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

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

3: 

4: \usepackage{graphicx}

5: \usepackage{color}

6: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23: 

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

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

26: 

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

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

29: \def\ADM{{\rm ADM}}

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

31: \def\ISCO{{\rm ISCO}}

32: \def\BE{{E_b}}

33: \def\lp{\left(}

34: \def\rp{\right)}

35: \def\lb{\left[}

36: \def\rb{\right]}

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

38: 

39: 

40: 

41: \begin{document}

42: \title{Extended Lifetime in Computational

43: Evolution of Isolated Black Holes}

44: 

45: \author{Matthew Anderson}

46: \author{Richard A. Matzner}

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

48: Austin, TX 78712-1081, USA}

49: 

50: \begin{abstract} Solving the 4-d Einstein equations as evolution

51: in time requires solving equations of two types: the four elliptic initial

52: data (constraint) equations, followed by the six second order evolution

53: equations. Analytically the constraint equations remain solved under the

54: action of the evolution, and one approach is to simply monitor them ({\it

55: unconstrained} evolution).

56: 

57: The problem of the 3-d computational simulation of even a single

58: isolated vacuum black hole has proven to be remarkably difficult.

59: Recently, we have become aware of two publications that describe

60: very long term evolution, at least for single isolated black

61: holes.

62: An essential feature in each of these results is {\it constraint

63: subtraction}. Additionally, each of these approaches is based on what we

64: call ``modern," hyperbolic

65: formulations of the Einstein equations. It is generally assumed, based on

66: computational experience, that the use of such modern formulations is

67: essential for long-term black hole stability. We report here on comparable

68: lifetime results based on the much simpler (``traditional") $\dot g$ - $\dot

69: K$ formulation.

70: 

71:  

72: With specific subtraction of constraints, with a simple

73: analytic gauge, with very simple

74: boundary conditions, and for moderately

75: large domains with moderately fine resolution, we find computational

76: evolutions of isolated nonspinning black holes for times exceeding $1000

77: GM/c^2$.

78: 

79: We have also carried out a

80: series of {\it constrained } 3-d evolutions of single isolated

81: black holes. We find that constraint solution can produce

82: substantially stabilized long-term single hole evolutions.

83: However, we have found that for large domains, neither constraint-subtracted

84: nor constrained  $\dot g$ - $\dot K$

85: evolutions carried out in Cartesian coordinates admit arbitrarily

86: long-lived simulations. The failure appears to arise from features at the

87: inner excision boundary; the behavior does generally improve with

88: resolution.

89: 

90: 

91: \end{abstract}

92: 

93: \pacs{ }

94: 

95: \maketitle

96: 

97: 

98: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

99: %

100: %

101: %

102: %----------------------------------------------------------------------

103: \section{Introduction}

104: \label{sec:intro}

105: 

106: 

107: Binary black hole systems are expected to be the strongest possible

108: astrophysical gravitational wave sources. In the final moments of

109: stellar mass black hole inspiral, the radiation will be detectable in

110: the current (LIGO-class) detectors. If the total binary mass is of the

111: order of $10M_{\odot}$, the moment of final plunge to coalescence will

112: emit a signal detectable by the current generation of detectors from

113: very distant (Gpc) sources. The merger of supermassive black holes in

114: the center of galaxies will be the dominant signal in the

115: spaceborne LISA detector, and detectable out to large redshift.

116: 

117: 

118: Simulation of these mergers will play an important part in the

119: prediction, detection, and the analysis of their gravitational signals

120: in gravitational wave detectors. To do so requires a correct formalism which

121: does not generate spurious singularities during the attempted simulation.

122: Recent important work\cite{schKidteuk}\cite{yo} has been

123: done in extending the computational lifetime

124: of single isolated black hole simulations. We report here on such an

125: extension

126: which demonstrates that {\it constraint subtraction} by itself is adequate

127: to produce very long-lived simulations. We demonstrate this even for a very

128: simple (``traditional") $\dot g$ - $\dot

129: K$ formulation, with specific subtraction of constraints (which

130: are analytically zero) for single isolated nonspinning

131: black holes, with a simple

132: analytic gauge (lapse and shift {\it not} ``densitized";

133: see \ref{sec:densitized} below), with very simple

134: boundary conditions, and for moderately

135: large domains with moderately fine resolution.

136: 

137: We have also found that {\it constrained }3-d evolution {\it with}

138: densitized lapse can produce

139: substantially stabilized long-term single holes, even for subtractions

140: that

141: differ from the values that we have found to be optimal in the

142: unconstrained

143: case, and we give some preliminary constrained evolution results.

144: 

145: However, in all cases we find that attempting to carry out the simulations

146: on very large domains ($\pm 20M$, or larger) still yields eventually

147: unstable simulations, by any of the methods reported here.

148: 

149: 

150: 

151: \section{$3+1$ Formulation of Einstein Equations}

152: 

153: We take a Cauchy formulation

154: (3+1) of the ADM type, after Arnowitt, Deser, and

155: Misner~\cite{ADM}. In such a method the 3-metric $g_{ij}$ and its momentum

156: $K_{ij}$ are specified at one initial time on

157: a spacelike hypersurface, and evolved into the future.  The ADM metric is

158: \be

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

160: \,\rmd x^i

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

162: \label{eq:admMetric}

163: \ee

164: where $\alpha$ is the lapse function and $\beta^i$ is the shift

165: 3-vector; these gauge

166: functions encode the

167: coordinatization.\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}\setcounter

168: {footnote}{2}\fnsymbol{footnote}

169: 

170: \footnotetext[2]{Latin indices run $1,2,3$ and are lowered and raised

171: by $ g_{ij}$

172: and its 3-d inverse $ g^{ij}$.}

173: %\footnote{Latin indices run $1,2,3$ and are lowered and raised by $ g_{ij}$

174: %and its 3-d inverse $ g^{ij}$.}

175: 

176: The Einstein field equations contain both hyperbolic evolution equations

177: and elliptic constraint equations.

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

179: \beq

180: H = \frac{1}{2} [R - K_{ij}K^{ij} + K^2] &=& 0,

181: \label{eq:constraintH}

182: \eeq

183: \beq

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

185: \label{eq:constraintK}

186: \eeq

187: Here $R$ is the 3-d Ricci scalar constructed from the 3-metric, and

188: $\nabla_j$ is the

189: 3-d covariant derivative compatible with $ g_{ij}$.

190: Initial data must satisfy these constraint

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

192: $K_{ij}$.   

193: 

194: In this paper we are concerned only with single isolated black holes.

195: From this point of view the problem is not

196: solving the initial value equations, since the data are known analytically.

197: Instead, the question is one of the stability of the solution

198: as these data are evolved computationally.

199: The evolution equations from the

200: Einstein system are

201: 

202: \begin{equation}

203:        \dot g_{ij} = -2\alpha K_{ij} +\nabla_j\beta_{i} + \nabla_i\beta_{j}

204: \label{eq:gdot}

205: \end{equation}

206: and 

207: 

208: \begin{equation}

209:       \dot  K_{ij} =  - \nabla_i \nabla_j \alpha + \alpha ( R_{i j}

210:           -2K_{i k}K^k_{~j} + KK_{i j} ) + \beta^k \nabla_k K_{ij} + K_{ik} \nabla_j \beta^k + K_{jk} \nabla_i \beta^k

211: \label{eq:kdot}

212: \end{equation}

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

214: to time, and $R_{ij}$ is the 3-d Ricci tensor.

215: 

216: 

217: We call this form of the Einstein equations {\it of ADM type},

218: referring to the fundamental development \cite{ADM}; this specific form is

219: called the $\dot g$ - $\dot K$ form. Here,

220: \eref{eq:constraintH}--\eref{eq:constraintK}, the

221: constraint equations, are the vacuum Einstein equations ${}^4 G_{00} = 0$

222: and

223: ${}^4 G_{0i} = 0$ respectively. \eref{eq:gdot}--\eref{eq:kdot}, the

224: evolution equations, are a first order form of the vacuum Einstein equations

225: ${}^4 R_{ij} = 0$.

226: 

227: The true ADM form writes the evolution equations as

228: ${}^4 G_{ij} = 0$,

229: the space components of the 4-d Einstein tensor, rather than the

230: Ricci tensor. Frittelli and Reula\cite{49Frittelli} have shown that with

231: certain

232: (rather strong) assumptions, there is stable maintenance of the constraints

233: under unconstrained evolution for \eref{eq:gdot}--\eref{eq:kdot},

234: but only neutral stability for ${}^4 G_{ij} = 0$.

235: 

236: 

237: \section{Data Form}

238: \label{sec:DataForm}

239: 

240: In this paper we consider only single isolated black holes,

241: so the data setting problem is already solved; we use Kerr-Schild data,

242: which describes a single isolated spinning or nonspinning black hole

243: hole.

244: 

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

246: the 

247: spacetime of a single black hole

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

249: system that is well behaved at the horizon:

250: \be

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

252:                  + 2H_{KS}(x^{\alpha}) l_{\mu} l_{\nu}\,\rmd x^{\mu}\,\rmd

253: x^{\nu},

254:         \label{eq:1}

255: \ee

256: where $\eta_{\mu \nu}$ is the metric of flat space, $H_{KS}$ is a scalar

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

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

259: \be

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

261: \label{eq:2}

262: \ee

263: 

264: 

265: Comparing the Kerr-Schild metric with the ADM

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

267: 3-space metric is: $g_{ij} = \delta_{ij} + 2 H_{KS} l_i l_j$.

268: Further, the ADM gauge variables  are

269: \be

270: \beta_i = 2 H_{KS} l_0 l_i,

271: \ee

272:  and

273: \be

274: \alpha = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + 2 H_{KS} l_0^2}}.

275: \label{eq:ksAlpha}

276: \ee

277: 

278: The extrinsic curvature can be computed from Eq.(\ref{eq:gdot}):

279: 

280: \be

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

282:                      - \dot g_{ij}],

283: \label{eq:k_ks}

284: \ee

285: 

286: 

287: Each term on the right hand side of this equation is known analytically; in

288: particular, for a black hole at rest, $\dot g_{ij}=0$.

289: 

290: The general non-moving

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

292: rectangular coordinates) has

293: \begin{equation}

294:         H_{KS} = \frac{mr}{r^{2} + a^{2}\cos^{2} \theta},

295:         \label{eq:ks_h}

296: \end{equation}

297: and

298: \begin{equation}

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

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

301:         \label{eq:4}

302: \end{equation}

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

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

305: and $\phi$ is 

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

307: \begin{equation}

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

309:         \label{eq:5}

310: \end{equation}

311: giving

312: \begin{equation}

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

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

315:         \label{eq:6}

316: \end{equation}

317: with

318: \begin{equation}

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

320:         \label{eq:rho_def}

321: \end{equation}

322: 

323: 

324: In the

325: nonspinning case, one has $l_i= x_i/r$, so that

326: $\alpha = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + 2 m/r}}$, and $\beta_i = 2 m x_i/r$.

327: 

328: 

329: %\begin{figure}

330: %\begin{center}

331: %\includegraphics[width=3.5in,angle=270]{ham.pdf}

332: %\end{center}

333: %\caption{The Hamiltonian constraint (units $m^{-2}$) calculated for .}

334: %\label{fig:hc_with_att}

335: %\end{figure}

336: 

337: 

338: \section{Constraint Subtraction}

339: \label{sec:C-S}

340: 

341: 

342: The difference between \eref{eq:gdot}--\eref{eq:kdot},

343: and ${}^4 G_{ij} = 0$, is a specific subtraction of

344: the constraint equations. This has led to the

345: consideration by a number of groups, of constraint subtraction with

346: coefficients chosen by numerical search, or by analytical estimate (perhaps

347: combined with numerical search) to improve the long-term stability of the

348: unconstrained evolution. We have carried out such a numerical search, and

349: we use the following constraint subtraction:

350: 

351: \be

352: -\alpha H (0.464\, g_{i\,j}\, + 0.36\ K_{i\,j}\,)

353: \label{eq:constraintSub}

354: \ee

355: on the right hand side of the $\dot K_{ij}$ equation (\eref{eq:kdot}).

356: We have found that this subtraction

357: substantially improves the unconstrained evolution

358: of nonspinning single-hole data. For these evolutions we choose fixed

359: (Dirichlet) outer

360: boundary conditions set equal to the analytical value.  In every case the

361: simulation excises the interior of the black hole.

362: One-sided differencing is used near the inner (mask) boundary, so no

363: boundary condition is needed there, consistent with the property of the

364: horizon as a causal boundary. The mask is specified at a radius of 0.75 M.

365: The

366: solution employs the SUNDIALS package for time integration \cite{SUNDIALS,CVODES}.

367: The spatial

368: discretization is fourth order, and the

369: time evolution is typically fourth order (variable-order according

370: to the relative and absolute error

371: tolerances).  This approach successfully stabilizes the evolutions for

372: domains of $\pm 10M$, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:standard_domain}.

373: For larger domains, however, the system is increasingly shorter lived, as shown

374: in Figure \ref{fig:vary_domain}.

375: As a simple measure of the quality of solution, we present the either the

376: $l_2$ norm or rms norm of the Hamiltonian constraint constructed via a

377: straightforward fourth order differencing scheme from the code results.

378: 

379: Although it is difficult to compare subtraction techniques across

380: different formal representations of the Einstein equations, we do find

381: typically much smaller coefficients of subtraction (of order $0.5$) than

382: found for different formulations, e.g. \cite{schKidteuk} with a constraint

383: subtraction of order $-12.$ The BSSN formulation of \cite{yo} is also

384: substantially different from ours (there is a subtraction from the $\dot

385: g_{ij}$

386: equation, for instance, which we do not have, and the subtraction from the

387: $\dot K_{ij}$ equation is different from ours), though the coefficient of

388: subtraction from $\dot K_{ij}$ for this approach is small, comparable to

389: ours.

390: \bigskip

391: 

392: \subsection{Densitized Lapse}

393: \label{sec:densitized}

394: 

395: There is extensive evidence in the literature that a {\it densitized} lapse

396: improves the hyperbolicity\cite{gr-qc/0402123} of the (at best)

397: weakly hyperbolic ADM form of

398: the Einstein equations. We implement densitized lapse for single black hole

399: simulations by writing

400: 

401: \be

402: \alpha = \alpha_{\rm analytic} (g/g_{\rm analytic})^p,

403: \ee

404: where $\alpha_{\rm analytic}$ is the explicit lapse as a function of coordinates

405: given by \eref{eq:ksAlpha},

406: $g_{\rm analytic}$ is the analytic Kerr-Schild $3-$metric determinant

407: as a function of coordinates, ($g_{\rm analytic}=1+2H l_t^2$,

408: \cite{gr-qc/0002076}),

409: $g$ is the computational $3-$metric determinant,

410: and $p$ is an adjustable positive constant usually taken to be $\frac{1}{3}$

411: or

412: $\frac{1}{2}$. In fact we find that densitized lapse does not enhance

413: constraint-subtracted lifetime, though it does contribute substantially

414: to longer lifetime in {\it constrained} evolutions described below.

415: 

416: %{\bf insert  figures here}

417: \begin{figure}

418: \begin{center}

419: \includegraphics[width=5.0in, angle=0]{./figure1}

420: \end{center}

421: \caption{The log of the rms norm of the Hamiltonian

422: constraint violations for

423: constraint-subtracted and unsubtracted nonspinning black hole simulations

424: with excision.  The simulations were performed at resolutions

425: of $M/5$ and $M/7.5$ on a domain size of $\pm 10M$.  The long-lived runs

426: employed optimal constraint subtraction (\eref{eq:constraintSub}). The

427: short-lived run

428: employed no subtraction.

429: }

430: \label{fig:standard_domain}

431: \end{figure}

432: 

433: \begin{figure}

434: \begin{center}

435: \includegraphics[width=5.0in, angle=0]{./figure2}

436: \end{center}

437: \caption{The $l_2$ norm of the Hamiltonian constraint

438: violation for 

439: constraint-subtracted and unsubtracted nonspinning black hole

440: simulations with excision

441: performed at a resolution

442: of $M/5$ on a domain sizes of $\pm 10M$, $\pm 15M$, or $\pm 20M$. All cases

443: employed the optimal constraint subtraction (\eref{eq:constraintSub}).

444: As the computational domain size increases, the simulation is increasingly shorter lived.

445: }

446: \label{fig:vary_domain}

447: \end{figure}

448: 

449: \section{Constrained Evolution}

450: 

451: The evolution of Kerr-Schild data

452: must continue to satisfy the constraint equations,

453: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:constraintH})--(\ref{eq:constraintK})

454: as we evolve away from the initial data.  However,

455: if we choose nonoptimal (e.g. zero)

456: constraint subtraction for even nonspinning black holes, the evolution

457: leads to an eventual violation of the constraints. Hence we have

458: investigated constrained evolution, solving the constraint equations as part

459: of the time update of the evolution equations.

460: 

461: The postevaluated tracking of constraint errors [residual

462: postevaluation] shown in Figures

463: \ref{fig:standard_domain}--\ref{fig:vary_domain} used the direct

464: discretization of the constraint

465: equations \eref{eq:constraintH} and \eref{eq:constraintK}.

466: For constrained evolution we need instead to implement an accurate,

467: efficient method of constraint {\it solution}.

468: We adopt the conformal transverse-traceless method

469: of York and collaborators~\cite{YP}-\cite{Bowen+York} which consists of a

470: conformal decomposition with a scalar $\phi$ that adjusts the metric,

471: and a vector potential $w^i$ that adjusts the longitudinal components of the

472: extrinsic curvature.

473: The constraint equations are then solved for these new quantities  $\phi$,

474: $w^i$ such that

475: the complete solution fully satisfies the constraints.

476: 

477: Applying this approach to constrained evolution,

478: the metric and traceless extrinsic curvature in the middle of a timestep

479: (after an explicit integration forward in time)  are

480: taken as conformal trial functions  $\tilde{g}_{ij}$ and

481: $\tilde{A}^{ij}$.

482: 

483: The physical metric at the end of the full timestep

484: (i.e. after the constraint equation solve), $g_{ij}$,

485: and the trace-free part of the extrinsic

486: curvature at the end of the full timestep, $A_{ij}$,

487: are related to the background fields through a

488: conformal

489: factor:

490: \ba

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

492: \label{confg}

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

494: \label{eq:conf_field}

495: \ea

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

497: will be used to cancel any possible longitudinal contribution.

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

499: \ba

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

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

502: \label{lw}

503: \ea

504: The trace $K$ is not corrected:

505: \be

506: K = \tilde K.

507: \label{tk}

508: \ee

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

510: the quantities in 

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

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

513: %\ba

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

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

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

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

518: %\label{ell_eqPhi}

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

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

521: %\label{ell_eqs}

522: %\ea

523: \begin{eqnarray}

524: \tilde{\nabla}^2 \phi &=&  \left(1/8\right) \left[ \tilde{R}\phi  \right.

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

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

527:      \left.  \left(\tilde{A}_{ij} + (\tilde{lw})_{ij} \right) \right], \label{ell_eqPhi} \\

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

529:      \tilde{\nabla}_{j} \tilde{K} - \tilde{\nabla}_{j} \tilde{A}{^{ij}}. \label{ell_eqs}

530: \end{eqnarray}

531: 

532: These equations are solved to complete each time-update step.

533: The resulting solved $g_{ij}$ and $K_{ij}$ are taken as the data for the

534: next time-update. Notice that these equations require no specific gauge

535: choice. A similar approach also can be applied to other formulations which

536: generally have a larger number of constraints.

537: 

538: \subsection{Elliptic Equation Boundary Conditions}

539: \label{sec:boundary}

540: 

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

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

543: of any masked regions.

544: For the elliptic solution here we can choose simple

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

546: the singularity. Because we solve the problem

547: on a finite domain, we also must provide an outer boundary condition for

548: $\phi $ and $w^{i}$. For this demonstration of the technique, we

549: choose the same conditions at the outer boundary of the domain:

550: $\phi = 1$ and $w^{i} = 0$. In

551: long term evolution we expect the evolved solution to

552: converge (as the solution is refined) to a solution of the constraints,

553: so a global solution $\phi = 1$ and $w^{i} = 0$ is expected in this

554: analytic limit. For achievable resolutions, however,

555: the quantities $\phi $ and $w^{i}$ deviate from this prediction.

556: 

557: 

558: \section{Constrained Evolution Results}

559: \label{sec:physresults}

560: 

561: The elliptic constraint equations are solved either by a

562: PETSc \cite{PETSC_1,PETSC_2,PETSC_3} GMRES solver or

563: KINSOL \cite{SUNDIALS} GMRES solver;

564: the spatial differencing is fourth order. We present

565: below (Figures \ref{fig:constrained} - \ref{fig20.pdf})

566: the results of preliminary constrained evolution of

567: nonspinning black holes. Figure \ref{fig:constrained} shows the

568: rms norm of Hamiltonian and momentum constraints

569: for these simulations.

570: Compared 

571: to the relatively short term crash of the unconstrained

572: evolution, the constrained evolution clearly

573: does

574: stabilize single black hole evolutions in small domains, regardless of the

575: precise

576: subtraction. To fully understand the content of

577: Figure \ref{fig:constrained},

578: consider that, even

579: if the residual limit

580: in the solution of the constraint equations,

581: \eref{ell_eqPhi} -- \eref{ell_eqs}, is set

582: to extremely small values (it can be set very near to machine

583: precision, 

584: meaning that the discretized matrix form of equations

585: \eref{ell_eqPhi} --  \eref{ell_eqs}

586: can be solved to fractional errors of order $10^{-15}$), the

587: post-evaluations 

588: of the constraint residuals will typically show the

589: expected $zero$ only

590: to the internal discretization accuracy (here fourth order).

591: This is why 

592: the constrained solution shown in Figure \ref{fig:constrained}

593: shows a finite (but convergent) level of Hamiltonian

594: constraint violation.

595: 

596: Figures \ref{fig15.pdf}-\ref{fig20.pdf} show a constrained

597: $\dot g - \dot K$ evolution with densitized lapse, at three resolutions

598: ($M/5, M/7.5, M/10$). The $M/5$ evolution became unstable before

599: $t= 100 M$. The $M/7.5$ run began showing large residuals at

600: $t \approx 350 M$. The $M/10$ run shows better behavior than $M/7.5$,

601: at least initially It shows a similar late time instability which

602: tracks (at smaller error) the behavior of the $M/7.5 $ case,

603: but around $150M$ ceases to be convergent; see Figure \ref{fig17.pdf}.

604: Figure  \ref{fig20.pdf} shows the 2d $z=0$ behavior of the residual

605: component 

606: $G_{xx}$ at $t = 100M$. The ``red-blue" pattern of the features

607: near the excision mask indicate that most of the error develops

608: there. The residual becomes more asymmetrical at

609: later times.

610:  

611: \section{CORRECTNESS OF CONSTRAINED EVOLUTION}

612: \label{sec:correctness}

613: 

614: The constraint maintenance approach uses what has been called in

615: magnetohydrodynamics, a {\it projection} method\cite{projection}.  This

616: method for constrained evolution raises questions about the meaning of

617: the solutions obtained. This is sometimes put bluntly: ``Accepting that

618: the method finds solutions of the full Einstein system, how do we know

619: that the found solution is the {\it right} one?" By this is meant that

620: the constraint solution step may somehow move the solution back to an

621: ``erroneous" point on the space of constraint solutions. For instance,

622: it might be possible that although the evolution substep and the

623: constraint substep are individually convergent computational

624: processes, the result of combining them is in

625: some manner {\it not} convergent. (In the much

626: simpler MHD case there are analytical proofs that projection

627: minimizes the resultant error in the magnetic field, in a

628: convergent

629: way.\cite{projection})

630: 

631: \begin{figure}

632: \begin{center}

633: \includegraphics[width=6.0in, angle=0]{./figure3}

634: \end{center}

635: \caption{The rms norm of the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints

636: for simulations of a Schwarzschild (nonspinning)

637: black hole with excision. None of the simulations used any constraint subtraction.

638: The simulations were performed at resolutions 

639: of either $M/5$ or $M/7.5$ on a domain size of $\pm 5M$. The long-lived runs employed

640: constrained evolution as described in the text. The short-lived runs were

641: unconstrained.

642: }

643: \label{fig:constrained}

644: \end{figure}

645: 

646: There are several parts to the response. (It will be clear that we do

647: not pretend 

648: to a rigorous analytical proof.)

649: To begin with, we have

650: constructed completely independent ``residual evaluators"

651: for the full Einstein system\cite{choptuikSB}. These evaluate the

652: Einstein tensor, working just from the metric produced by the

653: computational solution. They are completely different from the way

654: the equations are expressed in the constrained evolution code.

655: As we show in Figures \ref{fig15.pdf},\ref{fig17.pdf}, the

656: resulting residual is in every case initially small (order of

657: truncation error) and convergent. Thus we have

658: achieved a computational solution to the Einstein system.

659: Note that our

660: full Einstein equation residual evaluator

661: checks both the constraints (Einstein equations at one time),

662: and the evolution 

663: equations connecting different time steps.

664: 

665: The residual evaluators are written to return fourth order accurate

666: results. Since they have now been verified and show

667: convergence of the solution, we appeal

668: to the assumption that

669: the Einstein system is not {\it singular} at the solution

670: manifold. Thus we

671: expect that the computational result converges to the analytical

672: solution of the Einstein equations.  We have converged to a

673: spacetime configuration. Physical consistency and generality

674: imply that

675: it is the physically unique one that contains the initial

676: data slice. We also note that, as in the situation in Figure \ref{fig17.pdf},

677: the convergence 

678: is eventually lost in some simulations; these simulations are no longer

679: solving Einstein's equations.\\

680: 

681: 

682: \begin{figure}

683: \begin{center}

684: \includegraphics[width=5.0in, angle=0]{./figure4}

685: \end{center}

686: \caption{The log of the rms norm for the Hamiltonian constraint

687: in simulations evolving a nonrotating Kerr-Schild black

688: hole with a spatial

689: domain of [$-10M . . . 10M$] at three resolutions:

690: $M/5, M/7.5,$ and $M/10.$ The excision

691: radius was $0.5M$ in all constrained and unconstrained

692: cases. All simulations

693: used a densitized lapse with $p = \frac{1}{3}$.

694: The constraints were

695: solved in the constrained

696: evolution cases every $0.05M$ everywhere on the domain

697: except those points where

698: $r < 2.0M$. Independent residual evaluations for the

699: constrained cases with

700: resolution M/7.5 and M/10 are found in Figure \ref{fig17.pdf}}

701: \label{fig15.pdf}

702: \end{figure}

703: 

704: \begin{figure}

705: \begin{center}

706: \includegraphics[width=5.0in, angle=0]{./figure5}

707: \end{center}

708: \caption{The rms norm of the diagonal

709: spatial components of the Einstein tensor for the

710: M/7.5 and M/10 constrained simulations presented in

711: Figure \ref{fig15.pdf}}

712: \label{fig17.pdf}

713: \end{figure}

714: 

715: \begin{figure}

716: \begin{center}

717: \includegraphics[width=5.0in, angle=0]{./figure6}

718: \end{center}

719: \caption{The z = 0 plane of the

720: Einstein tensor component $G_{xx}$ at time

721: $100M$ for the $M/7.5$ constrained evolution

722: presented in Figures \ref{fig15.pdf}, \ref{fig17.pdf}.

723: }

724: \label{fig20.pdf}

725: \end{figure}

726: 

727: 

728: It is of interest to ask why our approach has not been

729: implemented

730: previously.  A number of factors were at work. It has been

731: universally

732: assumed that the computational overhead of elliptic solvers is

733: excessive. Choptuik \cite{ChoptuikPC} indicates a time

734: penalty of $\times 2$, incurred by a fully constrained $2d$

735: evolution,

736: compared to free evolution. This cost is justified by the

737: much longer

738: physical lifetimes achieved in the ($2d$) evolutions of

739: Ref  \cite{gr-qc0301006}; Choptuik's factor of two in time

740: is considered a small

741: penalty. However, in previous implementations of

742: constrained ($2d$)

743: evolution, one additionally had the problem that the

744: solvers were 

745: restricted, for instance to conformally flat situations.

746: This required 

747: strong gauge constraints on the evolution, and meant that

748: generally one re-solved a strongly nonlinear equation

749: (comparable to the initial value problem), on each time step.

750: But we have found, even working with

751: straightforward package solvers, that the penalty for our

752: approach is only of order 30\%.

753: This is because our constraint solver (developed for Kerr-Schild

754: superposed initial data), is in fact completely general with no form

755: restrictions on the background. (There are, of course, general conditions

756: on 

757: the elliptic equations to allow their solution \cite{restrictions},

758: but we 

759: have encountered no difficulties in working with physically

760: realistic 

761: configurations). 

762: 

763: Thus our elliptic solver can use backgrounds

764: that are

765: strongly nonflat. They may be strongly nonflat, but they are

766: already very close to constraint solution.

767: This is so because they

768: arise from evolving one timestep with an accurate time

769: integrator; we use a package integrator which is typically

770: fourth order

771: accurate in time, and the spatial discretization

772: is also fourth order. There is thus only a very small

773: correction arising from the elliptic solve, and

774: minimal outer iteration is required. Further,

775: we take note of the fact that our explicit time

776: integration has a certain inherent order of truncation error.

777: Thus we do not in fact set the residual

778: limit for the elliptic solve anywhere near machine accuracy.

779: Instead we set it so that it produces errors which are consistent

780: in size with the

781: evolution truncation error.  This reduces the {\it internal}

782: iteration in the solver to a very small number.

783: Finally, computational resources are now becoming

784: adequate for constrained 3-d evolution.

785: $1$Tflop/sec Computers are now accessible,

786: making this work plausible. It

787: will always be the case that constrained evolution is more computation-

788: and memory- intensive than unconstrained, but the time has arrived that

789: interesting constrained evolutions are possible. Further, ongoing

790: computational infrastructure improvements will make this level of

791: computation generally accessible. Well within a decade, desktop access

792: to $10$ Tflop/sec will mean that constrained evolutions at LISA- or

793: LIGO- relevant resolutions will become unexceptional.

794: 

795: 

796: 

797: \section{Discussion}

798: 

799: 

800: 

801: We have demonstrated that the analytical formulation is not critical to long

802: term evolution of single black holes, if the correct constraint subtraction

803: is used.

804: Thus, ``modern" approaches that pose explicitly hyperbolic approaches are

805: not

806: essential; ``traditional" $\dot g$ - $\dot K$ methods produce comparably

807: long

808: evolutions. The evidence seems to be that there are many formulations and

809: subtraction schemes that lead to long-term single black hole stability; we

810: have found an especially simple one.

811: 

812: However, we have found, consistent with theoretical estimates, that the

813: precise subtraction is critical (a fraction to two or three decimals). To

814: attack this problem, we have carried out periodic solution of the elliptic constraint

815: equations as part of

816: the time integration, to enable fully constrained evolutions of

817: the Einstein equations. Our initial results demonstrate dramatic

818: improvement of long

819: term stability of a nonspinning black hole simulation. Because we solve the

820: constraints, constraint subtraction is irrelevant in this case. We are

821: beginning exploration of the constrained evolution

822: approach in spacetimes

823: involving single moving, and multiple interacting black holes. We find

824: substantial improvement from constraint solving in every simulation,

825: but we have not achieved infinite-lived $\dot g - \dot K$ simulations,

826: even with densitized lapse (which is known to improve the hyperbolicity

827: of the system of equations). We have begun an approach where

828: the inner excision is made at a constant coordinate surface that

829: coincides with the apparent horizon (essentially {\it spherical}, or

830: {\it spheroidal} coordinates) near the excision

831: region\cite{mattDiss}. This approach addresses concerns about the validity of the

832: stair-step (LEGO) excision region (\cite{gr-qc/0302072}).

833: (Additionally the best long-lived isolated black hole simulation to

834: date has been carried out by Ref \cite{schKidteuk} with a

835: pseudo-spectral method with apparent horizon conforming coordinates.)

836: 

837: Our approach uses coordinates which are spherical near the hole, with a

838: cartesian 

839: region further away. It is hoped that this approach may exhibit some of the

840: good 

841: properties and long lifetime of the codes described in \cite{schKidteuk}.

842: 

843: 

844: 

845: 

846: 

847: \section*{Acknowledgments}

848: Computations were performed at the Texas Advanced Computing Center

849: at the

850: University of Texas.  This work was supported by NSF grants PHY

851: 0102204 and  PHY~0354842. Additionally, portions of this

852: work were conducted

853: at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics,

854: The University of California at

855: Santa Barbara, under NSF grant PHY99 07947, and at the Laboratory for

856: High Energy Astrophysics, NASA/Goddard Space flight Center,

857: Greenbelt Maryland, with support from the University Space Research

858: Association.  

859: M.~Anderson acknowledges support from

860: a Department of Energy

861: Computational Science Graduate Fellowship administered by the Krell

862: Institute.

863: 

864: %This work is

865: %supported in part by NSF grants PHY~9800722, PHY~9800725, and

866: %PHY~0102204. Computations were performed at the NSF supercomputer

867: %center NCSA and the University of Texas AHPCC.

868: 

869: 

870: \newpage

871: 

872: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

873: 

874: 

875: 

876: 

877: \bibitem{schKidteuk} Mark A. Scheel, Lawrence E. Kidder, Lee Lindblom,

878: Harald P. Pfeiffer, Saul A. Teukolsky, ``Toward stable 3D numerical

879: evolutions of black-hole spacetimes," {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D66} 124005

880: (2002)[arXiv:gr-qc/0209115].

881: 

882: 

883: \bibitem{yo}Hwei-Jang Yo, Thomas W. Baumgarte, Stuart L. Shapiro, ``Improved

884: numerical stability of stationary black hole evolution calculations," {\it

885: Phys. Rev.} {\bf D66} 084026 (2002) [arXiv:gr-qc/0209066].

886: 

887: 

888: 

889: 

890: 

891: \bibitem{ADM} R.~Arnowitt, S.~Deser, and C.~Misner in Witten,

892: {\it Gravitation,

893: an Introduction to Current Research} (Wiley, New York 1962).

894: 

895: \bibitem{49Frittelli}Frittelli, S., and Reula, O., ``First-order

896: symmetric-hyperbolic Einstein equations with arbitrary fixed gauge'', {\it

897: Phys. Rev. Lett.}, {\bf 76}, 4667-4670, (1996).

898: 

899: 

900: %\bibitem{Matzner:1999pt}

901: %R.~Matzner, M.~F.~Huq and D.~Shoemaker,

902: %{\it Phys.\ Rev.}  {\bf D59}, 024015 (1999)[arXiv:gr-qc/9805023].

903: 

904: 

905: 

906: \bibitem{KerrSchild} R.~Kerr and A.~Schild, ``Some Algebraically Degenerate

907: Solutions of Einstein's Gravitational Field Equations,'' in

908: {\it Applications of Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations in

909: Mathematical Physics}, Proc. of Symposia B Applied Math., Vol XVII (1965);

910: ``A New Class of Solutions of the Einstein Field Equations'',

911: {\it Atti del Congresso Sulla Relitivita Generale: Problemi Dell'Energia

912: E Onde Gravitazionala} G. Barbera, Ed. (1965).

913: 

914: 

915: \bibitem{SUNDIALS} A.~Hindmarsh, R.~Serban and C.~Woodward, ``SUNDIALS home

916: page",

917: \textit{http://www.llnl.gov/CASC/sundials/} (2002).

918: 

919: \bibitem{CVODES} A.~Hindmarsh and R. Serban, ``User Documentation for

920: CVODES",

921: (Center for Applied Scientific Computer, 

922: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2002).

923: 

924: \bibitem{KINSOL} A.~Taylor and A. Hindmarsh, ``User Documentation for

925: {KINSOL}, A Nonlinear Solver for Sequentail and Parallel Computers",

926: (Center for Applied Scientific Computer, 

927: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 1998).

928: 

929: \bibitem{gr-qc/0402123}Gabriel Nagy, Omar E. Ortiz and Oscar A. Reula

930: ``Strongly hyperbolic second order Einstein's evolution equations",

931: gr-qc/0402123 (2004).

932: 

933: \bibitem{YP} J.~York and  T.~\ Piran

934:         ``The Initial Value Problem and Beyond'',

935:         \textit{Spacetime and Geometry: The Alfred Schild

936:         Lectures}, R.~Matzner and L.~Shepley Eds.

937:         University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas. (1982);

938:         G.~Cook, ``Initial Data for the Two-Body Problem

939:         of General Relativity'', Ph.D. Dissertation, The University

940:         of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1990).

941: 

942: 

943: \bibitem{MY} N.~{\'O}.~Murchadha and J.~W.~York, Jr.,

944:                    {\it Phys.\ Rev.}  {\bf D10}, 428 (1974);

945:              N.~{\'O}.~Murchadha and J.~W.~York, Jr.,

946:                    {\it Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf D10}, 437 (1974);

947:              N.~{\'O}.~Murchadha and J.~W.~York, Jr.,

948:                    {\it Gen.\ Relativ.\ Gravit.} {\bf 7} 257 (1976).

949: 

950: \bibitem{York} J.~W.~York, Jr., {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.} {\bf 82},

951:         1350 (1999).

952:         

953: 

954: 

955: \bibitem{Mathews} J.~R.~Wilson and G.~J.~Mathews,

956:     {\it Phys.~Rev.~Lett.} {\bf 75}, 4161 (1995);

957:     J.~R.~Wilson and G.~J.~Mathews, and P.~Marronetti,

958:     {\it Phys.~Rev.} {\bf D54}, 1317 (1996)

959: 

960: 

961: 

962: 

963: 

964: \bibitem{Bowen+York} J.~Bowen and J.~W.~York,

965:                      {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D21}, 2047 (1980).

966: 

967: \bibitem{gr-qc/0002076}

968: Mijan F. Huq, Matthew W. Choptuik and Richard A. Matzner,

969: ``Locating Boosted Kerr and Schwarzschild Apparent Horizons"

970: {\it Physical Review} {\bf D66},~084024~(2002).

971: 

972: \bibitem{ChoptuikPC} M.~Choptuik, Personal communication.

973: 

974: \bibitem{PETSC_1} S.~Balay, K.~Buschelman, W.~D.~Gropp, D.~Kaushik,

975: M.~Knepley, L.~C.~McInnes, B.~F.~Smith and H.~Zhang, ``PETSc home page",

976: \textit{http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc} (2001).

977: 

978: \bibitem{PETSC_2} S.~Balay, K.~Buschelman, W.~D.~Gropp, D.~Kaushik,

979: M.~Knepley, L.~C.~McInnes, B.~F.~Smith and H.~Zhang, ``PETSc Users Manual",

980: \textit{ANL-95/11 - Revision 2.1.5} (Argonne National Laboratoy, 2002).

981: 

982: \bibitem{PETSC_3} S.~Balay, K.~Buschelman, W.~D.~Gropp, D.~Kaushik,

983: M.~Knepley, L.~C.~McInnes, B.~F.~Smith and H.~Zhang, ``Efficient Management

984: of 

985: Parallelism in Object Oriented Numerical Software Libraries",

986: \textit{Modern Software Tools in Scientific Computing}, E.~Arge,

987: A.~M.~Bruaset, and H.~P.~Langtangen, editors,

988: (Birkhauser Press, 1997), pp. 163-202.

989: 

990: \bibitem{gr-qc/0302072} Gioel Calabrese, Luis Lehner, David Neilsen,

991: Jorge Pullin, Oscar Reula, Olivier Sarbach, Manuel Tiglio,

992: ``Novel finite-differencing techniques for numerical relativity:

993: application to black hole excision", {\it Classical and Quantum Gravity}

994: {\bf 20} L245-L252 (2003).

995: 

996: \bibitem{projection}G. Toth ``The ${\bf \nabla \cdot}$ {{\bf B}} $= 0$ Constraint in Shock-Capturing

997: Magnetohydrodynamics Codes"

998: {\it Jour. Comp. Phys.} {\bf 161} 605 (2002).

999: 

1000: \bibitem{choptuikSB} Personal communication (2003).

1001: 

1002: 

1003: \bibitem{gr-qc0301006}

1004: M. W. Choptuik,  E. W. Hirschmann,  S. L. Liebling,  and F. Pretorius,

1005: ``An Axisymmetric Gravitational Collapse Code"

1006:  {\it Class. Quant. Grav.} {\bf 20}, 1857-1878 (2003).

1007: 

1008: \bibitem{restrictions} Y. Choquet-Bruhat, J. Isenberg and J. W. York,

1009: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D61} 084034 2000

1010: 

1011: \bibitem{mattDiss}Matthew Anderson, ``Constrained Evolution in Numerical Relativity"

1012: Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin (2004).

1013: 

1014: \end{thebibliography}

1015: \end{document}

1016: \end

1017: