

1475:   the full apparent horizon inside the computational domain, the

1476:   radius of the excised spheres was reduced to 1.9 for these data

1477:   sets.}.  As with the configuration with black holes at rest, we find

1478: again that ConfTT/PhysTT and CTS lead to different ADM-energies.

1479: Now, $E_{ADM}/m$ and $E_{MPRC}/E_{ADM}$ differ by $0.02$ and $0.013$,

1480: respectively, between CTS and ConfTT/PhysTT.  However, in contrast to

1481: the cases where the black holes at rest, now CTS and the inversion symmetric data set

1482: have very similar values for $E_{ADM}/m$ and $E_{MPRC}/E_{ADM}$.

1483: 

1484: %****************************************************************

1485: \subsection{Reconciling conformal TT and thin sandwich}

1486: %****************************************************************

1487: \label{sec:mConfTT}

1488: 

1489: We now investigate further the difference between ConfTT/PhysTT and

1490: CTS.  Since the resulting initial-data sets for PhysTT and ConfTT are

1491: very similar, we restrict our discussion to ConfTT.

1492: 

1493: \subsubsection{Motivation}

1494: 

1495: The construction of binary black hole data for the ConfTT/PhysTT

1496: cases produces an extrinsic curvature that almost certainly

1497: contains a significant TT component.  It would be interesting to know

1498: how significant this component is to the value of the various physical

1499: parameters we are comparing.  Ideally, we would like to completely

1500: eliminate the TT component and see what effect this has on the resulting

1501: data sets.  Unfortunately, this is a difficult, if not impossible,

1502: task.

1503: 

1504: The TT component of a symmetric tensor $M^{ij}$ is defined as

1505: \begin{equation}

1506:         M^{ij}_{TT} \equiv M^{ij} - (\Long Y)^{ij},

1507: \end{equation}

1508: where the vector $Y^i$ is obtained by solving an elliptic equation

1509: of the form

1510: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Long_eqn}

1511:         \LapLong Y^i = \nabla_jM^{ij}.

1512: \end{equation}

1513: The problem resides in the fact that the meaning of the TT component

1514: depends of the boundary conditions used in solving (\ref{eq:Long_eqn}).

1515: 

1516: For the ConfTT/PhysTT cases we are actually solving for a vector $V^i$

1517: that is a linear combination of two components, one that solves an

1518: equation of the form of (\ref{eq:Long_eqn}) to obtain the TT component

1519: of $\tilde{M}^{ij}$ and one that solves the momentum constraint.  But

1520: by imposing inner-boundary conditions of $V^i=0$, we don't specify the

1521: boundary conditions on either part independently.  Nor is it clear

1522: what these boundary conditions should be.  Since we cannot explicitly

1523: construct the TT component of the extrinsic curvature, we cannot

1524: eliminate it.  Although it is not ideal, there is an alternative we

1525: can consider that does provide some insight into the importance of

1526: the initial choice of $\tilde{M}^{ij}$.

1527: 

1528: %********************************

1529: \subsubsection{Black holes at rest}

1530: \label{sec:mConfTT:Rest}

1531: %********************************

1532: 

1533: Consider the following numerical experiment for two black holes at

1534: rest: Given $\tilde M^{ij}$ from Eq.~(\ref{eq:BinaryKerrSchild-Mij}),

1535: make a transverse traceless decomposition by setting

1536: \begin{equation}\label{eq:mConfTT}

1537:   2N \tilde M^{ij}=\tilde M_{TT}^{ij}+(\tilde\Long Y)^{ij}

1538: \end{equation}

1539: where $\tilde\nabla_j \tilde M^{ij}_{TT}=0$ and $N=N_A+N_B-1$.  

1540: Notice that we are decomposing $2N\tilde{M}^{ij}$, not $\tilde{M}^{ij}$.

1541: Taking

1542: the divergence of Eq.~(\ref{eq:mConfTT}) one finds 

1543: \begin{equation}\label{eq:mConfTT-X}

1544:   \tildeLapLong Y^i=\tilde\nabla_j\left(2N\tilde M^{ij}\right).

1545: \end{equation}

1546: The decomposition chosen in Eq.~(\ref{eq:mConfTT}) is motivated by the

1547: conformal thin sandwich decomposition. With this decomposition we can,

1548: in fact, use the shift vector $N^i$ to fix boundary conditions on

1549: $Y^i$, just as it was used to fix the boundary conditions in

1550: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Sandwich-BC2}---\ref{eq:Sandwich-BC4}).  For the black

1551: holes at rest in this case, we have $\Omega=0$. After solving

1552: Eq.~(\ref{eq:mConfTT-X}) for $Y^i$, we can construct a new 

1553: conformal extrinsic curvature by

1554: \begin{equation}\label{eq:mConfTT-Mij}

1555:   {\tilde{M}{'}}^{\;ij}=\frac{1}{2N}(\tilde\Long Y)^{ij}

1556: \end{equation}

1557: which is similar to what would result if we could eliminate $\tilde

1558: M^{ij}_{TT}$ from $\tilde M^{ij}$. Using $\tilde M^{\prime ij}$ in

1559: place of $\tilde M^{ij}$, we can again solve the conformal TT

1560: equations.  The result of this modified conformal TT decomposition

1561: {\bf ``mConfTT''} is striking: Figure~\ref{fig:Compare-cuts} shows

1562: that mConfTT generates a conformal factor $\psi$ that is very similar

1563: to $\psi$ of CTS. mConfTT is also included in Table~\ref{tab:EADM}

1564: where it can be seen that the quantities $E_{ADM}/m$ and

1565: $E_{MPRC}/E_{ADM}$ differ only slightly between mConfTT and CTS.

1566: 

1567: The fact that modification of the extrinsic curvature changes the

1568: ADM-energy by such a large amount underlines the importance of a

1569: careful choice for the extrinsic curvature $\tilde M^{ij}$ in

1570: ConfTT/PhysTT.  The extremely good agreement between CTS and mConfTT

1571: is probably caused by our procedure to determine $\tilde M{'}^{ij}$.

1572: We force the extrinsic curvature of mConfTT into the form

1573: Eq.~(\ref{eq:mConfTT-Mij}). This is precisely the form of the

1574: extrinsic curvature in CTS, Eq.~(\ref{eq:SandwichTT-3}), even using

1575: the same function $N$ and the same boundary conditions on the vectors

1576: $Y^i$ and $\beta^i$.

1577: 

1578: %****************************************************************

1579: \subsubsection{Black holes with angular momentum}

1580: %****************************************************************

1581: 

1582: We now apply the modified conformal TT decomposition to the orbiting

1583: configurations of section~\ref{sec:resultOrbiting}.  In the corotating

1584: frame, the black holes are at rest, and we start with

1585: $\tilde\gamma_{ij}$ and $\tilde M^{ij}$ of two black holes {\em at

1586:   rest} with coordinate separation $d=11.860$. We now solve

1587: Eq.~(\ref{eq:mConfTT-X}) with

1588: \begin{equation}

1589:   N=N_A+N_B-1

1590: \end{equation}

1591: and corotating boundary conditions on $Y^i$ [cf.\

1592: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Sandwich-BC2})--(\ref{eq:Sandwich-BC4})]:

1593: \begin{subequations}

1594: \begin{align}

1595: Y^i&=N_{\!A}^i                 &&\mbox{sphere inside hole A,}\\

1596: Y^i&=N_B^i                     &&\mbox{sphere inside hole B,}\\

1597: Y^i&=\vec\Omega\times\vec r    &&\mbox{outer boundary.}

1598: \end{align}

1599: \end{subequations}

1600: $N_{A/B}$ and $N_{A/B}^i$ are lapse and shift of individual Kerr-Schild

1601: black holes at rest.  $\tilde M{'}^{ij}$ is again constructed by

1602: Eq.~(\ref{eq:mConfTT-Mij}) and used in solving the conformal TT equations.

1603: 

1604: Results from this procedure are included in Table~\ref{tab:EADM2}.

1605: Again, mConfTT generates results very close to CTS.  $E_{ADM}/m$ 

1606: changes by 1.8\% of the total mass between ConfTT and mConfTT, again

1607: highlighting the importance of the extrinsic curvature.

1608: 

1609: 

1610: %****************************************************************

1611: \subsection{Dependence on the size of the excised spheres}

1612: %****************************************************************

1613: 

1614: The framework presented in this paper requires the excision of the

1615: singularities at the centers of each hole\footnote{Marronetti and

1616:   Matzner\cite{Marronetti-Matzner:2000} effectively excised the

1617:   centers, too, by using ``blending functions''.}.  So far we have used

1618: $r_{exc}=2M$ or $r_{exc}=1.9M$ in order to impose boundary conditions

1619: close to the apparent horizons, but different choices can be made.

1620: Indeed, one might expect that the boundary conditions

1621: (\ref{eq:BC-ConfTT-PhysTT}) and (\ref{eq:BC-sandwich}) become ``better''

1622: farther inside the apparent horizon, where the metric and extrinsic

1623: curvature of that black hole dominate the superposed metric

1624: $\tilde\gamma_{ij}$ and superposed extrinsic curvature $\tilde

1625: M^{ij}$.

1626: 

1627: In order to test this assumption, we solve the constraint equations

1628: for two black holes at rest for different radii $r_{exc}$. We find

1629: that for all three decompositions, the data sets depend strongly on

1630: the radius of the excised spheres.

1631: 

1632: \begin{figure}

1633:   \centering

1634:  % Plot generated by Neville/DataEric/Run/SP2/PlotCuts.sm

1635:   \includegraphics[scale=0.38]{Fig9.eps}

1636:   \caption{Plots of $\psi$ and $V^x$ along the positive $x$-axis

1637:     for ConfTT for different radii $r_{exc}=2M, M, 0.5M, 0.2M$. The

1638:     excised spheres are centered on the $x$-axis at $x=\pm 5$.  The

1639:     position where a line terminates gives $r_{exc}$ for that line.}

1640:     \label{fig:ConfTT-cuts}

1641:  \end{figure}

1642: 

1643: \begin{figure}

1644:   \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{Fig10.eps}}

1645:   \caption{\label{fig:ConfTT-AH}Apparent horizons for ConfTT

1646:     with different radii of excised spheres. Results shown are for

1647:     $r_{exc}=2M$ (long dashed line), $M$ (dotted line), $0.5M$ (short

1648:     dashed line) and $0.2M$ (outer solid line). The inner solid line

1649:     is a circle with radius 2.  The insert shows a parametric plot of

1650:     $r(\phi)-2$, which emphasizes the differences between the

1651:     different apparent horizons.}

1652: \end{figure}

1653: 

1654: 

1655: \begin{table}

1656: \caption{\label{tab:TT}

1657: Solutions of solving ConfTT for different radii of

1658: the excised spheres, $r_{exc}$.  The results for PhysTT

1659: are nearly identical.

1660: }

1661: \begin{ruledtabular}

1662: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}

1663: $r_{exc}$ & $E_{ADM}$ & $A_{AH}$ & $\ell$ & $E_{ADM}/m$ & $\ell/E_{ADM}$

1664: \rule[-.65em]{0.em}{1.3em}\\\hline

1665: \multicolumn{6}{c}{ Conformal TT }\\

1666: 2.0 &    2.0649 &    57.737 &   8.062 &   0.9633 &   3.904 \\ 

1667: 1.0 &    2.0682 &    57.825 &   8.101 &   0.9641 &   3.917 \\ 

1668: 0.5 &    2.0808 &    58.520 &   8.101 &   0.9642 &   3.893 \\ 

1669: 0.2 &    2.0978 &    59.514 &   8.093 &   0.9640 &   3.858 \\ 

1670: 0.1 &    2.1064 &    60.025 &   8.089 &   0.9638 &   3.840 \\ 

1671: \end{tabular}

1672: \end{ruledtabular}

1673: \end{table}

1674: 

1675: Figure~\ref{fig:ConfTT-cuts} presents plots of the conformal factor

1676: $\psi$ and $V^x$ for ConfTT with different $r_{exc}$.  There is no

1677: clear sign of convergence of $\psi$ as $r_{exc}\to 0$.  For

1678: $r_{exc}=0.2M$, the conformal factor $\psi$ even oscillates close to

1679: the excised sphere.  Table~\ref{tab:TT} displays various

1680: quantities for the ConfTT decomposition for

1681: different $r_{exc}$.

1682: As $r_{exc}$ varies

1683: between $2.0M$ and $0.1M$, the ADM-energy varies between $2.065$ and

1684: $2.106$, whereas the apparent horizon area changes by nearly 4\%.  The

1685: apparent horizons move around somewhat as $r_{exc}$ changes. 

1686: Figure~\ref{fig:ConfTT-AH} shows the location of the apparent horizons for

1687: different $r_{exc}$.

1688: 

1689: \begin{figure}

1690:   \centering

1691: %Plot generated by Neville/DataEric/Run/SP2/PlotCuts.sm

1692:   \includegraphics[scale=0.38]{Fig11.eps}

1693:   \caption{\label{fig:Sandwich-cuts-N1N2} 

1694:     Cuts through $\psi$ and $\beta^x$ for CTS-mult for different radii

1695:     $r_{exc}$. Here $\tilde \alpha=N_{\!A}N_B$ and the boundary

1696:     condition on $\psi$ at the excised spheres is $d\psi/dr=0$.  The

1697:     curves for $\beta^x$ are shifted up by 0.5 for $x<5$, and are

1698:     shifted down by 0.5 for $x>5$ to allow for better plotting.

1699:     $d\psi/dr$ approaches zero at the inner boundary on scales too

1700:     small to be seen in this figure.  

1701: }  

1702: \end{figure}

1703:  

1704:  

1705: For CTS-add (with $\tilde\alpha=N_A+N_B-1$), the initial-data sets

1706: seem to diverge as $r_{exc}$ is decreased.  This has to be expected,

1707: since this choice for $\tilde\alpha$ changes sign if the excised

1708: spheres become sufficiently small.  Changing to $\tilde\alpha=N_AN_B$

1709: so that the lapse does not change sign reduces this divergent behavior.  Von

1710: Neumann boundary conditions on $\psi$ at the excised spheres,

1711: \begin{equation}

1712:   \frac{\partial\psi}{\partial r}=0,

1713: \end{equation}

1714: lead to an increase in $A_{AH}$ especially for large excised spheres.

1715: This combination of lapse $\tilde\alpha$ and boundary conditions

1716: exhibits the smallest variations in $E_{ADM}/m$; cuts through $\psi$,

1717: $\beta^x$ and through the apparent horizons are shown in

1718: Figs.~\ref{fig:Sandwich-cuts-N1N2} and \ref{fig:Sandwich-AH-2}.  From

1719: the three examined combinations of lapse and boundary conditions, the

1720: one shown behaves best, but there is still no convincing sign of

1721: convergence.

1722: 

1723: Table~\ref{tab:CTS} presents ADM-energies and apparent

1724: horizon areas and masses for CTS with different $r_{exc}$ and

1725: different choices of lapse and boundary condition.  From the unscaled

1726: ADM-energy $E_{ADM}$ it is apparent that $\tilde\alpha=N_A+N_B-1$

1727: diverges most strongly.  Note that between all choices of lapse,

1728: boundary conditions and $r_{exc}$, the unscaled quantities $E_{ADM}$,

1729: $M_{AH}$, and $\ell$ exhibit a much broader variation than the scaled

1730: quantities $E_{ADM}/m$ and $\ell/E_{ADM}$.

1731: 

1732: \begin{figure}

1733:  \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.38]{Fig12.eps}}

1734:  \caption{\label{fig:Sandwich-AH-2} 

1735:    Apparent horizons for CTS with $\tilde\alpha=N_A\,N_B$ and inner

1736:    boundary condition $d\psi/dr=0$.  The different curves belong to

1737:    different $r_{exc}$ as explained in Fig.~\ref{fig:ConfTT-AH} }

1738: \end{figure} 

1739: 

1740: \begin{table}

1741: \caption{\label{tab:CTS}

1742:   Solutions of CTS as a function of radius of excised

1743:   spheres, $r_{exc}$.  Different choices of the lapse $\tilde\alpha$ and

1744:   boundary conditions for $\psi$ at the excised spheres are explored.

1745: }

1746: \begin{ruledtabular}

1747: \begin{tabular}{ccrccc}

1748: $r_{exc}$ & $E_{ADM}$ & $A_{AH}\;$& $\ell$ & $E_{ADM}/m$ & $\ell/E_{ADM}$ 

1749: \rule[-.5em]{0.em}{1.5em}\\\hline

1750: \multicolumn{6}{c}{ $\tilde\alpha=N_A+N_B-1,\;\; \psi=1$ }\\

1751: 2.0 &    2.0812 &    62.312 &   8.039 &   0.9346 &   3.863 \\ 

1752: 1.0 &    2.1846 &    68.279 &   8.000 &   0.9372 &   3.662 \\ 

1753: 0.5 &    2.3085 &    76.253 &   7.925 &   0.9371 &   3.433 \\ 

1754: 0.2 &    2.5463 &    93.534 &   7.750 &   0.9333 &   3.044 \\ 

1755: 0.1 &    2.8543 &   118.834 &   7.489 &   0.9282 &   2.624 \\ 

1756: \hline

1757: \multicolumn{6}{c}{ $\tilde\alpha=N_AN_B,\;\; \psi=1$ }\\

1758: 2.0 &    2.0585 &    60.811 &   8.080 &   0.9358 &   3.925 \\ 

1759: 1.0 &    2.1216 &    64.080 &   8.044 &   0.9395 &   3.792 \\ 

1760: 0.5 &    2.1696 &    66.790 &   8.017 &   0.9411 &   3.695 \\ 

1761: 0.2 &    2.2120 &    69.456 &   7.991 &   0.9409 &   3.613 \\ 

1762: 0.1 &    2.2326 &    70.809 &   7.978 &   0.9405 &   3.573 \\ 

1763: \hline

1764: \multicolumn{6}{c}{ $\tilde\alpha=N_AN_B,\;\; \partial\psi/\partial r=0$ }\\

1765: 2.0 &    2.1110 &    64.229 &   8.085 &   0.9337 &   3.830 \\ 

1766: 1.0 &    2.1533 &    66.128 &   8.030 &   0.9387 &   3.729 \\ 

1767: 0.5 &    2.1794 &    67.427 &   8.011 &   0.9409 &   3.676 \\ 

1768: 0.2 &    2.2136 &    69.559 &   7.990 &   0.9409 &   3.609 \\ 

1769: 0.1 &    2.2330 &    70.836 &   7.978 &   0.9405 &   3.573 \\ 

1770: \end{tabular}

1771: \end{ruledtabular}

1772: \end{table}

1773: 

1774: %****************************************************************

1775: \section{Discussion}

1776: \label{sec:Discussion}

1777: %****************************************************************

1778: 

1779: Our results clearly show that different decompositions lead to

1780: different initial-data sets, even when seemingly similar

1781: choices for the freely specifiable pieces are used.  From

1782: Tables~\ref{tab:EADM} and \ref{tab:EADM2}, one sees that $E_{ADM}/m$

1783: changes by as much as 0.029 between ConfTT/PhysTT and CTS.  The

1784: difference between ConfTT/PhysTT and the inversion symmetric data is

1785: even larger, 0.047.  These numbers seem to be small; however, current

1786: evolutions of binary data usually find the total energy emitted in

1787: gravitational radiation $E_{GW}/m$ to be between 0.01 and 0.03

1788: \cite{Baker-Bruegmann-etal:2001,Alcubierre:2001,Brandt-Corell-etal:2000},

1789: which is the same order of magnitude as the changes in $E_{ADM}/m$ we

1790: find.  This means that, in principle, most of the energy radiated in

1791: these simulations could originate from ``spurious'' energy in the

1792: system and not from the dynamics of the binary system we are

1793: interested in.

1794: 

1795: These findings highlight the fact that current binary black hole

1796: initial data sets are inadequate for the task of accurately describing

1797: realistic binary systems.  We see that the choices of the conformal

1798: 3-geometry $\tilde\gamma_{ij}$ and the freely specifiable portions of

1799: the extrinsic curvature, embedded in $\tilde{M}^{ij}$, influence the

1800: content of the initial data at a significant level.  Furthermore, the

1801: results suggest that small changes in the free data associated with

1802: the extrinsic curvature are more significant than small changes in the

1803: choice of $\tilde\gamma_{ij}$.\footnote{Following submission of this

1804: paper, a preprint by Damour et

1805: al.\cite{Damour-Gourgoulhon-Grandclement:grqc0204011} has appeared

1806: that lends support to our idea that the extrinsic curvature plays a

1807: key role in constructing quasi-equilibrium binary black hole initial

1808: data.}  This assertion is supported by the fact that $E_{ADM}/m$

1809: is consistently larger for the ConfTT solutions than for the CTS

1810: solutions but the two approaches can be made to produce quite

1811: consistent results by using the modified extrinsic curvature of the

1812: mConfTT method.  All of these decompositions use the same non-flat

1813: conformal metric, but differ in the extrinsic curvature. On the other

1814: hand, results for the conformally-flat inversion-symmetric data agree

1815: rather well with the results from the CTS method when we consider

1816: orbiting black holes.  For black holes at rest, CTS differs from the

1817: inversion symmetric data, which seems to contradict our conclusion.

1818: However, this difference is likely due to the time-symmetric nature of

1819: the inversion symmetric data, which is especially adapted to the

1820: time-symmetry of the particular configuration of ``two black holes at

1821: rest''.

1822: 

1823: Improved binary black hole initial data will require choices for the

1824: freely specifiable data that are physically motivated, rather than

1825: chosen for computational convenience.  The same is true for the

1826: boundary conditions used in solving the constraints.  The boundary

1827: conditions used in this paper carry the implicit assumptions that the

1828: approximate metric and extrinsic curvature are correct at the

1829: excision boundaries and that the value of the single-hole Kerr-Schild

1830: shift at the excision boundary is correct in a multi-hole situation.

1831: This is clearly not true, but we might hope that the impact of the

1832: error in this choice would diminish as we decrease the radius of the

1833: excision boundary.  However, our results presented in

1834: Tables~\ref{tab:TT} and \ref{tab:CTS} do not support this conjecture.

1835: Examining the change in $E_{ADM}/m$ as we vary $r_{exc}$ shows only a

1836: small change, but more importantly, it shows no sign of converging as

1837: we decrease $r_{exc}$.  The effects of changing $r_{exc}$ are much

1838: more significant for $\ell/E_{ADM}$, changing its value by as much as

1839: 10\% in the case of CTS-mult for the range of values considered.

1840: Furthermore, as with the energy, we see no sign of convergence in

1841: $\ell/E_{ADM}$ as $r_{exc}$ decreases.  Interestingly, although the

1842: solutions show no sign of convergence as we shrink the excision

1843: radius, we do find that the dimensionless quantities $E_{ADM}/m$ and

1844: $\ell/E_{ADM}$ do become independent of the choice of the

1845: inner-boundary condition as $r_{exc}$ decreases.  This can be seen in

1846: comparing the result in Table~\ref{tab:CTS} for the cases using

1847: $\psi=1$ and $\partial\psi/\partial r=0$ as inner-boundary conditions.

1848: Additional tests, not reported in this paper, further support this

1849: assertion.

1850: 

1851: 

1852: 

1853: %****************************************************************

1854: \section{Conclusion}

1855: %****************************************************************

1856: 

1857: Using a new elliptic solver capable of solving the initial-value

1858: problem of general relativity for any of three different

1859: decompositions and any choice for the freely specifiable data, we have

1860: examined data sets representing binary black hole spacetimes.  We find

1861: that the choices for the freely specifiable data currently in use are

1862: inadequate for the task of simulating the gravitational radiation

1863: produced in astrophysically realistic situations.  In particular,

1864: we studied the results of using a superposition of two Kerr-Schild

1865: black holes to fix the freely specifiable data and compared them

1866: to the results obtained from conformally flat initial data.

1867: 

1868: Although the new Kerr-Schild based data provide a valuable point of

1869: comparison, it is not clear that the data produced are significantly

1870: superior to previous conformally-flat data.  What is clear is that the

1871: choice of the freely specifiable data will be very important in

1872: constructing astrophysically realistic binary black hole initial data.

1873: Progress will require that these data, {\em and} the boundary

1874: conditions needed to solve the constraints, must be chosen based on

1875: physical grounds rather than computational convenience.

1876: 

1877: How can better initial data be achieved and how can the quality of

1878: initial data be measured?  We believe that the conformal thin sandwich

1879: decomposition will be especially useful.  Genuine radiative degrees of

1880: freedom cannot {\em in principle} be recognized on a single time

1881: slice. The conformal thin sandwich method uses in effect two nearby

1882: surfaces, giving it a potential advantage over other methods.  Also,

1883: it avoids much of the uncertainty related to specifying a conformal

1884: extrinsic curvature.

1885: Moreover, the conformal thin sandwich approach is especially well

1886: suited for the most interesting configurations, a black-hole binary in

1887: a quasi-equilibrium orbit.  In this case time derivatives of all

1888: quantities are small and the choice $\tilde u^{ij}=0$ is physically

1889: motivated.  One should exploit the condition of quasi-equilibrium as

1890: fully as possible, i.e. one should use the conformal thin sandwich

1891: approach together with the constant $K$ equation, $\partial_tK=0$. The

1892: latter yields another elliptic equation for the lapse which removes

1893: the arbitrariness inherent in choosing a conformal lapse

1894: $\tilde\alpha$.  One will also need more physical boundary conditions.

1895: Work in this direction was begun

1896: in\cite{Gourgoulhon-Grandclement-Bonazzola:2001a,

1897: Grandclement-Gourgoulhon-Bonazzola:2001b} and refined in

1898: \cite{Cook:2001}.

1899: 

1900: Ultimately, the gravitational wave content of an initial-data set can

1901: be determined only by long term evolutions. One must compute an

1902: initial-data set representing a binary black hole in quasi-circular

1903: orbit and evolve it. Then one must repeat this process with an 

1904: initial-data set representing the {\em same} binary black hole, say, one

1905: orbital period earlier, and evolve that data set, too.  If both

1906: evolutions lead to the same gravitational waves (modulo time offset)

1907: then one can be confident that the gravitational radiation is indeed

1908: astrophysically realistic.  This approach has recently been used for

1909: the first time in conjunction with conformally flat puncture data,

1910: where it proved remarkably successful

1911: \cite{Baker-Campanelli-etal:astroph0202469}.

1912: 

1913: 

1914: \acknowledgments We thank Lawrence Kidder, Mark Scheel, and James

1915: York for helpful discussions.  This work was supported in part by NSF

1916: grants PHY-9800737 and PHY-9900672 to Cornell University, and by NSF

1917: grant PHY-9988581 to Wake Forest University.  Computations were

1918: performed on the IBM SP2 of the Department of Physics, Wake Forest

1919: University, with support from an IBM SUR grant.

1920: 

1921: 

1922: %\bibliography{Definitions,ID}

1923: \begin{thebibliography}{40}

1924: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1925: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax

1926:   \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi

1927: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax

1928:   \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi

1929: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax

1930:   \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi

1931: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax

1932:   \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi

1933: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi

1934: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}

1935: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}

1936: 

1937: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Baker et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Baker, Br{\"u}gmann,

1938:   Campanelli, Lousto, and Takahashi}}]{Baker-Bruegmann-etal:2001}

1939: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Baker}},

1940:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Br{\"u}gmann}},

1941:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Campanelli}},

1942:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~O.} \bibnamefont{Lousto}},

1943:   \bibnamefont{and}

1944:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Takahashi}},

1945:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{87}},

1946:   \bibinfo{pages}{121103} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

1947: 

1948: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Alcubierre et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Alcubierre,

1949:   Benger, Br{\"u}gmann, Lanfermann, Nerger, Seidel, and

1950:   Takahashi}}]{Alcubierre:2001}

1951: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Alcubierre}},

1952:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Benger}},

1953:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Br{\"u}gmann}},

1954:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Lanfermann}},

1955:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Nerger}},

1956:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Seidel}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1957:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Takahashi}},

1958:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{87}},

1959:   \bibinfo{pages}{271103} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

1960: 

1961: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Baker et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Baker, Campanelli,

1962:   Lousto, and Takahashi}}]{Baker-Campanelli-etal:astroph0202469}

1963: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Baker}},

1964:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Campanelli}},

1965:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~O.} \bibnamefont{Lousto}},

1966:   \bibnamefont{and}

1967:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Takahashi}},

1968:   \bibinfo{journal}{astro-ph/0202469}  (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

1969: 

1970: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{York{,}~Jr.}(1979)}]{York:1979}

1971: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~W.} \bibnamefont{York{,}~Jr.}}, in

1972:   \emph{\bibinfo{booktitle}{Sources of Gravitational Radiation}}, edited by

1973:   \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{L.~L.} \bibnamefont{Smarr}}

1974:   (\bibinfo{address}{Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK},

1975:   \bibinfo{year}{1979}), pp. \bibinfo{pages}{83--126}.

1976: 

1977: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Murchadha and

1978:   York{,}~Jr.}(1974{\natexlab{a}})}]{Murchadha-York:1974a}

1979: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.~{\'O}.} \bibnamefont{Murchadha}}

1980:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~W.}

1981:   \bibnamefont{York{,}~Jr.}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D}

1982:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{10}}, \bibinfo{pages}{428}

1983:   (\bibinfo{year}{1974}{\natexlab{a}}).

1984: 

1985: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Murchadha and

1986:   York{,}~Jr.}(1974{\natexlab{b}})}]{Murchadha-York:1974b}

1987: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.~{\'O}.} \bibnamefont{Murchadha}}

1988:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~W.}

1989:   \bibnamefont{York{,}~Jr.}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D}

1990:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{10}}, \bibinfo{pages}{437}

1991:   (\bibinfo{year}{1974}{\natexlab{b}}).

1992: 

1993: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Murchadha and York{,}~Jr.}(1976)}]{Murchadha-York:1976}

1994: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.~{\'O}.} \bibnamefont{Murchadha}}

1995:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~W.}

1996:   \bibnamefont{York{,}~Jr.}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Gen. Relativ. Gravit.}

1997:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{7}}, \bibinfo{pages}{257} (\bibinfo{year}{1976}).

1998: 

1999: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{York{,}~Jr.}(1999)}]{York:1999}

2000: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~W.} \bibnamefont{York{,}~Jr.}},

2001:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{82}},

2002:   \bibinfo{pages}{1350} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

2003: 

2004: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bowen}(1979)}]{Bowen:1979}

2005: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~M.} \bibnamefont{Bowen}},

2006:   \bibinfo{journal}{Gen. Relativ. Gravit.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{11}},

2007:   \bibinfo{pages}{227} (\bibinfo{year}{1979}).

2008: 

2009: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bowen and York{,}~Jr.}(1980)}]{Bowen-York:1980}

2010: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~M.} \bibnamefont{Bowen}} \bibnamefont{and}

2011:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~W.} \bibnamefont{York{,}~Jr.}},

2012:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{21}},

2013:   \bibinfo{pages}{2047} (\bibinfo{year}{1980}).

2014: 

2015: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kulkarni et~al.}(1983)\citenamefont{Kulkarni, Shepley,

2016:   and York{,}~Jr.}}]{Kulkarni-Shepley-York:1983}

2017: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~D.} \bibnamefont{Kulkarni}},

2018:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~C.} \bibnamefont{Shepley}},

2019:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~W.}

2020:   \bibnamefont{York{,}~Jr.}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett. A}

2021:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{96A}}, \bibinfo{pages}{228} (\bibinfo{year}{1983}).

2022: 

2023: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Thornburg}(1987)}]{Thornburg:1987}

2024: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Thornburg}},

2025:   \bibinfo{journal}{Class. Quantum Gravit.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{4}},

2026:   \bibinfo{pages}{1119} (\bibinfo{year}{1987}).

2027: 

2028: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Cook et~al.}(1993)\citenamefont{Cook, Choptuik, Dubal,

2029:   Klasky, Matzner, and Oliveira}}]{Cook-Choptuik-etal:1993}

2030: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~B.} \bibnamefont{Cook}},

2031:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~W.} \bibnamefont{Choptuik}},

2032:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~R.} \bibnamefont{Dubal}},

2033:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Klasky}},

2034:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~A.} \bibnamefont{Matzner}},

2035:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~R.}

2036:   \bibnamefont{Oliveira}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D}

2037:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{47}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1471} (\bibinfo{year}{1993}).

2038: 

2039: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Brandt and Br{\"u}gmann}(1997)}]{Brandt-Brugmann:1997}

2040: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Brandt}} \bibnamefont{and}

2041:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Br{\"u}gmann}},

2042:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{78}},

2043:   \bibinfo{pages}{3606} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}).

2044: 

2045: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Rieth}(1997)}]{Rieth:1997}

2046: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Rieth}}, in

2047:   \emph{\bibinfo{booktitle}{Mathematics of Gravitation. Part II. Gravitational

2048:   Wave Detection}}, edited by

2049:   \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Kr{\'o}lak}}

2050:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Mathematics,

2051:   Warsaw}, \bibinfo{year}{1997}), pp. \bibinfo{pages}{71--74}.

2052: 

2053: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Damour et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Damour, Jaranowski,

2054:   and Sch{\"a}fer}}]{Damour-Jaranowski-Schaefer:2000b}

2055: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Damour}},

2056:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Jaranowski}},

2057:   \bibnamefont{and}

2058:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Sch{\"a}fer}},

2059:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}},

2060:   \bibinfo{pages}{084011} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).

2061: 

2062: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Monroe}(1976)}]{Monroe:1976}

2063: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~K.} \bibnamefont{Monroe}}, Ph.D. thesis,

2064:   \bibinfo{school}{University of North Carolina} (\bibinfo{year}{1976}).

2065: 

2066: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Garat and Price}(2000)}]{Garat-Price:2000}

2067: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Garat}} \bibnamefont{and}

2068:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~H.} \bibnamefont{Price}},

2069:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{61}},

2070:   \bibinfo{pages}{124011} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).

2071: 

2072: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Pfeiffer et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Pfeiffer,

2073:   Teukolsky, and Cook}}]{Pfeiffer-Teukolsky-Cook:2000}

2074: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~P.} \bibnamefont{Pfeiffer}},

2075:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~A.} \bibnamefont{Teukolsky}},

2076:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~B.} \bibnamefont{Cook}},

2077:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}},

2078:   \bibinfo{pages}{104018} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).

2079: 

2080: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lousto and Price}(1998)}]{Lousto-Price:1998}

2081: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~O.} \bibnamefont{Lousto}} \bibnamefont{and}

2082:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~H.} \bibnamefont{Price}},

2083:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{57}},

2084:   \bibinfo{pages}{1073} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).

2085: 

2086: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Matzner et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Matzner, Huq, and

2087:   Shoemaker}}]{Matzner-Huq-Shoemaker:1999}

2088: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~A.} \bibnamefont{Matzner}},

2089:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~F.} \bibnamefont{Huq}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2090:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Shoemaker}},

2091:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{59}},

2092:   \bibinfo{pages}{024015} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

2093: 

2094: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Marronetti and

2095:   Matzner}(2000)}]{Marronetti-Matzner:2000}

2096: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Marronetti}} \bibnamefont{and}

2097:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~A.} \bibnamefont{Matzner}},

2098:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{85}},

2099:   \bibinfo{pages}{5500} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).

2100: 

2101: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Gourgoulhon et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Gourgoulhon,

2102:   Grandcl{\'e}ment, and Bonazzola}}]{Gourgoulhon-Grandclement-Bonazzola:2001a}

2103: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Gourgoulhon}},

2104:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Grandcl{\'e}ment}},

2105:   \bibnamefont{and}

2106:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Bonazzola}},

2107:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}},

2108:   \bibinfo{pages}{044020} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

2109: 

2110: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Grandcl{\'e}ment

2111:   et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Grandcl{\'e}ment, Gourgoulhon, and

2112:   Bonazzola}}]{Grandclement-Gourgoulhon-Bonazzola:2001b}

2113: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Grandcl{\'e}ment}},

2114:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Gourgoulhon}},

2115:   \bibnamefont{and}

2116:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Bonazzola}},

2117:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}},

2118:   \bibinfo{pages}{044021} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

2119: 

2120: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bonazzola et~al.}(1993)\citenamefont{Bonazzola,

2121:   Gourgoulhon, Salgado, and Marck}}]{Bonazzola-Gourgoulhon-etal:1993}

2122: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Bonazzola}},

2123:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Gourgoulhon}},

2124:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Salgado}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2125:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.-A.} \bibnamefont{Marck}},

2126:   \bibinfo{journal}{Astron. \& Astrophys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{278}},

2127:   \bibinfo{pages}{421} (\bibinfo{year}{1993}).

2128: 

2129: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bonazzola et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Bonazzola,

2130:   Gourgoulhon, and Marck}}]{Bonazzola-Gourgoulhon-Marck:1998}

2131: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Bonazzola}},

2132:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Gourgoulhon}},

2133:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.-A.} \bibnamefont{Marck}},

2134:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{58}},

2135:   \bibinfo{pages}{104020} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).

2136: 

2137: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kidder et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Kidder, Scheel,

2138:   Teukolsky, Carlson, and Cook}}]{Kidder-Scheel-etal:2000}

2139: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~E.} \bibnamefont{Kidder}},

2140:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~A.} \bibnamefont{Scheel}},

2141:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~A.} \bibnamefont{Teukolsky}},

2142:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~D.} \bibnamefont{Carlson}},

2143:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~B.} \bibnamefont{Cook}},

2144:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}},

2145:   \bibinfo{pages}{084032} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).

2146: 

2147: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Gourgoulhon et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Gourgoulhon,

2148:   Grandcl{\'e}ment, Taniguchi, Marck, and

2149:   Bonazzola}}]{Gourgoulhon-Grandclement-etal:2001}

2150: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Gourgoulhon}},

2151:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Grandcl{\'e}ment}},

2152:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Taniguchi}},

2153:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.-A.} \bibnamefont{Marck}}, \bibnamefont{and}

2154:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Bonazzola}},

2155:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{63}},

2156:   \bibinfo{pages}{064029} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

2157: 

2158: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kidder et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Kidder, Scheel, and

2159:   Teukolsky}}]{Kidder-Scheel-Teukolsky:2001}

2160: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~E.} \bibnamefont{Kidder}},

2161:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~A.} \bibnamefont{Scheel}},

2162:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~A.}

2163:   \bibnamefont{Teukolsky}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D}

2164:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{64}}, \bibinfo{pages}{064017}

2165:   (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

2166: 

2167: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ansorg et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Ansorg,

2168:   Kleinw{\"a}chter, and Meinel}}]{Ansorg-Kleinwaechter-Meinel:2002}

2169: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Ansorg}},

2170:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Kleinw{\"a}chter}},

2171:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Meinel}},

2172:   \bibinfo{journal}{Astron. \& Astrophys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{381}},

2173:   \bibinfo{pages}{L49} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

2174: 

2175: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Pfeiffer et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Pfeiffer, Kidder,

2176:   Scheel, and Teukolsky}}]{Pfeiffer-Kidder-etal:2002}

2177: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~P.} \bibnamefont{Pfeiffer}},

2178:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~E.} \bibnamefont{Kidder}},

2179:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~A.} \bibnamefont{Scheel}},

2180:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~A.}

2181:   \bibnamefont{Teukolsky}} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}),

2182:   \bibinfo{note}{gr-qc/0202096}.

2183: 

2184: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Cook}(2000)}]{Cook:2000}

2185: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~B.} \bibnamefont{Cook}},

2186:   \bibinfo{journal}{Living Rev. Relativity} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{3}}

2187:   (\bibinfo{year}{2000}), \bibinfo{note}{[Online Article]: cited on Aug 11,

2188:   2001},

2189:   \urlprefix\url{http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume3/2000-5cook/}.

2190: 

2191: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Misner}(1963)}]{Misner:1963}

2192: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~W.} \bibnamefont{Misner}},

2193:   \bibinfo{journal}{Annals of Physics} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{24}},

2194:   \bibinfo{pages}{102} (\bibinfo{year}{1963}).

2195: 

2196: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Cook}(1991)}]{Cook:1991}

2197: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~B.} \bibnamefont{Cook}},

2198:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{44}},

2199:   \bibinfo{pages}{2983} (\bibinfo{year}{1991}).

2200: 

2201: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{York{,}~Jr.}(2002)}]{York:2002}

2202: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~W.} \bibnamefont{York{,}~Jr.}}

2203:   (\bibinfo{year}{2002}), \bibinfo{note}{in preparation}.

2204: 

2205: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Baumgarte et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{Baumgarte, Cook,

2206:   Scheel, Shapiro, and Teukolsky}}]{Baumgarte-Cook-etal:1996}

2207: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~W.} \bibnamefont{Baumgarte}},

2208:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~B.} \bibnamefont{Cook}},

2209:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~A.} \bibnamefont{Scheel}},

2210:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~L.} \bibnamefont{Shapiro}},

2211:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~A.}

2212:   \bibnamefont{Teukolsky}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D}

2213:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{54}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4849} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).

2214: 

2215: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Cook}(1994)}]{Cook:1994}

2216: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~B.} \bibnamefont{Cook}},

2217:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{50}},

2218:   \bibinfo{pages}{5025} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}).

2219: 

2220: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Brandt et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Brandt, Corell,

2221:   G\'{o}mez, Huq, Laguna, Lehner, Marronetti, Matzner, Neilsen, Pullin

2222:   et~al.}}]{Brandt-Corell-etal:2000}

2223: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Brandt}},

2224:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Corell}},

2225:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{G\'{o}mez}},

2226:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Huq}},

2227:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Laguna}},

2228:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Lehner}},

2229:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Marronetti}},

2230:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~A.} \bibnamefont{Matzner}},

2231:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Neilsen}},

2232:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Pullin}},

2233:   \bibnamefont{et~al.}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

2234:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{85}}, \bibinfo{pages}{5496} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).

2235: 

2236: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Damour et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Damour, Gourgoulhon,

2237:   and Grandcl{\'e}ment}}]{Damour-Gourgoulhon-Grandclement:grqc0204011}

2238: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Damour}},

2239:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Gourgoulhon}},

2240:   \bibnamefont{and}

2241:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Grandcl{\'e}ment}},

2242:   \bibinfo{journal}{gr-qc/0204011}  (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

2243: 

2244: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Cook}(2002)}]{Cook:2001}

2245: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~B.} \bibnamefont{Cook}},

2246:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}},

2247:   \bibinfo{pages}{084003} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

2248: 

2249: \end{thebibliography}

2250: 

2251: 

2252: \end{document}

2253: