1: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amssymb,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

2: %\documentclass

3: %[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

4: \documentclass[showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

5: 

6: \usepackage{graphicx,epsf, epsfig, psfig, amssymb}% Include figure files

7: \usepackage{bm} 

8: % Include bold math: \bm{} creates bold letters and symbols in math mode

9: 

10: \def\h{\hfill\break\noindent}

11: \def\nn{\nonumber}

12: \def\ver{\vskip 12pt}

13: \def\lll{\left[}

14: \def\rrr{\right]}

15: \def\bl{\Biggl[}

16: \def\br{\Biggr]}

17: \def\gbl{\Biggl\{}

18: \def\gbr{\Biggr\}}

19: 

20: \def\pps{\Psi_{\ell m}}

21: \def\pa{\partial}

22: \def\Y{Y_{\ell m}(\vartheta,\varphi)}

23: \def\YS{Y^*_{\ell m}(\vartheta,\varphi)}

24: \def\Yt{Y_{\ell m,\vartheta }(\vartheta,\varphi)}

25: \def\Ytt{Y_{\ell m,\vartheta \vartheta}(\vartheta,\varphi)}

26: \def\YE{Y_{\ell m}}

27: \def\YSE{Y^*_{\ell m}}

28: \def\YtE{Y_{\ell m,\vartheta }}

29: \def\YttE{Y_{\ell m,\vartheta \vartheta}}

30: \def\EM{e^{-\ii\omega t}}

31: \def\EP{e^{+\ii\omega t}}

32: \def\N{N_{\ell m}(t,r)}

33: \def\T{T_{\ell m}(t,r)}

34: \def\V{V_{\ell m}(t,r)}

35: \def\L{L_{\ell m}(t,r)}

36: \def\hh{h^{0}_{\ell m}(t,r)}

37: \def\hs{h^{1}_{\ell m}(t,r)}

38: \def\msun{M_\odot}

39: \def\httw{h^{TT}_{\vartheta \vartheta}(\omega,r,\vartheta,\varphi)}

40: \def\htpw{h^{TT}_{\vartheta \varphi}(\omega,r,\vartheta,\varphi)}

41: \def\htt{h^{TT}_{\vartheta \vartheta}(t,r,\vartheta,\varphi)}

42: \def\htp{h^{TT}_{\vartheta \varphi}(t,r,\vartheta,\varphi)}

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

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

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

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

47: \def\lm{{\ell m}}

48: \def\ii{{\rm i}}

49: \def\o{\omega}

50: \def\IL{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em L}}

51: \def\tT{{\tilde T}}

52: \def\nn{\nonumber}

53: \def\f{\frac}

54: 

55: \begin{document}

56: 

57: \title{Quasinormal modes and classical wave propagation in 

58: analogue black holes}

59: %\title{Quasinormal modes and classical wave propagation in 

60: %analogue acoustic black holes}

61: 

62: \author{Emanuele Berti}

63: \email{berti@iap.fr} \affiliation{McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences,

64: Department of Physics, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130, USA}

65: 

66: \author{Vitor Cardoso}

67: \email{vcardoso@teor.fis.uc.pt} \affiliation{Centro de F\'{\i}sica

68: Computacional, Universidade de Coimbra, P-3004-516 Coimbra,

69: Portugal}

70: 

71: \author{Jos\'e P. S. Lemos}

72: \email{lemos@fisica.ist.utl.pt} \affiliation{Centro

73: Multidisciplinar de Astrof\'{\i}sica - CENTRA, Departamento de

74: F\'{\i}sica, Instituto Superior T\'ecnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1,

75: 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal}

76: 

77: \date{\today}

78: 

79: \begin{abstract}

80: 

81: Many properties of black holes can be studied using acoustic analogues

82: in the laboratory through the propagation of sound waves. We

83: investigate in detail sound wave propagation in a rotating acoustic

84: $(2+1)$-dimensional black hole, which corresponds to the ``draining

85: bathtub'' fluid flow.  We compute the quasinormal mode frequencies of

86: this system and discuss late-time power-law tails. Due to the presence

87: of an ergoregion, waves in a rotating acoustic black hole can be

88: superradiantly amplified. We compute superradiant reflection coefficients

89: and instability timescales for the acoustic black hole bomb, the

90: equivalent of the Press-Teukolsky black hole bomb. Finally we discuss

91: quasinormal modes and late-time tails in a non-rotating canonical

92: acoustic black hole, corresponding to an incompressible, spherically

93: symmetric $(3+1)$-dimensional fluid flow.

94: 

95: \end{abstract}

96: 

97: \pacs{04.70.-s, 43.20.+g, 04.80.Cc}

98: 

99: \maketitle

100: 

101: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

102: \section{Introduction}

103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

104: 

105: Black holes are one of the most fascinating predictions of general

106: relativity. Being a solution of the classical Einstein field equations

107: in vacuum, they are the simplest objects which can be built out of

108: spacetime itself. Hawking \cite{hawking} showed that when quantum

109: effects are taken into account, black holes are not really black: they

110: slowly evaporate by emitting an almost thermal radiation. Hawking's

111: prediction has been tested time and again in very different ways. It

112: is now clear that the appearance of Hawking radiation does not depend

113: on the dynamics of the Einstein equations, but only on their

114: kinematical structure, and more specifically on the existence of an

115: apparent horizon \cite{visserlaws,visserhawking}. The discovery of

116: Hawking radiation uncovered a number of fundamental questions: among

117: them the information puzzle, the issue of the black hole final state,

118: and so on. For these reasons an experimental verification of the

119: Hawking effect would be of the utmost importance. Unfortunately

120: astrophysical black holes, having a temperature much smaller than the

121: temperature of the cosmic microwave background, accrete matter more

122: efficiently than they evaporate. An alternative could be provided by

123: the existence of large extra dimensions: if gravity is effective at

124: the TeV scale, black holes could be produced in particle accelerators

125: \cite{giddings}. However, even if these mini-black holes are actually

126: produced in colliders, it is unlikely that they will yield any

127: conclusive evidence of the existence of Hawking radiation.

128: 

129: Prospects for detecting Hawking radiation changed when Unruh

130: \cite{unruh} realized that the basic ingredients of Hawking radiation

131: can experimentally be reproduced in the laboratory. Since Hawking

132: radiation crucially depends on the existence of an apparent horizon,

133: the experimental setup should display the essential features that

134: define apparent horizons in general relativity. Unruh considered

135: precisely such a system: a fluid moving with a space-dependent

136: velocity, for example water flowing through a nozzle. Where the fluid

137: velocity exceeds the sound velocity we get the equivalent of an

138: apparent horizon for sound waves. This is the acoustic analogue of a

139: black hole, or a {\it dumb hole}. Following on Unruh's dumb hole

140: proposal many different kinds of analogue black holes have been

141: devised, based on condensed matter physics, slow light etcetera

142: \cite{novello,visser}. At present the Hawking temperatures associated

143: to these analogues are too low to be detectable, but the situation is

144: likely to change in the near future \cite{barcelo,unruh2}.

145: 

146: In order to detect Hawking radiation, a full understanding of the {\it

147: classical} physics of analogue black holes is necessary. Not only must

148: one control what happens in the experimental situation, but the

149: understanding of classical phenomena may bring clues on how to favor

150: the probabilities to detect Hawking radiation. It is also worth

151: stressing that some purely classical phenomena shed light on quantum

152: aspects of (analogue and general-relativistic) black hole physics. For

153: example, positive and negative norm mixing at the horizon leads to

154: non-trivial Bogoliubov coefficients in the calculations of Hawking

155: radiation \cite{corleyjacobson}; superradiant instabilities of the

156: Kerr metric are related to the quantum process of Schwinger pair

157: production \cite{schwinger}; and more speculatively (classical) highly

158: damped black hole oscillations could be related to area quantization

159: \cite{hod}.

160: 

161: In this paper we carry out a comprehensive study of wave propagation

162: in analogue black holes. We consider in detail two acoustic black hole

163: metrics: the ``draining bathtub'' model for a $(2+1)$-dimensional

164: fluid flow and the ``canonical'' metric for a non-rotating,

165: spherically symmetric $(3+1)$-dimensional acoustic black hole

166: \cite{visser}. For each acoustic metric we compute the characteristic

167: oscillation frequencies using a WKB approach. These complex

168: characteristic frequencies, called quasinormal modes (QNMs), play a

169: very important role in the classical physics of black holes. They

170: govern the late time behavior of waves propagating outside the black

171: hole: any perturbation of the black hole, after an initial transient,

172: will damp exponentially in the so-called ``ringdown phase''. The

173: frequencies and damping times of this ringdown signal depend only on

174: the black hole parameters, such as the mass, charge and angular

175: momentum \cite{kokkotas}, and can therefore be used to estimate black

176: hole parameters from observational data \cite{echeverria}. 

177: Therefore, in cases where a ``formal'' definition of (say) the mass

178: and angular momentum of acoustic black holes is missing, quasinormal

179: (QN) frequencies may be used to define these quantities {\it

180: operationally}. According to recent speculations, highly damped QNMs

181: may yield some information on quantum properties of a black hole. In

182: particular, it has been conjectured that highly damped QN frequencies

183: could be linked to black hole area quantization \cite{hod}. Motivated

184: by these conjectures we also study highly damped QNMs of acoustic

185: black holes. We find that for a $(2+1)$-dimensional acoustic black

186: hole there are no asymptotic QN frequencies, whereas for the

187: $(3+1)$-dimensional canonical black hole QN frequencies are

188: asymptotically given by $4\pi \omega =\log{[(3-\sqrt{5})/2]}

189: -\ii(2n+1)\pi$.

190: This result does not seem to support any of the recent

191: conjectures, but perhaps this is no surprise, since Hod's argument

192: relies heavily on black hole thermodynamics. Even the very formulation

193: of the laws of black hole thermodynamics for analogue black holes is a

194: non-trivial matter \cite{visserlaws}.

195: 

196: After the exponential decay characteristic of the ringdown phase,

197: black hole perturbations decay with a power-law tail \cite{price1} due

198: to backscattering off the background curvature. Here we compute the

199: late-time tails of wave propagation in the draining bathtub and

200: canonical acoustic black hole metrics. We show that for the

201: $(2+1)$-dimensional fluid flow the field falloff at very late times is

202: of the form $\Psi\sim t^{-(2m+1)}$, where $m$ is the angular quantum

203: number. This time exponent is characteristic of any

204: $(2+1)$-dimensional flow, and not just of a black hole. For the

205: $(3+1)$-dimensional canonical acoustic geometry, the field falloff is

206: of the form $\Psi \sim t^{-(2l+6)}$.

207: 

208: The rotating draining bathtub metric, possessing an ergoregion, can

209: display the phenomenon of superradiance

210: \cite{schutzhold,basak1,basak2}. We compute reflection coefficients

211: for this superradiant scattering by numerical integration of the

212: relevant equations. Enclosing the acoustic black hole by a reflecting

213: mirror we can exploit superradiance to destabilize the system, making

214: an initial perturbation grow exponentially with time: we have an

215: ``acoustic black hole bomb'' \cite{pressteu,bhb,putten}. We compute

216: analytically and numerically the frequencies and growing timescales

217: for this instability.  An interesting feature of acoustic geometries

218: is that the acoustic black hole {\it spin} can be varied independently

219: of the black hole {\it mass}. Therefore, at variance with the Kerr

220: metric, the spin can be made (at least in principle) very large, and

221: rotational superradiance in acoustic black holes can be very

222: efficient. It should not be difficult to set up an experimental

223: apparatus to observe an acoustic black hole bomb in the lab.  A

224: concrete example of an experimental setup in which this idea can be

225: realized with moderate experimental effort has been fully worked out

226: by Sch\"utzhold and Unruh \cite{schutzhold}, and is based on the study

227: of gravity waves in shallow water.

228: 

229: The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{bathtub} we discuss

230: the $(2+1)$-dimensional draining bathtub metric. We first introduce

231: the formalism describing sound propagation in this acoustic metric,

232: and shortly describe the possible experimental setup (gravity waves in

233: a shallow basin). Then we compute QNMs, discuss late-time tails,

234: introduce the phenomenon of superradiant amplification and quantify

235: the timescales for the acoustic black hole bomb instability. In

236: Section \ref{canonical} we repeat the analysis for the canonical

237: $(3+1)$-dimensional acoustic black hole metric (of course, the absence

238: of an ergoregion means that we have no superradiance in this

239: case). The conclusions follow in Section \ref{conclusions}.

240: 

241: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

242: \section{Draining bathtub: a rotating acoustic black hole}\label{bathtub}

243: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

244: 

245: In this Section we consider a simple ``draining bathtub'' model, first

246: introduced in \cite{visser}, for a rotating acoustic black hole. We

247: write down the acoustic metric and the wave equation describing sound

248: propagation in this model, and describe a concrete example for a

249: possible experimental setup. We compute QNMs and discuss the late-time

250: tail behavior of the system. Due to the presence of an ergoregion,

251: sound waves in this acoustic black hole can be superradiantly

252: amplified. We quantify this amplification and discuss the possibility

253: to build an acoustic black hole bomb in the lab.

254: 

255: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

256: \subsection{Formalism and basic equations}

257: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

258: 

259: Consider a fluid having (background) density $\rho$.  Assume the fluid

260: to be locally irrotational (vorticity free), barotropic and

261: inviscid. From the equation of continuity, the radial component of the

262: fluid velocity satisfies $\rho v^r\sim 1/r$. Irrotationality implies

263: that the tangential component of the velocity satisfies $v^\theta\sim

264: 1/r$. By conservation of angular momentum we have $\rho v^\theta\sim

265: 1/r$, so that the background density of the fluid $\rho$ is

266: constant. In turn, this means that the background pressure $p$ and the

267: speed of sound $c$ are constants. The acoustic metric describing the

268: propagation of sound waves in this ``draining bathtub'' fluid flow is

269: \cite{visser}:

270: %

271: \begin{equation}

272: ds^2=

273: -\left (c^2-\frac{A^2+B^2}{r^2} \right )dt^2+\frac{2A}{r}drdt-2Bd\phi 

274: dt+dr^2+

275: r^2d\phi^2.

276: \label{metric1}

277: \end{equation}

278: Here $A$ and $B$ are arbitrary real positive constants related to the

279: radial and angular components of the background fluid velocity:

280: %

281: \be

282: {\vec v}=\frac{-A {\hat r}+B {\hat \theta}}{r}\,.

283: \ee

284: %

285: This flow velocity can be obtained as the gradient of a velocity

286: potential, $\vec v=\nabla \psi$, where

287: %

288: \be\label{vpot}

289: \psi=-A\log (r/a)+B\phi\,.

290: \ee

291: %

292: and $a$ is some (irrelevant) length scale.

293: 

294: In the non-rotating limit $B=0$ the metric (\ref{metric1}) reduces to

295: a standard Painlev\'e-Gullstrand-Lema\^itre type metric

296: \cite{PGL}. The acoustic event horizon is located at $r_H=A/c$, and

297: the ergosphere forms at $r_{ES}=(A^2+B^2)^{1/2}/c$.

298: %

299: Unruh \cite{unruh} first realized that the propagation of a sound wave

300: in a barotropic inviscid fluid with irrotational flow is described by

301: the Klein-Gordon equation $\nabla_{\mu}\nabla^{\mu}\Psi=0$ for a

302: massless field $\Psi$ in a Lorentzian acoustic geometry, which in our

303: case takes the form (\ref{metric1}). In our acoustic geometry we can

304: separate variables by the substitution

305: %

306: \be

307: \Psi(t,r,\phi)=R(r)e^{\ii (m\phi-\omega t)}\,.

308: \ee

309: %

310: Then we obtain a simple ordinary differential equation for the radial

311: variable:

312: %

313: \be

314: R_{,rr}+P_1(r)R_{,r}+Q_1(r)R=0\,,

315: \ee

316: where

317: \beq

318: P_1(r)&=&\f{A^2+r^2c^2+2\ii A(Bm-r^2\omega)}{r(r^2c^2-A^2)}\,,\nn\\

319: Q_1(r)&=&-\f{2\ii A Bm-B^2m^2+c^2m^2r^2+2Bm\omega r^2-r^4\omega^2}

320: {r^2(r^2c^2-A^2)}\,.

321: \eeq

322: %

323: Notice that if we take the incompressible fluid limit $c\rightarrow

324: \infty$ we get well known equations from fluid dynamics

325: \cite{chandra,drazin}. We now introduce a tortoise coordinate $r_*$

326: defined by the condition

327: %

328: \be

329: \frac{dr_*}{dr}=\Delta\,,

330: \ee

331: where $\Delta\equiv (1-A^2/c^2r^2)^{-1}$. Explicitly,

332: \be

333: r_*=r+\f{A}{2c}\log\left|\f{cr-A}{cr+A}\right|\,.

334: \ee

335: Setting $R=ZH$ we get:

336: \be\label{ZH}

337: Z\Delta^2 H_{,r_* r_*}

338: +\left[\Delta(2Z_{,r}+P_1Z)+\Delta'Z\right]H_{,r_*}+

339: \left(Z_{,rr}+P_1Z_{,r}+Q_1Z\right)H=0\,.

340: \ee

341: %

342: To obtain a Schr\"odinger-like equation we impose the coefficient of

343: $H_{,r_*}$ to be zero:

344: %

345: \be

346: Z_{,r}+\f{1}{2}\left[

347: \f{(c^2r^2-A^2)+2\ii A(Bm-r^2\omega)}{r(c^2r^2-A^2)}

348: \right]Z=0\,.

349: \ee

350: %Set $Z=r^{1/2}e^{g(r)}$; then

351: %\be

352: %g_{,r}+\f{(c^2r^2-A^2)+\ii A(Bm-r^2\omega)}{r(c^2r^2-A^2)}=0

353: %\ee

354: %Making the ansatz $g=k\ln r+h \ln (c^2r^2-A^2)$ we get

355: %\be

356: %k=\f{\ii Bm}{A}-1

357: %, \qquad h=\f{\ii(A^2\omega-Bmc^2)}{2Ac^2}.

358: %\ee

359: A solution of this equation can easily be found:

360: \be

361: Z=r^{1/2}\exp{\left[

362: \left(\f{\ii Bm}{A}-1\right)\ln r

363: +\f{\ii(A^2\omega-Bmc^2)}{2Ac^2}\ln (c^2r^2-A^2)

364: \right]}\,.

365: \ee

366: Replacing this solution in Eq. (\ref{ZH}) we finally get the wave equation:

367: \be

368: H_{,r_* r_*}+

369: \left\{\f{1}{c^2}\left(\omega-\f{Bm}{r^2}\right)^2-

370: \left(\f{c^2r^2-A^2}{c^2r^2}\right)

371: \left[\f{1}{r^2}\left(m^2-\f{1}{4}\right)+\f{5A^2}{4r^4 c^2}\right]\right\}

372: H=0\,.

373: \label{waveequation}

374: \ee

375: 

376: The derivation given here is very similar to the one in \cite{basak1},

377: but we have corrected some typos in that paper. In particular notice

378: that the potential is the same as equation (10) in \cite{basak1},

379: except for a factor $1/4$ in the last term.  Some physical properties

380: of our ``draining bathtub'' metric are more apparent if we cast the

381: metric in a Kerr-like form performing the following coordinate

382: transformation (where again we correct some typos in \cite{basak2}):

383: \begin{equation}

384: dt\rightarrow d\tilde{t}+\frac{Ar}{r^2c^2-A^2}dr\,,\qquad

385: d\phi\rightarrow d\tilde{\phi}+\frac{BA}{r(r^2c^2-A^2)}dr\,.

386: \label{coordtransf}

387: \end{equation} 

388: Then the effective metric takes the form

389: \begin{equation}

390: ds^2=

391: -\left(1-\frac{A^2+B^2}{c^2r^2} \right)c^2 d\tilde{t}^2+

392: \left(1-\frac{A^2}{c^2r^2} \right )^{-1}dr^2

393: -2B d\tilde{\phi}d\tilde{t}+r^2d\tilde{\phi}^2\,.

394: \label{metric2}

395: \end{equation}

396: %

397: Notice an important difference between this acoustic metric and the

398: Kerr metric: in the ($t,t$) component of the metric (\ref{metric2})

399: the parameters $A$ and $B$ appear as a {\it sum} of squares. This

400: means that, {\it at least in principle}, there is no upper bound for

401: the rotational parameter $B$ in the acoustic black hole metric,

402: contrary to what happens in the Kerr geometry. Separating variables by

403: the substitution

404: %

405: \be

406: \Psi(\tilde{t},r,\tilde{\phi})=\sqrt{r} H(r)e^{\ii (m\tilde{\phi}-\omega \tilde{t})}\,,

407: \ee

408: %

409: one can show that the radial function $H(r)$ is again a solution of

410: equation (\ref{waveequation}).

411: 

412: The wave equation (\ref{waveequation}) can be recast in a more

413: convenient form by the following rescaling: $\hat r=rA/c$,

414: $\hat{\omega}=\omega A/c^2$, $\hat{B}=B/A$. We get

415: %

416: \be

417: H_{,\hat r_* \hat r_*}+Q H=0\,,

418: \label{waveequation2}

419: \ee

420: %

421: where the generalized potential

422: \be\label{Qdef}

423: Q\equiv 

424: \left\{ \left(\hat{\omega}-\f{\hat{B}m}{\hat r^2}\right)^2-V \right\}\,,

425: \qquad

426: V\equiv \left(\f{\hat r^2-1}{\hat r^2}\right)

427: \left[\f{1}{\hat r^2}\left(m^2-\f{1}{4}\right)+\f{5}{4\hat r^4}\right]\,.

428: \ee

429: 

430: The rescaling effectively sets $A=c=1$ in the original wave equation,

431: and picks units such that the acoustic horizon $\hat r_H=1$. From now

432: on we shall omit hats in all quantities (unless otherwise stated). The

433: rescaled wave equation (\ref{waveequation2}) will be the starting

434: point of our analysis of QNMs, late-time tails and superradiant

435: phenomena. Before giving details of this analysis we describe a

436: possible experimental setup in which all of the classical physics we

437: are going to discuss could, at least in principle, be reproduced.

438: 

439: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

440: \subsection{A possible experimental setup}\label{gwanal}

441: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

442: 

443: The acoustic metric (\ref{metric1}) can be realized in a simple

444: experimental setup, that was described in detail by Sch\"utzhold and

445: Unruh \cite{schutzhold}. In this setup it no longer describes a sonic

446: analogue but rather a shallow basin gravity wave analogue of a black

447: hole.  The idea is to use gravity waves in a viscosity free,

448: incompressible liquid with irrotational flow: under appropriate

449: circumstances, one can envisage the use of common fluids like water or

450: mercury. Sch\"utzhold and Unruh assumed a shallow water, long

451: wavelength approximation: the gravity wave amplitude $\delta h$, their

452: wavelength $\lambda$ and the depth of the basin $h_B$ are such that

453: $\delta h\ll h_B\ll \lambda$. Relaxing the assumptions that the bottom

454: of the tank and the background flow surfaces are flat and parallel,

455: they showed that the most general rotationally symmetric and locally

456: irrotational background flow profile can be described precisely by the

457: draining bathtub metric (\ref{metric1}) when the radial slope of the

458: bottom of the tank -- that in cylindrical coordinates $(z,~r,~\phi)$

459: will be described by some function $f(r)$ -- is small: $f'(r)\ll

460: 1$. In this gravity wave black hole analogue the constants $A$ and $B$

461: are proportional to the radial and tangential components of the

462: background flow velocity:

463: %

464: \be

465: v^\phi=\frac{B}{r^2}\,,

466: \qquad 

467: v^r=-\frac{A h_\infty}{rh\sqrt{1+f'(r)^2}}\,,

468: \ee

469: %

470: where $h_\infty$ is the height of the tank far from the black hole,

471: and the slope of the tank satisfies the relation

472: %

473: \be

474: f(r)=-\frac{(A^2+B^2)}{gr^2}\,.

475: \ee

476: %

477: In the previous equations $g$ is the gravitational acceleration,

478: related to the constant $c$ of the acoustic black hole metric

479: (\ref{metric1}) by the relation

480: %

481: \be

482: c=\sqrt{gh_\infty}\,.

483: \ee

484: %

485: One of the main advantages of this acoustic black hole is apparent

486: from this equation: the speed of the gravity waves can simply be tuned

487: to one's needs by adjusting the height of the basin

488: $h_\infty$. Another advantage, that we will not exploit here, is that

489: the inclusion of surface tension and viscosity can be used to

490: manipulate the waves' dispersion relation. To be concrete we will

491: sometimes consider the following plausible choice of physical

492: parameters, as suggested in \cite{schutzhold}: gravity waves of

493: amplitude $\delta h\sim 1$ mm and wavelength $\lambda\sim 10$ cm; a

494: tank of height $h_\infty\sim 1$ cm (so that $c\sim 0.31$ m~s$^{-1}$);

495: and a typical characteristic size of the acoustic black hole horizon

496: $r_H\sim 1$ m, corresponding to $A=c r_H\sim 0.31$ m$^2$~s$^{-1}$.

497: 

498: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

499: \subsection{Quasinormal modes}\label{dbqnms}

500: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

501: 

502: Numerical and analytical studies of a fairly general class of initial

503: data show that the evolution of the perturbations of a black hole

504: spacetime can roughly be divided in three parts: (i) The first part is

505: the prompt response at very early times. In this phase, which is the

506: obvious counterpart of light cone propagation, the form of the signal

507: depends strongly on the initial conditions. (ii) At intermediate times

508: the signal is dominated by an exponential decay, whose frequencies and

509: damping times are determined by the black hole QNMs. In this

510: ``ringdown'' phase the signal depends entirely on the black hole

511: parameters (typically mass, charge and angular momentum). (iii) Due to

512: backscattering off the spacetime curvature, at late times the

513: propagating wave leaves a ``tail'' behind, usually a power law falloff

514: of the field. This power law seems to be highly independent of the

515: initial data, and persists even if there is no black hole horizon. In

516: fact it only depends on the asymptotic far region. In the following we

517: study the QNM ringing phase of our acoustic black hole metric; then we

518: will consider its late-time behavior.

519: 

520: The characteristic QNMs of the rotating acoustic black hole can be

521: defined in the usual way, imposing appropriate boundary conditions and

522: solving the corresponding eigenvalue problem. Close to the event

523: horizon the solutions of equation (\ref{waveequation2}) behave as

524: %

525: \begin{equation}

526: H \sim e^{\pm \ii\left (\omega-Bm\right)r_* }\,.

527: \label{bound1}

528: \end{equation}

529: %

530: Classically, only ingoing waves -- that is, waves falling into the

531: black hole -- should be present at the horizon. This means (according

532: to our conventions on the time dependence of the perturbations) that

533: we must choose the minus sign in the exponential. At spatial

534: infinity the solutions of (\ref{waveequation2}) behave as

535: %

536: \begin{equation}

537: H \sim e^{\pm \ii\omega r_*}\,.

538: \label{bound2}

539: \end{equation}

540: %

541: In this case we require that only outgoing waves (waves leaving the

542: domain under study) should be present, and correspondingly choose the

543: plus sign in the exponential. This boundary condition at infinity may

544: be cause for objections. Indeed, no actual physical apparatus will be

545: accurately described by these boundary conditions: a real acoustic

546: black hole experiment will certainly not extend out to

547: infinity. However, we may imagine using some absorbing device to

548: simulate the ``purely outgoing'' wave conditions at infinity (for

549: another example in which an absorbing device modeling spatial infinity

550: could be required, cf. Section XI of \cite{schutzhold} -- in

551: particular their Fig. 5). In any event, later on we shall consider the

552: alternative possibility of ``boxed'' boundary conditions, describing a

553: closed system. Boxed boundary conditions were also considered in

554: \cite{bhb}.

555: 

556: For assigned values of the rotational parameter $B$ and of the angular

557: index $m$ there is a discrete (and infinite) set of QN frequencies,

558: $\omega_{QN}$, satisfying the wave equation (\ref{waveequation2}) with

559: boundary conditions specified by Eqs.  (\ref{bound1}) and

560: (\ref{bound2}). The QN frequencies are in general complex numbers, the

561: imaginary part describing the decay or growth of the perturbation,

562: because the time dependence is given by $e^{-\ii \omega t}$. We expect

563: the black hole to be stable against small perturbations, and therefore

564: $\omega_{QN}$ is expected to have a negative imaginary part, so that

565: the perturbation decays exponentially as time goes by. We could not

566: prove stability of the draining bathtub metric in general, but we

567: managed to derive upper bounds on the frequencies of unstable modes

568: (if they exist at all). We give the derivation of these upper bounds

569: in Appendix \ref{unstable}. As usual, we will order the QN frequencies

570: $\omega_{QN}$ according to the absolute value of their imaginary part:

571: the fundamental mode (labeled by an integer $n=0$) will have the

572: smallest imaginary part (in modulus), and so on.

573: 

574: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

575: \subsubsection{Slowly decaying modes of non-rotating black holes}

576: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

577: 

578: The lowest QNMs control the ringing behavior of any classical

579: perturbation outside the black hole. Higher overtones, having a larger

580: imaginary part, are damped more quickly and play a negligible role. In

581: particular, it is known \cite{kokkotas} that the fundamental ($n=0$)

582: QNM effectively determines the response of the black hole to exterior

583: perturbations. For these slowly damped QNMs, a WKB approximation -- as

584: developed by Schutz, Will and others \cite{willwkb,will,kokkotaswkb}

585: -- is accurate enough. As a convergence check, we will sometimes

586: extend the WKB treatment to sixth order \cite{konoplyawkb}. The WKB

587: method demands that the generalized potential $Q$ defined by Eq.

588: (\ref{Qdef}) has a single maximum outside the horizon. For

589: non-rotating black holes ($B=0$) this is certainly true provided $m$

590: is not zero, and one can easily extract the lowest QN frequencies in

591: this case.  We show them in Table \ref{tab:fundnonrot}, where we also

592: show the convergence of the WKB scheme as the order of approximation

593: increases.  For $m=0$ the situation is not so simple, and we haven't

594: been able to extract the QN frequencies using this method, because the

595: potential possesses two extrema.  Due to the symmetry of the potential

596: (\ref{Qdef}), QN frequencies of non-rotating black holes are

597: independent of the sign of $m$ (to any positive QN frequency for

598: positive $m$ corresponds a negative QN frequency for negative $m$).

599: 

600: \begin{table}

601: \centering

602: \caption{\label{tab:fundnonrot} The fundamental ($n=0$) QN frequencies

603: for the non-rotating acoustic black hole, using three WKB

604: computational schemes.  $\omega _{QN}^{(1)}$ is the result for the QN

605: frequency using only the lowest approximation \cite{willwkb}, $\omega

606: _{QN}^{(3)}$ is the value obtained using 3rd order improvements

607: \cite{will}, and finally $\omega _{QN}^{(6)}$ was computed using 6th

608: order corrections \cite{konoplyawkb}. Notice how for $m>1 $ the three

609: schemes yield very similar answers.}

610: \vskip 12pt

611: \begin{tabular}{@{}c|c|c|c@{}}  

612: \hline

613: \hline

614: $m$ &$\omega _{QN}^{(1)}$  &$\omega _{QN}^{(3)}$   &$\omega _{QN}^{(6)}$\\

615: \hline

616: \hline

617: %0  &  & 0.035-0.609i &              \\

618: 1  & 0.696-0.353i & 0.321-0.389i &0.427-0.330i\\

619: 2  & 1.105-0.349i & 0.940-0.353i &0.945-0.344i\\

620: 3  & 1.571-0.351i & 1.465-0.353i &1.468-0.352i \\

621: 4  & 2.054-0.352i & 1.975-0.353i &1.976-0.353i \\

622: \hline 

623: \hline

624: \end{tabular}

625: \end{table}

626: %

627: From Table \ref{tab:fundnonrot} we see that the imaginary part is

628: nearly constant as a function of $m$, whereas the real part

629: approximately scales with $m$. Indeed, in the limit of large $m$ one

630: can show directly from the WKB formula \cite{willwkb} that

631: $\omega_{QN}$ behaves as

632: \begin{equation}

633: \omega \sim \frac{m}{2}-i\frac{2n+1}{2\sqrt{2}}\,,\,m \rightarrow \infty\,,

634: \label{largembehav}

635: \end{equation}  

636: and indeed already for $m=4$ this formula yields very good agreement

637: with the results shown in Table \ref{tab:fundnonrot}.  This very same

638: result can also be obtained using a P\"oschl-Teller fitting potential

639: \cite{ferrari}. Just to give an idea of the orders of magnitude

640: involved consider an $m=2$ mode: if we take the ``typical'' gravity

641: wave analogue experimental parameters of Section \ref{gwanal} we get

642: (for the fundamental QNM with $m=2$) a frequency $\omega_R=0.945

643: \times c^2/A=0.293$ Hz and a damping timescale $\tau=1/|\omega_I| =

644: 1/0.344 \times A/c^2=9.37$ s.

645: 

646: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

647: \subsubsection{Slowly decaying modes of rotating black holes}

648: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

649: 

650: For rotating black holes, the generalized potential has more than one

651: extremum. This immediately raises problems for the applicability of

652: the WKB technique.  Previous work on the Kerr geometry

653: \cite{will,kokkotaswkb} showed that the WKB method can still be used,

654: yielding good results, as long as the rotation parameter is small.

655: The way to handle the several extrema of the potential is the

656: following: start with $B=0$ and compute the roots of $dQ/dr_*=0$ (to

657: find the extrema; as we said before, for $B=0$ the generalized

658: potential $Q$ has a single maximum outside the horizon as long as

659: $m\neq 0$).  Compute $\omega _{QN}$ in the non-rotating case.  Then

660: add some small rotation $B$ to the black hole, and compute the roots

661: of $dQ/dr_*=0$. Now the roots will depend on $\omega$, but only one

662: root yields the correct non-rotating limit as $B\rightarrow 0$.  It is

663: this root that corresponds to the QNMs of the rotating black hole. Our

664: results, which can be trusted for $B\lesssim 0.2$, are shown in

665: Fig. \ref{fig:QNM.eps}. For $m>0$ ($m<0$) $\omega_R$ and $|\omega_I|$

666: increase (decrease) with rotation, at least in the range in which the

667: WKB method can be applied.  The QN frequency change with rotation is

668: not dramatic, but it can probably be used to apply a ``fingerprint

669: analysis'' of the acoustic black hole parameters {\it \'a la

670: Echeverria} \cite{echeverria}: that is, once we measure at least two

671: QNM frequencies we may infer the acoustic black hole parameters $A$ and $B$.

672: Carrying out such experiments in the lab can shed some light on the

673: applicability of similar ideas to test the no-hair theorem in the

674: astrophysical context \cite{dreyerfinn}.  A more complete analysis of

675: the QNMs is still needed to probe the high rotation regime: the

676: results shown in Fig. \ref{fig:QNM.eps} seem to indicate that

677: instability may set in for large $Bm$.  A continued fraction analysis

678: could be used to test this hypothesis, but it is beyond the scopes of

679: this paper \cite{cardoso4}.

680: \vskip 1mm

681: \begin{figure}

682: \centerline{\mbox{

683: \psfig{figure=fig1a.ps,angle=270,width=9cm}

684: \psfig{figure=fig1b.ps,angle=270,width=9cm}

685: }}

686: \caption{ In the left panel we show the real part of the fundamental

687: QN frequency $\omega_R$ (and in the right panel we show the imaginary

688: part $\omega_I$) as a function of the rotation parameter $B$, for

689: selected values of $m$. For $m>0$ ($m<0$) $\omega_R$ and $|\omega_I|$

690: increase (decrease) with rotation. }

691: \label{fig:QNM.eps}

692: \end{figure}

693: 

694: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

695: \subsubsection{Highly damped modes}

696: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

697: 

698: QNMs with a large imaginary part, i.e. with a very large overtone

699: number $n$, have recently become a subject of intense scrutiny for

700: black holes in general relativity and similar theories. The interest

701: in these modes comes from Hod's proposal \cite{hod} that they could be

702: related to black hole area quantization, and from Dreyer's suggestion

703: that a similar argument could be used to fix the Barbero-Immirzi

704: parameter in Loop Quantum Gravity \cite{dreyer}.  In this context, an

705: analytical calculation of highly damped QNMs was first carried out by

706: Motl for the Schwarzschild black hole \cite{motl1}. Subsequently Motl

707: and Neitzke \cite{motl2} used a complex-integration technique to

708: compute highly-damped QNMs of the Schwarzschild and

709: Reissner-Nordstr\"om black holes. Their analytical results are in

710: striking agreement with numerical data \cite{num1,num3} and

711: alternative analytical calculations \cite{nils}. The complex

712: integration method has also been generalized with success to other

713: black hole geometries \cite{ricardo,tamaki}, 

714: yielding again predictions in

715: excellent agreement with the numerical results \cite{num2}. In view of

716: this, we shall now build on the results and techniques of \cite{motl2}

717: to compute highly damped QNMs of a rotating acoustic black hole.

718: 

719: Let us first consider a non-rotating black hole. In the limit $B\to

720: 0$ the wave equation (\ref{waveequation2}) reduces to

721: %

722: \be

723: \frac{d^2H}{dr_*^2}+

724: \left [ \omega ^2-

725: V(r)

726: \right] H=0\,,

727: \ee

728: where the potential

729: \be

730: V(r)\equiv \left ( 1-\frac{1}{r^2}\right ) 

731: \left (\frac{m^2-1/4}{r^2}+\frac{5}{4r^4} \right )\,.

732: \ee

733: %

734: Following (\cite{motl2}), we can determine the highly damped QNMs

735: looking at the behaviour of the potential near the singular point

736: $r=0$. In our case the leading term as $r\to 0$ is

737: %

738: \be

739: V \sim -\frac{5}{4r^6}\,,

740: \ee

741: and in the same limit we have $r_* \sim -r^3/3$. Thus 

742: \be

743: V \sim -\frac{5}{36r_*^2}=\frac{j^2-1}{4r_*^2}\,,

744: \ee

745: %

746: for $j=2/3$ (this is precisely the same power-law behavior found in

747: the case of the Schwarzschild black hole, except for the different

748: value of $j$). The result in \cite{motl2} carries over directly:

749: %

750: \be

751: e^{4\pi \omega}=-(1+2\cos{\pi j})\,.

752: \ee

753: %

754: However now $(1+2\cos{\pi j})=0$. This means that there are no

755: asymptotic QN frequencies for this black hole. A similar situation

756: occurs for electromagnetic perturbations of a five-dimensional black

757: hole \cite{num2}. If we add rotation to the black hole, i.e., if $B$

758: is non-zero, a similar analysis \cite{neitzke} implies that the

759: asymptotic QN frequencies behave as

760: %

761: \be

762: e^{4\pi (\omega-mB)}=-(1+2\cos{\pi j})\,,

763: \ee

764: %

765: where again $j=2/3$. Thus also in this case there will be no

766: asymptotic QN frequencies. 

767: 

768: This result is quite puzzling. It could mean either that the real part

769: grows without bound, or that it just doesn't converge to any finite

770: value. In any case, an application of Hod's conjecture to these black

771: holes seems impossible: the very definition of the classical laws of

772: black hole thermodynamics is non-trivial in the analogue case. In

773: fact, as argued by Visser \cite{visserlaws}, the laws of black hole

774: thermodynamics arise solely from the Einstein equations for the

775: metric; from a different perspective, it has been shown that the

776: Einstein equations themselves can be derived from purely

777: thermodynamical arguments \cite{TedEinsteinEOS}. A well-known

778: ``weakness'' of analogue models is the fact that they can be used to

779: reproduce the kinematical aspects of the Einstein equations, but not

780: their dynamical aspects (see eg. \cite{BLSV} for the implications of

781: this distinction on the causal structure of acoustic

782: spacetimes). Hod's arguments \cite{hod} assume a thermodynamic

783: relation between black hole surface area and entropy: even if Hod's

784: conjecture is true, the absence of any such relation for analogues

785: could explain the missing link between the QNM spectrum and area

786: quantization.

787: 

788: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

789: \subsection{Late-time tails}

790: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

791: 

792: After the exponential QNM decay characteristic of the ringdown phase

793: black hole perturbations usually decay with a power-law tail

794: \cite{price1}, due to the backscattering of waves off the background

795: curvature.  The existence of late-time tails in black hole spacetimes

796: is by now well established. A strong body of evidence comes from

797: analytical and numerical calculations using linear perturbation theory

798: and even non-linear evolutions, for massless or massive fields

799: \cite{price1,price2,ching1,ching2,cardosoDdimtails}. In a very

800: complete analysis, Ching, Leung, Suen and Young \cite{ching1,ching2}

801: considered the late-time tails appearing when one deals with evolution

802: equations of the form (\ref{waveequation2}), and the potential $V$ is

803: of the form

804: \begin{equation}

805: V(r_*) \sim \frac{\nu(\nu+1)}{r_*^2}+

806: \frac{c_1\log{r_*}+c_2}{r_*^{\alpha}}\,,\qquad r_*\rightarrow \infty.

807: \label{potching}

808: \end{equation}

809: By a careful study of the branch cut contribution to the associated

810: Green's function they concluded that in general the late-time behavior

811: is dictated by a power-law or by a power-law times a logarithm. The

812: exponents of the power-law depend on the leading term at very large

813: spatial distances.  The case of interest for us here is when

814: $c_1=0$. Their conclusions, which we will therefore restrict to the

815: $c_1=0$ case, are (see Table 1 in \cite{ching1} or \cite{ching2}):

816: \newline 

817: (i) if $\nu$ is an integer the term $\nu(\nu+1)/r_*^2$ does not

818: contribute to the late-time tail. Since this term represents just the

819: pure centrifugal barrier, characteristic of flat space, one can expect

820: that indeed it does not contribute, at least in four-dimensional

821: spacetimes. Therefore, for integer $\nu$, it is the $c_2/r_*^{\alpha}$

822: term that contributes to the late-time tail. In this case the authors

823: of \cite{ching1,ching2} find that the tail is given by a power-law,

824: \begin{equation}

825: \Psi \sim t^{-\mu}\,\,,\,\,\mu>2\nu+\alpha\,\,,\,\, \alpha\, 

826: {\rm odd}\,\,{\rm integer}<2\nu+3.

827: \label{tailintnu1}

828: \end{equation}

829: where the exponent $\mu=2\nu+2\alpha-2$.  For all other real $\alpha$,

830: the tail is

831: \begin{equation}

832: \Psi \sim t^{-(2\nu+\alpha)}\,\,,\,\,{\rm all}\,\,{\rm other}\,\, 

833: {\rm real}\,\,\alpha.

834: \label{tailintnu2}

835: \end{equation}

836: \newline 

837: (ii) if $\nu$ is not an integer, then the main contribution to the

838: late-time tail comes from the $\nu(\nu+1)/r_*^2$ term. In this case

839: the tail is

840: \begin{equation}

841: \Psi \sim t^{-(2\nu+2)}\,\,,\,\,{\rm non\,integer}\,\,\nu.

842: \label{tailnonintnu}

843: \end{equation}

844: As an example of non-integer $\nu$, Cardoso {\it et al.}

845: \cite{cardosoDdimtails} have shown that the late-time tails of wave

846: propagation appearing in odd dimensional spacetimes do not depend on

847: the presence of the black hole at all.  For odd dimensions the

848: power-law is determined not by the presence of the black hole, but by

849: the very fact that the spacetime is odd dimensional. In this case the

850: field decays as

851: %

852: \be

853: \Psi \sim t^{-(2l+D-2)}\,,

854: \label{tailsD}

855: \ee

856: % 

857: where $l$ is the angular index determining the angular dependence of

858: the field, and $D$ the number of spacetime dimensions. One can show

859: directly from the flat space Green's function that such a power-law is

860: indeed expected in flat, odd dimensional spacetimes.

861: 

862: From the aforementioned arguments we should expect late-time tails in

863: our draining bathtub acoustic black hole to be directly related to the

864: dimensionality of the underlying flow, and not to the presence of a

865: black hole, since we are dealing with a $(2+1)$-dimensional

866: flow. Indeed, at leading order the potential behaves as

867: %

868: \be

869: V \sim \frac{m^2-1/4}{r_*^2}=\frac{\nu(\nu+1)}{r_*^2}\,,

870: \label{as1}

871: \ee

872: %

873: where $\nu=m-1/2$.  We are thus in case (ii) above, because $\nu$ is

874: not an integer. So any perturbation in the vicinities of this black

875: hole will die out as a late-time tail of the form

876: %

877: \be

878: H \sim t^{-(2m+1)}\,.

879: \label{latet}

880: \ee

881: %

882: This power-law is just the one given by the general expression

883: (\ref{tailsD}), if one substitutes $D=3$.

884: 

885: Strictly speaking, the asymptotic form (\ref{as1}) for the potential

886: is valid only for non-rotating acoustic black holes. For the general

887: rotating case the leading term in the potential is $\omega$-dependent:

888: %

889: \be

890: V \sim \frac{m^2-1/4}{r_*^2}=\frac{\nu(\nu+1)+2\omega Bm}{r_*^2}\,.

891: \label{as2}

892: \ee

893: %

894: Since late-times are associated with small frequencies, {\it and} the

895: term $\nu(\nu+1)$ gives a contribution to the late-time tail, then it

896: follows that the late-time tails of rotating acoustic black holes are

897: the same as those for non-rotating black holes, expression

898: (\ref{latet}).

899: 

900: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

901: \subsection{Superradiance}\label{integration}

902: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

903: 

904: Superradiance is a general phenomenon in physics. Inertial motion

905: superradiance has long been known \cite{ginzburg}, and refers to the

906: possibility that a (possibly electrically neutral) object endowed with

907: internal structure, moving uniformly through a medium, may emit

908: photons even when it starts off in its ground state. Some examples of

909: inertial motion superradiance include the Cherenkov effect, the Landau

910: criterion for disappearance of superfluidity, and Mach shocks for

911: solid objects travelling through a fluid (cf. \cite{bekschiffer} for a

912: discussion). Non-inertial rotational motion also produces

913: superradiance. This was discovered by Zel'dovich \cite{zeldovich}, who

914: pointed out that a cylinder made of absorbing material and rotating

915: around its axis with frequency $\Omega$ can amplify modes of scalar or

916: electromagnetic radiation of frequency $\omega$, provided the

917: condition

918: %

919: \be\label{suprad}

920: \omega<m\Omega

921: \ee

922: %

923: (where $m$ is the azimuthal quantum number with respect to the axis of

924: rotation) is satisfied. Zel'dovich realized that, accounting for

925: quantum effects, the rotating object should emit spontaneously in this

926: superradiant regime. He then suggested that a Kerr black hole whose

927: angular velocity at the horizon is $\Omega$ will show both

928: amplification and spontaneous emission when the condition

929: (\ref{suprad}) for superradiance is satisfied. This suggestion was put

930: on firmer ground by a substantial body of work \cite{superr}. In

931: particular, it became clear that (even at the purely {\it classical}

932: level) superradiance is required to satisfy Hawking's area theorem

933: \cite{beksuperr,pressteu}.

934: 

935: Superradiance is essentially related to the presence of an ergosphere,

936: allowing the extraction of rotational energy from a black hole through

937: a wave equivalent of the Penrose process \cite{penrose}. Under certain

938: conditions, superradiance can be used to induce instabilities in Kerr

939: black holes \cite{schwinger}.  Indeed, all spacetimes admitting an

940: ergosphere and {\it no horizon} are unstable due to rotational

941: superradiance. This was shown rigorously in \cite{friedman}, but the

942: growth rate of the instability is too slow to observe it in an

943: astrophysical context \cite{cominsschutz}. Kerr black holes are

944: stable, but if enclosed by a reflecting mirror they can become

945: unstable due to superradiance \cite{ptbhb,bhb}; we will discuss this

946: ``black hole bomb'' instability as applied to the analogue acoustic

947: black hole.

948: 

949: The possibility to observe rotational superradiance in analogue black

950: holes was considered by Sch\"utzhold and Unruh \cite{schutzhold}, and

951: more extensively by Basak and Majumdar \cite{basak1,basak2}, who

952: computed analytically the reflection coefficients in the low frequency

953: limit $\omega A/c^2\ll 1$. In particular, the authors of

954: \cite{schutzhold} showed that the ergoregion instability in gravity

955: wave analogues is related to the existence of an ``energy function''

956: [their Eq. (68)] that is not positive definite inside the

957: ergosphere. In the context of analogues, inertial superradiance based

958: on superfluid $^3$He has been studied by Jacobson and Volovik

959: \cite{tedvolovik}.

960: 

961: Here we present a quantitative calculation of the efficiency of

962: superradiant amplification for the draining bathtub metric. We work in

963: the frequency representation, and consider an incident plane wave of

964: unit amplitude at infinity, frequency $\omega$ and azimuthal index

965: $m$. Part of this wave will be reflected back by the medium, the

966: reflection coefficient being some (complex) number $R_{\omega m}$. In

967: terms of the wave equation (\ref{waveequation2}), this determines the

968: following boundary condition at infinity:

969: %

970: \be 

971: H\sim R_{\omega m} e^{\ii \omega r_*}+e^{-\ii \omega r_*}

972: \,\,,r\rightarrow \infty\,.

973: \label{asymptbeh}

974: \ee

975: %

976: At the sonic horizon ($r\to 1$, $r_*\to -\infty$) the solution behaves

977: like

978: %

979: \be 

980: H\sim T_{\omega m} e^{-\ii (\omega-mB) r_*}\,\,,r\rightarrow 1\,.

981: \label{asymptbeh1}

982: \ee

983: where $T_{\omega m}$ is the transmission coefficient.

984: %

985: An easy way to prove the existence of superresonance is to compute the

986: Wronskian of a solution of equation (\ref{waveequation2}) and of its

987: adjoint at the sonic horizon and at infinity.  From the constancy of

988: the Wronskian as a function of the radial coordinate, using the

989: boundary conditions (\ref{asymptbeh}) and (\ref{asymptbeh1}) we find

990: the following ``energy conservation'' condition:

991: %

992: \be

993: 1-\left|R_{\omega m}\right|^2=

994: \left(1-\f{mB}{\omega}\right)\left|T_{\omega m}\right|^2\,.

995: \ee

996: %

997: Therefore, if $\omega <mB$ the reflection coefficient $\left|R_{\omega

998: m}\right|^2>1$, i.e. we have superradiance.

999: 

1000: To compute numerically with improved accuracy the reflection

1001: coefficient $R_{\omega m}$, we have used a refined condition at the

1002: horizon:

1003: %

1004: \be\label{horizon}

1005: H\sim T_{\omega m} e^{-\ii (\omega-mB) r_*}\left[1+y_1(r-1)+\dots\right]\,, 

1006: \ee 

1007: %

1008: where the leading-order coefficient is

1009: %

1010: \be

1011: y_1=\frac{(1+2B^2)m^2-2\omega Bm+1}{ 2[\ii(mB-\omega )+1]}\,.

1012: \ee

1013: %

1014: We also keep higher-order terms to extract the reflection coefficient

1015: at infinity. Namely, for the outgoing wave we use an expansion of the

1016: form:

1017: %

1018: \be\label{outg}

1019: H\sim e^{\ii \omega r_*}\left[1+\frac{z_1}{r}+\frac{z_2}{r^2}+\dots\right]

1020: \,, 

1021: \ee

1022: %

1023: where

1024: %

1025: \be

1026: z_1=\ii\frac{B+(4m^2-1)}{ 8\omega}\,,\qquad

1027: z_2=\ii z_1\left[\frac{Bm}{2}+\frac{(4m^2-9)}{16\omega}\right]\,,\nn

1028: \ee

1029: %

1030: and for the ingoing wave we use the complex conjugate of

1031: Eq. (\ref{outg}).  As a check of our code we have reproduced results

1032: by Andersson {\it et al.} \cite{alp} for the superradiant

1033: amplification of a scalar field in the vicinities of a Kerr black

1034: hole. Our results are in perfect agreement with Fig. 1 of

1035: \cite{alp}. In particular, we find a maximum amplification coefficient

1036: given by $1-|R_{\omega m}|^2\simeq 0.2$ \% for $l=m=2$ scalar

1037: perturbations of a near-extremal extremal Kerr black hole (in early

1038: numerical work \cite{ptbhb,pressteu} the maximum amplification was

1039: found to be $1-|R_{\omega m}|^2\simeq 0.3$ \%).

1040: 

1041: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1042: \begin{figure}

1043: \centerline{\mbox{

1044: \psfig{figure=fig2a.ps,angle=270,width=9cm}

1045: \psfig{figure=fig2b.ps,angle=270,width=9cm}

1046: }}

1047: \centerline{\mbox{

1048: \psfig{figure=fig2c.ps,angle=270,width=9cm}

1049: \psfig{figure=fig2d.ps,angle=270,width=9cm}

1050: }}

1051: \centerline{\mbox{

1052: \psfig{figure=fig2e.ps,angle=270,width=9cm}

1053: \psfig{figure=fig2f.ps,angle=270,width=9cm}

1054: }}

1055: \caption{ Reflection coefficient $\left|R_{\omega m}\right|^2$ as a

1056: function of $\omega$ for $m=1$ (left panels) and $m=2$ (right

1057: panels). Each curve corresponds to a different value of $B$, as

1058: indicated. The top panels show that the reflection coefficient decays

1059: exponentially at the critical frequency for superradiance,

1060: $\omega_{SR}=mB$. The middle panels show a close-up view in the

1061: superradiant regime for $B<1$: at $B=1$ the maximum amplification is

1062: 21.2 \% ($m=1$) and 4.7 \% ($m=2$). The bottom panels show that

1063: superradiant amplification can become much more efficient for values

1064: of the rotation parameter $B>1$. }

1065: \label{fig:superradiantfactor}

1066: \end{figure}

1067: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1068: 

1069: Results of the numerical integrations for the draining bathtub metric

1070: are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:superradiantfactor}. Panels on the left

1071: show the reflection coefficient $|R_{\omega 1}|^2$ for $m=1$, and

1072: panels on the right show $|R_{\omega 2}|^2$ for $m=2$, for selected

1073: values of the black hole rotation $B$. Panels on top show that, as

1074: expected, in the superradiant regime $0<\omega<mB$ the reflection

1075: coefficient $|R_{\omega m}|^2\geq 1$. Furthermore, as one increases

1076: $B$ the reflection coefficient increases, and for fixed $B$, the

1077: reflection coefficient $\left |R_{\omega m}\right|^2$ attains a

1078: maximum at $\omega \sim mB$, after which it decays exponentially as a

1079: function of $\omega$ outside the superradiant interval. This is very

1080: similar to what happens when one deals with massless fields in the

1081: vicinities of rotating Kerr black holes \cite{pressteu}. In particular,

1082: from the close-up view in the middle panels we see that, for $B=1$,

1083: the maximum amplification is 21.2 \% ($m=1$) and 4.7 \% ($m=2$).

1084: 

1085: As a final remark, and as we have anticipated, an important difference

1086: between the acoustic black hole metric and the Kerr metric is that in

1087: the present case there is no mathematical upper limit on the black

1088: hole's rotational velocity $B$. In the bottom panels we show that,

1089: considering values of $B>1$, we can indeed have larger amplification

1090: factors for acoustic black holes.

1091: 

1092: Summarizing: if we are clever enough to build in the lab an acoustic

1093: black hole that spins very rapidly, rotational superradiance can be

1094: particularly efficient in analogues. This is an important result,

1095: considering that the detection of rotational superradiance in the lab

1096: is by no means an easy task, as originally predicted by Zel'dovich

1097: \cite{zeldovich} and confirmed by recent reconsiderations of the

1098: problem \cite{bekschiffer}. Of course, in any real-world experiment

1099: the maximum rotational parameter will be limited. At the mathematical

1100: level, the equations describing sound propagation (which are written

1101: assuming the hydrodynamic approximation) will eventually break

1102: down. Physically, if the angular component of the velocity $v^\theta$

1103: becomes very large the dispersion relation for the fluid will change,

1104: invalidating the assumptions under which we have derived our acoustic

1105: metric \cite{schutzhold}. To be more concrete, let us consider again

1106: the gravity wave analogue described in Section \ref{gwanal}. Then we

1107: can use a very simple argument to limit the acoustic black hole

1108: spin. The derivation of the rotating acoustic black hole metric is

1109: based on the assumption that the bottom of the tank should not be too

1110: steep, that is, $f'(r)\ll 1$. This condition translates into a

1111: condition for $B$:

1112: %

1113: \be\label{Blimit}

1114: B\ll\left(\frac{gr^3}{2}-A^2\right)^{1/2}\,,

1115: \ee

1116: %

1117: which must be satisfied for all values of $r$, and in particular at

1118: the acoustic black hole horizon $r=r_H$ (notice that here, and here

1119: only, we have switched back to physical units). Setting $r=r_H$ in the

1120: previous inequality and using the physical parameters quoted in

1121: Section \ref{gwanal} we get the very stringent condition that $B\ll

1122: 2.2$ m$^2$~s$^{-1}$, or (in the dimensionless units we use throughout

1123: this paper) $\hat B\ll 7.0\,$. In other words, we can only get values

1124: of the rotation parameter larger than $\hat B\sim 1$ when the slope of

1125: the tank is so large that the assumptions underlying the derivation of

1126: the acoustic metric are not valid any more. Of course, this example

1127: does not mean that such a constraint applies to {\it every} possible

1128: experimental realization of the draining bathtub metric. However, it

1129: serves as an illustration of the kind of experimental difficulties we

1130: may expect to encounter in practice.

1131: 

1132: The superradiant phenomena we have described are purely {\it

1133: classical} in nature. However, an interesting suggestion to observe

1134: {\it quantum} effects in acoustic superradiance was put forward in

1135: \cite{basak2}. To write down our acoustic metric we required the flow

1136: to be irrotational and nonviscous. As a natural choice, we could use a

1137: fluid which is well known to possess precisely these properties:

1138: superfluid HeII. In this case the presence of vortices with quantized

1139: angular momenta may lead to a quantized energy flux. The heuristic

1140: argument presented in \cite{basak2} goes as follows. Let us imagine

1141: that our black hole is a vortex with a sink at the centre. In the

1142: quantum theory of HeII the wavefunction is of the form

1143: $\Psi=\exp\left[\ii \sum_j \phi(\vec r_j) \Phi_{\rm ground}\right]$,

1144: where $\vec r_j$ is the position of the $j$-th particle of HeII. The

1145: velocity at any point is given by the gradient of the phase at that

1146: point, $\vec v=\nabla \phi$, so that (roughly speaking) the velocity

1147: potential (\ref{vpot}) can be identified with the phase of the

1148: wavefunction. This phase will be singular at the sink

1149: $r=0$. Continuity of the phase around a circle surrounding the sink

1150: requires that the change of the wavefunction satisfies $\Delta

1151: \phi=2\pi B$. For the wavefunction to be single valued, $B$ (that is,

1152: the black hole's angular velocity at the horizon) must be the integer

1153: multiple of some minimum value $\Delta B$, i.e., $B=n\,\Delta B$. Then

1154: the angular momentum of the acoustic black hole would be forced to

1155: change in integer multiples of $\Delta B$. Correspondingly, the

1156: spectrum of the reflection coefficients may be given by equally-spaced

1157: peaks with different strengths. This discrete amplification could

1158: enhance chances of observing superradiance in acoustic black holes,

1159: and rule out (or provide empirical support to) some of the many

1160: competing heuristic approaches to black hole quantization.

1161: 

1162: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1163: \subsection{Superradiant instabilities: the acoustic black hole bomb}

1164: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1165: 

1166: The very existence of an ergoregion in the acoustic black hole metric

1167: allows immediately for the possibility to make the system

1168: unstable. Suppose we enclose the system by a reflecting mirror at

1169: constant radius $r_0$.  Now, throw in a wave having frequency $\omega=

1170: \omega_R+{\rm i}\, \omega_I$ such that $\omega_R<m\Omega$: the wave

1171: will be amplified at the expense of the black hole's rotational energy

1172: and travel back to the mirror. There it will be reflected and move

1173: again towards the black hole, this time with increased

1174: amplitude. Through repeated reflections, the waves' amplitude will

1175: grow exponentially with time. This ``black hole bomb'' was first

1176: proposed by Press and Teukolsky \cite{ptbhb}, and recently it has been

1177: studied in detail by some of us \cite{bhb} in the context of the Kerr

1178: metric. The detailed analysis performed in \cite{bhb} showed that the

1179: black hole bomb can be characterized by a set of complex resonant

1180: frequencies, the Boxed QuasiNormal Modes (BQNMs). The real part of a

1181: BQNM is, not surprisingly, proportional to $1/r_0$, where $r_0$ is the

1182: mirror radius: this is essentially the condition for the existence of

1183: standing waves in the region enclosed by the mirror. The imaginary

1184: part of the BQNMs is proportional to $(\omega_R-m\Omega)$: the system

1185: can only become unstable if it is in the superradiant regime. Combined

1186: with the standing wave condition this implies that the mirror should

1187: be placed at some radius $r_0\gtrsim 1/m\Omega$ in order for the

1188: system to be unstable. As rotational energy is extracted from the

1189: system the black hole will spin down. For any given $r_0$ the

1190: instability will eventually shut off, as the condition $r_0\gtrsim

1191: 1/m\Omega$ will no longer be satisfied.

1192: 

1193: An additional reason to study the system ``acoustic black

1194: hole+mirror'' is related to the problem of boundary conditions at

1195: infinity for QNMs (cf. Section \ref{dbqnms}). Whatever analogue model

1196: we consider, no physical apparatus will ever extend out to

1197: infinity. We are left with two possibilities: we can either use some

1198: absorbing device to simulate spatial infinity, or we can impose

1199: alternative boundary conditions on the system.  A natural choice is to

1200: have a reflecting mirror surrounding the apparatus, so that we are

1201: effectively building an acoustic black hole bomb.

1202: 

1203: In the following we will assume that we are in the presence of a

1204: perfectly reflecting mirror. Correspondingly, we shall impose the

1205: boundary condition $H=0$ at $r=r_0$. At the horizon we demand, as

1206: usual, the presence of purely ingoing waves (waves headed towards the

1207: horizon), i.e. $H \sim e^{-\ii(\omega-Bm)r_*}$. We are again in

1208: presence of an eigenvalue problem. However, since the boundary

1209: conditions have changed we shall not refer to the characteristic

1210: frequencies as QN frequencies, but rather as Boxed QuasiNormal

1211: frequencies (BQN frequencies). The reader is referred to \cite{bhb},

1212: where this terminology was first introduced.  Using a direct

1213: integration of the wave equation (see Section

1214: \ref{integration} for details) it is quite easy to compute the BQN

1215: frequencies. We simply integrate Eq. (\ref{waveequation2}) outwards

1216: from the horizon, where we impose the condition (\ref{horizon}), to

1217: the mirror location $r_0$. The (complex) BQNM frequencies are those

1218: frequencies for which

1219: %

1220: \be

1221: H(\omega_{BQNM},r_0)=0\,.

1222: \ee

1223: %

1224: Some results for the fundamental BQNM and the first two overtones are

1225: shown in Fig. \ref{fig:BQNM1}. There we fixed the black hole

1226: rotation parameter $B=1$, and $m=1$, as a typical case. 

1227: 

1228: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1229: \begin{figure}

1230: \centerline{\mbox{

1231: \psfig{figure=fig3a.ps,angle=270,width=9cm}

1232: \psfig{figure=fig3b.ps,angle=270,width=9cm}}}

1233: \caption{ Real part (left) and imaginary part (right) of the

1234: fundamental BQN frequency and the first two overtones as a function of

1235: mirror location $r_0$.  Both panels refer to $m=1$ and $B=1$ (but the

1236: $B$-dependence of the real part of the BQN frequency is very weak).

1237: With excellent accuracy $\omega_I$ crosses zero (and the instability

1238: abruptly shuts off) at the critical radius predicted by

1239: Eq. (\ref{bomboff}), as can be verified taking a glance at the first

1240: row of Table \ref{tab:bessel}. }

1241: \label{fig:BQNM1}

1242: \end{figure}

1243: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1244: 

1245:  From the left panel we see that the real part of the BQNM frequency

1246: for the $n$-th overtone (where we use the convention that $n=0$

1247: corresponds to the fundamental mode) scales as $1/r_0$, as

1248: anticipated. The proportionality constant can be obtained by

1249: analytical arguments similar to those in \cite{bhb}. The result is

1250: %

1251: \beq\label{BQNMr}

1252: \omega_R=\frac{j_{m,n}}{r_0},

1253: \eeq

1254: %

1255: where the $j_{m,n}$'s are zeros of the Bessel function of {\it

1256: integer} order $m$ (recall that for a Kerr black hole bomb one gets

1257: $\omega_R=j_{l+1/2,n}/r_0$ instead, cf. \cite{bhb}). The numerical

1258: values of the $j_{m,n}$'s can be found, e.g., in \cite{abramowitz}. For

1259: reference, we list the first few values in Table \ref{tab:bessel}.

1260: Our numerical calculations are in excellent agreement with the

1261: predictions of formula (\ref{BQNMr}). This is particularly true for

1262: small values of $B$, but the $B$-dependence of the real part of the

1263: BQN frequencies is very weak anyway, as it is for the

1264: Kerr metric \cite{bhb}.

1265: 

1266: From the right panel we see the behavior predicted by the qualitative

1267: arguments at the beginning of this Section: for any BQNM, the

1268: instability is more and more efficient as the mirror radius $r_0$

1269: becomes smaller, until eventually the mirror radius becomes small

1270: enough that the instability shuts off.

1271: %For overtones, a simple empirical rule to get the order of magnitude

1272: %of the oscillation frequency is: $\omega_R\simeq (j_{n,0}+n\pi)/r_0$.

1273: 

1274: \begin{table}

1275: \centering

1276: \caption{\label{tab:bessel} Zeros of the Bessel functions $j_{m,n}$

1277: for the first few values of $m$. The real part of the BQNM frequency

1278: is well approximated by Eq. (\ref{BQNMr}).}

1279: \vskip 12pt

1280: \begin{tabular}{@{}c|c|c|c@{}}  

1281: \hline

1282: \hline

1283: $m$ &$j_{m,0}$ &$j_{m,1}$ &$j_{m,2}$\\

1284: \hline

1285: \hline

1286: 1 &3.83171 &7.01559  &10.17347\\

1287: 2 &5.13562 &8.41724  &11.61984\\

1288: 3 &6.38016 &9.76102  &13.01520\\

1289: 4 &7.58834 &11.06471 &14.37254\\

1290: 5 &8.77148 &12.33860 &15.70017\\

1291: \hline 

1292: \hline

1293: \end{tabular}

1294: \end{table}

1295: 

1296: A few remarks are in order: (i) The real part of the BQN frequency

1297: (slowly) increases with overtone number $n$. (ii) Higher overtones become

1298: stable at larger distances, but they also attain a smaller maximum

1299: growing rate. (iii) With excellent accuracy, the instability switches

1300: off at the critical radius predicted by the analytical formula

1301: (\ref{BQNMr}) supplemented by the superradiance condition

1302: (\ref{suprad}), that is:

1303: %

1304: \be

1305: r_{0,c}\simeq \frac{j_{m,n}}{mB}\,. 

1306: \label{bomboff}

1307: \ee

1308: %

1309: Since $j_{m,n}$ grows linearly with $m$ (in particular, this is

1310: asymptotically true for high $m$'s \cite{abramowitz}) the critical

1311: radius is almost $m$-independent.  However, the instability is not so

1312: efficient for higher $m$ as it is for small $m$, at least when

1313: $B\lesssim 1$. This is apparent in Fig. \ref{fig:BQNM2}, where we

1314: compare growth timescales with $m=1$ (left) and $m=2$ (right) for

1315: acoustic black holes rotating at different rates. For example, the

1316: maximum growth rate for $B=0.3$ is $\sim 10^{-4}$ for $m=1$, and $\sim

1317: 10^{-5}$ for $m=2$. The growth rate for $m=2$ becomes roughly

1318: comparable to the growth rate for $m=1$ when $B>1$: look for example

1319: at the curves corresponding to $B=5.0$. However, other physical

1320: considerations may forbid the construction of acoustic black holes

1321: rotating at such rates (see the arguments at the end of Section

1322: \ref{integration}).

1323: 

1324: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1325: \begin{figure}

1326: \centerline{\mbox{

1327: \psfig{figure=fig4a.ps,angle=270,width=9cm}

1328: \psfig{figure=fig4b.ps,angle=270,width=9cm}}}

1329: \caption{

1330: Growth timescales for BQNMs, as a function of mirror location $r_0$,

1331: for different values of $B$. The left panel refers to $m=1$, the right

1332: panel to $m=2$. Notice the different scales for the $\omega_I$ axis.

1333: }

1334: \label{fig:BQNM2}

1335: \end{figure}

1336: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1337: 

1338: To get an idea of the orders of magnitude involved, let us consider

1339: again the ``typical'' parameters for the gravity wave analogue we

1340: introduced in Section \ref{gwanal}. Let us pick $m=1$ and an acoustic

1341: black hole rotation parameter $\hat B=1$, which -- according to the

1342: arguments in Section \ref{integration} -- is close to the maximum

1343: rotation rate we may hope to achieve (recall hats distinguish

1344: dimensionless quantities from quantities in physical units). To take

1345: advantage of the process the mirror should be located close to the maximum

1346: of $\omega_I$, but not quite at the maximum. For example, if we place

1347: the mirror at $\hat r_0\simeq 10$ (cf. the right panel of

1348: Fig. \ref{fig:BQNM1}) we get $\hat \omega_I\simeq 4\cdot 10^{-3}$ (in

1349: this case the maximum growth rate would be $\hat \omega_I=8.5 \cdot

1350: 10^{-3}$). This corresponds to a growth time $\tau\simeq 800\,{\rm

1351: s}\simeq 13\,{\rm minutes}$ (at the maximum we would get $\tau\simeq

1352: 6$~minutes). Roughly speaking, this means that the amplitude will

1353: double every 13 minutes or so, and will be amplified by orders of

1354: magnitude on timescales of the order of a few hours.  To reduce the

1355: typical timescale to seconds, one just has to ajust the horizon radius

1356: and wave velocity.  For example, working with $r_H \sim 0.1\,$m and

1357: $c\sim 10$ m~s$^{-1}$, we would get a typical timescale of about 2

1358: seconds.  This looks like a perfectly reasonable timescale to observe

1359: an acoustic black hole bomb in the lab.

1360: 

1361: When the instability sets in the acoustic black hole loses energy and

1362: angular momentum ($\Delta E\sim B \Delta J$). The critical radius

1363: $r_{0,c}$ increases with decreasing $B$. To estimate the efficiency we

1364: can use a simple argument. We can take advantage of the mechanism by

1365: picking some large $B$ and $r_0\simeq 2 r_{0, max}$, where $r_{0,

1366: max}$ is the radius of maximum growth timescale at the given $B$. As

1367: the hole emits angular momentum $B$ will decrease. For any given

1368: mirror location $r_0$, the bomb eventually switches off when condition

1369: (\ref{bomboff}) is satisfied. From the difference in initial and final

1370: angular momentum $\Delta B$ we can infer the extracted energy $\Delta

1371: E$. For more details we refer to \cite{bhb}.

1372: 

1373: As a final remark we want to stress that, when we talk about

1374: surrounding the acoustic black hole by a reflecting mirror, what we

1375: have in mind is a generic type of mirror.  For instance, in the

1376: shallow basin gravity wave analogue, the mirror could be a circular

1377: rubber band of radius $r_0$ reflecting gravity waves.  A possible

1378: alternative to implement a mirror could involve, for example,

1379: variations in the dispersion relation for sound waves. In particular,

1380: Sch\"utzhold and Unruh \cite{schutzhold} suggested that a simple

1381: change of the height $h_\infty$ of the basin would imply a change of

1382: the gravity wave speed, hence of the effective refractive index. The

1383: changed refractive index may be used to trap the waves, which can then

1384: be amplified via superradiant scattering until non-linear effects

1385: dominate.

1386: 

1387: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1388: \section{The canonical non-rotating acoustic black hole}\label{canonical}

1389: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1390: 

1391: In the previous Section we considered the metric describing a rotating

1392: $(2+1)$-dimensional acoustic black hole. Rotation implies the presence

1393: of an ergosphere, allowing us to study in the lab some of the most

1394: interesting phenomena concerning black hole physics (eg.

1395: superradiance and the related rotational instabilities). However, the

1396: non-rotating limit of the acoustic metric we considered is not the

1397: ``natural'' metric describing a non-rotating acoustic black hole. In

1398: this Section we are going to consider another class of non-rotating,

1399: $(3+1)$-dimensional acoustic metrics. These metrics are associated to

1400: the most general spherically symmetric flow of an incompressible

1401: fluid: in this sense they represent ``canonical'' metrics for a

1402: non-rotating acoustic black hole.

1403: 

1404: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1405: \subsection{Formalism and basic equations}

1406: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1407: 

1408: It is simple to show that the acoustic metric corresponding to the

1409: most general spherically symmetric flow of an incompressible fluid is

1410: given by \cite{visser}

1411: %

1412: \begin{equation}

1413: ds^2=

1414: -c^2\left (1-\frac{r_0^4}{r^4} \right)dt^2+ 

1415: \left (1-\frac{r_0^4}{r^4} \right)^{-1} dr^2+

1416: r^2\left (d\theta ^2+ \sin{\theta}^2 d\phi^2 \right)\,.

1417: \label{metriccanonical}

1418: \end{equation}

1419: %

1420: This metric does not correspond to any of the geometries typically

1421: considered in general relativity, but it describes (in the sense

1422: specified above) a ``canonical'' acoustic black hole. The propagation

1423: of small disturbances (sound waves) is again described by the massless

1424: Klein-Gordon equation $\nabla_{\mu}\nabla^{\mu}\Psi=0$ in this

1425: background. We can separate variables by the substitution

1426: %

1427: \be

1428: \Psi(t,r,\phi)=\frac{\Phi(\omega,r)}{r} e^{-\ii\omega t}Y_{lm}(\theta)\,,

1429: \ee

1430: %

1431: where $Y_{lm}(\theta)$ are the usual spherical harmonics. This yields

1432: the wave equation

1433: %

1434: \be

1435: \Phi_{,r_* r_*}+\left( \frac{\omega^2}{c^2}-V \right)\Phi=0\,,

1436: \label{waveequation4}

1437: \ee

1438: %

1439: where

1440: %

1441: \be

1442: V =\left ( 1-\frac{r_0^4}{r^4}\right ) 

1443: \left [ \frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}+\frac{4r_0^4}{r^6}\right ] \,,

1444: \label{pot5}

1445: \ee

1446: %

1447: and the tortoise coordinate $r_*$ is defined, as usual, by

1448: $dr/dr_*=(1-r_0^4/r^4)$. Since this is a spherical symmetric problem,

1449: the azimuthal number $m$ does not play any role, only the angular

1450: momentum $l$ is important here.  In the next Section we summarize our

1451: results for QNMs and wave tails of the canonical acoustic black

1452: hole. When presenting our numerical results we will choose units such

1453: that $c=r_0=1$. This is of course equivalent to a simple rescaling of

1454: the radial variable ($\hat r=r/r_0$) and of the frequency ($\hat

1455: \omega=\omega/c$), but we will omit hats in the following.

1456: 

1457: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1458: \subsection{Quasinormal modes}

1459: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1460: 

1461: A 6th order WKB analysis \cite{konoplyawkb} reveals an unstable QNM

1462: for $l=0$. However, it is possible to prove stability of the canonical

1463: black hole since the potential is positive-definite.  We therefore

1464: computed the QN frequencies using first the lowest approximation

1465: \cite{willwkb}, then 3rd order corrections \cite{will} and finally 6th

1466: order corrections. The results are presented in Table

1467: \ref{tab:fundnonrotcanonical}. The QN frequencies for $l=0$ and $l=1$

1468: seem to be the problem here.  For any other $l$ the value quickly

1469: converges as we increase the correction order of the WKB

1470: method. Notice for example that the $l=0$ mode suffers a variation of

1471: almost an order of magnitude as we go from the lowest approximation to

1472: the 3rd order correction scheme, and gets unstable for the scheme

1473: using 6th order corrections.  The reason for this failure is most

1474: likely related to the breakdown of the basic WKB assumptions, namely

1475: that the ratio of the derivatives of the potential to the potential

1476: itself is small. Indeed a close inspection shows that as $l$ increases

1477: these ratios tend to decrease. This means that the WKB method is more

1478: reliable for higher $l$: this was first observed in the early works on

1479: the subject \cite{willwkb,will}.  

1480: For $l=0$ and $l=1$ the lowest WKB approximation gives the most

1481: reliable results. This is confirmed by recent numerical work \cite{num3}.

1482: \begin{table}

1483: \centering

1484: \caption{\label{tab:fundnonrotcanonical} The fundamental ($n=0$) QN

1485: frequencies for the non-rotating canonical acoustic black hole, using

1486: three WKB computational schemes.  $\omega _{QN}^{(1)}$ is the result

1487: for the QN frequency using only the lowest approximation

1488: \cite{willwkb}, $\omega _{QN}^{(3)}$ is the value obtained using 3rd

1489: order improvements \cite{will}, and finally $\omega _{QN}^{(6)}$ was

1490: computed using 6th order corrections \cite{konoplyawkb}.  }

1491: \vskip 12pt

1492: \begin{tabular}{@{}c|c|c|c@{}}  

1493: \hline

1494: \hline

1495: $l$ &$\omega _{QN}^{(1)}$  &$\omega _{QN}^{(3)}$   &$\omega _{QN}^{(6)}$\\

1496: \hline

1497: \hline

1498: 0  & 1.13-0.73i & 0.19-1.11i &0.06+0.87i \\

1499: 1  & 1.37-0.68i & 0.53-0.71i &1.09-0.39i \\

1500: 2  & 1.82-0.64i & 1.41-0.61i &1.41-0.70i \\

1501: 3  & 2.36-0.62i & 2.10-0.62i &2.12-0.62i \\

1502: 4  & 2.94-0.62i & 2.75-0.62i &2.75-0.62i \\

1503: \hline 

1504: \hline

1505: \end{tabular}

1506: \end{table}

1507: 

1508: In the limit of large $l$ one finds

1509: %

1510: \be

1511: \omega \sim \frac{l\sqrt{2}}{3^{3/4}}-\ii\frac{\sqrt{2}(1+2n)}{3^{3/4}}\,,

1512: \ee

1513: %

1514: a result which agrees very well with our WKB data already for $l=3$.

1515: 

1516: The calculation of highly damped QNMs proceeds along the same lines

1517: sketched for the $(2+1)$-dimensional acoustic black hole. In this case

1518: the index $j=3/5$, which implies that

1519: %

1520: \be

1521: 4\pi \omega =\log{\frac{3-\sqrt{5}}{2}} -\ii(2n+1)\pi\,.

1522: \ee

1523: %

1524: Once again asymptotic QN frequencies are not given by the logarithm of

1525: an integer, as required in Hod's construction \cite{hod}. As we

1526: remarked earlier this does not necessarily imply that the conjecture

1527: is wrong, since a thermodynamical interpretation of the black hole

1528: area is possible only when the dynamics of the system are described by

1529: the Einstein equations.

1530: 

1531: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1532: \subsection{Late-time tails}

1533: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1534: 

1535: The analysis of late-time tails proceeds as in the case of the

1536: $(2+1)$-dimensional acoustic black hole. We can easily show that

1537: asymptotically the potential behaves as

1538: %

1539: \be

1540: V \sim \frac{l(l+1)}{r_*^2}+\frac{12-5l(l+1)}{3r_*^6}\,,r\rightarrow 

1541: \infty\,.

1542: \ee

1543: %

1544: Following the previous analysis we now find $\alpha=6$, and since $l$

1545: is an integer the power-law falloff is of the form

1546: %

1547: \be

1548: \Phi \sim t^{-(2l+6)}\,.

1549: \ee

1550: %

1551: Thus any perturbation eventually dies off as $t^{-(2l+6)}$, much more

1552: quickly (for $m=l$) than in the $(2+1)$-dimensional acoustic black

1553: hole background.

1554: 

1555: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1556: \section{Conclusions}\label{conclusions}

1557: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1558: 

1559: In this paper we have considered two acoustic black hole metrics: the

1560: $(2+1)$-dimensional ``draining bathtub'' metric, and the

1561: $(3+1)$-dimensional canonical non-rotating acoustic black hole.  We

1562: have studied QNMs and late-time tails in both metrics, and

1563: superradiance in the ``draining bathtub'' metric.

1564: 

1565: More specifically, we numerically computed slowly damped QNMs of the

1566: draining bathtub metric using a third-order WKB approach for all

1567: values of $m\neq 0$. We analytically evaluated QN frequencies in the

1568: large-$m$ limit [Eq. (\ref{largembehav})] and set upper limits on

1569: frequencies of unstable modes (Appendix \ref{unstable}). We showed

1570: that highly damped modes do not tend to any simple limit. At late

1571: times, power-law tails decay as $t^{-(2m+1)}$.  This behavior is

1572: typical of any odd-dimensional spacetime: independently of the

1573: presence of a black hole, if $D$ is odd the power-law falloff is

1574: proportional to $t^{-(2l+D-2)}$ \cite{cardosoDdimtails} [the

1575: $(2+1)$-dimensional case, $D=3$, is special: the azimuthal and angular

1576: numbers are the same, $l=m$, since there is only one angular

1577: coordinate]. The draining bathtub metric, possessing an ergoregion,

1578: can superradiantly amplify waves. We computed reflection coefficients

1579: for this superradiant scattering by numerical integration. When the

1580: (dimensionless) acoustic black hole rotation $B=1$, the maximum

1581: amplification is 21.2 \% for $m=1$ and 4.7 \% for $m=2$.  Enclosing

1582: the acoustic black hole by a reflecting mirror we can destabilize the

1583: system, making an initial perturbation grow exponentially with time:

1584: we have an acoustic black hole bomb \cite{pressteu}, or ``dumb hole

1585: bomb''. We computed analytically and numerically the frequencies and

1586: growing timescales for this instability. An interesting feature of

1587: acoustic geometries is that the acoustic black hole {\it spin} can be

1588: varied independently of the black hole {\it mass}. Therefore, at

1589: variance with the Kerr metric, the spin can be made (at least in

1590: principle) arbitrarily large, and rotational superradiance in acoustic

1591: black holes can be very efficient. Gravity waves in shallow water

1592: \cite{schutzhold} provide a concrete example of an experimental setup

1593: for studying classical physics in a draining bathtub metric [and of

1594: experimental difficulties in increasing arbitrarily the rotation rate:

1595: see the discussion leading to Eq. (\ref{Blimit})]. In this case, and

1596: for a typical choice of parameters, growth times for the black hole

1597: bomb instability would be of the order of minutes: this appears to be

1598: well within the range of experimental possibilities. Finally one can

1599: speculate, following \cite{basak2}, that superfluid HeII could be used

1600: to observe some quantum effects, such as a discrete superradiant

1601: amplification.

1602: 

1603: For the canonical acoustic black hole we computed slowly-damped QNMs

1604: using first, third and sixth order WKB. For $l<2$ the WKB method does

1605: not seem to converge, and even yields an unstable frequency at 6th

1606: order when $l=0$. This is only due to bad convergence properties of

1607: the WKB technique, since the canonical acoustic black hole is

1608: stable. In the high-damping limit QNMs are given by $4\pi\omega =

1609: \log{[(3-\sqrt{5})/2]}-\ii(2n+1)\pi$, so they are not proportional to

1610: the logarithm of an integer, as required by recent conjectures. 

1611: This is not surprising since there are no Einstein equations

1612: for acoustic metrics, i.e., the acoustic metric evolution

1613: is not governed by Einstein's equations.

1614: Therefore, acoustic black holes can teach us a lot about quantum gravity

1615: \cite{visser,corleyjacobson}, but cannot shed any light on its possible

1616: connection with highly damped quasinormal modes.

1617: 

1618: The late time falloff in the canonical acoustic black hole metric 

1619: is proportional to $t^{-(2l+6)}$,

1620: to be compared with the $t^{-(2l+3)}$ decay of 4-dimensional

1621: Schwarzschild black holes and with the $t^{-(2l+3D-8)}$ decay of

1622: even-dimensional spherically symmetric black holes with $D>4$

1623: \cite{cardosoDdimtails}.

1624: 

1625: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1626: \section*{Acknowledgements}

1627: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1628: 

1629: We are grateful to Carlos Barcel\'o and Ted Jacobson for useful

1630: discussions.  This work was partially funded by Funda\c c\~ao para a

1631: Ci\^encia e Tecnologia (FCT) -- Portugal through project

1632: CERN/FNU/43797/2001.  V.C. acknowledges financial support from FCT

1633: through grant SFRH/BPD/2003.

1634: This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under

1635: grant PHY 03-53180.

1636: 

1637: \appendix

1638: 

1639: \section{Upper bounds for quasinormal frequencies of unstable modes}

1640: \label{unstable}

1641: 

1642: To derive some bounds on the magnitude of QN frequencies of possible

1643: unstable QNMs we shall follow Detweiler and Ipser \cite{det}.  Let us

1644: begin with the Klein-Gordon equation for the evolution of the field,

1645: $\nabla_{\mu}\nabla^{\mu}\Psi=0$.  Using the metric (\ref{metric2})

1646: and performing a mode decomposition $\Psi(t,r,\phi)=R(r)e^{\ii

1647: (m\phi-\omega t)}$, this can be written as

1648: %

1649: \be

1650: \frac{r}{fc^2}\omega ^2 R+\frac{d}{dr}\left[ rfR'\right]-

1651: \frac{2Bm\omega}{c^2fr}R-

1652: \left (\frac{1}{r}-\frac{B^2}{c^2r^3f}\right )m^2R=0\,,

1653: \label{eq1}

1654: \ee

1655: %

1656: where we have defined $f\equiv \Delta^{-1}=1-A^2/c^2r^2$.

1657: 

1658: Multiply by $R^*$ and integrate from the horizon to spatial

1659: infinity. The result is

1660: %

1661: \be

1662: \int_{r_H} ^{\infty}dr \left[ \frac{r}{fc^2}\omega ^2 |R| ^2-rf|R'| ^2-

1663: \frac{2Bm\omega}{c^2fr}|R| ^2-

1664: \left (\frac{1}{r}-\frac{B^2}{c^2r^3f}\right )m^2|R|^2 \right ]=0\,,

1665: \label{eq2}

1666: \ee

1667: %

1668: where we have used an integration by parts and discarded the surface

1669: integrals.  In fact, for unstable modes (and for these only) the

1670: boundary conditions guarantee that an unstable mode vanishes

1671: exponentially as $r \rightarrow r_H$ or $r\rightarrow \infty$.  The

1672: imaginary part of this equation yields

1673: %

1674: \be

1675: \int_{r_H} ^{\infty}dr \left( r^2 \omega_R -Bm

1676:  \right )\frac{|R| ^2}{frc^2}=0\,, 

1677: \label{eq3}

1678: \ee

1679: %

1680: where we used $\omega=\omega_R+{\rm i}\,\omega_I$. 

1681: Therefore $\omega_R$ and $Bm$ must have the same sign for unstable

1682: modes.  Furthermore, since $|R| ^2/frc^2$ is always positive, the

1683: quantity $(r^2 \omega_R -Bm)$ must be negative somewhere for the

1684: integral to vanish. Since $r^2 \omega_R$ increases with $r$, if this

1685: quantity is somewhere negative, then it certainly is negative at the

1686: horizon. In this way we get an upper bound for $\omega_R$:

1687: %

1688: \be

1689: \omega_R<\frac{Bm}{r_H^2}\,.

1690: \label{eq4}

1691: \ee

1692: %

1693: To get a similar bound on $\omega_I$ consider now the real part of

1694: Eq. (\ref{eq2}):

1695: %

1696: \be

1697: \int_{r_H} ^{\infty}dr \left[ \omega_I ^2-\omega_R^2+\frac{2Bm\omega_R}{r^2}

1698: +\frac{c^2fm^2}{r^2}-\frac{B^2m^2}{r^4}+

1699: f^2c^2\frac{|R'| ^2}{|R| ^2}

1700:  \right ]\frac{r |R| ^2}{fc^2}=0\,.

1701: \label{eq5}

1702: \ee

1703: %

1704: The positive part of the integrand is 

1705: (assuming without loss of generality that $Bm\omega_R>0$)

1706: %

1707: \be

1708: \omega_I ^2+\frac{2Bm\omega_R}{r^2}

1709: +\frac{c^2fm^2}{r^2}+

1710: f^2c^2\frac{|R'| ^2}{|R| ^2}>\omega_I ^2\,.

1711: \label{eq6}

1712: \ee

1713: The negative part is maximized at the horizon:

1714: \be

1715: \omega_R^2+\frac{B^2m^2}{r^4}<\omega_R^2+\frac{B^2m^2}{r_H^4}\,.

1716: \label{eq7}

1717: \ee

1718: %

1719: A necessary condition for the integral to vanish is that the integrand

1720: be negative at the horizon, and this implies

1721: %

1722: \be

1723: \omega_I^2<\omega_R^2+\frac{B^2m^2}{r_H^4}\,,

1724: \label{eq8}

1725: \ee

1726: %

1727: Using the bound (\ref{eq4}) for $\omega_R$ we finally get an upper

1728: bound for $\omega_I$:

1729: %

1730: \be

1731: \omega_I^2<\frac{2B^2m^2}{r_H^4}\,.

1732: \label{eq9}

1733: \ee

1734: %

1735: Notice that the upper bound for $\omega_R$ ensures we are in the

1736: superradiant (or better, superresonant) regime. This seems to be a

1737: general feature, since it has been shown to hold in several black hole

1738: spacetimes. If the instability sets in at all, the system behaves as a

1739: black hole bomb.

1740: 

1741: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1742: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1743: 

1744: \bibitem{hawking} S. W. Hawking, Nature {\bf 248}, 30 (1974);

1745: S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. {\bf 43}, 199 (1975).

1746: 

1747: \bibitem{visserlaws} M. Visser,

1748: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 3436 (1998).

1749: 

1750: \bibitem{visserhawking} M. Visser,

1751: Int. J. Mod. Phys. D {\bf 12}, 649 (2003).

1752: 

1753: \bibitem{giddings} S. B. Giddings, S. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65},

1754: 056010 (2002).

1755: 

1756: \bibitem{unruh} W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 46}, 1351 (1981).

1757: 

1758: \bibitem{novello} M. Novello, M. Visser and G. Volovik (editors), {\it

1759: Artificial black holes} (World Scientific, Singapore, 2002).

1760: 

1761: \bibitem{visser} M. Visser, Class. Quantum Grav. {\bf 15}, 1767 (1998).

1762: 

1763: \bibitem{barcelo}  C. Barcel\'o, S. Liberati and M. Visser,

1764: Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A} 18, 3735 (2003).

1765: 

1766: \bibitem{unruh2} R. Schutzhold and W. G. Unruh, quant-ph/0408145.

1767: 

1768: \bibitem{corleyjacobson} S. Corley and T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. D {\bf

1769: 59}, 124011 (1999).

1770: 

1771: \bibitem{schwinger} 

1772: S. Detweiler, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 22}, 2323 (1980); T. J. Zouros and

1773: D. M. Eardley, Annals Phys. {\bf 118}, 139 (1979); T. Damour,

1774: N. Deruelle and R. Ruffini, Lett. Nuovo Cim. {\bf 15}, 257 (1976).

1775: 

1776: \bibitem{hod} S. Hod, 

1777: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 4293 (1998).

1778: 

1779: \bibitem{kokkotas} K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, 

1780: Living Rev. Rel. {\bf2}, 2 (1999);

1781: H.-P. Nollert, 

1782: Class. Quantum Grav. {\bf 16}, R159 (1999).

1783: 

1784: \bibitem{echeverria} F. Echeverria,

1785: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 40}, 3194 (1989);

1786: L. S. Finn, 

1787: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 46}, 5236 (1992).

1788: 

1789: \bibitem{price1}

1790: R. H. Price, 

1791: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 5}, 2419 (1972).

1792: 

1793: \bibitem{schutzhold}

1794: R. Sch\"utzhold, W. G. Unruh,

1795: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 044019 (2002).

1796: 

1797: \bibitem{basak1} S. Basak and P. Majumdar, 

1798: Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 20}, 2929 (2003). 

1799: 

1800: \bibitem{basak2} S. Basak and P. Majumdar, 

1801: Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 20}, 3907 (2003). 

1802: 

1803: \bibitem{pressteu} W. Press and S. Teukolsky,

1804: Astrophys. J. {\bf 193}, 443 (1974).

1805: 

1806: \bibitem{bhb} V. Cardoso, O. J. C. Dias, J. P.S. Lemos and S. Yoshida, 

1807: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 70}, 044039 (2004); {\bf 70}, 044039(E)(2004). 

1808: 

1809: \bibitem{putten} For a possible astrophysical relevance of the

1810: black hole bomb mechanism, see

1811: M. H. P. M. Putten,

1812: Science {\bf 284}, 115 (1999);

1813: A. Aguirre, 

1814: Astrophys. J. {\bf 529}, L9 (2000).

1815: 

1816: \bibitem{PGL} P. Painlev\'e, C. R. Hebd. Seances Acad. Sci. {\bf 173},

1817: 677 (1921); A. Gullstrand, Ark. Mat. Astron. Fys. {\bf 16}, 1 (1922);

1818: G. Lema\^itre, Ann. Soc. Sci. Bruxelles, Ser. 1 {\bf 53}, 51 (1933).

1819: 

1820: \bibitem{chandra} S. Chandrasekhar, {\it Hydrodynamic and

1821: Hydromagnetic Stability} (Dover Publications, New York, 1981).

1822: 

1823: \bibitem{drazin} P. G. Drazin and W. H. Reid, {\it Hydrodynamic

1824: Stability} (Cambridge University Press, 2004).

1825: 

1826: \bibitem{willwkb} B. F. Schutz and C. M. Will,

1827: Astrophys. Journal {\bf 291}, L33 (1985);

1828: 

1829: \bibitem{will} C. M. Will and S. Iyer,

1830: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 35}, 3621 (1987);

1831: S. Iyer,

1832: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 35}, 3632 (1987);

1833: E. Seidel and Sai Iyer, 

1834: Phys.Rev. D {\bf 41}, 374 (1990).

1835: 

1836: \bibitem{kokkotaswkb} K. D. Kokkotas, 

1837: Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 8}, 2217 (1991).

1838: 

1839: \bibitem{konoplyawkb} R. A. Konoplya,

1840: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 024018 (2003).

1841: 

1842: \bibitem{ferrari} V. Ferrari and B. Mashhoon,

1843: Phys. Rev. {\bf D30}, 295 (1984).

1844: 

1845: \bibitem{dreyerfinn} O. Dreyer, B. Kelly, B. Krishnan, L. S. Finn,

1846: D. Garrison and R. Lopez-Aleman, Class. Quantum Grav. {\bf 21}, 787

1847: (2004).

1848: 

1849: \bibitem{cardoso4} V. Cardoso, J. P. S. Lemos and S. Yoshida,

1850: gr-qc/0410107.

1851: 

1852: \bibitem{dreyer} O. Dreyer,

1853: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 081301 (2003). 

1854: 

1855: \bibitem{motl1} L. Motl,

1856: Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. {\bf 6}, 1135 (2003).

1857: 

1858: \bibitem{motl2} L. Motl and A. Neitzke,

1859: Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. {\bf 7}, 2 (2003).

1860: 

1861: \bibitem{num1} H.-P. Nollert, 

1862: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 47}, 5253 (1993);

1863: E. Berti and K. D. Kokkotas,  

1864: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 044027 (2003).

1865: 

1866: \bibitem{num3} V. Cardoso, J. P. S. Lemos and S. Yoshida

1867: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 044004 (2004). 

1868: 

1869: \bibitem{nils} N. Andersson and C. J. Howls,

1870: Class. Quantum Grav. {\bf 21}, 1623 (2004).

1871: 

1872: \bibitem{ricardo} V. Cardoso, J. Nat\'ario and R. Schiappa,

1873: J. Math. Phys. (in press); hep-th/0403132.

1874: 

1875: \bibitem{tamaki} T. Tamaki and H. Nomura,

1876: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 044041 (2004);

1877: J. Kettner, G. Kunstatter and A.J.M. Medved;

1878: gr-qc/0408042;

1879: S. Chen and J. Jing, gr-qc/0409013. 

1880: 

1881: \bibitem{num2} V. Cardoso, R. Konoplya and J. P. S. Lemos,

1882: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 044024 (2003);

1883: S. Yoshida and T. Futamase,

1884: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 064025 (2004).

1885: R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko,

1886: JHEP {\bf 0406}, 037 (2004).

1887: 

1888: \bibitem{neitzke} We thank Andrew Neitzke for sharing with us a

1889: related unpublished calculation for the Kerr metric.

1890: 

1891: \bibitem{TedEinsteinEOS} T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 1260

1892: (1995).

1893: 

1894: \bibitem{BLSV} C. Barcel\'o, S. Liberati, S. Sonego and M. Visser,

1895: gr-qc/0408022.

1896: 

1897: \bibitem{price2}

1898: C. Gundlach, R. H. Price and J. Pullin, 

1899: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 49}, 883 (1994);

1900: C. Gundlach, R. H. Price and J. Pullin, 

1901: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 49}, 890 (1994);

1902: S. Hod,

1903: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 58}, 104022 (1998);

1904: L. Barack and A. Ori,

1905: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 4388 (1999);

1906: N. Andersson and K. Glampedakis,

1907: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 4537 (2000);

1908: H. Koyama and A. Tomimatsu,

1909: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 64}, 044014 (2001);

1910: S. Hod,

1911: Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 18}, 1311 (2001).

1912: 

1913: \bibitem{ching1} E. S. C. Ching, P. T. Leung, W. M. Suen and K. Young,

1914: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74}, 2414 (1995). 

1915: 

1916: \bibitem{ching2} E. S. C. Ching, P. T. Leung, W. M. Suen and K. Young,

1917: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 52}, 2118 (1995). 

1918: 

1919: \bibitem{cardosoDdimtails} V. Cardoso, S. Yoshida, O. J. C. Dias and

1920: J. P.S. Lemos, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 061503 (2003).

1921: 

1922: \bibitem{ginzburg} V. L. Ginzburg and I. M. Frank, Dokl. Akad. Nauk

1923: SSSR {\bf 56}, 583 (1947); for a recent review cf. V. L. Ginzburg, in

1924: {\it Progress in Optics XXXII}, edited by E. Wolf (Elsevier,

1925: Amsterdam, 1993).

1926: 

1927: \bibitem{bekschiffer}

1928: J. D. Bekenstein and M. Schiffer,

1929: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 064014 (1998).

1930: 

1931: \bibitem{zeldovich} 

1932: Ya. B. Zel'dovich, JETP Lett. {\bf 14}, 180 (1971); Sov. Phys. JETP

1933: {\bf 35}, 1085 (1972).

1934: 

1935: \bibitem{superr}

1936: C. W. Misner,

1937: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 28}, 994 (1972);

1938: A. A. Starobinsky,

1939: Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 37}, 28 (1973);

1940: A. A. Starobinsky and S. M. Churilov,

1941: Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 38}, 1 (1973);

1942: W. Unruh,

1943: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 10}, 3194 (1974);

1944: W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky,

1945: Astrophys. Journal {\bf 185}, 649 (1973).

1946: 

1947: \bibitem{beksuperr}

1948: J. D. Bekenstein,

1949: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 7}, 949 (1973).

1950: 

1951: \bibitem{penrose} 

1952: R. Penrose, Nuovo Cimento {\bf 1}, 252 (1969).

1953: 

1954: \bibitem{friedman}

1955: J. L. Friedman,

1956: Commun. Math. Phys. {\bf 63}, 243 (1978).

1957: 

1958: \bibitem{cominsschutz}

1959: N. Comins and B. F. Schutz,

1960: Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A {\bf 364}, 211 (1978).

1961: 

1962: \bibitem{ptbhb}

1963: W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky,

1964: Nature {\bf 238}, 211 (1972).

1965: 

1966: \bibitem{tedvolovik}

1967: T. Jacobson and G. E. Volovik,

1968: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 064021 (1998).

1969: 

1970: \bibitem{alp} 

1971: N. Andersson, P. Laguna and P. Papadopoulos, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58},

1972: 087503 (1998).

1973: 

1974: \bibitem{abramowitz} 

1975: M. Abramowitz and A. Stegun, {\it Handbook of mathematical functions}

1976: (Dover Publications, New York, 1970).

1977: 

1978: \bibitem{det} S. L. Detweiler and J. R. Ipser,

1979: Astrophys. Journal {\bf 185}, 675 (1973).

1980: \end{thebibliography}

1981: 

1982: \end{document}

1983: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1984: 

1985: