1: 

2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3: %

4: %    $Id: id.tex,v 1.70 2003/05/19 14:55:17 bbh Exp $

5: %

6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

7: 

8: %\documentclass[prd, twocolumn, aps, showpacs]{revtex4}

9: \documentclass[prd, preprint, aps, showpacs]{revtex4}

10: 

11: \usepackage{graphicx}

12: \usepackage{color}

13: 

14: \def\Lie{\hbox{\it\char'44}}

15: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

16: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

17: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}

18: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}

19: \def\beq{\begin{eqnarray}}

20: \def\eeq{\end{eqnarray}  }

21: 

22: \def\eref#1{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}

23: \def\Eref#1{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}

24: \def\fref#1{Fig.~\ref{#1}}

25: \def\Fref#1{Fig.~\ref{#1}}

26: \def\sref#1{Section~\ref{#1}}

27: \def\Sref#1{Section~\ref{#1}}

28: \def\tref#1{Table~\ref{#1}}

29: \def\Tref#1{Table~\ref{#1}}

30: 

31: \def\Comment#1{{\textcolor{red}{\bf #1}}}

32: \def\BlueComment#1{{\textcolor{blue}{\bf #1}}}

33: 

34: \def\rmd{{\rm d}}

35: \def\rmO{{\rm O}}

36: \def\ADM{{\rm ADM}}

37: \def\HOR{{\rm H}}

38: \def\ISCO{{\rm ISCO}}

39: \def\BE{{E_b}}

40: \def\lp{\left(}

41: \def\rp{\right)}

42: \def\lb{\left[}

43: \def\rb{\right]}

44: \def\etal{{et al.}}

45: 

46: 

47: 

48: \begin{document}

49: \title{Physics and Initial Data for Multiple Black Hole Spacetimes}

50: 

51: \author{Erin Bonning}

52: \author{Pedro Marronetti}

53: \altaffiliation{Department of Physics, University of Illinois at

54: Urbana-Champaign}

55: \author{David Neilsen}

56: \altaffiliation{Department of Physics \& Astronomy, Louisiana State University,

57: Baton Rouge LA 70803}

58: \author{Richard Matzner}

59: \affiliation{Center for Relativity, University of Texas at Austin,

60: Austin, TX 78712-1081, USA}

61: 

62: 

63: 

64: \begin{abstract} An orbiting black hole binary will generate

65: strong gravitational radiation signatures, making these binaries important

66: candidates for detection in gravitational wave observatories.

67: The gravitational radiation is characterized by the orbital

68: parameters, including the frequency and separation at the inner-most

69: stable circular orbit (ISCO). One

70: approach to estimating these parameters relies on a sequence of initial

71: data slices that attempt to capture the physics of the inspiral.  Using

72: calculations of the binding energy, several authors have estimated the

73: ISCO parameters using initial data constructed with various

74: algorithms.  In this paper we examine this problem using conformally

75: Kerr-Schild initial data. We present convergence results for our

76: initial data solutions, and give data from numerical solutions of the

77: constraint equations representing a range of physical configurations.

78: In a first attempt to understand the physical content of the initial

79: data, we find that the Newtonian binding energy is contained in the

80: superposed Kerr-Schild background before the constraints are solved.

81: We examine some deficiencies with the initial data approach to orbiting

82: binaries, especially touching on the effects of prior motion and

83: spin-orbital coupling of the angular momenta.  Making rough

84: estimates of these effects, we find that they are not insignificant

85: compared to the binding energy, leaving some doubt of the utility of

86: using initial data to predict ISCO parameters. In computations of

87: specific initial-data configurations we find spin-specific effects

88: that are consistent with analytical estimates.

89: 

90: 

91: \end{abstract}

92: 

93: \pacs{ 02.30.Jr 02.40.Ky 02.60.Lj 02.70.Bf 04.20.Ex 04.25.Dm 95.30.Sf

94: 95.85.Sz}

95: 

96: \maketitle

97: 

98: 

99: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

100: %

101: %

102: %

103: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

104: \section{Introduction}

105: \label{sec:intro}

106: 

107: 

108: The computation of gravitational wave production from the interaction

109: and merger of compact astrophysical objects is a 

110: challenge which, when solved, will provide a predictive and analytical

111: resource for the upcoming gravitational wave detectors. A binary black

112: hole system is expected to be the strongest possible astrophysical

113: gravitational wave source. In particular, one expects a binary black

114: hole system to progress through a series of quasi-equilibrium states of

115: narrowing circular orbits as it emits gravitational radiation.  In the

116: final moments of stellar mass black hole inspiral, the

117: radiation will be detectable in the current (LIGO-class) detectors. If

118: the total binary mass is of the order of $10M_{\odot}$, the moment of

119: final plunge to coalescence will emit a signal detectable by the

120: current generation of detectors from very distant (Gpc) sources.

121: 

122: Detecting gravitational radiation is also a significant technical

123: challenge.  Gravitational waves couple very weakly to matter, and the

124: expected signals are much smaller in amplitude than ambient environmental

125: and thermal noise.  The successful detection of these waves, therefore,

126: requires some knowledge of what to look for.  

127: In this regard, an orbiting binary black hole system is an ideal candidate

128: for detection since the orbital motion produces regular gravitational 

129: radiation patterns. In such an inspiraling

130: black hole system, the strongest waves are emitted during the last

131: several orbits, as the holes reach the innermost quasi-stable orbit

132: (here abbreviated ISCO), and as they continue through the final

133: plunge.  The dynamics of the holes during these final orbits, especially

134: the orbital angular velocity, $\omega_\ISCO$, and separation, $\ell_\ISCO$,

135: determine the dominant characteristics of the detectable waves.

136: Any knowledge of these parameters is advantageous for detecting

137: radiation from these binary systems.  

138: 

139: The proper way to predict gravitational waveforms for orbiting black

140: holes is to set initial data for two widely separated holes, and then

141: solve the evolution equations to follow the inspiral through merger and

142: beyond.  This problem is well beyond the capabilities of current

143: evolution codes.  Therefore, to obtain some information about orbiting black

144: holes we, and 

145: others~\cite{Cook,Pfeiffer,Baumgarte,GGB1,GGB2,GGB3,Cook2,Pfeiffer2}, 

146: turn to the initial value 

147: problem.  For an introduction to the literature, see the review by

148: Cook~\cite{CookReview}.

149: Given a collection of initial data for black holes in circular

150: orbits with decreasing radius, one tries to identify a sequence of initial

151: data that corresponds to instantaneous images of a time-dependent

152: evolution. Circular orbits are chosen because orbits in the early

153: stages of an inspiral are predicted to become circularized

154: because of the stronger gravitational radiation near periapse~\cite{Peters}. 

155: When a suitable sequence of initial data slices has been obtained, they can

156: then be used to determine various orbital parameters.  For example, the

157: change in binding energy with respect to the orbital radius allows one

158: to identify $\ell_\ISCO$, and a similar analysis of the angular

159: momentum gives $\omega_{\rm ISCO}$.  The difficulty in this approach

160: comes in ensuring that the initial data at one radius

161: correspond to the same physical system as the data for another

162: radius.  This can be done for some systems by using 

163: conserved quantities. For example, in the case of neutron stars, constant 

164: baryon number is 

165: an unambiguous indicator of the sameness of the stars. However, in black hole 

166: physics it is not available; it is unclear how to determine that two black

167: hole initial data sets do, in fact, represent the same physical system.

168: 

169: The initial data approach to studying binary black holes is thus not

170: without problems. These difficulties fall in two broad areas.  First,

171: there is no unambiguous way to set initial data in general relativity.

172: The current algorithms all require some arbitrary

173: mathematical choices to find a solution. For instance, the approach we

174: take requires the definition of the topology of a background space and

175: of its metric and the momentum of the metric, followed by solution of four

176: coupled elliptic differential equations for variables that adjust the 

177: background fields. But the choice of the background quantities is 

178: arbitrary to a

179: large extent.  The physical meaning of these mathematical choices is

180: not completely clear, but the effect is unmistakable.  Data constructed

181: with various algorithms can differ substantially, even when attempting

182: to describe the same physical system~\cite{Pfeiffer2}.  The data sets can be

183: demonstrated in many circumstances to contain the expected Newtonian

184: binding energy, as we show below (i.e., the binding energy of order

185: $\rmO(m^2/\ell)$ agrees with the Newtonian result at this order).

186: However, the data can differ significantly at $\rmO(m (m/\ell)^2)$.

187: These differences are attributed to differences in wave content of the

188: data which may reflect possible prior motion or may simply be

189: spurious.  At present it is neither possible to build prior motion into

190: the initial data, nor to specify how radiation is added to the the

191: solution, nor to know how much there is.  It is known that the

192: circular orbits and the ISCO so determined are in fact

193: method-dependent. Furthermore, the methods need not even agree that a

194: specific dataset represents a circular orbit; their subsequent

195: evolutions may not agree~\cite{Will}.

196: 

197: A second problem---and the principal physical difficulty with the initial 

198: data method for studying black

199: hole binaries---is the lack of unambiguous conserved quantities.

200: The best candidate for an invariant quantity is the event horizon area, 

201: $A_{\rm H}$.

202: This area is unchanging for isentropic processes due to the proportionality

203: of $A_{\rm H}$ with the black hole entropy. 

204: One can argue that since the quasi-circular orbit is quasi-adiabatic,

205: $A_{\rm H}$  is nearly invariant over some phase of the inspiral.  

206: But the inspiral cannot be completely adiabatic because it cannot

207: be made arbitrarily slow; the black holes will absorb an 

208: unknown amount of gravitational radiation while in orbit and will thereby 

209: increase in size.

210: Moreover, the event horizon is a global construct of the spacetime,

211: and cannot be determined from a single slice of initial data.  

212: Therefore, one must use the apparent horizon area, $A_{\rm AH}$,

213: as an {\it ersatz} invariant for initial data 

214: studies~\cite{Shoemaker,Huq}.

215: When the hole is approximately stationary,

216: these horizon areas may be nearly equal~\cite{Dreyer}.

217: In dynamic configurations---as should be appropriate for orbiting 

218: holes---these horizon areas may differ 

219: substantially~\cite{Caveny,Caveny1}.

220: 

221: 

222: We will investigate physical content of initial data,

223: focusing on Kerr-Schild spacetimes.  We examine binding energy to leading 

224: order, and find that in our method of constructing 

225: the superposed Kerr-Schild data, the background fields contain the

226: Newtonian binding energy: the subsequent solution of the elliptic equations

227: yields a only small correction.  Using numerical solutions we present

228: orbital configurations with solved initial data. We give a qualitative

229: discussion of physical effects that may confound any attempt to study

230: inspiral via a sequence of initial data, and which may affect the

231: determination of the location of the ISCO. We give some computational

232: examples consistent with these qualitative predictions.

233: 

234: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

235: %

236: %

237: %

238: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

239: \section{Review of initial data construction in general relativity}

240: 

241: In the computational approach we take a Cauchy formulation

242: (3+1) of the ADM type, after Arnowitt, Deser, and

243: Misner~\cite{ADM}. In such a method the 3-metric $g_{ij}$ is the fundamental

244: variable. The 3-metric and its momentum are specified at one initial time on

245: a spacelike hypersurface.  The ADM metric is  

246: \be

247: \rmd s^2 = -(\alpha^2 - \beta_i \beta^i)\,\rmd t^2 + 2\beta_i \, \rmd t \,\rmd x^i

248:      + g_{ij}\, \rmd x^i\, \rmd x^j

249: \label{eq:admMetric}

250: \ee

251: where $\alpha$ is the lapse function and $\beta^i$ is the shift 3-vector.

252: Latin indices run $1,2,3$ and are lowered and raised by $ g_{ij}$

253: and its 3-dimensional inverse $ g^{ij}$. $\alpha$ and $\beta^i$ are gauge

254: functions that relate the coordinates on each hypersurface to each other.

255: The extrinsic curvature, $K_{ij}$, plays the role of momentum conjugate

256: to the metric, and describes the embedding of a $t=\hbox{\rm constant}$

257: hypersurface into the 4-geometry.

258: 

259: The Einstein field equations contain both hyperbolic evolution equations,

260: and elliptic constraint equations.  

261: The constraint equations for vacuum in the ADM decomposition are:

262: \beq

263: R - K_{ij}K^{ij} + K^2 &=& 0,

264: \label{eq:constraintH}

265: \eeq

266: \beq

267: \nabla_j \lp K^{ij} - g^{ij}K\rp  &=& 0.

268: \label{eq:constraintK}

269: \eeq

270: 

271: Here $R$ is the 3-dimensional Ricci scalar, and $\nabla_j$ is the

272: 3-dimensional covariant derivative compatible with $ g_{ij}$.  These

273: constraint equations guarantee a kind of transversality of the

274: momentum (\eref{eq:constraintK}). Initial data must satisfy these constraint

275: equations; one may not freely specify all components of $g_{ij}$ and

276: $K_{ij}$.  The initial value problem in general relativity thus

277: requires one to consistently identify and separate constrained and

278: freely-specifiable parts of the initial data.  Methods for making

279: this separation, and solving the constraints as an elliptic system,

280: include:  the {\it conformal transverse-traceless

281: decomposition}~\cite{YP}; the {\it physical transverse-traceless

282: decomposition}~\cite{MY}:  and the {\it conformal thin sandwich

283: decomposition} which assumes a helical killing 

284: vector~\cite{Mathews, York,GGB1}. 

285: These methods all involve

286: arbitrary choices and do not produce equivalent data. Our solution

287: method uses the conformal transverse-traceless decomposition~\cite{YP}. 

288: 

289: Solutions of the initial value problem have been addressed in

290: the past by several groups~\cite{Cook,YP,Baumgarte,Pfeiffer,GGB1}. It is the

291: case that until recently, most data have been constructed assuming that

292: the initial 3-space is conformally flat. The method most commonly used

293: is the approach of Bowen and York~\cite{Bowen+York}, which chooses

294: maximal spatial hypersurfaces and takes the spatial 3-metric to be

295: conformally flat. This method has been used to find candidate

296: quasi-circular orbits by Cook~\cite{Cook}, Baumgarte~\cite{Baumgarte}, and

297: most recently, Pfeiffer {\it et al.}~\cite{Pfeiffer}. 

298: 

299: The chief advantage of the maximal spatial hypersurface approach is

300: numerical simplicity, as the choice $K = 0$ decouples the Hamiltonian

301: constraint from the momentum constraint equations.  If, besides  $K =

302: 0$, the conformal background is flat Euclidean 3-space, there are known

303: $K_{ij}$ that analytically solve the momentum

304: constraint~\cite{Bowen+York}. The constraints then reduce to one

305: elliptic equation for the conformal factor $\phi$.  However, it has

306: been pointed out by Garat and Price~\cite{Garat} that there are no

307: conformally flat $K=0$ slices of the Kerr spacetime. Since we expect

308: astrophysical sources to be rotating, the choice of a conformally flat

309: $K=0$ background will yield data that necessarily contains some

310: quantity of ``junk"  gravitational radiation. Jansen {\it et al.}~\cite{Jansen}

311:  have recently shown by comparison with known solutions that conformally flat

312: data do indeed contain a significant amount of unphysical gravitational

313: field.  Another conformally flat $K=0$ method recently 

314: used by Gourgoulhon, Grandclement, and

315: Bonazzola~\cite{GGB1,GGB2} is a  thin sandwich approximation based on the

316: approach of Wilson and Mathews~\cite{Mathews} which assumes the presence of an

317: instantaneous rotation Killing vector to define the initial extrinsic

318: curvature. They impose a specific gauge defined by demanding that $K$ and the 

319: conformal factor remain constant in the rotating frame.

320:   Since $\phi$ and $K$ are a conjugate pair 

321: in the ADM approach, this method solves the four initial value equations and 

322: one second-order evolution equation. The assumption of a Killing

323: vector suppresses radiation or, perhaps more accurately, imposes a

324: condition of equal ingoing and outgoing radiation.

325: 

326: In this paper we use Kerr-Schild data~\cite{Matzner:1999pt} to outline some 

327: of the difficulties in

328: finding the ISCO using the initial data technique. We discuss the extent

329: to which initial data set by means of superposed Kerr-Schild black holes limits

330: the extraneous radiation in the data sets, and we estimate the accuracy

331: of the extant published ISCO determinations.

332: Recent works by Pfeiffer, Cook, and Teukolsky also investigate binary black

333: hole systems using Kerr-Schild initial data~\cite{Pfeiffer2}.

334: 

335: 

336: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

337: %

338: %

339: %

340: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

341: \section{Initial Data \lowercase{via} Superposed Kerr-Schild Black Holes}

342: \label{sec:ks_id}

343: 

344: 

345: The superposed Kerr-Schild method for setting black hole initial data,

346: developed by Matzner, Huq, and Shoemaker~\cite{Matzner:1999pt},

347: produces data for black holes of arbitrary masses, boosts, and spins

348: without relying on any underlying symmetries of any particular

349: configuration.  The method proceeds in two parts.  First, a background

350: metric and background extrinsic curvature are constructed by

351: superposing individual Kerr-Schild black hole solutions.  Then the

352: physical data are generated by solving the four coupled constraint

353: equations for corrections to the background.  Intuitively, the

354: background solution should be very close to the genuine solution when

355: the black holes are widely separated, and only small adjustments to the

356: gravitational fields are required to solve the constraints. We show

357: that this is true for large and also for small separations. This

358: section briefly reviews the superposed Kerr-Schild method for initial

359: data, then gives some analytic results to justify this contention.

360: 

361: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

362: %

363: %

364: %

365: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

366: \subsection{Kerr-Schild data for isolated black holes} 

367: \label{sec:ks}

368: 

369: The Kerr-Schild~\cite{KerrSchild} form of a black hole solution describes the 

370: spacetime of a single black hole

371: with mass, $m$, and specific angular momentum, $a = j/m$, in a coordinate

372: system that is well behaved at the horizon.

373: (We use uppercase $M$ for calculated masses, e.g., the ADM mass,

374: and lowercase $m$ for mass parameters, or when the distinction 

375: is not important.)

376: The Kerr-Schild metric is

377: \be

378:         \rmd s^{2} = \eta_{\mu \nu}\,\rmd x^{\mu}\, \rmd x^{\nu} 

379:                  + 2H(x^{\alpha}) l_{\mu} l_{\nu}\,\rmd x^{\mu}\,\rmd x^{\nu},

380:         \label{eq:1}

381: \ee

382: where $\eta_{\mu \nu}$ is the metric of flat space, $H$ is a scalar 

383: function of $x^\mu$, and $l_{\mu}$ is an (ingoing) null vector, null 

384: with respect to both the background and the full metric,

385: \be

386: \eta^{\mu \nu} l_{\mu} l_{\nu} = g^{\mu \nu} l_{\mu} l_{\nu} = 0.

387: \label{eq:2}

388: \ee

389: This last condition gives $l^0 l_0 = - l^i l_i$.

390: 

391: The general non-moving 

392: black hole metric in Kerr-Schild form (written in Kerr's original 

393: rectangular coordinates) has 

394: \begin{equation}

395:         H = \frac{mr}{r^{2} + a^{2}\cos^{2} \theta},

396:         \label{eq:ks_h}

397: \end{equation}

398: and

399: \begin{equation}

400:         l_{\mu} = \left(1, \frac{rx + ay}{r^{2} + a^{2}}, \frac{ry - 

401:         ax}{r^{2} + a^{2}}, \frac{z}{r}\right),

402:         \label{eq:4}

403: \end{equation}

404: where $r,~ \theta$ (and $\phi$) 

405: are auxiliary spheroidal coordinates,  $z = r(x,y,z) \cos \theta$, 

406: and $\phi$ is 

407: the axial angle.  $r(x, y, z)$ is obtained from the relation,

408: \begin{equation}

409:         \frac{x^{2} + y^{2}}{r^{2} + a^{2}} + \frac{z^{2}}{r^{2}} = 1,

410:         \label{eq:5}

411: \end{equation}

412: giving

413: \begin{equation}

414:         r^{2} = \frac{1}{2}(\rho^{2} - a^{2}) +

415:         \sqrt{\frac{1}{4}(\rho^{2} - a^{2})^{2} + a^{2}z^{2}}, 

416:         \label{eq:6}

417: \end{equation}

418: with

419: \begin{equation}

420: \rho = \sqrt{x^{2} + y^{2} + z^{2}}.

421:         \label{eq:rho_def}

422: \end{equation}

423: 

424: Comparing the Kerr-Schild metric with the ADM 

425: decomposition~\eref{eq:admMetric}, we find that the $t=\hbox{\rm constant}$ 

426: 3-space metric is: 

427: 

428: \be

429: g_{ij} = \delta_{ij} + 2 H l_i l_j,

430: \label{eq:3metric_ks}

431: \ee

432: 

433: Further, the ADM gauge variables  are

434: \be

435: \beta_i = 2 H l_0 l_i,

436: \label{eq:beta_ks}

437: \ee

438: and

439: \be

440: \alpha = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + 2 H l_0^2}}.

441: \ee

442: 

443: The extrinsic curvature can be computed from the metric using the ADM 

444: evolution equation~\cite{MTW}

445: \be

446:         K_{ij} = \frac{1}{2\alpha}[\nabla_j\beta_{i} + \nabla_i\beta_{j} 

447:                      - \dot g_{ij}],

448: \label{eq:k_ks}

449: \ee

450: where a dot ( $\dot{}$ ) denotes a the partial derivative with respect

451: to time.

452: Each term on the right hand side of this equation is known analytically.

453: 

454: 

455: 

456: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

457: %

458: %

459: %

460: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

461: \subsection{Boosted Kerr-Schild black holes} 

462: 

463: The Kerr-Schild metric is form-invariant under a 

464: boost, making it an ideal metric to describe moving

465: black holes.  A constant Lorentz transformation 

466: (the boost velocity, ${\bf v}$, is specified with respect to the background

467: Minkowski spacetime) $\Lambda^{\alpha}{}_{\beta}$ leaves the

468: 4-metric in Kerr-Schild form, with $H$ and $l_{\mu}$

469: transformed in the usual manner:\\

470: \ba

471:   x'^{\beta} &=& \Lambda^\beta{}_\alpha x^{\alpha},\\ 

472:   H'(x'^{\alpha})  &=&  H\lp (\Lambda^{-1})^\alpha{}_\beta  

473:                           \,\,x'^{\beta}\rp,\\ 

474:   l'_{\delta}(x'^{\alpha}) &=& \Lambda^{\gamma}{}_{\delta}\,\, 

475:             l_{\gamma}\lp(\Lambda^{-1})^\alpha{}_\beta\,\, x'^{\beta}\rp .

476: \label{eq:ks_boost}

477: \ea

478: Note that $l'_{0}$ is no longer unity. As the initial solution

479: is stationary, the only time dependence comes in the

480: motion of the center, and the full metric is stationary with a Killing

481: vector reflecting the boost velocity.

482: The solution, therefore, contains no junk radiation, as no radiation 

483: escapes to infinity during a subsequent evolution.

484: Thus, Kerr-Schild data exactly represent a spinning and/or moving single

485: black hole. This is not possible in some other approaches, e.g.,

486: the conformally flat approach~\cite{Jansen}.

487: 

488: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

489: %

490: %

491: %

492: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

493: \subsection{Background data for multiple black holes}

494: 

495: The structure of the Kerr-Schild metric suggests a natural extension

496: for multiple black hole spacetimes using the straightforward superposition

497: of flat space and black hole functions

498: \be

499: {g}_{ij} \approx \eta_{ij}

500:             + 2~{}_1H_{~1}l_{i~1}l_{j}

501:             + 2~{}_2H_{~2}l_{i~2}l_{j}

502:             + \cdots\, ,

503: \label{eq:metric_super_simple}

504: \ee

505: where the preceding subscript numbers the black holes.  Note that a

506: simple superposition is typically {\em not} a genuine solution of the Einstein

507: equations, as it does not

508: satisfy the constraints, but it should be ``close'' to the real solution

509: when the holes are widely separated.  

510: 

511: To generate the background data,

512: we first choose mass and angular momentum parameters for each hole,

513: and compute the respective $H$ and $l^\alpha$ in the appropriate 

514: rest frame.  These quantities are then boosted in the desired direction 

515: and offset to the chosen position in the computational frame.  

516: The computational grid is the center of momentum frame for the two holes, 

517: making the velocity of the second hole a function of the two

518: masses and the velocity of the first hole.

519: Finally, we compute the 

520: individual metrics and extrinsic curvatures in the coordinate system 

521: of the computational domain: 

522: \beq

523:    {}_A g_{ij} &=&  \eta_{ij} 

524:                      + 2~{}_A H ~{}_A l_{i} ~{}_A l_{j},\\

525:    {}_A K_i{}^m &=& \frac{1}{2\alpha} ~{}_A g^{mj}

526:                \lp \nabla_j ~{}_A\beta_{i} + \nabla_i~{}_A \beta_{j} 

527:                     - ~{}_A \dot g_{ij}\rp.

528: \eeq

529: %

530: Again, the index $A$ labels the black holes.

531: Data for $N$ holes are then constructed in superposition

532: %\beq

533: %\tilde{g}_{ij} &=& \eta_{ij} + 2~{}_{1}B{}_{~1}H_{~1}l_{i~1}l_{j}

534: %            + 2~{}_{2}B{}_{~2}H_{~2}l_{i~2}l_{j}\,,\nonumber\\

535: %\tilde{K} &=& {}_{1}B{}_{~1}K_i^{~i}+{}_{2}B{}_{~2}K_i^{~i}\,,\\

536: %\tilde{A}_{ij} &=& \tilde{g}_{n(i}~~({}_{1}B{}_{~1}K_{j)}^{~n}

537: %        +{}_{2}B{}_{~2}K_{j)}^{~n}

538: %        - \frac{1}{3} \delta_{j)}^{~n} \tilde{K})\, .\nonumber

539: %\label{eq:ks_super}

540: %\eeq

541: %

542: 

543: \beq

544: \tilde{g}_{ij} &=& \eta_{ij} + \sum_A^N 2~{}_AB~{}_A H {}_A l_i ~{}_A l_j ,\\

545: \tilde{K} &=& \sum_A^N {}_AB~{}_AK_i{}^i ,\\

546: %\tilde{A}_{ij} &=& \tilde{g}_{n(i}~~\sum_A^N \lp {}_AB~{}_AK_{j)}{}^n

547: %                  -\frac{1}{3} \delta_{j)}{}^n {}_AB~{}_AK_i{}^i\rp .

548: \tilde{A}_{ij} &=& \tilde{g}_{n(i}~~\sum_A^N {}_AB~\lp {}_AK_{j)}{}^n

549:                   -\frac{1}{3} \delta_{j)}{}^n ~{}_AK_i{}^i\rp .

550: \label{eq:ks_super}

551: \eeq

552: %

553: A tilde ( $\tilde{}$ ) indicates a background field tensor.

554: The simple superposition of the metric from~\eref{eq:metric_super_simple} 

555: (part of the original specification~\cite{Matzner:1999pt}) has been modified

556: here with the introduction of 

557: {\it attenuation functions}, ${}_A B$~\cite{Marronetti,Marronetti:2000rw}. 

558: The extrinsic curvature is separated into its trace, $K$, and trace-free

559: parts, $A_{ij}$, and the indices of $\tilde{A}_{ij}$ are 

560: explicitly symmeterized.  

561: 

562: The attenuation functions represent the physical idea that in the immediate

563: vicinity of one hole, the effect of a second hole becomes negligible.

564: Near a black hole the conformal background

565: superposition ( $ \tilde{} $ ) metrics approach the analytic values for

566: the single black hole.

567: The attenuation

568: function ${}_{2}B$ (${}_1B$) eliminates the

569: influence of the second (first) black hole in the vicinity of the first

570: (second).  

571: ${}_{1}B$ equals unity everywhere except in the vicinity of the second

572: black hole, and its first and second derivatives are zero at the

573: singularity of the second hole. 

574: 

575: The attenuation function used is

576: 

577: \be

578: {}_{1}B =1-\exp(-\ell_{1}^{4}/2\sigma^2),

579: \ee

580: where $\ell_1$ is the

581: coordinate distance from the center of hole $2$, 

582: 

583: \ba

584: \ell_1^{2} &=& \frac{1}{2}(\rho^{2} - a^{2}) +

585: \sqrt{\frac{1}{4}(\rho^{2} - a^{2})^2 + a^{2}z^{2}}~~,\\

586: \rho &=& \sqrt{{}_{2}\gamma^2(x-{}_{2}x)^{2} + (y-{}_{2}y)^{2}

587: + (z-{}_{2}z)^{2}}~.

588: \ea

589: 

590: %

591: \noindent and $\sigma$ is a parameter.  In all examples given in this paper, 

592: the masses are equal and $\sigma = m^2$.

593: \Fref{fig:attenuation} shows a typical attenuation function used in 

594: calculating our initial data sets. 

595: 

596: \begin{figure}

597: \begin{center}

598: \includegraphics[width=5.in]{fig1.ps}

599: \end{center}

600: \caption{

601: The attenuation function,

602: ${}_1 B =1-\exp(-\ell_{1}^{4}/2\sigma^2)$, used to calculate our initial

603: data solutions.  

604: To indicate the effect of the attenuation function in a binary black 

605: hole system, we also plot the 

606: the background metric function $\tilde g_{yy}$

607: in the vicinity of one hole with and without attenuation.  

608: The Schwarzschild black holes are placed along the $y$-axis at $\pm 4 m$.

609: Here  $\ell_1$ is the coordinate distance from the center 

610: of the second black hole, and the attenuation function width is  

611: $\sigma = m^2$.

612: } 

613: \label{fig:attenuation}

614: \end{figure}

615: 

616: A small volume containing the singularity

617: is masked from the computational domain.

618: This volume is

619: specified by choosing a threshold value for the Ricci scalar, typically 

620: for $|R| \geq 2/m^2$. For a single Schwarzschild black hole, this gives a

621: spherical mask with a radius $r \simeq 0.73~m$. In all cases the masked

622: region lies well within apparent horizons in the solved data.  In

623: practice we find that a small attenuation region (also inside the

624: apparent horizon) is necessary to achieve a smooth solution of the

625: elliptic initial data equations near the mask; see Section {\bf II.D} below.  

626: Figures \ref{fig:hc_with_att} and

627: \ref{fig:mc_with_att} show the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints for

628: the background space with and without attenuation. We have not varied

629: the masking condition to determine what effect the size of the mask has

630: on the global solution.  As mentioned below, Pfeiffer {\it et al.}

631: have investigated this point~\cite{Pfeiffer2}.

632: 

633: \begin{figure}

634: \begin{center}

635: \includegraphics[width=3.5in,angle=270]{fig2.ps}

636: \end{center}

637: \caption{The Hamiltonian constraint (units $m^{-2}$) calculated for the

638: background space for two identical Schwarzschild black holes.  

639: The black holes are located on the $y$-axis at $y = \pm 4$~m, 

640: and have zero initial velocity.

641: The solid curve is the background behavior of the constraint

642: without using attenuation functions, and the dashed curve is the

643: constraint

644: with attenuation and $\sigma = m^2$. The masked region is within the

645: radius $r ~~\widetilde{<}~~0.73 m$. It can be seen that attenuation 

646: does not necessarily reduce the constraint, but does smooth it.}

647: \label{fig:hc_with_att}

648: \end{figure}

649: 

650: \begin{figure}

651: \begin{center}

652: \includegraphics[width=3.5in,angle=270]{fig3.ps}

653: \end{center}

654: \caption{The $y$-component of the momentum constraint (units $m^{-2}$)

655: calculated for the background space of two identical Schwarzschild 

656: black holes.  The black holes are located on the $y$-axis at $y = \pm 4~m$,

657: and have zero initial velocity.  The solid curve is the background

658: behavior

659: of the constraint

660: without using attenuation functions, and the dashed curve is the

661: constraint

662: with attenuation and $\sigma = m^2$.

663: }

664: \label{fig:mc_with_att}

665: \end{figure}

666: 

667: 

668: 

669: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

670: %

671: %

672: %

673: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

674: \subsection{Generating the physical spacetime}

675: 

676: The superposition of Kerr-Schild data described in the previous section

677: does not satisfy the constraints,

678: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:constraintH})--(\ref{eq:constraintK}), and hence are not

679: physical. 

680: A physical spacetime can be constructed by modifying the background

681: fields with new functions such that the constraints are satisfied.

682: We adopt the conformal transverse-traceless method

683: of York and collaborators~\cite{YP} which consists of a

684: conformal decomposition 

685: and a vector potential that adjusts the longitudinal components of the 

686: extrinsic curvature.

687: The constraint equations are then solved for these new quantities such that

688: the complete solution fully satisfies the constraints.

689: 

690: The physical metric, $g_{ij}$, and the trace-free part of the extrinsic 

691: curvature, $A_{ij}$, are related to the background fields through a conformal

692: factor

693: \ba

694: g_{ij} &=& \phi^{4} \tilde{g}_{ij}, \label{confg1} \\

695: \label{confg}

696: A^{ij} &=& \phi^{-10} (\tilde{A}^{ij} + \tilde{(lw)}^{ij}),

697: \label{eq:conf_field}

698: \ea

699: where $\phi$ is the conformal factor, and $\tilde{(lw)}^{ij}$

700: will be used to cancel any possible longitudinal contribution to the 

701: superposed background extrinsic curvature. 

702: $w^i$ is a vector potential, and

703: \ba

704: \tilde{(lw)}^{ij} \equiv \tilde{\nabla}^{i} w^{j} + \tilde{\nabla}^{j} w^{i} 

705:         - \frac{2}{3} \tilde{g}^{ij} \tilde{\nabla_{k}} w^{k}.

706: \label{lw}

707: \ea

708: The trace $K$ is taken to be a given function

709: \be

710: K = \tilde K.

711: \label{tk}

712: \ee

713: Writing the Hamiltonian and momentum constraint equations in terms of

714: the quantities in 

715: Eqs.~(\ref{confg1})--(\ref{tk}), we obtain four coupled 

716: elliptic equations for the fields $\phi$ and $w^i$~\cite{YP}:

717: \ba

718: \tilde{\nabla}^2 \phi &=&  (1/8) \big( \tilde{R}\phi 

719:         + \frac{2}{3} \tilde{K}^{2}\phi^{5} -   \nonumber \\

720:         & & \phi^{-7} (\tilde{A}{^{ij}} + (\tilde{lw})^{ij})  

721:             (\tilde{A}_{ij} + (\tilde{lw})_{ij}) \big),   \\ 

722: \tilde{\nabla}_{j}(\tilde{lw})^{ij} &=& \frac{2}{3} \tilde{g}^{ij} \phi^{6} 

723:         \tilde{\nabla}_{j} K - \tilde{\nabla}_{j} \tilde{A}{^{ij}}.

724: \label{ell_eqs}

725: \ea

726: 

727: 

728: \subsection{Boundary Conditions}

729: \label{sec:boundary}

730: 

731: A solution of the elliptic constraint equations requires that boundary

732: data be specified on both the outer boundary {\em and } the surfaces

733: of the masked regions. This contrasts with the hyperbolic evolution 

734: equations for which excision can in principle be carried out without 

735: setting inner boundary data since no information can propagate 

736: out of the holes.  Boundaries in an elliptic system, on the other hand, 

737: have an immediate influence on the entire solution domain.   

738: Using the attenuation functions, we can choose simple 

739: conditions, $\phi = 1$ and $w^{i} = 0$, on the masked regions surrounding

740: the singularities.

741: In practice this inner boundary condition is not completely satisfactory

742: because it generates small discontinuities in the solution at this boundary.

743: These discontinuities are small relative to the scales in the problem,

744: and are contained within the horizon.

745: We have made no attempt to determine their global effect on the solution.

746: Pfeiffer \etal~\cite{Pfeiffer2} report a similar observation,

747: and note that the location of the boundary does affect some 

748: aspects of the solution, though it has little effect on the fractional binding 

749: energy or the location of the ISCO.

750: 

751: The outer boundary conditions are more interesting.  Several physical

752: quantities of interest, e.g., the ADM mass and momenta, 

753: are global properties of the spacetime, and are calculated 

754: on surfaces near the outer boundary of the computational

755: grid.   Hence the outer boundary conditions must be chosen carefully

756: to obtain the proper physics.  

757: We base our outer boundary conditions on an asymptotic expansion of the

758: Kerr-Schild metric, which relies on the ADM

759: mass and momentum formul\ae\ to identify the physically relevant terms

760: at the boundaries.  We first review these expansions and

761: formul\ae.

762: 

763: An asymptotic expansion of the Kerr-Schild metric ($\rho \gg m$)

764: gives

765: \beq

766:  r &=& \rho \left(1 + \rmO (\rho^{-2})\right),\\

767: %

768:  H &=& m/\rho \left( 1 + \rmO (\rho^{-2}) \right),\\

769:    \label{eq:h_inf}

770:  l_{i} &=& n_{i} + \frac{a^{c}\epsilon_{ijc} n^{j}}{\rho} + \rmO (

771:   \rho^{-2} ),

772:    \label{eq:l_inf}

773: \eeq

774: %

775: where 

776: %

777: $n_{i} = n^{i} = x^{i}/\rho$. 

778: (This is the only place where we do {\it not} use the 3-metric to raise 

779: and lower indices, and $n_i n^i = 1$).

780: $a^{c}$ is the Kerr spin parameter with a general direction:

781: $a^{c} = a \hat a^{c}$.

782: %

783: The shift (Eq.~\ref{eq:beta_ks}) is asymptotically

784: \begin{equation}

785:    \beta_{i} = \frac{2m}{\rho} \left( n_{i} + a^{c}

786:    \frac{\epsilon_{ijc}n^{j}}{\rho} \right) + \rmO(\rho^{- 3}).

787:    \label{eq:beta_inf}

788: \end{equation}

789: %

790: The asymptotic expansion of the extrinsic curvature in the stationary

791: Kerr-Schild form (cf.\ \eref{eq:k_ks}) is 

792: %

793: \begin{eqnarray}

794:    \alpha K_{ab} &=& 

795:        \frac{2m}{\rho^{2}} \left( -2n_{a}n_{b} + \delta_{ab}\right) \nonumber\\

796:    & & \hspace{0.1cm} - \frac{3m}{\rho^{3}} a^{c} 

797:                  \left( \epsilon_{ajc}n_{b} + \epsilon_{bjc}n_{a}\right)n_{j}

798:                          \nonumber\\

799:    & & \hspace{0.1cm}  

800:      + \frac{6m^2}{\rho^{3}} \left(n_{a}n_{b} -\frac{2}{3} \delta_{ab}\right) 

801:      + \rmO(\rho^{-4}) .

802:    \label{eq:k_inf}

803: \end{eqnarray}

804: The terms proportional to $a^c/\rho^3$ in this expression arise from the

805: transverse components of $\beta^a$ ($\beta_a n^a = 0$); the terms 

806: of $ \rmO(\rho^{-3})$ independent of 

807: $a^c$ arise from the affine connection. 

808: Note that $\alpha= 1+  \rmO(\rho^{-1})$, and will

809: not affect the ADM estimates below.

810: 

811: 

812: The ADM formul\ae\ are evaluated in an asymptotically flat region 

813: surrounding the system of interest, and in Cartesian coordinates they are

814: \beq

815:   \label{eq:adm_mass}

816: M_{\ADM} &=& \frac{1}{16\pi} \oint \left( \frac{\partial g_{ji}}{\partial

817:   x^{j}} - \frac{\partial g_{jj}}{\partial x^{i}} \right) 

818:   \rmd S^i,\\

819:    \label{eq:adm_mom}

820: P^{\ADM}_{k} &=& \frac{1}{8\pi} \oint \left( K_{ki} - K^{b}{}_{b} \delta_{ki}

821:    \right)\rmd S^i,\\

822:    \label{eq:adm_ang_mom}

823: J^{\ADM}_{ab} &=& \frac{1}{8\pi} \oint \left( x_{a}K_{bi} - x_{b}K_{ai}

824:    \right) \rmd S^i,

825: \eeq

826: for the mass, linear momentum, and angular momentum of the system

827: respectively~\cite{Wald, note4}.  (All repeated indices are summed.)

828: The mass and linear momentum together constitute a 4-vector under Lorentz

829: transformations in the asymptotic Minkowski space, and

830: the angular momentum depends only on the trace-free 

831: components of the extrinsic curvature.

832: 

833: To compute the ADM mass and moment\ae for a single, stationary Kerr-Schild 

834: black hole, we evaluate the integrals on the surface of a distant sphere.

835: The surface element then becomes

836: $dS^i = n^i \rho^2 \rmd\Omega$, where $n^i$ is the outward normal and

837: $\rmd\Omega$ is the differential solid angle.

838: we need to evaluate the metric only to order $\rmO(\rho^{-1})$;

839: the differentiation in Eq.~(\ref{eq:adm_mass}) guarantees that

840: terms falling off faster than $\rho^{-1}$ do not contribute to the

841: integration.  The integrand is then 

842: %

843: $ \frac{4m}{\rho^{2}} n_{i} \rho^{2}n^i \,\rmd\Omega$ 

844: %

845: and the integration yields the expected ADM mass $M_{ADM}=m$.

846: The ADM linear momentum requires only the leading order of of $K_{ab}$, 

847: $\rmO(\rho^{-2})$;

848: terms falling off faster than this do not contribute.  

849: The integrand of \eref{eq:adm_mom} then becomes

850: %

851: $-\frac{4m}{\rho^{2}} n_{a}n_{b} n^{b} \rho^{2} \,\rmd\Omega,$

852: %

853: yielding zero for the 3-momentum, as expected for a non-moving black

854: hole.

855: 

856: At first blush, the integral for the ADM angular 

857: momentum~\eref{eq:adm_ang_mom} appears

858: warrant some concern:

859: To leading order $K_{ab}$ is $\rmO({\rho^{-2}})$,

860: and the explicit appearance of $x_{a}$ in the integrand suggests that it

861: grows at infinity as $\rmO(\rho)$,

862: leading to a divergent result.

863: %

864: However, inserting the leading order term of $K_{ab}$ for a single, 

865: stationary Kerr-Schild black hole into the integrand of

866: \eref{eq:adm_ang_mom}, we find that the integrand is identically zero.

867: The $\rmO({\rho^{-2}})$ terms of $K_{ab}$ contain the quantities

868: $n_a n_b$ and $\delta_{ab}$, which separately cancel because of the 

869: antisymmetric form of \eref{eq:adm_ang_mom},

870: %

871: %

872: and a divergent angular momentum is avoided.

873: Including the $\rmO(\rho^{-3})$ terms of $K_{ab}$, we find

874: $J^\ADM_{ab} = \epsilon_{abc}a^{c}m$; the symmetry of the other

875: $\rmO(m^2\rho^{-3})$ terms again means they do not contribute.

876: This result for $J^\ADM_{ab}$ thus depends on

877: terms in the integrand proportional to $a$ that arise from corresponding 

878: terms in  $\beta^i$ proportional to $q^i$ where 

879: $q^a$ is a unit vector transverse to the radial direction, $q^a n_a=0$.

880: Only these terms contribute to

881: the angular momentum integral; in particular those terms in $\beta^i$ 

882: proportional to 

883: $n^i/\rho$ do not contribute. 

884: 

885: The ADM mass and momenta are Lorentz invariant. For a single, 

886: boosted black hole, we naturally obtain $M_\ADM = \gamma m$ and

887: $P_\ADM = \gamma m v$.

888: The background spacetime for multiple black holes is constructed 

889: with a superposition principle, and the ADM quantities are linear in 

890: deviations about flat space at infinity.  

891: Thus the ADM formul\ae, evaluated at infinity in the superposition, 

892: {\it do} yield the expected superposition.  For example, given two

893: widely separated

894: black holes boosted in the $x$-$y$ plane with spins aligned along

895: the $z$-axis, we have

896: \beq

897: \tilde M_\ADM &=&{}_1 \gamma {}_1 m + {}_2\gamma {}_2 m,\\

898: \tilde P^\ADM_i &=& 0, \\

899: \tilde J^\ADM_{12} &=& {}_1\gamma \left({}_1m {}_1v {}_1b  

900:                   + {}_1m {}_1a\right) + {}_2\gamma \left({}_2m {}_2v {}_2b  

901:                   + {}_2m {}_2a\right),

902: \label{eq:boosted}

903: \eeq

904: where ${}_1b$ and ${}_2b$ are impact parameters~\cite{note1},

905: and the tilde ( $ \tilde{} $ ) superscript

906: indicates that these quantities are calculated with the background tensors

907: $\tilde g_{ab}$ and $\tilde K_{ab}$.  This superposition principle for

908: the ADM quantities in the background data is one advantage of conformal

909: Kerr-Schild initial data.  (Note, in choosing the center of

910: momentum frame for the computation, $P^{\ADM}_{i} =0$ is a condition for

911: setting the background data.)

912: 

913: Consider now the ADM integrals for the solved data.  The Hamiltonian

914: constraint becomes an equation for the conformal factor, $\phi$.

915: As this equation is a nonlinear generalization of Poisson's equation,

916: asymptotic flatness in the full, solved metric requires that

917: \be

918: \phi \longrightarrow 1 + \frac{C}{2\rho} + \rmO(\rho^{-2}),

919: \ee

920: where $C$ is a (finite) constant.  

921: This leads to our outer boundary condition for $\phi$, namely

922: \begin{equation}

923:  \partial_{\rho} \left( \rho (\phi - 1) \right)|_{\rho \rightarrow

924: \infty} = 0.

925: \label{eq:phi_boundary}

926: \end{equation}

927: Furthermore, the linearity of the ADM mass integral gives

928: \begin{equation}

929: M_\ADM\mbox{(solved)} = {}_1\gamma{}_{1}m +

930: {}_2\gamma {}_{2}m + C.

931: \label{eq:m_adm_solved}

932: \end{equation}

933: (Here the absence of a tilde  ( $ \tilde{} $ )

934: indicates that this mass is calculated

935: using the solved $g_{ab}$.)  At this point we cannot predict even the

936: sign of $C$, though $|C|$ is expected to be small for widely separated

937: holes.  If $|C|\to \infty$, then the boundary condition 

938: \eref{eq:phi_boundary} would fail.  The existence of solutions using

939: this condition, however, provides evidence that this possibility does not 

940: occur.

941: 

942: The boundary condition for $w^{i}$ is more subtle.  {\it A priori}, we

943: expect $w^{i} \rightarrow 0$ at infinity, but a physically

944: correct solution on a finite domain requires that we understand how

945: $w^{i}$ approaches this limit at infinity.  

946: We construct our boundary conditions on $w^k$ by demanding that the 

947: ADM angular momentum of the full (solved) system be only finitely 

948: different from that of the background (superposed) data.

949: That is, given that $\{\tilde g_{ab}, \tilde K_{ab}\}$ and 

950: $\{g_{ab},K_{ab}\}$ have finite differences at infinity, we demand that

951: $J_{ab} -\tilde J_{ab}$ also be finite.

952: Using (\eref{eq:conf_field}) and (\eref{eq:adm_ang_mom}), 

953: we find for the difference in angular momentum

954: \be

955:    J_{ab}- \tilde J_{ab} = \frac{1}{8\pi} \oint\left( x_{a} 

956: \nabla_{(b} w_{i)} - x_{b}

957:    \nabla_{(a} w_{i)} \right)\rmd S^i\,.

958: \label{eq:j_adm_diff}

959: \ee

960: ($\phi\to 1$ at infinity, and there is

961: no difference at this order between conformal and physical versions of 

962: $w^i$ and $g_{ab}$ 

963: at infinity.)

964: 

965: We have already evaluated an integral of this form, in the discussion

966: of the Kerr angular momentum (see \eref{eq:adm_ang_mom} and \eref{eq:k_inf}),

967: where we expressed $K_{ab}$ in terms of the Kerr-Schild shift vector.

968: In that analysis, we noted that falloff of the form

969: \be

970:    w_{i} \longrightarrow \frac{C_1}{\rho}n_{i} + \frac{C_2}{\rho^{2}}

971:    q_{i} + \rmO(\rho^{-3}),

972: \label{24}

973: \ee

974: with $C_1$ and $C_2$ constant, and $q_i n^i = 0$, 

975: will give a finite contribution to the angular momentum.

976: We therefore take as boundary conditions:

977: \begin{eqnarray}

978:    &  & \partial_\rho (\rho w^{i} n_{i}) = 0 \\[.12in]

979: \label{25}

980:    &  & \partial_\rho \left( \rho^{2} w^{i} (\delta_{ij} - n_{i}n_{j})

981:    \right) = 0\,.

982: \label{26}

983: \end{eqnarray}

984: 

985: Figures (\ref{fig:circular_orbit_nospin_1phi})--(\ref{fig:circular_orbit_nospin_1wy})

986: display $\phi$ and $w^i$ for a simple configuration. In this case the

987: elliptic equations were solved on a domain of $\pm 10~m$ along each axis

988: with resolution $\Delta x = m/8$.

989: As can be seen in these figures, the functions  $\phi$ and $w^i$ actually 

990: result in little adjustment to the background configurations. 

991: Also note that the radial component of $w^i$, $w^i n_i$,

992: is the dominant function.  In the graphs plotted here, which give the 

993: functions along the $y$-axis, we find 

994: of $||w^y||_\infty \approx 0.03$, while $||w^x||_\infty \approx 3

995: \times 10^{-3}$, and $||\phi -1||_\infty \approx 0.013$. 

996: Because of the symmetry of

997: the configuration, $||w^z||_\infty$ is much smaller. 

998: Analytically, $w^z = 0$ on the $y$-axis;

999: computationally we find $||w^z||_\infty \approx 5 \times 10^{-7}$. 

1000: In fact we find in

1001: general that the radial component of $w^i$ is the dominant function

1002: in all directions, consistent with our boundary conditions, and  

1003: consistent with the finding that solution of

1004: the constraints has small effect on the computed angular momentum.

1005: Of course the corrections $\phi$ and $w^i$ would be expected

1006: to be larger, for data describing holes closer together. We show below that 

1007: this data setting method leads to generically smaller corrections than

1008: found in other methods, thus allowing closer control of the physical

1009: content of the data.

1010: 

1011: \begin{figure}

1012: \begin{center}

1013: \includegraphics[width=3.0in, angle=270]{fig4.ps}

1014: \end{center}

1015: \caption{$\phi$ along the y-axis connecting two nonspinning holes with 

1016: orbital angular momentum. The holes are boosted in the $\pm$

1017: x direction with $v=0.196$ and are separated by $10$~M. Note that $\phi$

1018: is very close to unity everywhere.

1019: }

1020: \label{fig:circular_orbit_nospin_1phi}

1021: \end{figure}

1022: 

1023: \begin{figure}

1024: \begin{center}

1025: \includegraphics[width=3.0in, angle=270]{fig5.ps}

1026: \end{center}

1027: \caption{$w^{x}$ for the same configuration as in Figure

1028: \ref{fig:circular_orbit_nospin_1phi}. 

1029: }

1030: \label{fig:circular_orbit_nospin_1wx}

1031: \end{figure}

1032: 

1033: 

1034: \begin{figure}

1035: \begin{center}

1036: \includegraphics[width=3.0in, angle=270]{fig6.ps}

1037: \end{center}

1038: \caption{$w^{y}$ for the same configuration as in

1039: Figure \ref{fig:circular_orbit_nospin_1phi}.  $w^z$ is numerically

1040: zero as expected by symmetry.

1041: }

1042: \label{fig:circular_orbit_nospin_1wy}

1043: \end{figure}

1044: 

1045: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1046: %

1047: %

1048: %

1049: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1050: \section{Binding Energy in Initial Data}

1051: \label{sec:binding_energy}

1052: 

1053: As a first step towards understanding the physical content of initial

1054: data sets,

1055: we examine in this section the effect of the presence of a second hole

1056: on the horizon areas of a first hole and on global features such

1057: as the ADM integrals and the binding energy of the pair.  

1058: This analysis is carried out for non-spinning holes to first order in the 

1059: binding energy.

1060: A comparison to the Newtonian result indicates that the 

1061: Kerr-Schild {\it background} superposition data contain the appropriate

1062: physical information at this level.   

1063: We then consider possible spin-related phenomena, estimate

1064: their magnitude, and discuss their possible effect near the ISCO.

1065: 

1066: 

1067: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1068: %

1069: %

1070: %

1071: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1072: \subsection{Binding energy in Brill-Lindquist data}

1073: \label{sec:brill_lindquist}

1074: 

1075: 

1076: Before discussing the conformal Kerr-Schild data, we first consider

1077: Brill-Lindquist data for two non-moving Schwarzschild black holes~\cite{Brill}.  

1078: These data are conformally flat, and $K_{ab} = 0$.  The momentum

1079: constraints are trivially satisfied, and the Hamiltonian constraint is

1080: solved for a conformal factor:  $\phi = 1 + m/(2r) + m'/(2r')$.

1081: Here the two mass parameters are $m$, and $m'$, 

1082: and $r$ and $r'$ are the distances in the flat background 

1083: from the holes $m$ and $m'$.

1084:   

1085: We find that

1086: the apparent horizon areas in the solved data correspond to 

1087: \be

1088: M_{\rm AH} + M_{\rm AH}' = m + m' + \frac{mm'}{\ell} +

1089: \rmO(\ell^{-2}).

1090: \ee

1091:  The subscript 

1092: ``$\rm AH$''

1093: indicates masses computed from apparent horizon areas, and the

1094: separation in the flat background space is $\ell$~\cite{cadez}.  

1095: We assume that this mass (computed from {\it apparent} horizons) 

1096: is close to the total intrinsic mass of the black holes

1097: (which is given by a knowledge of the spin---here zero---and the area of the 

1098: {\it event} horizon).

1099: The

1100: binding energy, $\BE$, can be computed as the difference of the ADM mass 

1101: observed at infinity and the sum of the horizon masses:

1102: \be

1103: \BE = M_{\ADM} - M_{\rm AH} - M'_{\rm AH}.

1104: \ee

1105: For Brill-Lindquist data $M_{\ADM} = m + m'$, so that

1106: %

1107: \be

1108: \BE = -\frac{Gmm'}{\ell} +\rmO(\ell^{-2})\, ,

1109: \label{eq:be_brill_lind}

1110: \ee

1111: which is the Newtonian result.

1112: 

1113: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1114: %

1115: %

1116: %

1117: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1118: \subsection{Binding Energy in Superposed Kerr-Schild Data}

1119: 

1120: We now calculate the binding energy in superposed Kerr-Schild data (set

1121: according to our conformal transverse-traceless approach) for a

1122: non-moving Schwarzschild black hole at the origin, and a second such

1123: hole at coordinate distance $\ell$ away. ($\ell$ is measured in the

1124: flat space associated with the data construction.) We compute the area

1125: of the hole at the origin to first order and find that the Newtonian

1126: binding energy already appears in the the background data prior

1127: to solving the constraints. Thus, we have an argument justifying the

1128: result noted at the end of \sref{sec:boundary}: solving the elliptic

1129: constraint equations leads to small corrections to the

1130: Kerr-Schild background data.

1131: 

1132: Let both holes be placed on the $z$-axis; the first

1133: hole with mass parameter $m$ at the origin, and a second hole with

1134: mass parameter $m'$ at $z=\ell$.  The holes are well separated, and

1135: we expand all quantities about the origin in powers 

1136: of $\epsilon \equiv m'/\ell$ with

1137: $\epsilon \ll 1$.  Using Schwarzschild coordinates labeled 

1138: $(r, \theta, \phi)$ (cf.\ \eref{eq:1}--\eref{eq:6} for $a=0$), 

1139: the background metric tensor is

1140: \beq

1141: \tilde g_{rr} &=& 1 + \frac{2m}{r} + 2\epsilon\cos^2\theta,\\ 

1142: \tilde g_{r\theta} &=& -2\epsilon r \sin\theta \cos\theta,\\

1143: \tilde g_{\theta \theta} &=& r^2 + 2\epsilon r^2 \sin^2\theta,\\

1144: \tilde g_{\phi \phi} &=& r^2\sin^2\theta,

1145: \eeq

1146: with all other components zero.  The extrinsic curvature of the second

1147: hole, ${}_2 K_{ab}$, is of $\rmO(\epsilon^2)$ at the origin, and we have

1148: simply $\tilde K_{ab}={}_1 K_{ab}$.

1149: %\beq

1150: %\tilde K_{rho\rho} &=& -c_1 \frac{\rho+M}{\rho^3},\\

1151: %\tilde K_{\theta\theta} &=& c_1,\\

1152: %\tilde K_{\rho\rho} &=& c_1 \sin^2\theta,

1153: %\eeq

1154: %where

1155: %\be

1156: %c_1 \equiv 2M\sqrt{\frac{\rho}{\rho+2M}}.

1157: %\ee

1158: Similarly, the trace of the extrinsic curvature is $\tilde K = {}_1 K$.

1159: %\be

1160: %\tilde K = {}_1 K = c_1 \frac{(\rho+3M)}{\rho^2(\rho+2M)}.

1161: %\ee

1162: Finally, the non-zero components of $\tilde A_{ab}$ are

1163: \beq

1164: \tilde A_{r r} &=& -\frac{2c_2}{r^2}

1165:            \lp 1 + 2\frac{m}{r} + 2\epsilon \cos^2\theta \rp,\\

1166: %

1167: \tilde A_{r \theta } &=&  \epsilon \frac{c_2}{r}\sin\theta \cos\theta,\\

1168: %

1169: \tilde A_{\theta \theta } &=&  c_2 \lp 1 + 2\epsilon \sin^2\theta \rp,\\

1170: %

1171: \tilde A_{\phi \phi} &=&  c_2\sin^2\theta.

1172: \eeq

1173: where

1174: \be

1175: c_2 \equiv  \frac{2M}{3} \sqrt{\frac{\rho}{\rho+2M}} \frac{(2r+3m)}{(r+2m)}.

1176: \ee

1177: While $\tilde K_{ab}$ is not a function of $\epsilon$, and hence

1178: contains no information about the second hole, perturbative quantities

1179: do appear in $\tilde A_{ab}$.  This perturbation in $\tilde A_{ab}$ arises

1180: because we sum the mixed-index components of ${}_AA^c_b$, and because the

1181: full background metric,

1182: involving terms from each hole,

1183: is involved in the symmetrization in~\eref{eq:ks_super}.  

1184: 

1185: 

1186: To calculate the binding energy we first find the apparent horizon area

1187: of the local hole.   For a single Schwarzschild hole, the horizon

1188: is spherical and located at $\rho_{\HOR} = 2m$;  the area of the horizon

1189: is $16\pi m^{2}$.  The effect of the second hole is to distort the

1190: horizon along the $z$-axis connecting them, and we define a trial apparent 

1191: horizon surface as $f=0$, where

1192: %

1193: \be

1194:    f = \rho - 2m - \sum_{l} a_{l} P_{l} (\cos \theta)\,.

1195: \label{eq:f}

1196: \ee

1197: The expansion of $f$ in Legendre polynomials, $P_{l}$,

1198: expresses the distortion of the local horizon away from the zero-order

1199: spherical result.

1200: This expansion includes a term describing a constant

1201: ``radial" 

1202: offset in the position of the apparent horizon, $a_{0}P_{0}$.

1203: This and the other terms defining the surface have the expected

1204: magnitude, %$a_l=  \rmO \left(\frac{mm'}{\ell} \right)$.

1205: $a_l=  \rmO (m\epsilon)$.

1206: We solve for the horizon by placing this expression for the

1207: surface into the apparent horizon equation

1208: %

1209: \begin{equation}

1210:    \nabla_{i}s^{i} + A_{ab} s^{a}s^{b} - \frac{2}{3} K = 0,

1211: \label{eq:app_horizon}

1212: \end{equation}

1213: %

1214: where $s^{i}$ is the unit normal to the trial surface

1215: \be

1216: s_{i} = \frac{f_{,i}}{\sqrt{g^{ab}f_{,a}f_{,b}}}.

1217: \ee

1218: 

1219: %\be

1220: %   F_0(\rho) = \frac{2}{\rho} \frac{1-\frac{2m}{\rho}}{1+\frac{2m}{\rho}},.

1221: %\label{30}

1222: %\ee

1223: 

1224: The apparent horizon equation is solved to first order, $\rmO(\epsilon)$.

1225: One must evaluate the equation at the new

1226: (perturbed) horizon location.  Let $F$ represent the left-hand side of 

1227: the apparent horizon equation (\eref{eq:app_horizon}), $\rho_0=2m$ is

1228: the horizon surface of the single, unperturbed hole, and 

1229: $\rho_\HOR(\theta)$ is the new perturbed horizon.  We expand $F$

1230: to first order as

1231: \be

1232: F(\rho_\HOR(\theta)) = F_0(\rho_0) 

1233:              + \frac{\partial F}{\partial \rho}\biggr|_{\rho_0} \sum a_{l}

1234:    P_{l}\, = 0.

1235: \label{31}

1236: \ee

1237: Solving (\eref{eq:app_horizon}), the 

1238: only nonzero coefficients in Eq.(\ref{eq:f})

1239: are $a_0=mm'/(3\ell),$ $a_2= -mm'/(2\ell)$.

1240: Integrating the determinant of the perturbed metric over the horizon 

1241: surface, $\rho = 2m + \sum_{l} a_{l} P_{l} (\cos \theta)$, we find

1242: the area of the apparent horizon to be

1243: \be

1244:    A_\HOR = 16\pi \lp m + \frac{mm'}{2\ell}\rp^{2} 

1245:             + \rmO\lp m^2(m'/\ell)^2\rp,

1246: \label{32}

1247: \ee

1248: corresponding to a horizon mass of $M_\HOR = m + mm'/(2\ell)$ to Newtonian

1249: order, ie to order $\rmO(\epsilon) = \rmO(\ell^{-1})$. 

1250: 

1251: In this nonmoving case the total ADM mass is just $M_\ADM = m + m'$. 

1252: This leads to the Newtonian binding energy at this order

1253: \be

1254: \BE = -\frac{mm'}{\ell}.

1255: \label{be}

1256: \ee

1257: 

1258: Because we work only to lowest order in $\epsilon$, \eref{be} had to result

1259: in an expression of $\rmO(m\epsilon)$, but it did not have to have

1260: a coefficient of unity.

1261: Both the conformally flat and conformally Kerr-Schild data

1262: contain the Newtonian binding energy.

1263: However, this result is obtained in the superposed {\it background} 

1264: Kerr-Schild 

1265: metric, while the Brill-Lindquist and \v Cade\v z data give

1266: the correct binding energy only after solving the elliptic constraints.

1267: This is consistent with the small corrections introduced by $\phi$ and

1268: $w^i$ ($\phi \sim 1$, $|w^i| \ll 1$) in the solved Kerr-Schild data

1269: (see \sref{sec:boundary}).

1270: This fact---that for a superposed Kerr-Schild background the solution of the 

1271: full elliptic problem modifies the data (and the mass/angular momentum 

1272: computations) only 

1273: slightly---demonstrates how powerful this choice of data can be.

1274: 

1275: 

1276: Furthermore, the Newtonian form of the binding energy ($\epsilon \ll

1277: 1$) means the correct classical total energy is found for orbiting

1278: situations.  If the holes have nonrelativistic motion, their individual

1279: masses are changed by order $\gamma \approx 1+ \rmO(v^2) = 1 + \rmO(\epsilon)$.

1280: The binding

1281: energy, which is already $\rmO(\epsilon )$ and is proportional to the product

1282: of the masses, is changed only at order $\rmO(\epsilon^2)$.  The ADM

1283: mass, on the other hand, measures $\gamma m$, and $M_\ADM$ will be

1284: increased by $m v^2/2$ (an  $\rmO(\epsilon)$ increase) for each hole,

1285: leading to the correct Newtonian energetics for the orbit.

1286: 

1287: The apparent horizon is the only structure available to measure the

1288: intrinsic mass of a black hole.   Complicating this issue is the intrinsic

1289: spin of the black hole; the relation is between horizon area and 

1290: {\it irreducible} mass:

1291: 

1292: \be

1293: A_{\rm H} = 16 \pi m_{irr}^2 = 8 \pi m \lp m + \sqrt{(m^2 -a^2)}\rp

1294: \label{eq:mirr}

1295: \ee

1296: %

1297: As \eref{eq:mirr} shows, the irreducible mass is a function of both the 

1298: mass and the spin, and in general we cannot specify the spin of the 

1299: black holes. For axisymmetric cases Ashtekar's isolated horizon 

1300: paradigm~\cite{Dreyer}

1301: gives a way to measure the spin locally. We do not pursue the point here 

1302: since we investigate generic and typically non-axisymmetric situations.

1303: 

1304: 

1305: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1306: %

1307: %

1308: %

1309: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1310: \subsection{Spin effects in Approximating Inspiral With Initial Data Sequences}

1311: \label{sec:spineffects}

1312: 

1313: We have seen that the initial data contain the binding energy in a multiple

1314: black hole spacetime.  This information can be used to deduce some

1315: characteristics of the orbital dynamics, particularly the radius of 

1316: the circular orbit, $\ell$, and the orbital frequency, $\omega$.

1317: Given a sequence of initial data slices with

1318: decreasing separations, we determine $\BE$ for each slice.

1319: The circular orbit is found where

1320: \be 

1321: \frac{\partial \BE}{\partial \ell}\biggr|_{J} = 0.

1322: \ee

1323: The separation at the ISCO orbit, $\ell_\ISCO$, lies at the boundary between

1324: binding energy curves which have a minimum, and those that do not. The

1325: curve for the ISCO has an inflection point:

1326: \be

1327: \frac{\partial^2 \BE}{\partial \ell^2}\biggr|_{J} = 0.

1328: \ee

1329: The 

1330: angular frequency is given by

1331: \be

1332: \omega_\ISCO = \frac{\partial \BE}{\partial J} .

1333: \label{omega}

1334: \ee

1335: 

1336: 

1337: The attempt to model dynamical inspiral seems secure for large

1338: separation ($\ell>15 m$), though

1339: surprises appear even when the holes are very well separated.

1340: For instance, \eref{32} above shows that

1341: compared to the bare parameter values, the

1342: mass increase is equal for the two holes in a

1343: dataset. Thus the smaller hole is proportionately more strongly affected

1344: than the larger one is. 

1345:  

1346: The physically measurable quantity in question is the frequency (at

1347: infinity) \eref{omega} associated with the last orbit prior to the plunge, the

1348: ISCO. This may be impossible to determine by the initial data set method.

1349: 

1350: To begin with, isolated black holes form a 2-parameter set (depending

1351: on the mass parameter $m$, and the angular momentum parameter,

1352: $j=ma$).  For isolated black holes without charge 

1353: the parameters $\{m, j\} $ uniquely

1354: specify the hole. They are equal, respectively, to the

1355: physical mass and angular momentum.  Every method of constructing

1356: multiple black hole data assigns parameter values ${}_Bm$ and ${}_Bj$ to

1357: each constituent ${}_B(hole)$ in the data set.  

1358: 

1359: There is substantial ambiguity involving spin and mass in setting the

1360: black hole data. One must consider the evolutionary

1361: development of the black hole area and spin. This is a real physical 

1362: phenomenon which contradicts at some

1363: level the usual assumption of invariant mass and spin. A related 

1364: concern arises because it is only the {\it total} ADM angular momentum that

1365: is accessible in the data, whereas one connects to particle motion via

1366: the {\it orbital} angular momentum.

1367: 

1368: Consider the behavior of the individual black hole spin and mass 

1369: in an inspiral. For widely separated holes, because

1370: the spin effects fall off faster with distance than the dominant

1371: mass effects do, we expect the spin to be approximately conserved in an 

1372: inspiral. Therefore it should also be constant across the initial data sets

1373: representing a given sequence of orbits. But when the holes approach closely,

1374: the correct choice of spin parameter becomes problematic also.  

1375: 

1376: Newtonian arguments demonstrate some of the possible spin effects. In every

1377: case they are {\it a priori} small until the orbits approach very

1378: closely. However, at estimates for the ISCO, the effects begin to be

1379: large, and result in ambiguities in setting the data (see Price and 

1380: Whelan~\cite{P+W}).

1381: We will consider these effects in decreasing order of their magnitude.

1382: 

1383: For two holes, each of mass $m$ in Newtonian orbit with a total separation of

1384: $\ell$, the orbital frequency is

1385: 

1386: \be 

1387: m \omega = \sqrt 2 (m/\ell)^{(3/2)}.  

1388: \label{35c} 

1389: \ee 

1390: 

1391: From recent work by Pfeiffer et al.~\cite{Pfeiffer}, the estimated 

1392: ISCO frequency is of order $m\Omega=0.085$, corresponding to $\ell \approx

1393: 6.5\, m$ in this Newtonian approach.

1394: 

1395: 

1396: To compare this frequency, \eref{35c}, 

1397: to an intrinsic frequency in the problem, we take the lowest

1398: (quadrupole) quasi-normal mode of the final merged black hole (of mass

1399: $2m$) which has frequency $2m\omega_0 \approx 0.37$; the quadrupole

1400: distortion is excited at twice the orbital frequency. (We are using the

1401: values for a Schwarzschild black hole in this qualitative analysis.) The

1402: driving frequency equals the quasi-normal mode frequency when

1403: $\ell \approx 4\, m$, as might be expected.  

1404: 

1405: To consider effects linked to the orbital motion on the initial

1406: configurations, we can first treat the effect of imposing corotation.

1407: While we show below that corotation is not physically enforced except

1408: for very close orbits, it is a fact that certain formulations, for

1409: instance versions of the ``thin sandwich" with a helical Killing vector,

1410: require corotation in their treatment. For any particular

1411: initial orbit, corotation is certainly a possible situation. 

1412: 

1413: In corotation, then, with \eref{35c}, for each hole:

1414: %

1415: \be 

1416: J = m a = I\omega = 4 m^2 (m \omega).  

1417: \label{35dd} 

1418: \ee 

1419: %

1420: The result for the moment of inertia $I=4m^3$ is the Schwarzschild 

1421: value~\cite{MTW,membrane}. Thus

1422: %

1423: \be 

1424: a = 4m \sqrt{2}  (m/\ell)^{(3/2)}.  

1425: \label{35e} 

1426: \ee 

1427: %

1428: Assume $a/m \ll 1$, and compute the area of this black hole~\cite{MTW}:

1429: %

1430: \be 

1431: A= 8 \pi m(m+\sqrt{m^2-a^2})\\ 

1432: \approx 16\pi m^2 (1- (a/m)^2/4).

1433: \label{35ff} 

1434: \ee 

1435: %

1436: The horizon mass computed from this area is 

1437: \be 

1438: \sqrt{A/(16\pi)} \approx m(1-4(m/\ell)^3).

1439: \label{35f} 

1440: \ee 

1441: 

1442: At our estimate of the ISCO orbit, $\ell_\ISCO\approx 6\, m$, this effect is

1443: of order of 10\% of the Newtonian binding energy, distinctly enough to affect 

1444: the location of the ISCO.(At $\ell_\ISCO\approx 6\, m$, $a/m \approx 0.3$

1445: for corotation).

1446: 

1447: Two more physical effects are not typically considered in setting data.

1448: They are {\it frame dragging}, and {\it tidal torquing}. Within our

1449: Newtonian approximations, we will find that these effects are small, but

1450: not zero as the orbits approach the ISCO. 

1451: In full nonlinear gravity these effects could be substantial precisely

1452: at the estimated ISCO. 

1453: 

1454: The frame dragging is the largest dynamical

1455: effect. The orbiting binary possesses a net angular momentum. For a

1456: rotating mass (here the complete binary system) the frame dragging

1457: angular rate is estimated as the rotation rate times the

1458: gravitational potential at the measurement point~\cite{MTW}. Hence 

1459: %

1460: \be 

1461: m\Omega_{\rm{drag}}= m\omega\lp \frac{2m}{\ell}\rp 

1462:          \approx \lp\frac{m}{\ell}\rp^{\frac{5}{2}}

1463:        \approx \frac{a}{4m}.

1464: \label{35gg} 

1465: \ee 

1466: %

1467: This is  $a/m$ of order 1\% at $\ell=10m$;  of order 4\% at $\ell=6m$.

1468: 

1469: 

1470: The tidal torquing and dissipative heating of the black holes can be

1471: similarly estimated. 

1472: As the two holes spiral together, the

1473: tidal distortion from each hole on the other will have a frequency

1474: which is below, but approaching the quasi-normal frequency. Just as for

1475: tidal effects in the solar system, there will be lag in the phase angle

1476: of the distortion, which we can determine because the lowest

1477: quasi-normal mode is a dissipative oscillator, driven through the tidal 

1478: effects at twice the orbital frequency:  

1479: %

1480: \be 

1481: \ddot q +2 \gamma \dot q + \omega_0^2 q= F(\omega).  

1482: \label{35d} 

1483: \ee 

1484: %

1485: Here $m^2q$ is the quadrupole moment of the distorted black hole. The

1486: parameter $\gamma$ is (for a Schwarzschild hole of mass $2m$)) about 

1487: $2m \gamma = 0.089$. In \eref{35d} the driving acceleration $F(\omega)$

1488: is identified with the tidal distortion acceleration. We evaluate it at zero

1489: frequency:

1490: %

1491: \beq 

1492: q &=& F(\omega=0)/\omega_0^2\\

1493: &\approx & \frac{m}{\ell^3}.  

1494: \label{36} 

1495: \eeq 

1496: %

1497: The lagging phase, for driving frequency $2\omega \ll \omega_0$, is easily computed

1498: to be

1499: %

1500: \beq 

1501: \phi &\approx& 4 \gamma \frac{\omega}{\omega_0^2}\\

1502: &=& 4\lp\frac{\gamma}{\omega_0}\rp \lp\frac{\omega}{\omega_0}\rp

1503: \label{37} 

1504: \eeq 

1505: %

1506: This lagging tidal distortion will produce a tidal torque on the black

1507: hole, which we can approximate using a combination of Newtonian and

1508: black hole ideas. The most substantial approximation is that the torque

1509: arises from a redistribution of the mass in the ``target" black hole, of

1510: amount $\Delta m  =  m m^2q = m (m/\ell)^3$. This mass has separation

1511: $\approx 4m$. Thus the torque on the hole is

1512: %

1513: \begin{eqnarray} 

1514: \tau &=& \sin \phi \times (\mbox{lever arm}) \times \Delta F \\ \nonumber

1515: &=& \sin \phi \times (4m) \times (\Delta m 2m^2 / \ell^3) \\ \nonumber

1516: &=&  8 \sin \phi m(m/\ell)^6\\ \nonumber

1517: &\approx & 32 (\gamma/\omega_0)(\omega/\omega_0)m(m/\ell)^6\\ \nonumber

1518: &\approx& 60 m(m/\ell)^{15/2}. 

1519: \label{38} 

1520: \end{eqnarray}  

1521: 

1522: What is most important is the effect of this torque on the angular

1523: momentum of the hole over the period of time it takes the orbit to

1524: shrink from a very large radius. To accomplish this, we use the inspiral

1525: rate (calculated under the assumption of weak gravitational radiation

1526: from the orbit; see~\cite{MTW}): 

1527: %

1528: \be 

1529: \frac{d\ell}{dt} = -\frac{128}{5} \lp \frac{m}{\ell}\rp^3

1530: \label{39} 

1531: \ee 

1532: %

1533: Thus 

1534: %

1535: \begin{eqnarray} 

1536: \frac{dJ}{d\ell} &=& \tau  \frac{dt}{d\ell} \\

1537: &=& -\frac{5\tau}{128} \lp \frac{m}{\ell}\rp^{-3} \\

1538: &\approx& -2  m \lp \frac{m}{\ell}\rp^{9/2}, 

1539: \label{40}

1540: \end{eqnarray}

1541: %

1542: and 

1543: %

1544: \be 

1545: J(\ell) \approx m^2 \left(\frac{m}{\ell}\right)^{7/2};

1546: \label{40x} 

1547: \ee 

1548: %

1549: assuming that there is minimal mass increase from the associated

1550: heating (which we discuss just below), this identifies the induced spin

1551: parameter $a= m(m/\ell)^{7/2}$ for an inspiral from infinity.

1552: 

1553: 

1554: The estimate $a= m(m/\ell)^{7/2}$ for an inspiral from infinity assumes the

1555: mass of the hole has not changed significantly in the inspiral.  By

1556: considering the detailed behavior of the shear induced in the horizon

1557: by the tidal perturbation, the growth in the black hole mass can be

1558: estimated~\cite{membrane} as 

1559: %

1560: \begin{eqnarray} 

1561: \frac{dm}{dt} &=& \omega \frac{dJ}{dt},

1562: \label{41}

1563: \end{eqnarray}

1564: %

1565: leading to a behavior 

1566: %

1567: \be 

1568: \Delta m(\ell) \approx 5 m \lp \frac{m}{\ell}\rp^{5};

1569: \label{42} 

1570: \ee 

1571: %

1572: Consequently, the change in mass can be ignored until the holes are quite

1573: close. However, the point is that these Newtonian estimates lead to

1574: possible strong effects just where they become unreliable, and just

1575: where they would affect the ISCO. 

1576: 

1577: These results are consistent with similar ones of Price and Whelan~\cite{P+W},

1578: who estimated tidal torquing using a derivation due to

1579: Teukolsky~\cite{TeukThesis}. That derivation assumes the quadrupole

1580: moment in the holes arises from their Kerr character, which predicts

1581: specific values for the quadrupole moment, 

1582: as a function of angular momentum parameter $a$. 

1583: 

1584: Finally we consider an effect on binding energy shown by Wald and also by Dain.

1585: Wald directly computes the force for stationary sources with 

1586: arbitrarily oriented spins. He considered a small black hole as a 

1587: perturbation in the field of a large hole. The result found~\cite{WaldPRD} was

1588: 

1589: \be

1590: \BE = - \frac{mm'}{\ell} - \lp \frac{ \vec{S} \cdot \vec{S'} - 

1591:         3(\vec{S} \cdot \hat{n})(\vec{S'} \cdot \hat{n})}{\ell^3} \rp.

1592: \label{BEWald}

1593: \ee

1594: 

1595: \noindent Here, $\vec{S}$, $\vec{S}'$ are the spin vectors of the

1596: sources and $\hat{n}$ is the unit vector connecting the two sources.

1597: Dain~\cite{Dain}, using a definition of intrinsic mass that differs

1598: from ours, finds binding energy which agrees with Wald's \eref{BEWald}

1599: at $\rmO(\ell^{-3})$. This is discussed further in Section

1600: \ref{sec:physresults}.

1601: 

1602: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1603: %

1604: %

1605: %

1606: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1607: \section{Numerical Results}

1608: 

1609: We now turn to computational solutions of the constraint equations

1610: to generate physical data using the superposed Kerr-Schild data.

1611: We first discuss the computational code and tests, as well as

1612: some of the limitations of the code.  Finally, we consider

1613: physical conclusions that can be drawn from the results.

1614: 

1615: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1616: %

1617: %

1618: %

1619: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1620: \subsection{Code Performance}

1621: 

1622: 

1623: The constraint equations are solved (\eref{ell_eqs}) with an accelerated 

1624: SOR solver~\cite{NumRecepies}. The solution is iterated until the $L_{2}$ 

1625: norms of the residuals 

1626: of the fields are less than $10^{-10}$, far below truncation error.

1627: Discrete derivatives are approximated with second order, centered derivatives.

1628: We are limited to fairly small domains, e.g., $x^i \in [-12 m, 12m]$ 

1629: for a typical $m/8$ resolution using $193^3$ points.

1630: 

1631: To verify the solution of the discrete equations, we have examined the 

1632: code's convergence in some detail.   The constraints have known analytical

1633: solutions---they should be zero---which allows us to determine the code's

1634: convergence using a solution calculated at two different resolutions.

1635: Let $S_1$ be a solution calculated with resolution $h_1$, and

1636: $S_2$ be a solution calculated with $h_2$, then the convergence

1637: factor $c_{12}$ is

1638: \begin{eqnarray}

1639: c_{12} = \frac{\log\left(\frac{||S_{1}||}

1640: {||S_{2}||}\right)}{\log\left(\frac{h_{1}}{h_{2}}\right)}

1641: \label{eq:convCalc}

1642: \end{eqnarray}

1643: 

1644: We constructed a conformal background spacetime with two $m=1$ non-spinning

1645: black holes separated by $6m$ on the $y$-axis.

1646: The elliptic equations were then solved on grids with resolutions of

1647: $m/6$, $m/8$, $m/10$ and $m/12$. 

1648: Tables \ref{tab:TableHam}--\ref{tab:TableMomX} show the convergence factors

1649: as a function of resolution for the Hamiltonian constraint and 

1650: the $x$-component of the momentum constraint, ${\cal C}^x$.   The 

1651: convergence for ${\cal C}^y$ is nearly identical to ${\cal C}^x$, and

1652: as the $y$-axis is an axis of symmetry, ${\cal C}^z$ is identical to 

1653: ${\cal C}^x$.

1654: Figures \ref{fig:ham2}--\ref{fig:momz2} show the convergence behavior of the

1655: constraints along coordinate lines. The constraints

1656: calculated at lower resolutions are rescaled to the highest resolution by

1657: the ratio of resolutions squared. We see second order for all components

1658: with the exception of the points nearest to the inner boundary.

1659: 

1660: 

1661: \begin{table}

1662: \begin{tabular}{|l|ccc|}\hline

1663: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Convergence $(c_{ab})$}\\

1664: ~~ & ~~$a=m/6$ & ~~$a=m/8$ & ~~$a=m/10$ \\ \hline

1665: $b=m/8$  & 1.70 & ~~ & ~~ \\

1666: $b=m/10$ & 1.77 & 1.86 & ~~ \\

1667: $b=m/12$ & 1.79 & 1.86 & 1.85 \\ \hline

1668: \end{tabular}

1669: \vspace{.5in}

1670: \label{tab:TableHam}

1671: \caption{Convergence data for the Hamiltonian constraint,

1672: ${\cal C}^0$, for a solution with two $m=1$, non-spinning holes

1673: at $x^i=(0,\pm 3m,0)$ in the conformal background, and outer boundaries 

1674: at $x^i=\pm 6m$.  The solution was calculated at resolutions $m/6$, 

1675: $m/8$, $m/10$, and $m/12$.  The $L_2$ norms of ${\cal C}^0$ were calculated

1676: over the entire volume of the domain

1677: using a mask of radius $1m$ around each hole, while the computational mask

1678: has a radius of approximately $0.75~m$.  This larger mask was used to

1679: compensate for the slight difference of physical location of the mask

1680: at different resolutions.  The norms are as follows: 

1681: $||{\cal C}^0(m/6)||_2 = 0.00389054$,

1682: $||{\cal C}^0(m/8)||_2 = 0.00238321$,

1683: $||{\cal C}^0(m/10)||_2 = 0.00157387$ and

1684: $||{\cal C}^0(m/12)||_2 = 0.00112328$.

1685: }

1686: \end{table}

1687: 

1688: \begin{table}

1689: \begin{tabular}{|l|ccc|}\hline

1690: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Convergence $(c_{ab})$}\\

1691: ~~ & ~~$a=m/6$ & ~~$a=m/8$ & ~~$a=m/10$ \\ \hline

1692: $b=m/8$ & 1.93 & ~~ & ~~ \\

1693: $b=m/10$ & 1.99 & 2.06 & ~~ \\

1694: $b=m/12$ & 1.99 & 2.03 & 1.99 \\ \hline

1695: \end{tabular}

1696: \vspace{.5in}

1697: \label{tab:TableMomX}

1698: \caption{Convergence data for the $x$-component of the 

1699: momentum constraint, for the same configuration as Table~\ref{tab:TableHam}.

1700: The norms of ${\cal C}^x$ are as follows:

1701: $||{\cal C}^x(m/6)||_2 = 0.00541231$,

1702: $||{\cal C}^x(m/8)||_2 = 0.00310937$,

1703: $||{\cal C}^x(m/10)||_2 = 0.00196156$ and 

1704: $||{\cal C}^x(m/12)||_2 = 0.00136514$.

1705: Convergence factors were also calculated for ${\cal C}^y$ and ${\cal C}^z$,

1706: and found to be essentially identical to the data shown here, and thus

1707: are not given separately.

1708: }

1709: \end{table}

1710: 

1711: \begin{figure}

1712: \begin{center}

1713: \includegraphics[width=3.in,angle=270]{fig7.ps}

1714: \end{center}

1715: \caption{The Hamiltonian constraint (units $m^{-2}$) along $y$-axis after

1716: solving the elliptic equations for 4 different levels of resolution. The

1717: constraints are rescaled by the ratio of the resolutions squared,

1718: showing second

1719: order convergence. The two non-spinning, instantaneously stationary

1720: holes of $m=1$ are positioned at $\pm3$ on the $y$-axis.}

1721: \label{fig:ham2}

1722: \end{figure}

1723: 

1724: \begin{figure}

1725: \begin{center}

1726: \includegraphics[width=3.in, angle=270]{fig8.ps}

1727: \end{center}

1728: \caption{$y$-component of momentum constraint (units $m^{-2}$) along the $y$-axis after

1729: solving the elliptic equations for 4 different levels of resolution,

1730: showing second order convergence. The background physical

1731: situation is the same as in

1732: Figure (\ref{fig:ham2}). The other momentum constraint components evaluated

1733: on this axis are zero by symmetry, both analytically, and computationally

1734: ($\rmO(10^{-12})$).}

1735: \label{fig:momy2}

1736: \end{figure}

1737: 

1738: 

1739: \begin{figure}

1740: \begin{center}

1741: \includegraphics[width=3.in, angle=270]{fig9.ps}

1742: \end{center}

1743: \caption{$z$-component of momentum constraint (units $m^{-2}$) along the $z$-axis after

1744: solving the elliptic equations for 4 different levels of resolution,

1745: showing second order convergence.

1746: Other components of the momentum constraint evaluated along this line

1747: are zero by symmetry, both

1748: analytically and computationally ($\rmO(10^{-12})$).

1749: The background physical situation

1750: is the same as in

1751: Figure (\ref{fig:ham2}). The behavior of the $x$-momentum constraint

1752: along the $x$-axis is identical to this Figure, as required by the

1753: symmetry of the problem.}

1754: \label{fig:momz2}

1755: \end{figure}

1756: 

1757: 

1758: %\begin{table}

1759: %\begin{tabular}{cc}\hline\hline

1760: %\multicolumn{2}{c}{Momentum$_{y}$:}\\\hline\hline

1761: %Resolution & L2 norm \\

1762: %m/6 & 0.00551741 \\

1763: %m/8 & 0.00315638 \\

1764: %m/10 & 0.00198946 \\

1765: %m/12 & 0.00138186

1766: %\end{tabular}

1767: 

1768: %\begin{tabular}{lccc}\hline

1769: %\multicolumn{4}{c}{Convergence $(c_{ab})$}\\

1770: %~~ & a=6 & a=8 & a=10 \\ \hline

1771: %b=8 & 1.94131925291174 & ~~ & ~~ \\

1772: %b=10 & 1.99685617693102 & 2.06845572486942 & ~~ \\

1773: %b=12 & 1.9973797316871 & 2.03715527437679 & 1.99884661903467 \\ \hline

1774: %\end{tabular}

1775: %\vspace{.5in}

1776: %\label{tab:TableMomY}

1777: %\end{table}

1778: 

1779: %\begin{table}

1780: %\begin{tabular}{cc}\hline\hline

1781: %\multicolumn{2}{c}{Momentum$_{z}$:}\\\hline\hline

1782: %Resolution & L2 norm \\

1783: %m/6 & 0.00541231 \\

1784: %m/8 & 0.00310937 \\

1785: %m/10 & 0.00196156 \\

1786: %m/12 & 0.00136514

1787: %\end{tabular}

1788: 

1789: %\begin{tabular}{lccc}\hline

1790: %\multicolumn{4}{c}{Convergence $(c_{ab})$}\\

1791: %~~ & a=6 & a=8 & a=10 \\ \hline

1792: %b=8 & 1.9266263300294 & ~~ & ~~ \\

1793: %b=10 & 1.98685396059259 & 2.0645008810491 & ~~ \\

1794: %b=12 & 1.98719556241069 & 2.0301701166937 & 1.9881526569248 \\ \hline

1795: %\end{tabular}

1796: %\vspace{.5in}

1797: %\label{tab:TableMomZ}

1798: %\end{table}

1799: 

1800: 

1801: 

1802: 

1803: %------------------------------------------------

1804: \begin{table}

1805: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}

1806: \hline \hline

1807: Domain &  $M_{ADM}$ \\

1808: \hline

1809: $\pm$ 8 m & 1.942 m \\

1810: $\pm$ 10 m & 1.964 m \\

1811: $\pm$ 11 m & 1.974 m \\

1812: $\pm$ 12 m & 1.980 m \\

1813: \hline \hline

1814: \end{tabular}

1815: \caption{Total ADM Mass for two instantaneously stationary, non-spinning

1816: holes separated by $6 m$ on a grid of discretization $\Delta x = m/8$ for

1817: four different domain sizes.}

1818: \label{tab:table1}

1819: \end{table}

1820: %------------------------------------------------

1821: 

1822: Solutions of elliptic equations are well-known to be dependent on all

1823: boundary data.  The outer boundary is an artificial boundary, as the

1824: the physical spacetime is unbounded.  Boundary data for this outer

1825: boundary are derived from the asymptotic behavior of a single Kerr 

1826: black hole.  On very large domains these conditions should closely

1827: approximate the expected field behavior, but on small domains

1828: these boundary data may only crudely approximate the real solution.

1829: This error in the boundary data then contaminates the entire solution,

1830: as expected for elliptic solutions.  Additional error arises in the

1831: calculation of the ADM quantities, as spacetime near the outer boundary

1832: does not approach asymptotic flatness.   

1833: As an indication of the error associated

1834: with the artificial outer boundaries, we calculated solutions with the

1835: same physical parameters on grids of differing sizes.  The boundary

1836: effects in the $M_\ADM$ are given in \tref{tab:table1}, and 

1837: \fref{fig:phi_zero} shows a contour plot of $\phi$ for equal mass,

1838: nonspinning, instantaneously stationary black holes with the outer

1839: boundaries at $x^i = \pm 12m$.  As a further demonstration of

1840: boundary effects in our solutions, \fref{fig:phi_zero10} shows

1841: $\phi$ for a configuration examined by Pfeiffer {\it et al.}~\cite{Pfeiffer2}.

1842: Their solution, shown in Fig.~8 of~\cite{Pfeiffer2}, was computed on a 

1843: much larger domain via a spectral method~\cite{Kidder}.

1844: Thus, while we achieve reasonable results,

1845: it is important to remember that the boundary effects may be significant.

1846: Moreover, we have only considered the effect of outer boundaries, while

1847: errors arising from the approximate inner boundary condition have

1848: not been examined.

1849: 

1850: \begin{figure}

1851: \begin{center}

1852: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{fig10.ps}

1853: \end{center}

1854: \caption{

1855: Contour plot of $\phi$ for two instantaneously stationary, non-spinning

1856: holes of mass parameter $m = 1$.

1857: The holes are separated by $6~m$ along the y-axis. The bold circles indicate

1858: the apparent horizons.}

1859: \label{fig:phi_zero}

1860: \end{figure}

1861: 

1862: 

1863: \begin{figure}

1864: \begin{center}

1865: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{fig11.ps}

1866: \end{center}

1867: \caption{

1868: Contour plot representing the same configuration as \fref{fig:phi_zero}

1869:  but with the holes separated by 

1870: $10$~m along the y-axis. Compare to Figure 8 in ref.~\cite{Pfeiffer2}}.

1871: \label{fig:phi_zero10}

1872: \end{figure}

1873: 

1874: \begin{figure}

1875: \begin{center}

1876: \includegraphics[width=3.in,angle=270]{fig12.ps}

1877: \end{center}

1878: \caption{The total ADM energy for two momentarily stationary non-spinning

1879: black holes separated by $6 m$ at various resolutions. 

1880: The results exhibit second order convergence.}

1881: \label{fig:2bh_adm_mass}

1882: \end{figure}

1883: 

1884: 

1885: \begin{figure}

1886: \begin{center}

1887: \includegraphics[width=3.in,angle=270]{fig13.ps}

1888: \end{center}

1889: \caption{The total ADM angular momentum for two non-spinning holes 

1890: boosted in the $\pm$

1891: x direction with $v=0.3162$ and separated by $6 m$ at various 

1892: resolutions (background angular momentum $\tilde J^{ADM}_{12} = 2.0 m^2$).}

1893: \label{fig:2bh_adm_angMom}

1894: \end{figure}

1895: 

1896: 

1897: 

1898: \begin{figure}

1899: \begin{center}

1900: \includegraphics[width=3.in]{fig14.ps}

1901: \end{center}

1902: \caption{Conformal factor $\phi$ for two instantaneously stationary holes 

1903: separated by $6m$ 

1904: with spin parameter $a=0.5$. The spins are parallel and pointed out of

1905: the page. Compare to \fref{fig:phi_zero}. Also notice the boundary 

1906: effect on the outermost contour, labeled $0.999$. }

1907: \label{fig:phi_spinaligned}

1908: \end{figure}

1909: 

1910: 

1911: \begin{figure}

1912: \begin{center}

1913: \includegraphics[width=3.in]{fig15.ps}

1914: \end{center}

1915: \caption{Conformal factor $\phi$ for the same configuration 

1916: as \Fref{fig:phi_spinaligned} except the spins are anti-parallel: 

1917: the the spin of the hole at $(0,-3,0)$ points into the page.}

1918: \label{fig:phi_spinantialigned}

1919: \end{figure}

1920: 

1921: 

1922: 

1923: \begin{figure}

1924: \begin{center}

1925: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{fig16.ps}

1926: \end{center}

1927: \caption{$\phi$ for a grazing collision between

1928: two equal mass, non-spinning holes. The holes are centered at $y = \pm 1 m$

1929: and boosted toward each

1930: other with $v_x = \mp 0.5c$, respectively. }

1931: \label{fig:grazing}

1932: \end{figure}

1933: 

1934: 

1935: \begin{figure}

1936: \begin{center}

1937: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{fig17.ps}

1938: \end{center}

1939: \caption{$\phi$ for two non-spinning holes boosted 

1940: perpendicularly to their separation. The holes are separated by $10 m$

1941: and boosted 

1942: with $v_x = \pm 0.196$, giving the system a background 

1943: angular momentum of $\tilde J^{ADM}_{12} = 2.0 m^2$. 

1944: The calculated $J^{ADM}_{12} = 1.91 m^2$ and 

1945: $M_{ADM} = 1.970 m^2$. The Newtonian data correspond to an elliptic orbit

1946: at apastron. }

1947: \label{fig:circular}

1948: \end{figure}

1949: 

1950: 

1951: Other derived quantities also show convergence: \fref{fig:2bh_adm_mass} 

1952: shows the ADM mass $M_{\ADM}$ for two nonspinning black holes at $6m$ 

1953: separation, and different resolutions. 

1954: The fit is 

1955: \be 

1956: M_{ADM} = \lp 1.941 + 0.067 \lp \frac{\Delta x}{m}\rp  - 0.422 

1957: \lp \frac{\Delta x}{m} \rp^2 \rp m.

1958: \label{eq:42S} 

1959: \ee  

1960: %

1961: showing good second order convergence. The angular momentum calculation

1962: is less robust, but exhibits approximately first order convergence. 

1963: The fit to Figure \ref{fig:2bh_adm_angMom}, which shows $J^{ADM}$ for

1964: two nonspinning holes with orbital angular momentum, gives:

1965: 

1966: \be 

1967: J^{ADM}_{12} = \lp 1.837 - 

1968: 0.121 \lp \frac{\Delta x}{m}\rp + 

1969: 0.237 \lp \frac{\Delta x}{m} \rp^2 \rp \epsilon_{12}m^2.

1970: \label{eq:42T} 

1971: \ee 

1972: %

1973: Compare this to the angular momentum computed 

1974: for the background: $\tilde J^{ADM}_{12} = 2.0 m^2$.

1975: 

1976: 

1977: 

1978: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1979: %

1980: %

1981: %

1982: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

1983: \subsection{Physics Results}

1984: \label{sec:physresults}

1985: 

1986: The small computational domain does not negate the 

1987: utility of these solutions as initial data for the time-dependent

1988: Einstein equations. For instance, Figures \ref{fig:grazing} and 

1989: \ref{fig:circular} show data for grazing and elliptical orbits.

1990: They are currently being incorporated into the Texas binary black hole

1991: evolution code. While the small domains do mean that 

1992: that our data do not represent the best asymptotically flat results

1993: available from this method, we can still verify some of the qualitative

1994: analytical predictions of the previous section. 

1995: In particular, Figures  \ref{fig:phi_zero}, \ref{fig:phi_spinaligned}, 

1996:  and \ref{fig:phi_spinantialigned} 

1997: show the conformal factor $\phi$

1998: for holes instantaneously at rest at a separation of $6m$. 

1999: In Figure \ref{fig:phi_zero} they are

2000: non-spinning; in  Figures

2001:  \ref{fig:phi_spinaligned} and

2002: \ref{fig:phi_spinantialigned}, each has Kerr parameter $a=0.5m$. 

2003: In one case (\fref{fig:phi_spinaligned}) the spins are aligned; 

2004: in the other (\fref{fig:phi_spinantialigned}) they are antialigned. 

2005: \tref{tab:table2} gives

2006: the values of the apparent horizon area of each hole, the ADM mass, and the

2007: binding energy fraction for these configurations. 

2008: The binding energy is consistent with the

2009: analytic estimates of  Wald~\cite{WaldPRD} in Section \ref{sec:spineffects}.

2010: 

2011: Wald's computation of the binding energy for spinning holes,

2012: \eref{BEWald}, gives for parallel or antiparallel spins orthogonal to

2013: the separation (as in our computational models):

2014: 

2015: \be

2016: \BE = -  \lp \frac{mm'}{\ell} + \frac{ \vec{S} \cdot \vec{S'}}{\ell^3} \rp

2017: \label{BEwald}

2018: \ee

2019: %

2020: with oppositely directed spins showing {\it less} binding energy.

2021: For our $S = 0.5~m^2$, $\ell = 6~m$ configuration, this is a 

2022: change of order $\rmO(2 \times 10^{-3})$ between the parallel and the

2023: antiparallel cases. For the spinning cases we compute a 

2024: change in binding energy between parallel and antiparallel 

2025: spins of roughly half that,

2026: with the correct sign. This rough 

2027: correspondence to the analytic result is suggestive. However, the nonspinning 

2028: case deviates from the expectation that its binding energy 

2029: should be between that 

2030: of the spinning cases. Based on the scatter in the binding energies 

2031: shown here, we estimate that we have achieved about $3 \%$ accuracy in the 

2032: binding energy. With the accuracy of our solution and the size of our domain,

2033: we are unable to present a clearer dependence of binding energy on spin.

2034: 

2035: \begin{table}

2036: \begin{tabular}{l || l | l | l | l}

2037: \hline \hline

2038:  & $A^{\dag}_{AH}$ & $M_{ADM}$ & $M^{\dag}_{AH}$ & Binding Energy \\

2039: \hline \hline

2040: Parallel Spin & 53.20 & 1.973 & 1.065 & -0.157 = -0.147 $\times M_{AH}$ \\

2041: Antiparallel Spin & 53.17  & 1.974 & 1.065 & -0.156 = -0.146 $\times M_{AH}$ \\

2042: Zero Spin & 57.10 & 1.980 & 1.066 & -0.151 = -0.142 $\times M_{AH}$ \\

2043: \hline \hline

2044: \end{tabular}

2045: \caption{$M_{ADM}$, $A_{AH}$ and associated quantities 

2046: calculated for two holes with $m = 1.0$ on a grid $(24~m)^3$ with 

2047: resolution $\Delta x = m/8$. \\

2048: ${}^\dag$: Quantity for a single hole.\\}

2049: \label{tab:table2}

2050: \end{table}

2051: 

2052: 

2053: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

2054: %

2055: %

2056: %

2057: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

2058: \section{Outlook}

2059: 

2060: 

2061: 

2062: To an extent, the difficulty in setting data will become less relevant,

2063: as good evolutions are eventually achieved. Then data can be set for

2064: initial configurations with very large separation, and the subsequent

2065: evolution will tell us the future dynamics. In the shorter term, the

2066: iBBH program of Thorne and collaborators~\cite{Brady} 

2067: will give us an indication of

2068: the evolution of the black hole parameters in the inspiral, and will

2069: allow a closer identification of the corresponding initial data

2070: sequence. To point out a couple of additional physical effects, 

2071: note that, besides the historical component associated

2072: with a lagging tidal distortion, there is the familiar fact that most

2073: data setting methods are incapable of accounting for the previously

2074: emitted gravitational radiation. One can then expect that data

2075: describing hyperbolic encounters will be more accurate than data sets

2076: describing circular motion. This is because, in hyperbolic encounters, which are

2077: set as distant initial configurations, the radiation is more planar,

2078: and confined to near each hole.

2079:  The radiation should then both be better defined, and should 

2080: have less effect on the subsequent evolution than in the more distorted 

2081: orbiting data set.  In any case, the

2082: understanding of these problems is extremely significant in

2083: understanding the physical content of the configurations we must solve

2084: to provide waveforms for the new generation of gravitational wave

2085: detectors.

2086: For more accurate computational results, we are undertaking a both

2087: multigrid approach~\cite{Klasky}, and a spectral approach~\cite{Pfeiffer2, GGB1}

2088: and expect to have extended results soon comparable to those

2089: of~\cite{Pfeiffer2,Kidder}. An ultimate goal of such a solver is to be 

2090: able to carry 

2091: out elliptic solutions at every integration time step, to enable fully 

2092: constrained evolutions. 

2093: 

2094: 

2095: 

2096: 

2097: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

2098: %

2099: %

2100: %

2101: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

2102: %\subsection{Apparent Horizons}

2103: 

2104: 

2105: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

2106: %

2107: %

2108: %

2109: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

2110: %\section{Conclusion}

2111: 

2112: 

2113: 

2114: \section*{Acknowledgments}

2115: 

2116: RM thanks A. Ashtekar, A. \v Cade\v z, G,  Cook, P. Laguna, H.

2117: Pfeiffer, and D. Shoemaker for insightful comments. 

2118: %We especially thank

2119: %P. Marronetti for extensive discussions on elliptic solver technique,

2120: %and for a critique of an earlier version of this work. 

2121: This work is

2122: supported in part by NSF grants PHY~9800722, PHY~9800725, and

2123: PHY~0102204. Computations were performed at the NSF supercomputer

2124: center NCSA and the University of Texas AHPCC.

2125: 

2126: 

2127: \newpage

2128: 

2129: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2130: 

2131: \bibitem{Cook}  G.~B.~Cook, {\it Phys.\ Rev.}  {\bf D50}, 5025 (1994).

2132: 

2133: \bibitem{Pfeiffer} H.~P.~Pfeiffer, S.~A.~Teukolsky and G.~B.~Cook 

2134:               {\it Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf D62}, 104018 (2000).

2135: 

2136: \bibitem{Baumgarte}T.~Baumgarte {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D62}, 024018 (2000).

2137: 

2138: \bibitem{GGB1} E.~Gourgoulhon, P.~Grandclement and S.~Bonazzola,

2139: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}  {\bf D65}, 044020 (2002).

2140: 

2141: \bibitem{GGB2}

2142: P.~Grandclement, E.~Gourgoulhon and S.~Bonazzola,

2143: {\it Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf D65}, 044021 (2002), and references therein.

2144: 

2145: \bibitem{GGB3} E.~Gourgoulhon, P.~Grandclement and S.~Bonazzola,

2146: {\it Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.} {\bf A17} 2689--94 (2002).

2147: 

2148: \bibitem{Cook2} G.~B.~Cook {\it Phys.\ Rev.}  {\bf D65} 084003 (2002).

2149: 

2150: \bibitem{Pfeiffer2} H.~P.~Pfeiffer, G.~B.~Cook, and S.~A.~Teukolsky

2151: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}  {\bf D66} 024047 (2002).

2152: 

2153: 

2154: 

2155: \bibitem{CookReview} G.~B.~Cook, {\it Living Rev.\ Rel.} {\bf 3}, 5 (2000).

2156: 

2157: 

2158: 

2159: 

2160: \bibitem{Peters} P.~Peters and J.~Matthews, 

2161:         {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 131},435 (1963).

2162: 

2163: 

2164: \bibitem{Will} T.~Mora and C.~Will, {\it Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf D66}, 101501 (2002).

2165: 

2166: 

2167: \bibitem{Shoemaker}D.~Shoemaker, M.~F.~Huq and R.~A.~Matzner 

2168: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D62}, 124005 (2000).

2169: 

2170: \bibitem{Huq}M.~F.~Huq, M.~Choptuik and R.~A.~Matzner, 

2171: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D66}, 084024 (2002). [arXiv:gr-qc/0002076].

2172: 

2173: 

2174: \bibitem{Dreyer} O.~Dreyer, B.~Krishnan, E.~Schnetter, and D.~Shoemaker,

2175: {\it Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf D67}, 024018 (2003), and references therein.

2176: 

2177: \bibitem{Caveny} Scott~A.~Caveny, PhD Dissertation,

2178: University of Texas at Austin (2002).

2179: 

2180: \bibitem{Caveny1}Scott~A.~Caveny, Matthew Anderson and Richard~A.~Matzner 

2181: ``Tracking Black Holes in Numerical Relativity", submitted to {\it Phys. Rev.}

2182: (2003). [arXiv:gr-qc/0303099].

2183: 

2184: \bibitem{ADM} R.~Arnowitt, S.~Deser, and C.~Misner in Witten,

2185: {\it Gravitation,

2186: an Introduction to Current Research} (Wiley, New York 1962).

2187: 

2188: \bibitem{YP} J.~York and  T.~\ Piran

2189:         ``The Initial Value Problem and Beyond'',

2190:         \textit{Spacetime and Geometry: The Alfred Schild

2191:         Lectures}, R.~Matzner and L.~Shepley Eds.

2192:         University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas. (1982);

2193:         G.~Cook, ``Initial Data for the Two-Body Problem

2194:         of General Relativity'', Ph.D. Dissertation, The University

2195:         of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1990).

2196: 

2197: 

2198: \bibitem{MY} N.~{\'O}.~Murchadha and J.~W.~York, Jr., 

2199:                    {\it Phys.\ Rev.}  {\bf D10}, 428 (1974);

2200:              N.~{\'O}.~Murchadha and J.~W.~York, Jr.,

2201:                    {\it Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf D10}, 437 (1974);

2202:              N.~{\'O}.~Murchadha and J.~W.~York, Jr.,

2203:                    {\it Gen.\ Relativ.\ Gravit.} {\bf 7} 257 (1976).

2204: 

2205: \bibitem{York} J.~W.~York, Jr., {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.} {\bf 82}, 

2206:         1350 (1999).  

2207:         

2208: 

2209: 

2210: \bibitem{Mathews} J.~R.~Wilson and G.~J.~Mathews,

2211:     {\it Phys.~Rev.~Lett.} {\bf 75}, 4161 (1995);

2212:     J.~R.~Wilson and G.~J.~Mathews, and P.~Marronetti,

2213:     {\it Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D54}, 1317 (1996)

2214: 

2215: 

2216: 

2217: 

2218: 

2219: \bibitem{Bowen+York} J.~Bowen and J.~W.~York,

2220:                      {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D21}, 2047 (1980).

2221: 

2222: 

2223: \bibitem{Garat}

2224: A.~Garat and R.~H.~Price,

2225: %``Nonexistence of conformally flat slices of the Kerr spacetime,''

2226: {\it Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf D61}, 124011 (2000) [arXiv:gr-qc/0002013].

2227: 

2228: \bibitem{Jansen}

2229: N.~Jansen, P.~Diener, A.~Khokhlov and I.~Novikov,

2230: ``Local and global properties of conformally flat

2231: initial data for black hole collisions,'' {\it Class. Quant. Grav.}

2232:  {\bf 20} 51 (2003) [arXiv:gr-qc/0103109].

2233: 

2234: \bibitem{Matzner:1999pt}

2235: R.~Matzner, M.~F.~Huq and D.~Shoemaker,

2236: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}  {\bf D59}, 024015 (1999)[arXiv:gr-qc/9805023].

2237: 

2238: 

2239: 

2240: 

2241: \bibitem{KerrSchild} R.~Kerr and A.~Schild, ``Some Algebraically Degenerate 

2242: Solutions of Einstein's Gravitational Field Equations,'' in 

2243: {\it Applications of Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations in 

2244: Mathematical Physics}, Proc. of Symposia B Applied Math., Vol XVII (1965); 

2245: ``A New Class of Solutions of the Einstein Field Equations'', 

2246: {\it Atti del Congresso Sulla Relitivita Generale: Problemi Dell'Energia 

2247: E Onde Gravitazionala} G. Barbera, Ed. (1965).

2248: 

2249: \bibitem{MTW} C.~W.~Misner, K.~S.~Thorne, and J.~A.~Wheeler, {\it Gravitation}

2250:                    (W.H. Freeman, New York, 1970).

2251: 

2252: \bibitem{Marronetti:2000rw}

2253: P.~Marronetti, M.~Huq, P.~Laguna, L.~Lehner, R.~Matzner and

2254: D.~Shoemaker, {\it Phys.\ Rev.}  {\bf D62}, 024017 (2000) [gr-qc/0001077].

2255: 

2256: \bibitem{Marronetti}P.~Marronetti and R.~A.~Matzner 

2257: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 85} 5500 (2000).

2258: 

2259: \bibitem{Wald} R.~ Wald, {\it General Relativity} 

2260:         (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984).

2261: 

2262: 

2263: \bibitem{note4} For consistency of notation we

2264: use the superscript ``ADM" to decorate the angular momentum

2265: $J^{\ADM}_{ab}$. We are not certain where the formula (\ref{eq:adm_ang_mom})

2266: was first written. It does {\it not} appear in~\cite{ADM}.

2267:  Expressions equivalent to it appear in~\cite{Weinberg}

2268: and in~\cite{MTW}, and were promulgated in notes by Misner (unpublished) in the

2269: mid-60s, arising from the long history of conservation law/pseudo-tensor

2270: studies in General Relativity. The form here was taken from~\cite{Wald}; see

2271: also the very thorough development in~\cite{Brown}.

2272: 

2273: Further, objections have

2274: been raised to our use of the symbol $M_{\ADM}$, rather than $E_{\ADM}$ in

2275: \eref{eq:adm_mass}. For a moving source, \eref{eq:adm_mass} would yield

2276: $\gamma$ times the result for the same source not moving (a calculation

2277: facilitated by the Kerr-Schild structure); see the discussion around 

2278: \eref{eq:boosted} below. We urge the reader to

2279: carefully follow our notation.

2280: 

2281: \bibitem{Weinberg} S.~Weinberg, {\it Gravitation and Cosmology}

2282:    (Wiley and Sons, New York, 1972)

2283: 

2284: \bibitem{Brown} J.~D.~Brown and J.~W.~York, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D47},

2285:         1407 (1993).

2286: 

2287: \bibitem{note1} Spatial components of angular momentum (e.g. spin)

2288:    perpendicular to the motion transform with one power of $\gamma$ and

2289:    stay perpendicular to the motion. The orbital angular momentum ${\bf L}

2290:    = {\bf r}\times {\bf p}$ also contains one power of $\gamma$ in ${\bf

2291:    p}$. Hence ${\bf J}$ contains one power of $\gamma$. See Landau and

2292:    Lifshitz, {\it Classical Theory of Fields} revised second edition,

2293:    (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1962), p. 46.

2294: 

2295: 

2296: \bibitem{Brill} D.~Brill and R.~W.~Lindquist 

2297:             {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 131} 471 (1963).

2298: 

2299: \bibitem{cadez} 

2300:    This was apparently first noticed as a  computational result; see

2301:    A. \v Cade\v z, {\it Ann. Phys. (NY)} {\bf 83} 449 (1974). \v Cade\v z

2302:    considered both the Brill-Lindquist~\cite {Brill} and

2303:    Misner~\cite{Misner} data. For Brill-Lindquist data the apparent

2304: horizon areas are easy to compute to $\rmO(m m'/\ell)$, because the lowest

2305: order effect of the distant hole on the local one is a constant, isotropic 

2306: addition to the local value of the conformal factor.

2307: 

2308: \bibitem{Misner} C.~Misner, {\it Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf 118}, 1110 (1960).

2309: 

2310: 

2311: \bibitem{P+W} R.~H.~Price and J.~T.~Whelan,

2312: {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}  {\bf 87}, 231101 (2001)

2313: [arXiv:gr-qc/0107029].

2314: 

2315: \bibitem{membrane}{\it Black Holes, the Membrane Paradigm}, K.~S.~Thorne, 

2316: R.~H.~Price, D~.A.~Macdonald, editors. (Yale

2317: University Press, New Haven, 1986), Section VIII B 1.

2318: 

2319: \bibitem{TeukThesis}S.~A.~Teukolsky, PhD Dissertation, California

2320: Institute of Technology, (1973).

2321: 

2322: \bibitem{WaldPRD} R.~Wald, {\it Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf D6}, 406 (1972).

2323: 

2324: 

2325: \bibitem{Dain} S.~Dain {\it Phys. Rev.}{\bf D66} 084019 (2002).

2326: 

2327: 

2328: \bibitem{NumRecepies} W.~H.~Press, S.~A.~Teukolsky, W.~T.~Vetterling,

2329: and B.~P.~Flannery,

2330: {\it Numerical Recipies in Fortran, Second Edition} (Cambridge University

2331: Press, Cambridge, 1992).

2332: 

2333: 

2334: \bibitem{Kidder} H.~Pfeiffer L.~Kidder, M.~Scheel and S.~A.~Teukolsky 

2335: [arXiv:gr-qc 0202096]. 

2336: 

2337: \bibitem{Brady}P.~Brady, J.~Creighton and K.~S.~Thorne, 

2338: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D58}, 061501 (1998).

2339: 

2340: \bibitem{Klasky} S.~Klasky, PhD Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 

2341:         (1966).

2342: 

2343: 

2344: \end{thebibliography}

2345: \end{document}

2346: \end

2347: 

2348: