1: \documentclass[prd,aps,showpacs,floats,letterpaper,floatfix,groupedaddress,eqsecnum,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

2: 

3: \usepackage{amssymb,amsmath}

4: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}

5: 

6: \special{papersize=8.5in,11in}

7: 

8: \usepackage{longtable}

9: \usepackage{dcolumn,epsfig}

10: 

11: \def\np{({\bf n}\cdot{\bf p})}

12: \def\pp{{\bf p}^2}

13: \def\ppp{({\bf p}^2)}

14: 

15: \def\laq{\raise 0.4ex\hbox{$<$}\kern -0.8em\lower 0.62ex\hbox{$\sim$}}

16: \def\gaq{\raise 0.4ex\hbox{$>$}\kern -0.7em\lower 0.62ex\hbox{$\sim$}}

17: 

18: \newlength{\sizeonefig}

19: \newlength{\sizetwofig}

20: \setlength{\sizeonefig}{0.48\textwidth}

21: \setlength{\sizetwofig}{0.48\textwidth}

22: 

23: \newcommand{\vphi}{\varphi} 

24: \newcommand{\pa}{\partial} 

25: \newcommand{\hL}{\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{L}}$}}

26: \newcommand{\hS}{\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{S}}$}}

27: \newcommand{\hP}{\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{P}}$}}

28: \newcommand{\hl}{\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{\lambda}}$}}

29: \newcommand{\hn}{\mbox{\boldmath${\hat{n}}$}}

30: \newcommand{\vx}{\mbox{\boldmath${x}$}}

31: \newcommand{\vp}{\mbox{\boldmath${p}$}}

32: \newcommand{\vq}{\mbox{\boldmath${q}$}}

33: \newcommand{\vv}{\mbox{\boldmath${v}$}}

34: \newcommand{\vV}{\mbox{\boldmath${V}$}}

35: \newcommand{\va}{\mbox{\boldmath${a}$}}

36: \newcommand{\vJ}{\mbox{\boldmath${J}$}}

37: \newcommand{\vF}{\mbox{\boldmath${F}$}}

38: \newcommand{\vA}{\mbox{\boldmath${A}$}}

39: \newcommand{\vO}{\mbox{\boldmath${\Omega}$}}

40: \newcommand{\vP}{\mbox{\boldmath${P}$}}

41: \newcommand{\vD}{\mbox{\boldmath${\Delta}$}}

42: \newcommand{\vS}{\mbox{\boldmath${S}$}}

43: \newcommand{\vN}{\mbox{\boldmath${N}$}}

44: \newcommand{\vX}{\mbox{\boldmath${X}$}}

45: \newcommand{\vL}{\mbox{\boldmath${L}$}}

46: \newcommand{\vlb}{\mbox{\boldmath${\lambda}$}}

47: \newcommand{\vs}{\mbox{\boldmath${s}$}}

48: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

49: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

50: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}} 

51: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

52: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}

53: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}

54: 

55: \newcommand{\comment}[1]{}

56: 

57: \begin{document}

58: 

59: \title{Transition from inspiral to plunge in precessing binaries of spinning black holes}

60: 

61: \author{Alessandra Buonanno}

62: 

63: \affiliation{AstroParticule et Cosmologie (APC),

64: 11, place Marcelin Berthelot, 75005 Paris, France}

65: 

66: \altaffiliation{UMR 7164 (CNRS, Universit\'e Paris7, CEA, Observatoire

67: de Paris). Also: Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, 98$^{\rm bis}$ 

68: Boulv. Arago, 75013 Paris, France.}

69: 

70: \author{Yanbei Chen}

71: 

72: \affiliation{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Gravitationsphysik

73: (Albert-Einstein-Institut), Am M\"uhlenberg 1, D-14476 Golm bei

74: Potsdam, Germany}

75: 

76: \author{Thibault Damour}

77: 

78: \affiliation{Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques, 91440 Bures-sur-Yvette, France}

79: 

80: \begin{abstract}

81: We investigate the non-adiabatic dynamics of spinning black hole

82: binaries by using an analytical Hamiltonian completed with a radiation-reaction force,

83: containing spin couplings, which matches the known rates of energy and

84: angular momentum losses on quasi-circular orbits. We consider

85: both a straightforward post-Newtonian-expanded Hamiltonian

86: (including spin-dependent terms), and a version of

87: the resummed post-Newtonian

88: Hamiltonian defined by the Effective One-Body approach.

89: We focus on the influence of spin terms onto the dynamics and waveforms.

90: We evaluate the energy and angular momentum released during the final

91: stage of inspiral and plunge. For an equal-mass

92: binary the energy released between 40\,Hz and the frequency beyond

93: which our analytical treatment becomes unreliable is found to be,

94: when using the more reliable Effective One-Body dynamics:

95:  $0.6\% M$ for  anti-aligned maximally spinning black holes,

96:  $5\% M$ for aligned maximally spinning black hole, and

97: $1.8\% M$ for non-spinning configurations. 

98: In confirmation of previous results, we find that, for all binaries considered,

99: the dimensionless rotation

100: parameter $J/E^2$ is always smaller than unity at the end of the inspiral, 

101: so that a Kerr black hole can form right after the inspiral phase.

102: By matching a quasi-normal mode ringdown to the last reliable stages

103: of the plunge, we construct complete waveforms approximately describing the

104: gravitational wave signal emitted by the entire process of coalescence

105: of precessing binaries of spinning black holes.

106: \end{abstract}

107: 

108: \maketitle

109: 

110: \section{Introduction}

111: \label{sec1}

112: 

113: An international network of kilometer-scale laser-interferometric

114: gravitational-wave detectors, consisting of the Laser-Interferometer

115: Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) \cite{LIGO}, of VIRGO

116: \cite{VIRGO}, of GEO\,600 \cite{GEO} and of TAMA\,300 \cite{TAMA}, has

117: by now begun the science operations. TAMA\,300 reached its full

118: design sensitivity in 2001, VIRGO is in its commissioning phase

119: and plans to start the first scientific runs by the end of 2005, 

120: while LIGO has already completed three science runs (two of them 

121: in coincidence with GEO\,600) with increasing sensitivity and duty 

122: cycle. LIGO and GEO\,600 are expected to reach their full design 

123: sensitivity in 2005.

124: 

125: Binary black holes are among the most promising sources for these

126: detectors. Among black hole binaries, it was emphasized in \cite{TD} that

127: there is a bias towards first detecting mostly aligned spinning

128: binaries with high masses, whose last stable spherical orbits are drawn, 

129: by spin effects, to larger binding energies, yet due to their high masses 

130: these energies are still emitted through gravitational waves in the sensitive 

131: band of the detectors. Studying in detail the waveforms emitted during the 

132: last stages of dynamical evolution of such heavy spinning black hole binaries,

133: with explicit consideration of the crucial transition between

134: adiabatic inspiral and plunge, is a demanding theoretical challenge.

135: The aim of the present paper is to provide a first attack on this problem

136: by using some of the best analytical tools currently available to describe 

137: the transition from adiabatic inspiral to plunge, and notably

138: the Effective One Body (EOB) approach \cite{BD1,BD2}.

139: 

140: 

141: So far, most theoretical and data-analysis studies on precessing binaries of spinning black holes

142: assumed {\it adiabatic evolution}. Thus they were restricted to considering {\it only} 

143: the inspiral phase~\cite{ACST94,K,apostolatos0,apostolatos1,apostolatos2,

144: GKV,GK,bcv2,pbcv1,bcpv1,Gpc}. Actually, even for non-spinning

145: binary configurations, most theoretical studies confined themselves 

146: to considering the adiabatic inspiral phase, though a lot 

147: of effort was spent to improve the accuracy of the phasing during the last stages 

148: of the inspiral, see e.g. \cite{DIS98, DIS00}.

149: 

150: For heavy black hole binaries, most of the signal-to-noise ratio in the 

151: ground detectors will come from the very last stages of the

152: inspiral, and from the non-adiabatic transition between

153: inspiral and plunge. It is therefore essential to be able

154: to describe, with acceptable accuracy, this non-adiabatic evolution.

155: In Refs.~\cite{BD1,BD2} a new way of describing the dynamics of

156: binary systems was introduced: the Effective One-Body (EOB)

157: approach. The EOB approach uses both a specific resummation of the

158: post-Newtonian Hamiltonian, and a resummed version of

159: radiation reaction. This was shown to lead to a rather

160: robust formalism, which is likely to provide a reliable description

161: of non-adiabatic effects, of the transition between inspiral and

162: plunge, and of the beginning of the plunge. It was also used in

163: \cite{BD2} to model the full merger phase of

164: non-spinning binaries, by matching the natural end

165: of the EOB plunge with the ring-down phase. The EOB approach was used

166: in Refs.~\cite{BD2,DJS} to derive non-adiabatic template waveforms emitted

167: by {\it non-spinning} black hole binaries. It was shown in \cite{DIS01}

168: that these new EOB templates led to significantly enhanced signal to noise

169: ratios in current detectors (mainly because of the inclusion of

170: the plunge signal). The EOB Hamiltonian was extended to the

171: case of spinning black holes in \cite{TD}.

172: The analytical predictions made by the EOB method (including spin)

173: were found to agree remarkably well \cite{DGG} with the

174:  numerical results obtained by means of the helical Killing

175: vector approach \cite{GGB} for circular orbits of corotating

176: black holes. Several other studies showed that the EOB method

177: provides phasing models which are more reliable and robust

178: than other (adiabatic or non-adiabatic) models \cite{bcv1,DIS03}.

179: 

180: The main purpose of this paper is to extend the use of the EOB approach 

181: to the case of precessing binaries of spinning black holes,

182: both by including spin-dependent terms in radiation-reaction effects,

183: and by studying the waveforms generated beyond the adiabatic

184: approximation, i.e. taking into account the transition between

185: inspiral and plunge, and the plunge itself. Let us emphasize again

186: that the EOB approach has the advantage of providing an {\it analytical}

187: description of the transition from inspiral to plunge. Recently,

188: some attempts have been made to tackle, by means of 3D {\it numerical}

189: simulations (combined with a perturbative approach), the

190: gravitational radiation emitted by a very tight black hole binary both

191: in non-spinning~\cite{BBCLT}, and moderately spinning,

192: but non-precessing~\cite{BCLT} configurations. These three-dimensional (3D)

193: simulations concluded to the emission of a significantly larger amount of

194: energy in the form of gravitational radiation than what we shall

195: find from our analytical, EOB approach. It should be mentioned in

196: this respect that the energy released in the form of gravitational

197: waves depends very much on the choice of initial data, and that the

198: amount by which the initial data chosen in \cite{BBCLT,BCLT}

199: differ from  the physically correct ``no-incoming-radiation'' data

200: is unclear. This crucial issue will be further discussed below.

201: 

202: Recent simulations~\cite{Gpc} based on population synthesis codes predict that

203: $\sim 50 \% -80\%$ of neutron star-black hole (NS-BH) binaries in the Galactic 

204: field may have tilt angles (i.e., the angle between the black hole (BH) spin and the orbital

205: angular momentum) between $0$ and $40^o$ and $10-20 \%$ of

206: NS-BH binaries between $40^o$ and $50^o$. By studying the formation of close compact

207: binaries and the misalignment angle that can occur after the second core-collapse

208: event, Kalogera~\cite{K00} predicted that the majority of BH-BH binaries

209: in Galactic binaries may have a tilt angle

210: smaller than $30^{o}$. All these results assume that the misalignement is entirely due to

211: the recoil velocity (``kick'') imparted to the NS (or the smaller BH in the binary)

212: at birth by the core-collapse.

213: However, the spin properties of NS-BH and BH-BH binaries in dense environment

214: and centers of globular clusters could be very different than in

215: the Galactic field.

216: Considering the low event rates, $\sim 1$ per 2 years, of binary coalescences in

217: first generation of ground-based detectors, it is worthwhile to adopt a conservative

218: point of view and investigate waveforms for generic spin configurations.

219: Little is known about the magnitude of the spin of NSs and BHs.

220: {}From the observed pulsars the dimensionless rotation parameter $a_{\rm NS}$

221: takes values in the range $0.005 - 0.02$. Our analysis will focus on BH-BH binaries and

222: we shall consider arbitrary spins: $0 < a_{\rm BH} < 1$.

223: 

224: For completeness, we investigate the two-body dynamics by adopting two approaches:

225: the straightforward post-Newtonian (PN)-expanded Hamiltonian~\cite{DS88,JS98}

226: and the PN-resummed Hamiltonian \`a la EOB~\cite{BD1}, \cite{DJS}, \cite{TD} [henceforth

227: referred to simply as the EOB-Hamiltonian]. For simplicity, instead of using

228: the Kerr-deformed EOB-Hamiltonian derived by Damour in Ref.~\cite{TD}, we shall use as Hamiltonian

229: in this paper the {\it sum} of the purely orbital (Schwarzschild-deformed) 

230: EOB-Hamiltonian~\cite{BD1,DJS} and of the {\it separate} contributions

231: due to spin-orbit and spin-spin effects. [Note that, among the

232: spin-spin terms, there are the terms due to monopole-quadrupole interactions~\cite{EP}, \cite{TD}.]

233: 

234: The paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{sec2} summarizes the main 

235: results of the conservative part of the two-body dynamics in the Hamiltonian

236: formalism, and contains formula for the PN-expanded and EOB Hamiltonians

237: up to 3PN order. In Sec.~\ref{sec3} we augment the dynamics with radiation-reaction 

238: effects. We derive the radiation-reaction force which includes spin effects and 

239: matches known rates of energy and angular momentum losses on quasi-circular orbits. 

240: [Our result agrees with the recent results of Will~\cite{Will} that appeared after we had completed our work.]

241: In Sec.~\ref{sec4.1} we define the two-body approximants and discuss

242: the initial conditions used to evolve 

243: the precessing two-body dynamics; we compare the

244: (lowest-order) waveforms

245: obtained using PN-expanded and (PN-resummed) EOB

246: dynamics by computing the overlaps between these two types of

247: waveforms. In view of the greater a priori reliability of the

248: EOB approach, we use them (and only them) to estimate the energy and angular momentum released

249: during the last stages of evolution. Section~\ref{sec5} contains our 

250: main conclusions.

251: 

252: We leave to future work a thorough application of

253: our results to data analysis purposes.

254: 

255: \section{Conservative Hamiltonian including spin-orbit and spin-spin effects}

256: \label{sec2}

257: 

258: \subsection{Orbital third-post-Newtonian expanded Hamiltonian}

259: \label{sec2.1}

260: 

261: The  purely {\it orbital} (non-spinning)third-post-Newtonian Hamiltonian

262: $H^{\rm 0}=H^{\rm 0}(\vX,\vP)$ (in the center of mass frame,

263: and after subtraction of the total rest-mass term)

264: was derived in Ref.~\cite{JS98} (completed by Refs.~\cite{DJSPoincare,DJSd}). In scaled variables, and

265: written as a straigthforward PN-expansion, it reads

266: (see Ref.~\cite{DJS}):

267: %

268: \beq

269: \label{3.1}

270: H^{\rm 0}(\vX,\vP)_{\rm EXP} = \mu\,\widehat{H}^{\rm 0}(\vq,\vp) = \mu\,\left [\widehat{H}_{\rm Newt}(\vq,\vp) +

271: \widehat{H}_{\rm 1PN}(\vq,\vp) +\widehat{H}_{\rm 2PN}(\vq,\vp) +

272: \widehat{H}_{\rm 3PN}(\vq,\vp) \right ]

273: \eeq 

274: %

275: where $\mu = m_1\,m_2/M$, $M=m_1+m_2$ and $(\vq,\vp)$ denote the

276: canonical variables ${\bf p}\equiv {\bf P_1}/\mu=-{\bf P_2}/\mu$, and 

277: ${\bf q} \equiv {\bf X}/M =({\bf X}_1 - {\bf X}_2)/M$, where ${\bf X_1}$ and ${\bf X_2}$ 

278: are the positions of the black hole centers of mass in quasi--Cartesian Arnowitt-Deser-Misner 

279: (ADM) coordinates. The Newtonian term and the PN contributions read

280: (denoting $\eta \equiv \mu/M = m_1m_2/M^2$):

281: %

282: \bea

283: \widehat{H}_{\rm Newt}\left({\bf q},{\bf p}\right) &=& \frac{\pp}{2} -

284: \frac{1}{q}\,, \label{eq:hfirst}\\

285: \widehat{H}_{\rm 1PN}\left({\bf q},{\bf p}\right) &=& \frac{1}{8}(3\eta-1)\ppp^2

286: - \frac{1}{2}\left[(3+\eta)\pp+\eta\np^2\right]\frac{1}{q} + \frac{1}{2q^2}\,,\\

287: \widehat{H}_{\rm 2PN}\left({\bf q},{\bf p}\right)

288: &=& \frac{1}{16}\left(1-5\eta+5\eta^2\right)\ppp^3

289: + \frac{1}{8} \left[

290: \left(5-20\eta-3\eta^2\right)\ppp^2-2\eta^2\np^2\pp-3\eta^2\np^4 \right]\frac{1}{q}

291: \nonumber \\

292: && + \frac{1}{2} \left[(5+8\eta)\pp+3\eta\np^2\right]\frac{1}{q^2}

293: - \frac{1}{4}(1+3\eta)\frac{1}{q^3}\,,

294: \eea

295: %

296: \bea

297: \widehat{H}_{\rm 3PN}\left({\bf q},{\bf p}\right)

298: &=& \frac{1}{128}\left(-5+35\eta-70\eta^2+35\eta^3\right)\ppp^4

299: \nonumber \\

300: && + \frac{1}{16}\left[

301: \left(-7+42\eta-53\eta^2-5\eta^3\right)\ppp^3

302: + (2-3\eta)\eta^2\np^2\ppp^2

303: + 3(1-\eta)\eta^2\np^4\pp - 5\eta^3\np^6

304: \right]\frac{1}{q}

305: \nonumber \\

306: && +\left[ \frac{1}{16}\left(-27+136\eta+109\eta^2\right)\ppp^2

307: + \frac{1}{16}(17+30\eta)\eta\np^2\pp + \frac{1}{12}(5+43\eta)\eta\np^4

308: \right]\frac{1}{q^2} \\

309: && +\left\{ \left[ -\frac{25}{8} + \left(\frac{1}{64}\pi^2-\frac{335}{48}\right)\eta 

310: - \frac{23}{8}\eta^2 \right]\pp

311: + \left(-\frac{85}{16}-\frac{3}{64}\pi^2-\frac{7}{4}\eta\right)\eta\np^2 

312: \right\}\frac{1}{q^3}

313: \nonumber \\

314: && + \left[ \frac{1}{8} + \left(\frac{109}{12}-\frac{21}{32}\pi^2\right)\eta 

315: \right]\frac{1}{q^4}\,, \label{eq:hlast}

316: \eea

317: %

318: where the scalars $q$ and $p$ are the

319: (coordinate) lengths of the two vectors $\vq$ and $\vp$; and the vector ${\bf n}$ is

320: just ${\bf q}/q$.

321: 

322: \subsection{Orbital third-post-Newtonian effective-one-body Hamiltonian}

323: \label{sec2.2}

324: 

325: As was emphasized in previous work (see e.g. \cite{KWW,WS}), and as

326: we shall confirm below, the non-resummed PN-expanded Hamiltonian

327: (or the non-resummed PN-expanded equations of motion) do not lead to

328: a reliable description of the evolution near the last stable

329: circular orbit, nor, {\it a fortiori} during the transition

330: between inspiral and plunge. On the other hand, it was argued

331: in \cite{BD1,BD2,DJS} that the EOB approach

332: defines a specific resummation of the PN-expanded Hamiltonian

333: which leads to a much more reliable description of the dynamical

334: evolution near the last stable circular orbit, and of the

335: transition between inspiral and plunge.

336: 

337: The explicit expression of the purely

338: orbital, EOB-Hamiltonian is~\cite{BD1}:

339: 

340: \beq

341: \label{himpr}

342: H^{\rm 0}_{\rm EOB}(\vX^\prime,\vP^\prime) = M\,\sqrt{1 + 2\eta\,\left ( \frac{H_{\rm eff}(\vX^\prime,\vP^\prime) 

343: -\mu}{\mu}\right )} -M\,.  

344: \eeq

345: %

346: where $H_{\rm eff}$ is given by~\cite{BD1,DJS}:

347: %

348: \bea 

349: \label{eq:genexp}

350: && H_{\rm eff}(\vX^\prime,\vP^\prime) = \mu\, 

351: \widehat{H}_{\rm eff}({\mathbf q}^\prime,{\mathbf p}^\prime) \nonumber \\

352: &=& \mu\,\sqrt{A (q^\prime) \left[ 1 + 

353: {\mathbf p}^{\prime\,2} +

354: \left( \frac{A(q^\prime)}{D(q^\prime)} - 1 \right) ({\mathbf n}^\prime \cdot {\mathbf p}^\prime)^2

355: + \frac{1}{q^{\prime\,2}} \left( z_1 ({\mathbf p}^{\prime\,2})^2 + z_2 \, {\mathbf p}^{\prime\,2}

356: ({\mathbf n}^\prime \cdot {\mathbf p}^{\prime\,})^2 + z_3 ({\mathbf n}^\prime \cdot {\mathbf

357: p}^{\prime})^4 \right) \right]} \,,

358: \eea

359: %

360: with ${\bf q}^\prime$ and ${\bf p}^\prime$ being the reduced canonical variables obtained by rescaling 

361: $\vX^\prime$ and $\vP^\prime$ by $M$ and $\mu$, respectively, ${\bf n}^\prime = \vq^\prime/q^\prime$ 

362: where we set $q^\prime = |{\bf q}^\prime|$. 

363: The coefficients $z_1,z_2$ and $z_3$ are arbitrary, subject to the constraint

364: %

365: \beq 8z_1 + 4z_2 +3z_3 = 6(4-3\eta)\,\eta\,.  

366: \eeq

367: %

368: Setting (as in Ref.~\cite{bcv1})  $z_1 = \eta \tilde{z}_1,

369: z_2 =\eta \tilde{z}_2$ and $z_3 =\eta \tilde{z}_3$, the coefficients $A(q^\prime)$ and $D(q^\prime)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:genexp}) read:

370: %

371: \bea

372: \label{coeffA}

373: A(q^\prime) &=& 1 - \frac{2}{q^\prime}+\frac{2\eta}{q^{\prime\,3}}+ \left [ \left (

374: \frac{94}{3}-\frac{41}{32}\pi^2\right ) -\tilde{z}_1\right ]\,\frac{\eta}{q^{\prime\,4}}\,,\\

375: \label{coeffD}

376: D(q^\prime) &=& 1 -\frac{6\eta}{q^{\prime\,2}}+\left [7\tilde{z}_1 +\tilde{z}_2+ (3\eta-26)\right ]\,

377: \frac{\eta}{q^{\prime\,3}}\,. 

378: \eea

379: %

380: As done in Ref.~\cite{DJS}, 

381: we restrict ourselves to the case $\tilde{z}_1=\tilde{z}_2=0$ and improve the behavior

382: \footnote{As shown in \cite{DJS}, the use of the

383: straightforward PN-expanded, 3PN-{\it accurate} ``effective potential''

384: $A(q^\prime)$ does not lead to a well-defined last stable circular orbit 

385: (contrary to what happens in the 2PN-accurate case \cite{BD1}). This

386: is due to the rather large value of the 3PN coefficient 

387: $\frac{94}{3}-\frac{41}{32}\pi^2 \simeq 18.688$ entering the PN expansion

388: of $A(q^\prime)$. Replacing the PN-expanded form of $A(q^\prime)$

389: by a Pad\'e approximant cures this problem.[See also \cite{DGG} for

390: a comparison of the physical consequences of various possible

391:  resummations of $A(q^\prime)$.]} by replacing

392:  the ``effective potential'' $A(q^\prime)$ with the Pad\'e approximants

393: %

394: \beq

395: A_{P_2}(q^\prime) = \frac{q^\prime\,(-4+2q^\prime+\eta)}{2q^{\prime\,2}+2\eta+q^\prime\,\eta}\,,

396: \label{coeffPA2}

397: \eeq

398: %

399: at 2PN order and

400: %

401: \beq

402: \label{coeffPA}

403: A_{P_3}(q^\prime) = \frac{q^{\prime\,2}\,[(a_4(\eta,0)+8\eta-16) + q^\prime\,(8-2\eta)]}{

404: q^{\prime\,3}\,(8-2\eta)+q^{\prime\,2}\,(a_4(\eta,0)+4\eta)+q^\prime\,(2a_4(\eta,0)+8\eta)+4(\eta^2+a_4(\eta,0))}\,,

405: \eeq

406: %

407: at 3PN order where

408: %

409: \beq \label{a4}

410: a_4(\eta,\tilde{z}_1) = \left [\frac{94}{3}-\frac{41}{32}\pi^2

411: -\tilde{z}_1\right ]\,\eta\,.

412: \eeq

413: %

414: 

415: \subsection{Adding spin couplings}

416: \label{sec2.3}

417: 

418: There are several ways of including spin effects in the Hamiltonian

419: dynamics. When considering the PN-expanded form of the

420: orbital Hamiltonian $H^{\rm 0}_{\rm EXP}$,

421: it is natural to add the spin-dependent terms as further additional

422: contributions: $ H_{\rm TOT} = H^{\rm 0}_{\rm EXP} +H^{\rm SPIN}$ .

423: On the other hand, when considering the EOB-resummed

424: form of the Hamiltonian $H^{\rm 0}_{\rm EOB}$,

425: it has been argued in Ref.~\cite{TD} that

426: it is probably better to incorporate most of the spin effects

427: within a suitably generalized (\`a la  Kerr) EOB-Hamiltonian,

428: whose explicit form will be found in \cite{TD}.

429: In the present work, we shall, for technical simplicity,

430: adopt a uniform way of including spin effects. Namely,

431: we shall simply include them a linearly added contributions

432: to the basic (PN-expanded or EOB-resummed) orbital Hamiltonian.

433: We shall verify below that, in the EOB-resummed case, the

434: two different ways (\`a la \cite{TD}, or as in the following

435: equation) of incorporating spin effects lead to

436: very similar physical effects.

437: 

438: Finally, the explicit forms we shall use of the ``spinning''

439: Hamiltonian read:

440: 

441: %

442: \beq

443: H_{\rm EXP}(\vX,\vP,\vS_1,\vS_2) = H^{\rm 0}_{\rm EXP}(\vX,\vP) +

444: H_{\rm SO}(\vX,\vP,\vS_1,\vS_2)+ H_{\rm SS}(\vX,\vP,\vS_1,\vS_2)\,,

445: \label{Hspinexp}

446: \eeq

447: or

448: \beq

449: H_{\rm EOB}(\vX,\vP,\vS_1,\vS_2) =  H^{\rm 0}_{\rm EOB}(\vX,\vP) +

450: H_{\rm SO}(\vX,\vP,\vS_1,\vS_2)+ H_{\rm SS}(\vX,\vP,\vS_1,\vS_2)\,,

451: \label{Hspineob}

452: \eeq

453: 

454: 

455: 

456: where~\cite{BGH,BO,DS88}:

457: %

458: \bea

459: \label{3.2}

460: && H_{SO} = 2\frac{\vS_{\rm eff}\cdot \vL}{R^3}\,, \quad 

461: \vS_{\rm eff} \equiv \left ( 1+ \frac{3}{4}\,\frac{m_2}{m_1} \right )\,\vS_1 + 

462: \left ( 1 + \frac{3}{4}\,\frac{m_1}{m_2} \right )\,\vS_2\,,\\

463: \label{3.3}

464: && H_{SS} = H_{S_1 S_1} + H_{S_1 S_2} + H_{S_2 S_2} =

465: \frac{1}{2R^3}\,\frac{\mu}{M}\,\left [ 3 (\vS_0 \cdot \vN) (\vS_0

466: \cdot \vN) - (\vS_0 \cdot \vS_0) \right ]\,, \\ && \vS_0 = \left ( 1 +

467: \frac{m_2}{m_1} \right )\,\vS_1 + \left ( 1 + \frac{m_1}{m_2} \right

468: )\,\vS_2\,,\\ && H_{S_1 S_2} = \frac{1}{R^3}\,\left [ 3 (\vS_1 \cdot

469: \vN) (\vS_2 \cdot \vN) - (\vS_1 \cdot \vS_2) \right ]\,,\\ && H_{S_1

470: S_1} + H_{S_2 S_2}= \frac{1}{2R^3}\,\left [ 3 (\vS_1 \cdot \vN) (\vS_1

471: \cdot \vN) - (\vS_1 \cdot \vS_1) \right ]\,\frac{m_2}{m_1} +

472: \frac{1}{2R^3}\,\left [ 3 (\vS_2 \cdot \vN) (\vS_2 \cdot \vN) - (\vS_2

473: \cdot \vS_2) \right ]\,\frac{m_1}{m_2} \,, 

474: \eea

475: %

476: with $\vN = \vX/R$, $R = |\vX|$ and $\vL = \vX \times \vP$.

477: The spin-spin term $H_{S_1 S_2}$ was derived in Ref.~\cite{BO}, 

478: while the spin-spin terms $H_{S_1 S_1}, H_{S_2 S_2}$ which are valid {\it only} 

479: for a BH binary were derived in Ref.~\cite{TD} 

480: [see discussion around Eqs.~(2.51)--(2.55) in Ref.~\cite{TD} and also

481: Ref.~\cite{EP}]. 

482: They originate from the interaction of the monopole $m_2$ with the spin-induced 

483: quadrupole moment of the spinning black hole of mass $m_1$ and viceversa. 

484: The spin-induced quadrupole moment of a NS depends

485: on the equation of state. So, if we were applying our approch to 

486: NS binaries we could take into account the 

487: monopole-quadrupole interaction by multiplying  $H_{S_1 S_1}, H_{S_2 S_2}$

488: by some equation-of-state-dependent coefficient $\gamma$ [see Ref.~\cite{EP}].

489: 

490: \subsection{Equations of motion and conserved quantities}

491: 

492: The time evolution of any dynamical quantity 

493: $f(\vX,\vP,\vS_1,\vS_2)$ is given by~\cite{TD}:

494: %

495: \beq

496: \label{3.4}

497: \frac{d }{dt} f(\vX,\vP,\vS_1,\vS_2) = \{f,H\}\,,

498: \eeq

499: %

500: where with $\{...,...\}$ we indicated the Poisson brackets

501: $\{X^i,P_j\}= \delta^i_j$. The Hamilton equations

502: of motion are:

503: %

504: \beq

505: \label{3.5}

506: \frac{d \vX}{d t} = + \frac{\partial H}{\partial \vP}\,, \quad \quad

507: \frac{d \vP}{d t} = - \frac{\partial H}{\partial \vX} \,.

508: \eeq

509: %

510: The equations of motion for the spins are easily derived as~\cite{TD,TH,BO}: 

511: %

512: \bea

513: \label{3.6}

514: \frac{d }{dt} \vS_1 = \{\vS_1,H \} = \frac{\partial H}{\partial \vS_1} \times \vS_1 = 

515: \vO_1 \times \vS_1\,,\\

516: \label{3.7}

517: \frac{d }{dt} \vS_2 = \{\vS_2,H \} = \frac{\partial H}{\partial \vS_2} \times \vS_2 = 

518: \vO_2 \times \vS_2\,,

519: \eea

520: %

521: with

522: %

523: \bea

524: \label{3.8}

525: \vO_1 &=& \left ( 2 + \frac{3}{2}\,\frac{m_2}{m_1} \right

526: )\,\frac{\vL}{R^3} + \frac{1}{R^3}\,\left [3\vN\,(\vS_2 \cdot \vN) -

527: \vS_2 \right ] + \frac{3}{R^3}\,\frac{m_2}{m_1}\,\vN\,(\vS_1 \cdot \vN)

528: \,, \\

529: \label{3.9}

530: \vO_2 &=& \left ( 2 + \frac{3}{2}\,\frac{m_1}{m_2} \right

531: )\,\frac{\vL}{R^3} + \frac{1}{R^3}\,\left [3\vN\,(\vS_1 \cdot \vN) -

532: \vS_1 \right ] + \frac{3}{R^3}\,\frac{m_1}{m_2}\,\vN\,(\vS_2 \cdot \vN)\,.  

533: \eea 

534: %

535: Note that a consequence of the above spin-evolution equations

536: is the constancy of the lengths of the spin vectors:

537: $\vS_1^2 =$ cst., $\vS_2^2 =$ cst.

538: 

539: When using the EOB Hamiltonian Eq.~(\ref{Hspineob})

540:  we should in principle

541: consider the canonical transformation between $(\vX,\vP)$ and 

542: $(\vX^\prime,\vP^\prime)$ which is explicitly given as a PN expansion in 

543: Refs.~\cite{BD1,DJS}.

544: However, since the Hamilton equations are valid in any canonical coordinate 

545: system, when we evolve the EOB dynamics we write the Hamilton equations 

546: in terms of $(\vX^\prime,\vP^\prime)$ and for the spinning part we 

547: neglect the differences between $(\vX^\prime,\vP^\prime)$ and $(\vX,\vP)$ 

548: which are of higher PN order. 

549: When in the following sections we compare the results between PN-expanded and PN-resummed 

550: Hamiltonians, we will always compare quantities

551: which are gauge invariant to lowest order.

552: 

553: One of the advantages of using an Hamiltonian formalism is that

554: one can immediately derive from the fundamental symmetries

555: of the relative dynamics (time translation and spatial

556: rotations) two {\it exact} conservation laws: that of the total

557: energy $E = H$, and that of the total angular momentum

558: $\vJ = \vL + \vS_1 + \vS_2$.

559: Using Eqs.~(\ref{3.6}), (\ref{3.7}) it is easy to

560: check the conservation of the total energy,

561: %

562: \beq

563: \label{3.10}

564: \frac{d H}{d t} = \frac{\partial H}{\partial \vX}\,\frac{d \vX}{d t} +  

565: \frac{\partial H}{\partial \vP}\,\frac{d \vP}{d t} +  \frac{\partial H}{\partial \vS_1}\,

566: \frac{d \vS_1}{d t} + \frac{\partial H}{\partial \vS_2}\,\frac{d \vS_2}{d t}=0\,.

567: \eeq

568: %

569: 

570: Similarly, one easily checks the conservation of the total

571: angular momentum $\vJ = \vL + \vS_1 + \vS_2$. Note the

572: remarkable fact that the orbital contribution to

573:  $\vJ$ is exactly given, at any PN-order, by the ``Newtonian-looking''

574:  expression $\vL = \vX \times \vP$. This is contrary to what

575:  happens when working within a Lagrangian formalism, where the

576:  expression for the conserved orbital angular momentum gets

577:  modified at each PN order: $\vL =\mu \vX \times \vv + O(c^{-2})$.

578:  Here, all the needed PN contributions are included in the

579:  Hamiltonian $H$ (and thereby imply that

580: $ \vV =  \partial H/\partial \vP$ is a complicated function

581: of $\vV$).

582: 

583: \subsection{Spin-orbit interaction and ``spherical orbits''}

584: 

585:  For most of the dynamical evolution, the spin-spin terms are

586:  much smaller than the spin-orbit ones.

587: If we restrict ourselves to spin-orbit interactions, the equation of motion for

588: the orbital angular momentum reads

589: %

590: \beq

591: \label{3.11}

592: \frac{d \mathbf{L}}{d t} = \{\mathbf{L},H\} = 

593: \frac{2}{R^3} \mathbf{S}_{\rm eff} \times \mathbf{L}\,.

594: \eeq

595: %

596: A useful consequence of this approximate evolution law is

597:  that $\vL^2$ is conserved.

598:  Under the same approximation, the total spin $\vS = \vS_1 + \vS_2$ satisfies

599: the equation:

600: %

601: \beq

602: \label{3.12}

603: \frac{d \vS}{d t} = - \frac{2}{R^3}\,\vS_{\rm eff} \times \vL\,.

604: \eeq

605: %

606: The above (approximate) evolution equations exhibit clearly the (exact) conservation

607: of the total angular momentum $\vJ = \vL + \vS$

608: ($d\vJ/dt =0$).

609: 

610: It is also easily checked that

611: $\vS_{\rm eff} \cdot \vL$ is a conserved quantity under the

612: above, approximate evolution equations.

613: Therefore, as emphasized by Damour~\cite{TD}, when

614: only spin-orbit terms are included the orbital dynamics can

615: be reduced to a simple ``radial Hamiltonian''

616:  $H(R,P_R)=H(R,P_R,\vL^2={\rm const.},\vS_{\rm eff} \cdot

617: \vL = {\rm const.})$ describing the radial motion.

618:  Here $P_R \equiv N^i\,P_i$ is the momentum

619: canonically conjugated to $R$ ($\{R,P_R\}=1$).  In this case there

620: exists a class of {\it spherical orbits} satisfying

621: %

622: \beq

623: \label{3.13}

624: R = {\rm const.}\,, \quad \quad P_R = 0\,, \quad \quad 

625: \frac{\partial H(R,P_R=0,\vL^2, \vL \cdot \vS_{\rm eff})}{\partial R}=0\,.

626: \eeq

627: %

628: 

629: \subsection{Characteristics of the last stable spherical orbit (LSSO)}

630: 

631: When spin-spin interactions are included, those

632: spherical orbits no longer exist as exact solutions. However, as

633: spin-spin effects are always smaller than spin-orbit ones, one expects

634: that the above {\it spherical} orbits will play the same important role

635: as the usual {\it circular} orbits in the non-spinning case.

636: In particular, the {\it Last Stable Spherical Orbit} (LSSO) should play

637: the important role of delineating the transition between adiabatic

638: inspiral and plunge.

639: 

640: The LSSO for the spinning conservative dynamics is determined by setting 

641: %

642: \beq

643: \frac{\partial H_0}{\partial R} = 0=\frac{\partial^2 H_0}{\partial R^2}\,,

644: \label{eq:isco}

645: \eeq

646: % 

647: where $H_0(R,P_R,P_\phi, \cdots) = H(R,0,P_\phi, \cdots)$.

648: 

649: The physical characteristics of the LSSO for

650: (aligned or anti-aligned) spinning configurations were studied in detail

651: in Ref.~\cite{TD} within the more fully resummed Kerr-like EOB-Hamiltonian

652: introduced in that reference. It was also shown in \cite{DGG} that the

653: predictions from the latter Kerr-like EOB-Hamiltonian were in good

654: agreement with the numerical results on corotating

655: black hole (BH) binaries obtained by means of the

656: helical Killing vector approach \cite{GGB}. See Table I of \cite{DGG}.

657: [Note that the agreement with EOB is better when one considers the

658: 3PN accuracy.]

659: The latter Table also shows that the numerical results on irrotational

660: BH binaries obtained by means of other approaches based on considering

661: only the initial value problem (e.g. \cite{PTC}) significantly differ

662: both from the numerical helical-Killing-vector (HKV) results, and the

663: analytical EOB-ones. 

664: For recent work improving  the numerical implementation of the HKV approach

665: (which is closely related to the ``conformal thin-sandwich'' decomposition)

666: and confirming that it yields results that agree well with the

667: EOB approach, see~\cite{Cook,CookPfeiffer}. As all the

668: currently published numerical

669: estimates of the physical characteristics of close binaries

670: made of {\it spinning } BH's (such as \cite{PTC}) use

671: initial-value-problem approaches rather than the physically

672: better motivated HKV one, we shall not try to compare here

673: the analytical EOB predictions for spinning configurations

674: with numerical results. On the other hand, it is interesting

675: to compare several different, PN-rooted, analytical approaches

676: in their predictions for the binding energy of close BH binaries.

677: 

678: The most straightforward PN-based analytical approach to the

679: physical characteristics of close BH binaries consists of

680: starting from the fully PN-expanded Hamiltonian (\ref{Hspinexp}),

681: considered as defining an exact dynamics, and then to

682: deduce from it the energy and angular frequency of

683: spherical orbits. [We consider here only configurations

684: where the spins are parallel (or antiparallel) to the orbital

685: angular momentum, so that it makes sense, even in presence of

686: spin-spin interactions, to consider spherical (and actually circular)

687:  orbits.] The binding energy of such ``PN-expanded'' spherical

688:  orbits is plotted in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:eomega} as a function

689:  of the orbital angular frequency, for equal-mass BH binaries.

690:  As we see from this Figure, the straightforward PN-expanded

691:  Hamiltonian does not exhibit any minimum of the

692:  binding energy, i.e. does not lead to any {\it Last} Stable Spherical

693:  Orbit (LSSO) in the non-spinning, or aligned maximally spinning

694:  cases. As the best current numerical results on BH binaries

695:  clearly indicate the existence of such LSSO's, this disqualifies

696:  the use of the fully PN-expanded Hamiltonian (\ref{Hspinexp})

697:  for describing close binaries.

698: 

699: It has, however, been pointed out \cite{LB} that more reasonable results, 

700: close to the numerical HKV results, can be obtained by plotting, instead 

701: of the prediction coming straightforwardly from (\ref{Hspinexp}), 

702: the PN-expansion of the analytically computed function ${E}(\Omega)$ 

703: giving the binding energy $E$ as a function of the orbital frequency $\Omega$.

704: Indeed, one can derive from (\ref{Hspinexp}) the following

705: explicit PN-expansion of the (invariant) function

706: ${E}(\Omega)$ \cite{DJSinvar}, \cite{DJS}, \cite{LB}:

707: %

708: \bea

709: \label{s1}

710: E_{\rm 2PN}(\Omega) &=& -\frac{\mu}{2}\,(M\Omega)^{2/3}\,\left \{

711: 1 - \frac{(9+\eta)}{12}\,(M\Omega)^{2/3} + \frac{8}{3} \frac{\hL\cdot \vS_{\rm eff}}{M^2}\,

712: (M\Omega)+

713: \frac{1}{24}(-81 + 57 \eta - \eta^2)\,(M\Omega)^{4/3} \right . \nonumber \\

714: && \left. + \frac{1}{\eta}\,\frac{1}{M^4}\,

715: \left [\vS_1\cdot \vS_2 - 3 (\hL \cdot \vS_1) (\hL \cdot \vS_2)

716:  \right ]\,(M\Omega)^{4/3} \right \}\,,\\

717: \label{s2}

718: E_{\rm 3PN}(\Omega) &=& E_{\rm 2PN}(\Omega) -\frac{\mu}{2}\,(M\Omega)^{2/3}\,\left \{

719: \left [-\frac{675}{64} + \left (\frac{34445}{576}-\frac{205}{96}\pi^2 \right )\eta

720: -\frac{155}{96}\eta^2-\frac{35}{5184}\eta^3 \right ]\,(M\Omega)^{2}\right \}\,.

721: \eea

722: %

723: These functions are plotted in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:eomega}. 

724: Visibly, they are much better behaved than the results plotted on the left 

725: panel, which came directly from the PN-expanded Hamiltonian. 

726: They are also close to the numerical HKV results~\cite{LB}. The fact 

727: that two expressions, which can both be called ``PN-expanded'', and which 

728: are supposedly equivalent ``modulo higher PN terms'', lead to physically 

729: markedly different results lead to conclude that the PN-expanded Hamiltonian 

730: cannot be used to describe the transition from adiabatic inspiral to plunge. 

731: Let us also recall that if we consider, in absence of spins,  

732: the test-mass limit $\eta \to 0$, instead of the equal-mass one $\eta \to 1/4$,  the

733: PN-expansions (\ref{s1}),(\ref{s2}) have been shown (see

734: \cite{DJS}) to be quite inaccurate representations of the known exact expression

735: of the function ${E}(\Omega)$. Indeed, the 2PN-accurate function

736: (\ref{s1}) predicts in this limit an LSO frequency which is

737: $82\%$ larger than the exact one, while the 3PN-accurate one

738: (\ref{s2}) predicts an LSO frequency $27\%$ larger than the exact one.

739: 

740: By contrast with these problematic features of PN-expanded

741: results \footnote{Let us recall here that, in order to be able to describe

742: the transition between inspiral and plunge, we cannot use just

743: the function ${E}(\Omega)$, but we need a full description of the

744: binary dynamics. Therefore, if we wanted to confine ourselves

745: to a ``PN-expanded'' approach, we would have to use either

746: the PN-expanded Hamiltonian (\ref{Hspinexp}), or the corresponding

747: (appropriately truncated) PN-expanded equations of motion.

748: The left panel of Figure \ref{fig:eomega} shows that this would not be

749: a reliable thing to do. This is also clear from some of the

750: results of Ref.\cite{bcv1}.}, the EOB-approach leads to

751: uniformly better behaved results (even if we use it not

752: in the Kerr-like form advocated in \cite{TD}, but in the

753: form (\ref{Hspineob}) used in the present paper). We show

754: in Fig.~\ref{fig:eomegaEOB} the EOB analog of Fig.~\ref{fig:eomega}, 

755: i.e. the function ${E}(\Omega)$ deduced from the EOB Hamiltonian 

756: (\ref{Hspineob}) in the (anti-)aligned case. In this EOB case, we  have none of

757: the problems entailed by the ``PN-expanded'' approach, and the

758: uniquely defined curve ${E}(\Omega)$ was shown in \cite{DGG}

759: to agree well with the HKV  numerically determined curve

760: (for corotating holes). Note, however, that {\it aligned}

761: maximally rotating holes lead to a curve which, especially

762: in the 3PN case, reaches a minimum (not shown on Figure \ref{fig:eomegaEOB})

763: only for a rather high angular velocity.

764: 

765: This property of the aligned configurations (as well as

766: the significant difference between the 2PN-EOB result

767: and the 3PN-EOB one) was already emphasized in \cite{TD}.

768: As it will be important for the present paper, 

769: we study it further by plotting in Fig.~\ref{fig:e-a} 

770: the dependence on the $\vL$- projected effective spin parameter

771: %

772: \beq

773: \chi_L \equiv \frac{\vS_{\rm eff} \cdot \hL}{M^2}

774: \eeq

775: %

776: (where $\vS_{\rm eff}$ was defined in Eq.~(\ref{3.2}) above) of the binding

777: energy $E$ and the angular frequency $\Omega$ {\it at the LSSO},

778: i.e. at the minimum of the ${E}(\Omega)$ curve.

779: This Figure shows four results obtained for

780: equal-mass and equal-spin configurations within

781: the EOB approach: (i) the result obtained from the

782: Hamiltonian (\ref{Hspineob}) when using the 2PN-accurate

783: orbital EOB Hamiltonian, (ii) the result obtained from

784: (\ref{Hspineob}) when using the 3PN-accurate

785: orbital EOB Hamiltonian, (iii) the result obtained from

786: the  2PN-accurate Kerr-like Hamiltonian introduced in \cite{TD},

787: and (iv) the result obtained from the  3PN-accurate

788: Kerr-like Hamiltonian introduced in \cite{TD}. [The latter two

789: Hamiltonians are referred to in the caption as ``SO Resummed'',

790: because they include a resummation \`a la EOB of the spin-orbit

791: interactions.] In addition, as we cannot show

792: on this plot the minimum of the ${E}(\Omega)$ curve deduced

793: from the PN-expanded Hamiltonian, because the left panel

794: of Fig.~\ref{fig:e-a} shows that it does not exist, we show instead,

795:  for comparison purposes, the characteristics

796: of the  minimum of the PN-expanded functions (\ref{s1}), (\ref{s2})

797: [i.e. the right panel of Fig.~(\ref{fig:eomega})].

798: 

799: It is interesting to note on Fig.~\ref{fig:e-a} that the effect of

800: resumming (\`a la Kerr) or not the spin-orbit interaction

801: seems to be rather small. We see also that, when

802: considering anti-aligned configurations, all calculations

803: give very similar results. This is not surprising as

804: the {\it attractive}  ($H_{SO} <0$) nature of the {\it anti-aligned}

805: spin-orbit (and spin-spin) interaction has the effect

806: of pushing the LSSO {\it outwards}, i.e. toward larger-radius,

807: lower-frequency, less bound and therefore less relativistic

808:  configurations. On the other hand, working

809: at the 2PN or the 3PN level induces,as already pointed out in \cite{TD},

810:  a very significant difference for the LSSO characteristics in the {\it aligned} case (positive

811: $\chi_L$). In this case, because of the {\it repulsive}($H_{SO} >0$)

812: nature of the {\it aligned} spin-orbit (and spin-spin) interaction, the LSSO is drawn

813: towards closer, higher-frequency, more bound and more

814: relativistic configurations. For such very compact

815: configurations the {\it repulsive} sign ($a_4 >0$)

816: of the 3PN contribution to the effective potential $A(q)$

817: further amplifies, by a ``snow-ball effect'', the tendency

818: toward closer, and more bound configurations.

819: We think that this could be a physically real effect due (as confirmed independently by Refs.~\cite{BDE,Itoh}) 

820: to the large positive value of the crucial 3PN coefficient entering  $a_4$, Eq.~(\ref{a4}).  

821: This large positive value for $a_4$ is also needed to improve (with respect to the 2PN case)

822: the  agreement between the HKV corotating results and the 3PN EOB ones \cite{DGG}.

823: It would be interesting to have numerical HKV studies of 

824: the LSSO for moderately- and fast-spinning aligned BH's to test the predictions made by the EOB approach.

825: [The less reliable numerical results of the initial-value-problem of Ref.\cite{PTC},

826: which extend up to mildly positive values of $\chi_L \sim 0.17$

827: are in rough qualitative agreement (especially 

828: for the dependence of $\Omega_{LSSO}$ on $\chi_L$) with the

829: EOB predictions, but their quantitative agreement is too

830: poor to reach a firm conclusion).]

831: 

832: Let us note in passing that the significant dependence of the

833: LSSO frequency on the effective spin parameter $\chi_L$

834: makes it desirable for data-analysis purposes, when one is content

835: with using adiabatic templates~\cite{bcv2}, to use at least

836: templates whose ending frequency is not fixed say to the usually considered 

837: Schwarzschild LSO, but varies with masses and spins as suggested by the EOB 

838: approach.

839: 

840: Finally, another consequence of the significant dependence of the

841: LSSO frequency on the effective spin parameter $\chi_L$, is 

842: drawn in Fig.~\ref{snr}, where we compare the signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) as 

843: function of the binary total mass for an optimally oriented equal-mass binary at 100 Mpc. 

844: We use LIGO design sensitivity noise curve~\cite{DIS98}.  

845: The SNRs are obtained  observing the inspiral from 40 Hz until the LSSO predicted by 

846: the EOB approach at 3PN order. The three curves refer to 

847: non-spinning binaries and binaries with $\chi_L = -0.875, 0.25$. 

848: Figure~\ref{snr} reveals a bias towards 

849: first detecting mostly aligned spinning binaries with high masses, 

850: as pointed out in \cite{TD}.

851: 

852: \section{Radiation reaction, including spin-effects}

853: \label{sec3}

854: 

855: The previous section has reviewed various ways of describing the

856: conservative dynamics of binary systems (including spin effects). In

857: the present section, we discuss the inclusion of radiation reaction

858: effects, with emphasis on determining the spin-modifications of

859: radiation reaction. Within the Hamiltonian approach, that we use here,

860: radiation reaction can be incorporated by modifying the usual Hamilton

861: equations in the following way

862: $$

863: \frac{dX^i}{dt} = \{ X^i , H \} = \frac{\partial H}{\partial P_i} \, ,

864: $$

865: %

866: \beq

867: \label{n1}

868: \frac{dP_i}{dt} = \{ P_i , H \} + F_i = - \frac{\partial H}{\partial X^i} + F_i \, .

869: \eeq

870: %

871: Here, $F_i$ denotes a ``non-conservative force'', which is added to

872: the evolution equation of the (relative) momentum to take into account

873: radiation-reaction (RR) effects. This Radiation-Reaction (RR)

874:  force $\vF$ depends, a

875: priori, both on the (relative) orbital variables $\vX$, $\vP$ and on

876: the spin variables $\vS_1$, $\vS_2$. In the present paper, our aim

877: will be limited to determining $F_i$ under the following two

878: simplifying assumptions: (i) we consider only {\it quasi-circular

879: orbits}, and (ii) we shall retain only the {\it leading spin-dependent

880: terms}. After the completion of the work reported in this section,

881: there appeared a work of Will \cite{Will} dealing with

882: spin-dependent radiation reaction effects in general orbits.

883: As the derivations are not the same, and yield results which

884: we have checked to be equivalent (for circular orbits), but

885: expressed in different variables

886: (Hamiltonian $\vX$, $\vP$ here vs. Lagrangian $\vX$, $\vV$

887: for \cite{Will}), we feel it worth to briefly report our

888: derivation.

889: 

890: Because of the assumption (ii) we look for terms in $F_i$

891: which are {\it linear} in the spin-tensors $S_{ij}^a \equiv

892: \varepsilon_{ijk} \, S_a^k$ ($a=1,2$) of the two considered compact

893: bodies. [Note that spin effects enter the metric only through the spin

894: tensors $S_{ij}^a$, rather than through the axial spin vectors

895: $S_a^k$.] As the time derivative of $S_{ij}^a$ contains a ``small''

896: post-Newtonian factor $G/c^2$, the leading spin-dependent terms in

897: $F_i$ will contain only the undifferentiated spin tensors.

898: 

899: 

900: Using Euclidean invariance, the spin-dependent terms in the force $F_i

901: (\vX , \vP , \vS_a)$ must be a combination of three types of

902: contributions: $c_1 \, S_{ij} \, X^j$, $c_2 \, S_{ij} \, P^j$ and $c_i

903: \, S_{jk} \, X^j P^k$, where $c_1 (\vX , \vP)$, $c_2 (\vX , \vP)$ are

904: some scalar functions of $\vX$, $\vP$, while $c_i$ is a vector

905: function of $\vX$, $\vP$. [Here, $S_{ij}$ denotes one of the two spin

906: vectors. We shall sum over the two possible spins at the end.]

907: Imposing that the radiation reaction force $F_i$ be {\it odd under

908: time reversal}, i.e. odd under the simultaneous changes $X^i \to X^i$,

909: $P_i \to -P_i$, $S_{ij} \to - S_{ij}$, tells us that: $c_1 (\vX ,

910: \vP)$ must be an {\it even} function of $\vP$, $c_2 (\vX , \vP)$ must

911: be an {\it odd} function of $\vP$, and the vector $c_i (\vX , \vP)$

912: must be an {\it odd} function of $\vP$. [Note also that $c_i$ must be

913: a true vector, not an axial vector. By parity invariance no

914: $\varepsilon_{ijk}$ can appear, except in combination with $S_a^k$.]

915: Therefore, if we further decompose $c_i = c_3 (\vX , \vP) \, P_i + c_4

916: (\vX , \vP) \, X_i$, the coefficient $c_3 (\vX , \vP)$ must be {\it

917: even} in $\vP$, while the coefficient $c_4 (\vX , \vP)$ must be {\it

918: odd} in $\vP$.

919: 

920: At this point, our simplifying assumption (i) above (quasi-circular

921: motion) will bring a drastic simplification. Indeed, a time-odd scalar

922: must contain an odd power of the combination $X^k P_k$. However, this

923: combination vanishes along circular orbits (and is therefore

924: subleadingly small along adiabatically inspiralling orbits). To

925: leading order the scalar coefficients $c_2$ and $c_4$ therefore

926: vanish, and we conclude that $F_i$ contains only two independent spin

927: contributions: $c_1 (\vX , \vP) \, S_{ij} \, X^j + c_3 (\vX , \vP) \,

928: P_i \, S_{jk} \, X^j P^k$. It will be convenient in the following to

929: further decompose the vector $S_{ij} \, X^j$ entering the first

930: contribution (which is orthogonal to $X^i$) into its component along

931: the direction of $P_i$, and its component orthogonal to $P_i$, say

932: %

933: \beq

934: \label{n2}

935: (S_{ij} \, X^j)^{\perp} \equiv (\delta_{ik} - P_i \, P_k / \vP^2) \,

936: S_{kj} \, X^j = S_{ij} \, X^j + \frac{P_i}{\vP^2} \, S_{jk} \, X^j P^k

937: \, .  \eeq

938: %

939: It is easily checked that, along circular orbits $(X^i \, P_i = 0)$,

940: the vector (\ref{n2}) is orthogonal {\it both} to $\vP$ and to

941: $\vX$. Therefore, $(S_{ij} \, X^j)^{\perp}$ is parallel to the orbital

942: angular momentum (axial) vector

943: %

944: \beq

945: \label{n3}

946: L_i \equiv \varepsilon_{ijk} \, X^j \, P_k \, .

947: \eeq

948: %

949: It is easily checked that

950: %

951: \beq

952: \label{n4}

953: (S_{ij} \, X^j)^{\perp} = \frac{R^2}{\vL^2} \, (\vP \cdot \vS) \, L_i

954: = \frac{1}{\vP^2} \, (\vP \cdot \vS) \, L_i \, .  \eeq

955: %

956: 

957: Finally, adding the usual spin-independent radiation reaction

958: (parallel to $P_i$ for circular orbits), and summing over the two

959: bodies, we conclude that the RR force can be written as

960: %

961: \beq

962: \label{n5}

963: F_i (\vX , \vP , \vS_a) = B \, P_i + \sum_{a = 1,2} A_a (S_{ij}^a \,

964: X^j)^{\perp} = B \, P_i + \sum_{a=1,2} \frac{A_a}{\vP^2} \, (\vP \cdot

965: \vS_a) \, L_i \, , \eeq

966: %

967: with

968: %

969: \beq

970: \label{n6}

971: B \equiv B_0 + \sum_{a=1,2} C_a \, S_{jk}^a \, X^j P^k = B_0 + \sum_{a=1,2} C_a \, \vL \cdot \vS_a \, ,

972: \eeq

973: %

974: where $B_0$, $C_a$ and $A_a$ are some time-even functions of $\vX$ and $\vP$.

975: 

976: To determine the coefficients $B_0$, $C_a$ and $A_a$, we now impose

977: that there be a balance between the losses of mechanical energy and

978: angular momentum of the system due to the additional force $F_i$ in

979: the Hamilton equations of motion (\ref{n1}) and the losses of energy

980: and angular momentum at infinity due to the emission of gravitational

981: radiation. Let us first recall that, in the Hamiltonian formalism, the

982: quantities

983: $$

984: E(t) \equiv H(\vX (t) , \vP (t) , \vS_a (t)) \, ,

985: $$

986: %

987: \beq

988: \label{n7}

989: J_{ij} (t) \equiv X^i \, P_j - X^j \, P_i + S_{ij}^1 + S_{ij}^2 \, ,

990: \eeq

991: %

992: are exact constants of the motion in absence of RR force in

993: Eqs. (\ref{n1}) and in the Hamiltonian equations for spin

994: evolution.

995: When adding the RR force $\vF$ in Eqs. (\ref{n1}) (and no

996: corresponding RR torque in the spin evolution equations) we find that

997: $E$ and $\vJ$ evolve as

998: %

999: \beq

1000: \label{n8a}

1001: \frac{dE}{dt} = \frac{\partial H}{\partial P_i} \, F_i = \dot X^i \, F_i \, ,

1002: \eeq

1003: %

1004: %

1005: \beq

1006: \label{n8b}

1007: \frac{d \, J_{ij}}{dt} = X^i \, F_j - X^j \, F_i \, .

1008: \eeq

1009: %

1010: Inserting in Eqs. (\ref{n8a},\ref{n8b}) the expression (\ref{n5}) for

1011: the RR force $F_i$, we can easily evaluate the {\it averaged} losses

1012: of energy and angular momentum. Along (quasi) circular orbits the

1013: various scalar coefficients $B_0$, $C_a$, $A_a$ are time-independent

1014: (because all basic scalars, $\vX^2 , \vP^2 , \vX \cdot \vP = 0$, are

1015: constant). One then finds that $dE/dt$ is time-independent, while $d

1016: \, J_{ij} / dt$ depends on the orbital phase only in spin-dependent

1017: terms and through the tensor $X^i \, P_j$. Decomposing the latter

1018: tensor into

1019: %

1020: \beq

1021: \label{n9}

1022: X^i \, P_j = \frac{1}{2} (X^i \, P_j + X^j \, P_i) + \frac{1}{2} (X^i

1023: \, P_j - X^j \, P_i) \simeq \frac{d}{dt} \left( \frac{1}{2} \, \mu \,

1024: X^i \, X^j \right) + \frac{1}{2} \, L_{ij} \, , \eeq

1025: %

1026: one easily sees that its orbital average is simply $\langle X^i \, P_j

1027: \rangle = \frac{1}{2} \, L_{ij}$. [We consider averages over the

1028: orbital period, considering all more slowly evolving quantities, such

1029: as $\vL$, as fixed during one orbital period.]

1030: 

1031: When evaluating Eq. (\ref{n8a}) along circular orbits, we cannot use

1032: the Newtonian approximation $\dot X^i \simeq P^i / \mu$ because we

1033: wish to obtain the coefficient $B$ with a high post-Newtonian

1034: accuracy. However we can instead use $\dot X^i \, P_i = \dot\phi \,

1035: P_{\phi} = \omega \, \vert \vL \vert$ where $\omega = \dot\phi =

1036: V/R$ denotes the orbital angular frequency. We finally obtain

1037: %

1038: \beq

1039: \label{n10a}

1040: \frac{dE}{dt} = B \, \omega \, \vert \vL \vert \, ,

1041: \eeq

1042: %

1043: 

1044: %

1045: \beq

1046: \label{n10b}

1047: \left\langle \frac{d \vJ}{dt} \right\rangle = B \, \vL - \frac{1}{2}

1048: \sum_{a=1,2} A_a \, R^2 \, [\vS_a - \vlb (\vlb \, \vS_a)] \, , \eeq

1049: %

1050: where $\vlb \equiv \vL / \vert \vL \vert$ denotes the unit vector

1051: along the orbital angular momentum. Note that Eqs. (\ref{n10a}),

1052: (\ref{n10b}) predict a link between energy loss and angular momentum

1053: loss, namely

1054: %

1055: \beq

1056: \label{n11}

1057: \frac{dE}{dt} = \omega \, \vlb \cdot \left\langle \frac{d \vJ}{dt} \right\rangle \, .

1058: \eeq

1059: %

1060: 

1061: To obtain the values of the coefficients $B$ and $A_a$ (and to test

1062: the prediction (\ref{n11})), we need to compare Eqs. (\ref{n10a}),

1063: (\ref{n10b}) with the values of the averaged fluxes of energy and

1064: angular momentum at infinity. The spin contributions to the latter

1065: losses have been computed by Kidder~\cite{K}. However, one must be

1066: careful with the fact that Kidder expressed most of his results in

1067: terms of {\it harmonic coordinates}, with the choice of a covariant

1068: spin supplementary condition: $S_{\mu\nu}^a \, u_a^{\nu} = 0$.

1069: 

1070: First, using the results of Ref.~\cite{K} as they are, one

1071: straightforwardly checks that the relation (\ref{n11}) is

1072: satisfied. This is a check that it is enough to include RR effects in

1073: the orbital equations of motion (\ref{n1}), without modifying the spin

1074: equations of motion. [For a direct dynamical check, see \cite{Will}.]

1075:  Then, to obtain the value of the coefficient $B$

1076: we can simply use the result (\ref{n10a}), namely

1077: %

1078: \beq

1079: \label{n12}

1080: B = \frac{1}{\omega \, \vert \vL \vert} \ \frac{dE}{dt} \, ,

1081: \eeq

1082: %

1083: where it remains to express $dE/dt$ (computed as a flux at infinity,

1084: using Ref.~\cite{K}) in terms of our basic (Hamiltonian) dynamical

1085: variables. One way to proceed would be to transform the

1086: harmonic-coordinates results of \cite{K} into ADM coordinates (with

1087: the corresponding spin condition $S_{i0} + \frac{1}{2} \, S_{ij} \,

1088: v^j = 0$ \cite{DS88}). The transformation linking the two coordinates

1089: has been worked out in \cite{DS88} (for the spin-dependent terms) and

1090: in \cite{DJS01,ABF01} for the spin-independent parts. However, a

1091: simpler way to proceed is to eliminate references to specific

1092: coordinates by expressing $dE/dt$ (for circular orbits) in terms of

1093: the gauge-invariant orbital frequency $\omega$. Adding also, for

1094: better accuracy the recently completed 3PN flux contribution

1095: \cite{BIJ02,B98,BDEI04}, we have

1096: %

1097: \beq

1098: \label{n13}

1099: \frac{dE}{dt} = - \frac{32}{5} \, \eta^2 \, v_{\omega}^{10} \{ 1 + f_2

1100: (\eta) \, v_{\omega}^2 + [f_3 (\eta) + f_{3{\rm SO}}] \, v_{\omega}^3

1101: + [f_4 (\eta) + f_{4{\rm SS}}] \, v_{\omega}^4 + f_5 (\eta) \,

1102: v_{\omega}^5 + f_6 (\eta) \, v_{\omega}^6 + f_{\ell 6} \, v_{\omega}^6

1103: \, \ln (4 v_{\omega}) + f_7 (\eta) \, v_{\omega}^7 \} \, , \eeq

1104: %

1105: where $v_{\omega} \equiv (GM \omega)^{1/3}$, where the

1106: spin-independent flux coefficients $f_2 (\eta) , \ldots , f_7 (\eta)$,

1107: are given by

1108: %

1109: \beq

1110: \label{n14a}

1111: f_2 (\eta) = - \frac{1247}{336} - \frac{35}{12} \, \eta \, ,

1112: \eeq

1113: %

1114: %

1115: \beq

1116: \label{n14b}

1117: f_3 (\eta) = 4\pi \, ,

1118: \eeq

1119: %

1120: \beq

1121: f_4(\eta) = -\frac{44711}{9072}+\frac{9271}{504}\eta+\frac{65}{18}\eta^2\,, \quad \quad 

1122: f_5(\eta) = -\left ( \frac{8191}{672} + \frac{583}{24}\eta \right )\pi\,, 

1123: \eeq

1124: %

1125: \beq

1126: f_6(\eta) = \frac{6643739519}{69854400}

1127: +\frac{16}{3}\,\pi^2 -\frac{1712}{105}\,\gamma_E  +

1128: \left (-\frac{134543}{7776}+\frac{41}{48}\,\pi^2\right )\eta 

1129: -\frac{94403}{3024}\,\eta^2 - \frac{775}{324}\,\eta^3 \,,

1130: \eeq

1131: %

1132: \beq

1133: f_{\ell 6} = -\frac{1712}{105} 

1134: \eeq

1135: %

1136: \beq

1137: f_7(\eta) = \left (-\frac{16285}{504}+\frac{214745}{1728}\eta+\frac{193385}{3024}\eta^2 \right )

1138: \,\pi\,,

1139: \eeq

1140: %

1141: with $\gamma_E $ being Euler's gamma, and where the spin-dependent

1142: corrections to the latter flux coefficients are

1143: %

1144: \beq

1145: \label{n15a}

1146: f_{3{\rm SO}} = - \left( \frac{11}{4} + \frac{5}{4} \, \frac{m_2}{m_1}

1147: \right) \frac{\vlb \cdot \vS_1}{GM^2} - \left( \frac{11}{4} +

1148: \frac{5}{4} \, \frac{m_1}{m_2} \right) \frac{\vlb \cdot \vS_2}{GM^2}

1149: \, , \eeq

1150: %

1151: %

1152: \beq

1153: \label{n15b}

1154: f_{4{\rm SS}} = \frac{\eta}{48 G^2 m_1^2\,m_2^2} \,

1155: [ 289 (\vlb \cdot \vS_1) (\vlb \cdot \vS_2) - 103 \, \vS_1 \cdot

1156: \vS_2 ] + \mathcal{O}(\vS_1^2) + \mathcal{O}(\vS_2^2)\,.

1157: \eeq

1158: %

1159: The present work was aimed at determining the leading spin-dependent

1160: terms, i.e. the ones linear in $\vS_1$ and $\vS_2$, as exemplified in

1161: the correction $f_{3{\rm SO}}$, Eq. (\ref{n15a}), to the coefficient

1162: $f_3 = 4\pi$. For completeness, as the link (\ref{n12}) between the

1163: ``longitudinal'' part of RR, $F_i^{\rm long} = B \, P_i$, and the

1164: energy loss, is clearly general, we have also used Kidder's results

1165: \cite{K} to write down the part of $B$ which depends on the product

1166: $\vS_1^i \, \vS_2^j$. The numerically similar

1167: contributions which depend on $\vS_1^i \, \vS_1^j$ and $\vS_2^i \,

1168: \vS_2^j$ have not yet been determined. Only partial results

1169: are known. For instance, Poisson \cite{EP} has derived a

1170: contribution to $f_{4{\rm SS}}$ of the form

1171: 

1172: \beq

1173: \left[\frac{3(\vlb \cdot \vS_1)^2 -\vS_1^2}{G^2 m_1^2\,M^2}

1174: +\frac{3 (\vlb \cdot \vS_2)^2-\vS_2^2}{G^2 m_2^2 M^2}

1175: \right]

1176: \,.

1177: \eeq

1178: but many other additional contributions $\mathcal{O}(\vS_1^2) + \mathcal{O}(\vS_2^2)$ have not yet been computed.

1179: 

1180: \medskip

1181: 

1182: Let us finally turn to the determination of the other spin-related

1183: coefficients, $A_a$, in Eq. (\ref{n10b}). Again, we have the technical

1184: problem that Ref.~\cite{K} expressed its results in terms of

1185: harmonic-coordinate quantities. Namely, Eq. (4.11) of Ref.~\cite{K}

1186: expresses the total angular momentum loss $d \vJ / dt$ in terms of the

1187: harmonic distance $r$ and of the harmonic-coordinate ``Newtonian

1188: orbital momentum'' $\vL_N \equiv \mu \, \vx \times \vv$ (where $\vx$

1189: and $\vv$ denote the relative harmonic position and velocity). A

1190: simple way to convert this result to our ADM distance $R$ and our ADM

1191: total orbital momentum $\vL \equiv \vX \times \vP$ is to relate

1192: $\vL_N$ to $\vL$ by comparing the expression (4.7) of Ref.~\cite{K}

1193: for the (gauge-invariant) conserved total angular momentum $\vJ$ with

1194: the corresponding simple ADM expression (\ref{n7}). This yields a

1195: result of the form

1196: %

1197: \beq

1198: \label{n16}

1199: \hat\vL_N \equiv \frac{\vL_N}{\vert \vL_N \vert} = c \, \vL + \left(

1200: \frac{GM}{r} \right)^{\frac{3}{2}} \sum_{a=1,2} \chi_a \, \hat\vs_a

1201: \left( \frac{m_a^2}{M^2} + \frac{1}{4} \, \eta \right) \, , \eeq

1202: %

1203: where the coefficient $c$ is not needed for our present purpose, and

1204: where, following the notation of \cite{K}, $\vS_a \equiv \chi_a \,

1205: m_a^2 \, \hat\vs_a$. Inserting Eq. (\ref{n16}) in Eq. (4.11) of

1206: \cite{K} allows one to compute easily the part of $d \vJ / dt$ which

1207: is proportional to the projection of $\vS_a$ orthogonally to $\vL$.

1208: 

1209: This yields the following expression for the coefficients $A_a$ in Eq. (\ref{n5})

1210: %

1211: \beq

1212: \label{n17}

1213: A_a = \frac{8}{15} \, \eta^2 \, \frac{v_{\omega}^8}{R^3} \left( 61 + 48 \, \frac{m_{a'}}{m_a} \right) \, ,

1214: \eeq

1215: %

1216: where $a' \ne a$ (e.g. $a' = 2$ when $a=1$). Summarizing, the

1217: radiation reaction force to be added to the Hamiltonian equations of

1218: motion (\ref{n1}) reads

1219: %

1220: \beq

1221: \label{n18}

1222: F_i = \frac{1}{\omega \, \vert \vL \vert} \, \frac{dE}{dt} \, P_i +

1223: \frac{8}{15} \, \eta^2 \, \frac{v_{\omega}^8}{\vL^2 R} \left\{

1224: \left(61 + 48 \, \frac{m_2}{m_1} \right) \vP \cdot \vS_1 + \left( 61 +

1225: 48 \, \frac{m_1}{m_2} \right) \vP \cdot \vS_2 \right\} L_i \, , \eeq

1226: %

1227: 

1228: where the energy loss (expressed in terms of the orbital frequency

1229: $\omega$, or equivalently of $v_{\omega} \equiv (GM \omega)^{1/3}$,

1230: and of the spin variables) is given by Eqs. (\ref{n13})--(\ref{n15b}).

1231: We have checked that, after taking into account the relation between

1232: the Hamiltonian variables $\vX, \vP$ and the Lagrangian ones $\vX, \vV$

1233: (which involves spin-dependent terms because of the

1234: first Eq.~(\ref{3.5}), Eq.~(\ref{n18}) agrees with the circular

1235: limit of Eq.~(1.6) of \cite{Will} (which assumes the same spin

1236: condition as we do).

1237: 

1238: Refs.~\cite{DIS98,BD2,DIS01,PS} have shown that (at least 

1239: in the test-mass limit where one can compare analytical and numerical estimates)

1240: it is generally advantageous to replace the Taylor series

1241: in curly brackets on the right hand side (R.H.S.) of Eq. (\ref{n13})

1242: by its (suitably defined) Pad\'e resummation.

1243: In particular, Porter and Sathyaprakash \cite{PS} have compared

1244: ``Taylor'' and ``Pad\'e''  approximants for the flux function 

1245: of a test particle around a Kerr black hole with the exact numerical 

1246: estimates~\cite{fluxS} and concluded

1247: that Pad\'e approximants are, when considering

1248: all values of the spin parameter, both more {\it effectual}

1249: (i.e., larger overlaps with the exact signal) and more

1250: {\it faithful} (i.e., smaller biases in parameter estimates)

1251: than Taylor approximants. [We use here the terminology

1252: introduced in \cite{DIS98}.] In view of this,

1253: and as was already advocated in \cite{BD2}, we consider that

1254: that the best way to incorporate a radiation reaction force in

1255: the EOB approach is to

1256: insert Pad\'e approximants of the flux function (R.H.S.

1257: of (\ref{n13})) in (\ref{n18}). However, for added generality,

1258: we shall also consider the case where we leave the flux function

1259: as a plain Taylor series. Note that, when considering arbitrary

1260: values of the dimensionless spin parameters for the two holes

1261: $\chi_1 \equiv S_1 / G m_1^2$, $ \chi_2 \equiv S_2 / G m_2^2$

1262: we used the normal ``direct'' (i.e., lower-diagonal) Pad\'e-approximants, 

1263: instead of the ``inverse''(i.e., upper-diagonal) ones used in \cite{PS}. 

1264: For some values of the spin parameters both the lower and upper diagonal 

1265: Pad\'e-approximants have poles. When this occurs, we apply the Pad\'e-approximant 

1266: only to the non-spinning part of the flux and add the spinning terms separately. 

1267: There exist other Pad\'e-approximants in which poles are absent and it 

1268: would be very desirable to determine them in the entire parameter space. 

1269: This is beyond the scope of this paper. 

1270: 

1271: In Figs.~\ref{Fig6}, \ref{Fig7} we show T- and (lower-diagonal) P-approximants at 3.5PN 

1272: order for an equal-mass binary and several values of the dimensionless spin 

1273: parameter $\chi=\chi_1=\chi_2$. We notice that the T- and P-approximants are much 

1274: closer in the anti-aligned cases than in the aligned one. 

1275: Since the calculation of the non-spinning flux 

1276: function at 3.5PN order has been completed only recently~\cite{BDE}, 

1277: in Fig.~\ref{Fig5} we contrast the T- and (lower-diagonal) P-approximants at 3PN and 

1278: 3.5PN order for an equal-mass non-spinning binary.

1279: 

1280: \section{Definitions of the initial and ending conditions of two-body models}

1281: \label{sec4.1}

1282: 

1283: As clear from the comparison of the left and right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:eomega}, 

1284: because of the bad behaviour of the PN Hamiltonian near LSSO, we propose 

1285: as our best bet, for describing in a physically reliable manner the non-adiabatic

1286: evolution of BH binaries, and their transition between inspiral

1287: and plunge, to use an EOB-resummed Hamiltonian, we shall,

1288: for more generality, consider, and compare, in this Section several types of two-body models.

1289: 

1290: To define a specific model we must make  various choices:

1291: (i) choice of a PN-expanded (or ``Taylor-expanded'') Hamiltonian

1292: (say ``TH'') versus an EOB-resummed Hamiltonian (say ``EH'');

1293: (ii) choice of a Taylor-expanded flux function (say ``TF'')

1294: versus a Pad\'e-resummed one (say ``PF''), and finally,

1295: (iii) choice of the PN accuracies used both in the Hamiltonian

1296:  (say $ n $ PN) and the flux function (say $m$ PN). This leads

1297:  to models denoted, for instance,${\rm THTF}(n, m)$, ${\rm EHTF}(n ,m)$, ${\rm EHPF}(n, m)$.

1298:  In addition, as we are here mainly considering

1299:  the evolution of {\it spinning} binaries, we shall add

1300:  an initial letter S to recall that fact. This leads to

1301:  models denoted as ${\rm STHTF}(n, m)$,..., ${\rm SEHPF}(n, m)$.

1302:  To simplify, we shall only consider the PN accuracies $(2, 2.5)$ or $(3,3.5)$.

1303:  To further simplify, we shall focus on comparing ``fully Taylor'' models 

1304: (i.e., ${\rm STHTF}$), to ``fully resummed '' ones

1305: (i.e., ${\rm SEHPF}$). Finally, this leads us to considering

1306: only four models: ${\rm STHTF(2, 2.5)}$, ${\rm STHTF}(3, 3.5)$, ${\rm SEHPF}(2, 2.5)$, and 

1307: ${\rm SEHPF}(3, 3.5)$.

1308: [Note, as discussed above, that because of the appearance of spurious poles 

1309: in a few tests, we applied in those cases, the Pade resummation only to 

1310: the non-spinning part of the flux.]

1311: 

1312: An important parameter in our present model building is to

1313: decide when to stop the evolution. This issue was already

1314: tackled in Ref.~\cite{BD2}. There, because we were using

1315: an EOB Hamiltonian, and were considering non-spinning BH's,

1316: we found that we could follow the ``plunge'' (after LSO crossing)

1317: down to a (Schwarzschild-like) radius $\simeq 3 M$, at which

1318: point we could match to a ring-down signal made of least-damped

1319: quasi-normal modes. It was found in \cite{BD2} that,

1320: contrary to what the usually employed word ``plunge'' suggests,

1321: the inspiral motion after crossing the LSO was

1322: staying ``quasi-circular'', with a kinetic energy in the

1323: radial motion staying small

1324: in absolute value, and smaller than $0.3$ times the

1325: kinetic energy in the azimuthal motion down to $ R \simeq 3 M$.

1326: In our ``spinning'' evolutions the situation is more complicated

1327: (notably when considering large aligned spins, and also,

1328: for evident reasons, when considering Taylor-expanded Hamiltonians).

1329: We leave to future work a detailed discussion of the

1330: matching to ring-down. We decided to stop

1331: the evolution  as soon as one of the following inequalities

1332: ceased to be fulfilled:

1333: 

1334: \begin{subequations}

1335: \begin{eqnarray}

1336: %\label{cond2}

1337: %\omega &>& \omega_{\rm LSSO}^{\rm EOB}\,,\\

1338: \label{cond3}

1339: |\dot{R}| &<& 0.3 |\mathbf{V}_t|\,, \\

1340: \label{cond4}

1341: P_R^2/B(R) &<& 0.3 P^2_\phi/R^2\,, \\

1342: \label{cond5}

1343: |\dot{E}_{RR}|  &>& 0.1 |\dot{E}_{RR}^{\rm Newt}|\,,\\

1344: \label{cond6}

1345: R&>& \alpha M \,,

1346: \end{eqnarray}

1347: \end{subequations}

1348:  where $B(R) = D(R)/A(R)$ [see Eqs.~(\ref{coeffPA}), (\ref{coeffPA2})].

1349: Criteria \eqref{cond3}--\eqref{cond4} ensure that the evolution does

1350: not extend too much beyond circularity, on which our formulation for

1351: radiation-reaction force relies.

1352: The quantity $\mathbf{V}_t$ is the tangential velocity

1353: (i.e., orthogonal to the relative separation vector $\mathbf{X}$).  

1354: Criterion~\eqref{cond5} is used to

1355: avoid going into regimes where the GW energy flux goes to zero (e.g.,

1356: for Taylor-expanded flux at 2.5PN order). Criterion \eqref{cond6}

1357: (in which $\alpha \sim 1$ when using the ADM-coordinate Taylor-expanded

1358: Hamiltonian, and $\alpha \sim 2$ when using the Schwarzschild-like

1359: EOB Hamiltonian)

1360: terminates the evolution at a very small radius, in case all of the

1361: above criteria fail to take effect.

1362: 

1363: In all  cases, the

1364: instantaneous GW frequency at the time when the integration is stopped

1365: defines the \emph{ending frequency} for these waveforms. We shall

1366: also consider below extended waveforms obtained by matching

1367: a ring-down signal when this ending frequency is reached.

1368: 

1369: 

1370: \subsection{Initial conditions: quasi-spherical orbits}

1371: \label{sec4.2}

1372: 

1373: [In this section we shall use natural units $c=1=G$ and set $M=1$.]

1374: 

1375: In absence of radiation reaction (RR), spherical orbits with constant

1376: radius and orbital frequency exists under spin-orbit interactions, but

1377: cease to exist when spin-spin interactions are present (except in

1378: special situations when the spins and the orbital angular momentum are

1379: all aligned/anti-aligned). When radiation reaction is treated

1380: adiabatically, an initial spherical orbit will evolve into a sequence

1381: of spherical orbits, due to Eq.~\eqref{n11}. 

1382: In this section, we formulate a prescription to construct

1383: initial conditions for non-adiabatic evolutions, which lead to

1384: quasi-spherical orbits under spin-orbit interaction.

1385: 

1386: With spin terms kept only up to the spin-orbit order, the Hamiltonian

1387: can be re-written into a simpler form,

1388: \begin{equation}

1389: H(R,P_R,L,\chi_L)=H_{\rm no\,spin}(R,P_R,L)+2\frac{L\chi_L}{R^3}\,.

1390: \end{equation}

1391: 

1392: Here $H_{\rm no\,spin}$ are terms in the Hamiltonian that do not involve spins, and

1393: \begin{equation}

1394: L\equiv |\mathbf{L}| \,, \quad \chi_L \equiv  \mathbf{S}_{\rm eff} \cdot\hat{\mathbf{L}}.

1395: \end{equation}

1396: In this form, the Hamiltonian depends on four quantites,

1397: $\{R,P_R,L,\chi_L\}$, in which $L$ and $\chi_L$ both depend on

1398: $\{\theta,\phi,P_\theta,P_\phi\}$, while $\chi_L$ also depends on the

1399: spins. In absence of radiation reaction, the conditions 

1400: for spherical orbits written in terms of partial derivatives (indicated by a subscript $i$) with respect 

1401: to the four independent variables $\{R,P_R,L,\chi_L\}$, read

1402: \begin{eqnarray}

1403: \label{eq:circ1}

1404: \big[\dot{R}\big]_0=0 &\Rightarrow&  \left[P_R\right]_0=0\,, \\

1405: \label{eq:circ2}

1406: \big[\dot{P}_R\big]_0= 0 &\Rightarrow &\left[\left(\frac{\partial H}{\partial R}\right)_c\right]_0 =\left[\left(\frac{\partial H}{\partial R}\right)_i\right]_0 =0\,.

1407: \end{eqnarray}

1408: [Here the subscript $c$ indicates canonical partial derivatives. In

1409: the rest of this section, we shall continue to use $i$ and $c$ to

1410: distinguish between these two types of partial derivatives.] With $L$

1411: and $\chi_L$ being conserved quantities, conditions \eqref{eq:circ1}

1412: and \eqref{eq:circ2} will remain satisfied if they are initially

1413: satisfied --- which proves the existence of spherical orbits.

1414: 

1415: We now construct initial conditions for spherical orbits, {\it in

1416: absence of radiation reaction}, based on Eqs.~\eqref{eq:circ1} and

1417: \eqref{eq:circ2}.  In numerical evolutions, given a source coordinate

1418: frame, $\{\mathbf{e}_x,\mathbf{e}_y,\mathbf{e}_z\}$, we specify spherical 

1419: orbits with the following initial {\it kinetic

1420: parameters}: the orbital frequency $\omega_0$, the orbital orientation (i.e., 

1421: the normal direction to the orbital plane $[\hat{\mathbf{L}}_{\rm N}]_0 = (\vX \times 

1422: \dot{\vX})/|\vX \times \dot{\vX}|$), the spins 

1423: $[\mathbf{S}_{1,2}]_0$, and the direction of initial orbital separation

1424: $\mathbf{N}=\vX/|\vX|$, which can in turn be given by an initial orbital

1425: phase $\phi_{\rm orb}$, calculated with respect to the reference direction of

1426: $[\mathbf{S}_{\rm tot} \times\hat{\mathbf{L}}_{\rm N}]_0$,

1427: %

1428: \beq

1429: \mathbf{N}_0 = \frac{[\mathbf{S}_{\rm tot} \times\hat{\mathbf{L}}_{\rm N}]_0}{|[\mathbf{S}_{\rm tot} \times\hat{\mathbf{L}}_{\rm N}]_0|}\cos\phi_{\rm orb} +

1430:  \frac{[\hat{\mathbf{L}}_{\rm N}]_0\times[\mathbf{S}_{\rm tot} \times\hat{\mathbf{L}}_{\rm N}]_0}{|[\mathbf{S}_{\rm tot} \times\hat{\mathbf{L}}_{\rm N}]_0|}\sin\phi_{\rm orb}\,.

1431: \eeq  

1432: %

1433: We calculate initial

1434: values for $\{\mathbf{X},\mathbf{P}\}$ in three steps:

1435: \begin{enumerate} 

1436: %

1437: \item

1438: We first apply a rotation $\mathcal{R}$ such that 

1439: $[\hat{\mathbf{L}}_{\rm N}]_0 \rightarrow \mathbf{e}_z$ and 

1440: $\mathbf{N}_0 \rightarrow \mathbf{e}_x$.

1441: %

1442: %

1443: \item In spherical polar coordinates, the above step implies 

1444: %

1445: \beq

1446: \label{init:norr1}

1447: \phi_0=0\,,\;\;\;\; \theta_0=\pi/2\,.

1448: \eeq

1449: %

1450: [The $\phi_0$ here should not to be confused with the orbital phase

1451: $\phi_{\rm orb}$ above.] Then, we specify the initial frequency

1452: $\omega_0$ and impose

1453: \begin{eqnarray}

1454: \label{init:norr2}

1455: \omega_0 = \dot\phi_0=\left[\left(\frac{\partial H}{\partial P_\phi}\right)_c\right]_0\,,&& 

1456:  0=\dot\theta_0 =\left[\left(\frac{\partial H}{\partial P_\theta} \right)_c\right]_0;\\

1457: \label{init:norr3}

1458: \left[P_R\right]_0=0\,, && \left[\left(\frac{\partial H}{\partial R}\right)_c\right]_0=0\,,

1459: \end{eqnarray}

1460: and solve for the four variables $\{R,P_R,P_\theta,P_\phi\}_0$. \item

1461: Finally, we apply the inverse rotation $\mathcal{R}^{-1}$ to the

1462: entire system, obtaining a set of initial spherical-orbit

1463: conditions consistent with the specified initial kinetic parameters.

1464: \end{enumerate}

1465: 

1466: When radiation reaction is included, we proceed as in Ref.~\cite{BD2} and modify Eq.~\eqref{eq:circ1} 

1467: to include a non-zero $\dot{R}$, according to the prediction from adiabatic evolution, 

1468: \begin{equation}

1469: \label{RdotfromdEdR}

1470: \big[\dot{R}\big]_0= \left[\frac{\dot{E}_{\rm RR} }{(dE/dR)_{\rm sph}}\right]_0\,,

1471: \end{equation}

1472: in order to prevent radial oscillations. [The subscript sph in Eq.~(\ref{RdotfromdEdR}) and 

1473: below denote quantities evaluated along spherical orbits.]

1474: Equations~\eqref{eq:circ2} can be kept unchanged, since $\dot{P}_R$ is second order in radiation

1475: reaction.  We now calculate $(dE/dR)_{\rm sph}$ in terms of the

1476: simplified set of independent variables,

1477: $\{R,P_R,L,\chi_L\}$. Consider neighboring spherical orbits in an

1478: adiabatic sequence, we have

1479: \begin{equation}

1480: dH = \left(\frac{\partial H}{\partial R}\right)_i dR

1481: +

1482:  \left(\frac{\partial H}{\partial P_R}\right)_i dP_R

1483:  +\left(\frac{\partial H}{\partial L}\right)_i dL

1484:  +\left(\frac{\partial H}{\partial \chi_L}\right)_i d\chi_L \,, 

1485:  \end{equation}

1486:  \begin{equation}

1487: \left(\frac{\partial H }{\partial R}\right)_i = 0,\;\;

1488: d\left(\frac{\partial H }{\partial R}\right)_i =0, \;\;

1489: P_R=0,\;\; dP_R=0\,.

1490:  \end{equation}

1491: It is straightforward to deduce that

1492: \begin{equation}

1493: \label{dEdRfull}

1494: \left(\frac{dE}{dR}\right)_{\rm sph} =

1495: -\frac{\displaystyle \bigg(\frac{\partial H}{\partial L}\bigg)_i\bigg(\frac{\partial^2 H}{\partial R^2}\bigg)_i}

1496: {\displaystyle \bigg(\frac{\partial^2 H}{\partial R\partial L}\bigg)_i}

1497: +

1498: \underbrace{

1499: \left[

1500: \left(\frac{\partial H}{\partial \chi_L}\right)_i

1501: -

1502: \frac

1503: {\displaystyle \bigg(\frac{\partial H}{\partial L}\bigg)_i

1504: \bigg(\frac{\partial^2 H}{\partial R \partial \chi_L}\bigg)_i

1505: }

1506: {\displaystyle \bigg(\frac{\partial^2 H}{\partial R\partial L}\bigg)_i}

1507: \right]

1508: \left(

1509: \frac{d\chi_L}{d R}

1510: \right)_{\rm sph}}_{\mbox{will be ignored}}\,.

1511: \end{equation}

1512: The second term on the right-hand side can be ignored, as we argue

1513: later in this section, because $\chi_L$ is still conserved to a high

1514: accuracy even in presence of radiation reaction. In special

1515: configurations with $\hat{\mathbf{L}} =\mathbf{e}_z$ (or equivalently

1516: $\theta=\pi/2$, $P_\theta=0$) we can re-write Eq.~\eqref{dEdRfull} in

1517: terms of canonical variables in spherical-polar coordinates:

1518: \begin{equation}

1519: \label{dEdRsimple}

1520: \left(\frac{dE}{dR}\right)_{\rm sph}

1521: =

1522: -\left[\frac{(\partial H/\partial P_\phi)_c (\partial^2 H/\partial R^2)_c}

1523: {(\partial^2 H / \partial R \partial P_\phi)_c}\right]_{\theta=\pi/2,P_\theta=0}

1524: \,.

1525: \end{equation}

1526: We also note that when $\hat{\mathbf{L}}$ is known to be $\mathbf{e}_z$, we can 

1527: calculate $\dot{E}_{\rm RR}$, from Eq.~\eqref{n13} right away using only $\omega_0$ and $[\mathbf{S}_{1,2}]_0$.

1528: 

1529: We can now construct quasi-spherical initial conditions when radiation

1530: reaction is present. As done in Ref.~\cite{BD2}, up to leading order in 

1531: radiation reaction, we only need to augment our no-radiation-reaction 

1532: initial conditions with a {\it non-zero} $P_R$, with initial values for all other canonical

1533: variables unchanged. In order to do so, we {\it insert} three more

1534: steps between steps 2 and 3 above:

1535: \begin{itemize}

1536: \item[2a] During step 2, we have obtained a set of spherical-polar-coordinate initial conditions, for a {\it rotated system} with $\{\mathbf{N}_0,[\hat{\mathbf{L}}_{\rm N}]_0\}=\{\mathbf{e}_x,\mathbf{e}_z\}$.  The canonical angular momentum, $[\mathbf{L}]_0$ of this system, though, will not in general be along $\mathbf{e}_z$. However, 

1537: being orthogonal to $\mathbf{N}_0=\mathbf{e}_x$, it must be within the $\mathbf{e}_y-\mathbf{e}_z$ plane.  We now apply a further rotation $\mathcal{R}'$ around $\mathbf{N}_0 = \mathbf{e}_x$ to the entire system, such that afterwards  

1538: we have $\{\mathbf{N}_0,[\hat{\mathbf{L}}]_0\}=\{\mathbf{e}_x,\mathbf{e}_z\}$, i.e., $\theta_0=\pi/2$ and $[P_\theta]_0=0$.

1539: %

1540: \item[2b]  Now that Eq.~\eqref{dEdRsimple} is applicable and $\dot{E}_{\rm RR}$ is readily obtainable, we insert them into Eq.~\eqref{RdotfromdEdR} and obtain $[\dot{R}]_0$. [Note that in this process we use the set of initial conditions already obtained for a spherical orbit in absence of radiation reaction, with $P_R=0$.] From this $[\dot{R}]_0$ , we obtain the initial value of $[P_R]_0$ to insert into our existing set of initial conditions:

1541: \begin{equation}

1542: \left[P_R\right]_0 = \frac{[\dot{R}]_0}{\displaystyle \left[\frac{1}{P_R}\left(\frac{\partial H}{\partial P_R}\right)_c\right]_{P_R \rightarrow 0}}\,.

1543: \end{equation}

1544: \item[2c] Gathering our new set of $\{R,\theta,\phi,P_R,P_\theta,P_\phi\}_0$, we obtain the Cartesian-coordinate variables, and apply a inverse rotation $(\mathcal{R}')^{-1}$ to the entire system. [Now again we have $\{N_0,[\hat{\mathbf{L}}_{\rm N}]_0\}=\{\mathbf{e}_x,\mathbf{e}_z\}$, and are ready to proceed to step 3.]

1545: \end{itemize}

1546: 

1547: \comment{

1548: We impose our initial conditions in a spherical polar coordinate system. 

1549: We place our initial orbital angular momentum pointing to the

1550: $+z$ direction, and the initial separation to be along the $+x$ direction, i.e., 

1551: %

1552: \beq

1553: \label{init:thetaphi}

1554: \theta_0=\pi/2 \,,\quad (P_\theta)_0=0\,,\quad \phi_0=0\,.

1555: \eeq

1556: %

1557: we also require the initial orbital frequency to be $\omega_0$:

1558: %

1559: \beq

1560: \label{init:phidot}

1561: \omega_0 \equiv \sqrt{\dot\phi_0^2+\dot\theta_0^2} =\sqrt{

1562: \left(\frac{ \partial H}{\partial P_\phi}\right)_0^2+

1563: \left(\frac{ \partial H}{\partial P_\theta}\right)_0^2}; 

1564: \qquad \dot\phi_0=\left(\frac{\partial H}{\partial P_\phi}\right)_0>0\,.

1565: \eeq

1566: %

1567: [Note that in absence of spins, $P_\theta=0$ gives $\dot\theta_0=0$, 

1568: so the orbital plane points to the $+z$ direction and $\omega_0=\dot\phi_0$.]  

1569: In absence of radiation reaction, in order to obtain orbits with constant radius 

1570: ({\em spherical orbits}), we need to have $\dot{R}_0=(\partial H/\partial P_R)_0=0$, 

1571: which requires 

1572: %

1573: \begin{equation}

1574: \label{init:PR}

1575: (P_R)_0=0\,,

1576: \end{equation}

1577: %

1578: since the non-spinning part of the conservative Hamiltonian, $H_{n \rm PN}$, 

1579: is quadratic in $P_R$, and the spinning parts are independent

1580: from $P_R$. In order to maintain a constant radius, we must

1581: further require 

1582: %

1583: \beq

1584: \label{init:dPR}

1585: \left (\frac{d P_R}{dt} \right )_0 = - \left ( \frac{\partial H}{\partial R} 

1586: \right )_0 =0\,.

1587: \eeq

1588: %

1589: If spin-spin effects ($H_{SS}$) are ignored, spherical orbits are

1590: compatible with the Hamiltonian, namely, the initial conditions

1591: \eqref{init:PR} and \eqref{init:dPR} will guarantee a constant radius 

1592: throughout the evolution (while the orbital orientation and spin

1593: directions will change); if spin-spin effects are included, circular

1594: orbits in general are {\it not} compatible with the Hamiltonian, and

1595: conditions  \eqref{init:PR} and \eqref{init:dPR} will give orbits with

1596: oscillating orbital radius. However, the orbits they provide should be

1597: as close as possible to spherical orbits. Together, the $6$

1598: equations, \eqref{init:thetaphi}--\eqref{init:dPR}, completely specify

1599: the $6$ orbital variables, $(R,\theta,\phi,P_R,P_\theta,P_\phi)$; the

1600: two initial spin vectors are specified separately. 

1601: 

1602: With radiation reaction present in our evolution, the radius will

1603: shrink at the radiation reaction time scale. In order to be as close

1604: as possible to an adiabatic sequence of  shrinking spherical orbits, 

1605: we need to augment Eq.~\eqref{init:PR} with the adiabatic rate of radius change: 

1606: %

1607: \begin{equation}

1608: \label{init:PR:RR}

1609: \left(\frac{\partial H}{\partial P_R}\right)_0= (\dot{R})_{\rm spher}

1610: =\frac{(dE/dt)_0}{\left[(dH/dR)_{\rm spher}\right]_0}\,.

1611: \end{equation}

1612: %

1613: The quantity $\left[(dH/dR)_{\rm spher}\right]_0$ is the change of energy between 

1614: neighboring spherical orbits and we will now determine it by assuming that 

1615: initial conditions are given when the two bodies are so far apart that 

1616: spin-spin couplings can be neglected.

1617: 

1618: The energy of a spherical orbit can be written {\it only}  

1619: as function of $R$ and $\mathbf{S}_{\rm eff} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{L}}$, 

1620: i.e., $H_{\rm spher}(R,\mathbf{S}_{\rm eff} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{L}})$. 

1621: To obtain this result we use the fact that the total Hamiltonian, including 

1622: only spin-orbit terms, can be written as (using $P^2 = P^2_R+ L^2/R^2$)

1623: %

1624: %

1625: where $L = |\mathbf{L}|$ includes dependence on $\theta$, $\phi$,

1626: $P_\theta$ and $P_\phi$. As said, spherical orbits require $P_R=0$ and 

1627: $\partial H/\partial R=0$, so for any pair of neighboring spherical 

1628: orbits we have

1629: %

1630: \beq

1631: \label{eq:H:L}

1632: d H = \frac{\partial H }{\partial L}\,dL + 

1633: \frac{\partial H }{\partial (\mathbf{S}_{\rm eff} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{L}})}

1634: \,d (\mathbf{S}_{\rm eff} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{L}})\,.

1635: \eeq

1636: %

1637: By imposing $d(\partial H/\partial R)=0$ we obtain 

1638: %

1639: \begin{equation}

1640: \label{eq:dHdr}

1641: 0 = \frac{\partial^2 H}{\partial R^2} dR + \frac{\partial^2 H}{\partial R\, \partial L} d L + 

1642: \frac{\partial^2 H}{\partial R \partial (\mathbf{S}_{\rm eff} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{L}})} d 

1643: (\mathbf{S}_{\rm eff} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{L}})  

1644: \,.

1645: \end{equation}

1646: %

1647: As we shall show below, $\mathbf{S}_{\rm eff} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{L}}$ is 

1648: conserved with high accuracy throughout the adiabatic evolution, so we 

1649: neglect its variation in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:H:L} and \eqref{eq:dHdr}, and obtain

1650: %

1651: \begin{equation}

1652: \label{init:dHdR}

1653: \left(\frac{dH}{dR}\right)_{\rm spher} = 

1654: -\left[\frac{(\partial

1655:     H/\partial L)(\partial^2 H/\partial R^2)}{(\partial^2 H

1656:     /\partial R\,\partial L)}\right]_{P_R=0,\, (\partial H/\partial

1657:   R)=0}\,, 

1658: \end{equation}

1659: %

1660: which should be plugged in Eq.~(\ref{init:PR:RR}).

1661: }

1662: 

1663: A straightforward analysis of the various error terms allows us 

1664: to conculde that the fractional error of assuming that  $\chi_L \equiv \mathbf{S}_{\rm

1665: eff}\cdot \hat{\mathbf{L}} $ is constant along the adiabatic evolution is 

1666: of 3PN order. 

1667: 

1668: We note that our steps 1, 2, (2a, 2b, 2c), and 3 can still be applied

1669: to give initial conditions, even if the Hamiltonian contains spin-spin

1670: terms, although the orbits that follow will in general have

1671: oscillatory radius and orbital frequency, due to the non-existence of

1672: quasi-spherical orbits.  In Fig.~\ref{fig:rdot} we show the evolutions

1673: of $\dot{r}/(r\omega)$ with (dark curves) and without (light curves)

1674: spin-spin terms, for $(10+10)M_{\odot}$ (left panel) and

1675: $(15+5)M_{\odot}$ (right panel) binaries. We start evolution at

1676: 40\,Hz, with 

1677: $(\theta_{S_1},\phi_{S_1}\theta_{S_2},\phi_{S_2})=(60^\circ,90^\circ;60^\circ,0^\circ)$,

1678: and show the evolution up to 200\,Hz.

1679: 

1680: 

1681: \section{Comparison of waveforms and evaluation of overlaps}

1682: \label{sec4.3}

1683: 

1684: In harmonic coordinates, the gravitational wave emitted by a binary system at the 

1685: leading quadrupole order, in terms of metric perturbation at a distance $D$, is

1686: %

1687: \beq

1688: h_{i j} = \frac{H_{ij}}{D} \equiv \frac{2\mu}{D}\,\frac{d^2}{d t^2} (X_i\,X_j)\,.

1689: \eeq

1690: Using the leading-order equation of motion, $\ddot{X}_k = - 

1691: {M\,X_k}/{R^3}$, we re-write the normalized perturbation $H_{ij}$ as: 

1692: %

1693: \beq

1694: \label{hGW0}

1695: H_{i j} = {4\mu}\,\left (V_i\,V_j -M \frac{X_i\,X_j}{R^3} \right )\,.

1696: \eeq

1697: %

1698: Here $X_i$ and $V_i \equiv \dot{X}_i$ can be obtained straightforwardly

1699: by solving the Hamilton equations. 

1700: Depending on the wave propagation direction and the orientation of the

1701: detector, the metric perturbation $h_{ij}$ has to be contracted with

1702: an appropriate ``detection tensor" to give the actually detected

1703: waveform. For this we refer, for instance, to Sec.~IIIC of Ref.~\cite{pbcv1} and

1704: Sec.~II of Ref.~\cite{bcv2} (in particular see Eq.(15)). 

1705: 

1706: Following Ref.~\cite{bcv2}, the parameters in precessing binaries can be 

1707: distinguished in {\it binary local parameters} $\{m_1, m_2, S_1, S_2,

1708: \theta_{\rm S1}, \theta_{\rm S2}, \phi_{\rm S1} - \phi_{\rm S2}\}$, 

1709: {\it binary directional parameters} $\{ \theta_{\rm L}, \phi_{\rm L}, \phi_{\rm S1} + \phi_{\rm S2}\}$ 

1710: (which determine the orientation of the binary as a whole in space) 

1711: and {\it directional parameters} $\{\Theta, \varphi, \theta, \phi, \psi \}$, 

1712: describing the GW-propagation and the detector orientation 

1713: [see Table I in Ref.~\cite{bcv2} and discussion around it].

1714: To these parameters we need to add the initial time and the initial orbital phase. 

1715: 

1716: In the {\it precessing} convention introduced in Ref.~\cite{bcv2}, 

1717: the GW signal can be neatly written in terms of: (i) parameters 

1718: depending on the observer's location and orientation, 

1719: $\{\Theta, \varphi, \theta, \phi, \psi \}$, which are time 

1720: independent, initial time and initial orbital phase (henceforth denoted 

1721: as extrinsic parameters) and (ii) parameters depending on the details 

1722: of the dynamics, $\{m_1, m_2, S_1, S_2, \theta_{\rm S1}, \theta_{\rm S2}, 

1723: \phi_{\rm S1} - \phi_{\rm S2}\}$ (henceforth denoted as intrinsic 

1724: parameters). The GW signal does not depend on the binary directional 

1725: parameters, $\{ \theta_{\rm L}, \phi_{\rm L}, \phi_{\rm S1} + \phi_{\rm S2}\}$, 

1726: since those parameters can be re-absorbed in the definition of the source 

1727: frame at initial time and in the directional parameters $\{\Theta, 

1728: \varphi, \theta, \phi, \psi \}$ through a rigid rotation of the detector-binary system. 

1729: 

1730: The distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic parameters is due originally

1731: to Sathyaprakash and Owen~\cite{Sathya,O}. Extrinsic parameters are parameters 

1732: which change the signal shape in such a way that we do not actually need to 

1733: lay down templates in the bank along those parameter directions, saving computational time. 

1734: By contrast we need to lay down templates along the directions 

1735: of the intrinsic parameters. In Refs.~\cite{bcv2, pbcv1},

1736: a semi-analytical method to maximize over the extrinsic 

1737: parameters in precessing binaries has been proposed.

1738: 

1739: In view of the bad performances of the Taylor-expanded Hamiltonian\footnote{

1740: We have in mind here the absence of LSSO. 

1741: Recall also that when the binary mass ratio is significantly

1742: different from one, one can firmly conclude that the Taylor-expanded

1743: Hamiltonian is a poor representation of the dynamics, while the

1744: EOB-resummed one is  a good one.}, we a priori expect that the

1745: waveforms computed from STHTF models will be significantly

1746: different from the SEHPF ones. It remains, however, interesting

1747: to {\it measure their difference} in the data-analysis sense,

1748: i.e.\ to compute the {\it overlaps} between the two types

1749: of waveforms. If it happened that, after maximization

1750: over all possible parameters, the overlap between the two

1751: types of signals were very close to unity, one could still

1752: consider the Taylor models as {\it effectual} (in the

1753: sense of \cite{DIS98}) representations

1754: of the EOB models. However, for practical reasons, we

1755: did not try to embark on a full maximization of the overlaps.

1756: For simplicity, we {\it only} tackled the maximization over the

1757:  extrinsic parameters, and {\it not} on the intrinsic

1758: ones. The resulting partially maximized overlap is therefore

1759: only a lower bound of the fully maximized overlap. Still, this

1760: result can be considered as a reasonable measure of  the ``closeness'' between the

1761: two sorts of models (especially because we do not wish to

1762: use models which would have significantly different physical

1763: parameters).

1764: 

1765: 

1766: \subsection{Lack of ``closeness'' between Taylor and Effective-One-Body models}

1767: 

1768: In Tables~\ref{overlapmax3pn} and \ref{overlapmax2pn}  

1769: we study the {\it closeness} (in the sense just defined of overlap

1770: maximized only over the extrinsinc parameters\footnote{More precisely,

1771: we do the maximization over the extrinsic parameters of the EOB model. 

1772: Though this introduces an asymmetry in the definition of the {\it closeness},

1773: we do not expect this asymmetry to be physically significant.})

1774: between STHTF(3,3.5) and SEHPF(3,3.5), as well

1775: as  between STHTF(2,2)~\footnote{We use SHT(2,2) instead of STHTF(2,2.5) 

1776: because for equal-mass binaries

1777: the Taylor-approximant for the flux at 2.5PN order

1778: becomes negative for large values of $v$~\cite{DIS98}},

1779: and SEHPF(2,2.5) models.

1780: 

1781: We consider three typical binary masses $(10 + 10) M_\odot$,

1782: $(15 + 15) M_\odot$ and $(15 + 5) M_\odot$, and several initial 

1783: spin orientations~\footnote{For these data we always refer the initial spin 

1784: directions to the initial direction of the orbital 

1785: Newtonian angular momentum, as specified in Fig. 4 of Ref.~\cite{bcv2},  

1786: and we set the initial direction of the Newtonian orbital angular 

1787: momentum along the $x$-axis of the source frame (i.e., we fix 

1788: $\theta_{\rm L} = \pi/2$ and $\phi_{\rm L}=0$, see Fig. 3 in Ref.~\cite{bcv2}).}.

1789: We always fix the pattern functions $F_+ = 1$, $F_\times = 0$ and GW

1790: propagation parameters $\Theta = \pi/4$ and $\varphi = 

1791: 0$ [for notations and definitions see Sec.~IIIC of Ref.~\cite{pbcv1}

1792: and Sec.~II of Ref.~\cite{bcv2}]. 

1793: The initial frequency is always set to $f_{\rm in} = 30\,{\rm Hz}$ and 

1794: the ending frequency $f_{\rm end}$ is determined by one of the 

1795: criteria in Eqs.~\eqref{cond3}--\eqref{cond6}.

1796: In Tables~\ref{overlapmax3pn} and \ref{overlapmax2pn} the two black holes 

1797: are assumed to carry maximal and half-maximal spins, respectively. 

1798: We list the ending frequency, the LSSO frequency  and the BH radial 

1799: separation at $t_{\rm fin}$ for the template and target, 

1800: together with two types of overlaps: the overlaps maximized over the initial

1801: time and initial orbital phase only ($\rho_{\rm max, 2}$),

1802: and the overlaps maximized over those parameters and

1803: $\{\Theta, \varphi, \alpha = f(\theta, \phi, \psi) \}$,

1804: as well, ($\rho_{\rm max, 5}$), using the semi-analytical 

1805: method suggested in Ref.~\cite{pbcv1}.

1806: Table~\ref{overlapmax3pn} and ~\ref{overlapmax2pn} also contains the non-spinning case. 

1807: 

1808: As these tables show, the two types of models are not

1809: at all ``close to each other''. The overlaps are indeed

1810: quite low, as low as $0.32$. The overlaps evidently increase when

1811: we maximize over five rather than two extrinsic parameters, but

1812: not dramatically, and only for binaries with high and comparable mass, 

1813: with initial spins lying in the half-space 

1814: opposite (with respect to the orbital plane) 

1815: to the initial orbital angular momentum. In this case 

1816: the dynamical evolution is shorter, since the LSSO occurs 

1817: at lower frequency [see also Figs. \ref{fig:eomegaEOB}, \ref{fig:e-a} ], 

1818: and the differences in  STHTF(3,3.5) and SEHPF(3,3.5) can be compensated by an offset in the

1819: extrinsic parameters of the template with respect to the target. 

1820: Moreover, both the conservative dynamics for circular orbits 

1821: and the GW flux predicted by SEHPF-approximants and STHTF-approximants, 

1822: are closer in the anti-aligned case than in the aligned case, 

1823: as can be see in Figs.~\ref{Fig6} and \ref{Fig7}. 

1824: 

1825: However, when the binary mass ratio is significantly

1826:  different from 1, the number

1827: of modulational cycles increases, and the differences in the 

1828: two models can no longer be compensated by re-adjusting the 

1829: template extrinsic parameters. When the initial spins are lying 

1830: in the same half-space of the orbital angular momentum, the evolution is longer, the LSSO 

1831: happens at high frequency [see also Figs. \ref{fig:eomegaEOB}, \ref{fig:e-a} ], 

1832: and in this case, even for high, comparable masses the differences both in 

1833: the conservative and non-conservative late dymanics in the two models cannot 

1834: be compensated by a bias in the template extrinsic parameters. 

1835: 

1836: {}From Tables~\ref{overlapmax2pn} we 

1837: notice that all the above considerations apply also at 2PN order,  

1838: where the differences in the conservative 

1839: and non-conservative dynamics of STHTF and SEHPF approximants are

1840: even larger. We checked that these considerations do not change much 

1841: when spins are smaller, say half-maximal. 

1842: 

1843: Having confirmed that Taylor models cannot be considered

1844: as being effectively close to the EOB ones, we shall

1845: only use in the following the a priori better EOB models.

1846: 

1847: \subsection{Negligible influence of the of the ``transverse component'' of the

1848: radiation reaction force.}

1849: 

1850: Having in mind possible simplifications of the models,

1851: we first investigated the relevance of the second term

1852: in the R.H.S. of Eq.~(\ref{n18}), i.e. the component of

1853: the radiation reaction force which is ``transverse'',

1854: in the sense of being directed along $L$, and

1855: therefore orthogonal to the main ``longitudinal term'',

1856: which is parallel to the momentum $\vP$).

1857: In Table~\ref{overlapnoFL} we study the influence of this transverse

1858: component of the RR force on the dynamics and the waveforms.

1859: For the binary masses $(10 + 10) M_\odot$, $(15 + 5) M_\odot$ 

1860: and a few initial spin orientations, we evaluate the same 

1861: quantities of Table~\ref{overlapmax3pn}, when including and not 

1862: including the RR force along $L$ [see second and third term in Eq.~(\ref{n18})]. 

1863: We give here only the overlaps maximized over five extrinsic parameters.

1864: We find that $\rho_{\rm max, 5}$ is larger than $\sim 0.98$

1865: in all cases. We therefore conclude that it would

1866: suffice to use a simplified RR force parallel to the

1867: linear momentum $\vP$ (as in the non-spinning circular case).

1868: One should, however, include, for better accuracy,

1869:  in the coefficient of $P_i$

1870: in Eq.~(\ref{n18}) the spin-dependent terms.

1871: 

1872: \subsection{Influence of the resummation of the ``longitudinal'' part of

1873: the radiation reaction}

1874: 

1875: We consider here the ``longitudinal'' part of the radiation reaction,

1876: i.e. the first term on the R.H.S. of Eq.~(\ref{n18}). This term is

1877: given by the flux function, which was written in Eq.~(\ref{n13}) above

1878: as a straightforward PN-expansion.  One can therefore either leave

1879: this longitudinal component in non-resummed, ``Taylor'' form, or

1880: choose to resum it by means of Pad\'e approximants.  In

1881: Table~\ref{overlapflux} we investigate how the choice of the flux

1882: function (Taylor-expanded or Pad\'e-resummed) may affects the dynamics

1883: and the waveforms. Using in all cases the EOB Hamiltonian to describe

1884: the dynamics, we evaluate the overlaps between models using a Taylor

1885: flux and models using a Pad\'e flux. [We maximize over the five

1886: extrinsic parameters of the EOB model.]  We find that, when the initial 

1887: spins are lying in the same half-space of the orbital 

1888: angular momentum, after maximization over the five extrinsic parameters, 

1889: the overlaps are reasonably large (larger than $0.84$), but still lower

1890: than unity. We obtain much higher overlaps when the initial spins are not lying 

1891: in the same half-space of the orbital angular momentum. These results 

1892: are consistent with Figs.~\ref{Fig5} and Fig.~\ref{Fig7}. 

1893: 

1894: If we assume that the equal-mass flux function is a smooth deformation 

1895: of the test-mass limit one, since previous findings \cite{DIS98,BD2,DIS01,PS} 

1896: in the test-mass limit case pointed out the usefulness of Pad\'e-resumming 

1897: the flux function, we would conclude that Pad\'e-resummed fluxes are better

1898: approximants of the numerically determined flux also in th equal-mass case.

1899: 

1900: \subsection{Negligible influence of the quadrupole-monopole terms}

1901: 

1902: Still in the spirit of trying to simplify the models to their crucial elements,

1903: Table~\ref{overlapnoQM} investigates how waveforms are

1904: affected by the quadrupole-monopole terms, and Table~\ref{overlapadiab} 

1905: studies how the evolution obtained by averaging the spin terms over a 

1906: period may differ from the non-adiabatic evolution. 

1907: Considering the high values of $\rho_{\rm max, 5}$ we obtain

1908: in both cases, we can say that the quadrupole-monopole interaction and the adiabaticity 

1909: of the spin terms, have little physical effects over the dynamics and waveforms.

1910: The differences can be compensated by re-adjusting the template extrinsic parameters.

1911: 

1912: \subsection{Influence of the initial orbital phase}

1913: 

1914: Finally, we investigated the influence of the initial orbital phase

1915: (all other quantities being fixed) on the waveform.

1916: In an adiabatic evolution in which spin terms are averaged over a 

1917: period the joint evolution of $\hat{\mathbf{L}}_{\rm N}$ and $\mathbf{S}$ is not affected by the

1918: initial orbital phase. As a consequence, two configurations with the

1919: same initial values for $\hat{\mathbf{L}}_{\rm N}$ and $\mathbf{S}$,

1920: but different orbital phases $\phi_{\rm orb}$ will keep the difference

1921: between orbital phases unchanged through the evolution. This may not

1922: be true in our non-adiabatic evolution for two reasons: (i) the spin-spin

1923: interaction Hamiltonian depends explicitly on the separation vector

1924: $\mathbf{N}$ [see Eq.~(\ref{3.3})], and (ii) the evolution 

1925: depends on the canonical orbital angular momentum,

1926: which is not orthogonal to the orbital plane. We illustrate this 

1927: feature by evolving two maximally spinning

1928: $(15+15)M_\odot$ binaries with initial orbital phases (at 40\,Hz)

1929: differing by $\pi/2$, and all other parameters identical:

1930: $(\theta_{S_1},\phi_{S_1};\theta_{S_2},\phi_{S_2})=(60^\circ,90^\circ;60^\circ,0^\circ)$. In

1931: Fig.~\ref{fig:rel-orb-phase}, we plot the difference $\Delta\phi_{\rm

1932: orb}$ between their relative orbital phases measured with respect to

1933: $\hat{\mathbf{L}}_N$. This difference grows in time, and accumulates

1934: around $270^\circ$ by the end of the evolution.  We also show

1935: waveforms detected with $(F_+,F_\times;\Theta,\varphi)= (1,0;\pi/4,0)$

1936: in Fig.~\ref{fig:orbphase}.  Their phases start out to differ by

1937: $180^{\circ}$ as expected, and non-adiabatic effects drive them away

1938: by more than 2 cycles toward the end of the evolution. We notice that 

1939: comparing the waveform is less straightforward than comparing the

1940: relative orbital phase, because the waveform phase can differ from

1941: twice the orbital phase, due to precessions.

1942: 

1943: \section{Losses of energy and angular-momentum and the waveform including ringdown}

1944: \label{sec4.4}

1945: 

1946: In the following, we use as model the ``best bet'' we can make, i.e.

1947: the spinning EOB Hamiltonian\footnote{We did not investigate the

1948: ``closeness'' between the models derived from the spinning

1949: Hamiltonian used here, and those deduced from

1950: the further resummed, Kerr-like EOB Hamiltonian proposed in \cite{TD}.

1951: In view of the comparison showed in Fig.~\ref{fig:e-a},

1952: we expect that the two models are very close to each other.} 

1953: with a Pad\'e-resummed flux. Both being taken 

1954: to the highest PN-accuracy available, i.e. $n=3, m=3.5$, in the

1955: notation used above.

1956: 

1957: In Ref.~\cite{BD01}, using the non-spinning EOB Hamiltonian at 2PN order, it was 

1958: found that the energy emitted during the plunge is $ \sim 0.7 \%$ of $M$, 

1959: with a comparable energy loss $ \sim  0.7 \% $ of $ M$ during the ring-down phase.

1960: This gives a total energy released beyond the LSSO in the non-spinning case of 

1961: $\sim 1.4\%$ of $M$ to be contrasted with $4-5\%$ of $M$ 

1962: estimated in Ref.~\cite{BBCLT}, where the authors use a combination of 

1963: numerical and perturbative approximation methods. Note also that

1964:  Flanagan and

1965: Hughes~\cite{FH98} predicted $\sim 10 \% M$ for inspiral and plunge, 

1966: and $\sim 3 \% M$ for ring-down phase. 

1967: 

1968: Here, to have more confidence in our EOB-based estimates,

1969: we decided to use {\it three different ways  } of evaluating

1970:  the energy radiated in the spinning case.

1971: We used, at once, (i) the change, along the evolution (between

1972: some initial frequency and some final one) in the numerical value

1973: of the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hspineob}) ($\delta E_H$),  (ii) the time-integral

1974: of the square of the third derivative of the

1975:  quadrupole moment $I_{ij}$ with $i,j=1,2,3$, i.e.

1976: %

1977: \beq

1978: \frac{d E_I}{dt} = \frac{1}{5} \frac{d^3 I_{i j}}{dt^3}\,\frac{d^3 I_{i j}}{dt^3}

1979: \quad \quad I_{ij} = \mu\,\left (X_i\,X_j - \frac{1}{3}\delta_{ij}X^k\,X_k\right)\,.

1980: \eeq

1981: %   

1982: and (iii) the time-integral of the

1983: energy flux carried away by our leading-order quadrupole waveform,

1984: %

1985: \beq

1986: \frac{d E_h}{dt} = \frac{1}{20}\,\int \sum_{i j} \dot{H}_{i j}^{\rm TF} \dot{H}_{ij}^{\rm TF}\,,

1987: \eeq

1988: %

1989: with $H_{ij}^{\rm TF}$ being

1990: the trace-free part of the normalized metric perturbation,

1991: $H_{ij}$ [see Eq.~(\ref{hGW0}) above]. 

1992: 

1993: 

1994: In Fig.~\ref{fig:comp:eloss} we compare the accumulated energy release

1995: from these three prescriptions, for a $(15+15)M_{\odot}$ maximally

1996: spinning binary with a generic set of spin orientations when starting

1997: evolution at $f_{\rm GW}=30\,$Hz:

1998: $(\theta_{S_1},\phi_{S_1};\theta_{S_2},\phi_{S_2})=(60^\circ,90^\circ;60^\circ,0^\circ)$. In

1999: the left panel, we keep radiation reaction force at the Newtonian

2000: order, while we use 3.5PN Pad\'e flux in the right panel. As we see

2001: from the figure, these prescriptions differ more from each other when

2002: 3.5PN radiation reaction is used instead of Newtonian --- this is

2003: consistent with the fact that both $\delta E_I$ and $\delta E_h$

2004: involve quadrupole radiation only; furthermore, for lower frequencies

2005: the $\delta E_H$ curve lies below those of $\delta E_I$ and $\delta

2006: E_h$, which is consistent with the fact that Post-Newtonian GW

2007: luminosity is in general smaller than the Newtonian prediction. The

2008: difference among $\delta E_I$ and $\delta E_h$ can be attributed to

2009: the difference between PN (in our case EOB at 3PN) and Newtonian

2010: dynamics, which seems to be small till around $f_{\rm

2011: GW}=200$\,Hz in our case (which corresponds to $v\approx 0.45$).

2012: 

2013: 

2014: The rather satisfactory agreement between the various ways of

2015: estimating the energy loss gives us some confidence in our

2016: EOB-based estimates. In the following, we shall use the a priori

2017: best estimate (because it is the one which involves the highest

2018: PN accuracy): the one based on the change in the total

2019: EOB  Hamiltonian $H$. [We use  Pad\'e-resummed fluxes,

2020: and the two combined PN-accuracies $(n,m) = (2,2.5)$

2021: and $(n,m) = (3,3.5)$.]

2022: 

2023: In the upper panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:eloss} we plot

2024: the accumulative energy loss $\delta E_H$

2025: starting from $f_{\rm GW}=40\,$Hz as a

2026: function of the instantaneous GW frequency $f$, for $(15+15)M_{\odot}$

2027: (upper left panel) and $(15+5)M_{\odot}$ (upper right panel) binaries,

2028: each for 4 sets of initial spin orientations with {\it maximal spins}:

2029: aligned (dash-dot-dot curves), antialigned (dotted curves),

2030: $(\theta_{S_1},\phi_{S_1};\theta_{S_2},\phi_{S_2})=(60^\circ,90^\circ;60^\circ,0^\circ)$

2031: (denoted by {\it generic-up}, dash-dot curves), and

2032: $(\theta_{S_1},\phi_{S_1};\theta_{S_2},\phi_{S_2})=(120^\circ,90^\circ;120^\circ,0^\circ)$

2033: (denoted by {\it generic-down}, dashed curves), as well as for the

2034: non-spinning configuration (solid curves).  We use both SEHPF(3,3.5)

2035: (dark curves) and SEHPF(2,2.5) (light curves) models. In each panel, we

2036: also use vertical grid lines to mark LSSO frequencies. For the

2037: SEHPF(2,2.5) model, all our evolutions go beyond their corresponding

2038: LSSO frequencies. The situation is a bit different for the SEHPF(3,3.5).

2039: Indeed, as was shown in \cite{TD} and in Fig.~\ref{fig:e-a} above,

2040: the 3PN-EOB LSSO for mostly aligned fast-spinning BH's is drastically

2041: drawn inwards towards very high orbital frequencies.

2042: So high, indeed, that, for aligned and generic-up configurations,

2043: they fall out of the frequency range plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:eloss}.

2044: As a consequence, for aligned and generic-up configurations, the dynamical

2045: evolutions become rather non-adiabatic even before the formal LSSOs

2046: is reached.

2047: 

2048: As we see from the plots, within a given GW frequency interval, binaries tend to

2049: emit more energy in configurations where spins are more aligned with

2050: the orbital angular momentum. This agrees with the results

2051: of \cite{TD} and of Fig.~\ref{fig:eomega} above, showing

2052: that more aligned configurations are drawn towards more deeply bound

2053: states. This, together with the fact that LSSO frequencies are

2054: pushed higher in aligned configurations (as we also see from

2055: Fig.~\ref{fig:eomega}), can make the total energy releases in aligned

2056: configurations several times more than those in anti-aligned

2057: configurations. In Table \ref{tab:EJ}, we list values of $\delta

2058: E_H/M$, accumulated from $40$\,Hz up to LSSO frequency (if reached)

2059: or ending frequency, otherwise, for configurations plotted in

2060: Fig.~\ref{fig:eloss}.  We also list the energy released below 40\,Hz,

2061: and values of energy release when 2PN Hamiltonian and 2.5PN Pad\'e

2062: flux are used.  For $(15+15)M_{\odot}$, maximally spinning binaries,

2063: the energy released from 40\,Hz up to the end of our evolution (determined 

2064: by one of the criteria \eqref{cond3}--\eqref{cond6})

2065: can range from $0.6\%$ of $M$ in the (anti-aligned configuration) to

2066: $5\%$ of $M$ (anti-aligned configuration), with the non-spinning

2067: configuration releasing $1.6\%\sim 1.8\%$ of $M$ (in which $0.8\% \sim

2068: 1.1\%$ of $M$ is released before LSSO).  For $(15+5)M_{\odot}$

2069: binaries, the range is similar, from $0.5\%$ to $5\%$ of $M$, with

2070: non-spinning configuration releasing $1.2\% \sim 1.4\%$ of M (in which

2071: $0.7\%\sim 0.8\%$ of M from before the LSSO).  We also note that the

2072: energies of around $ 0.8\%$ of M and $0.5\%$ of M are released below

2073: 40\,Hz, for $(15+15)M_\odot$ and $(15+5)M_\odot$ binaries,

2074: respectively. See also Eq. (4.1) of \cite{TD} for an approximate

2075: analytical estimate of the energy released down to the LSSO,

2076: as a function of both $\eta = m_1 m_2/M^2$ and $\chi_L$.

2077: 

2078: \subsection{Evolution of the dimensionless rotation parameter $J/E^2$}

2079: 

2080: An important consistency check of the EOB approach concerns

2081: the dimensionless total angular momentum

2082:  ratio $|\mathbf{J}|/E^2$ ultimately reached

2083: by spinning black hole binaries. Indeed, if the EOB method would,

2084: at the end of its validity domain, predict a ratio $|\mathbf{J}|/E^2$

2085: larger than unity, this would preclude to match this end

2086: state with the newly born Kerr black hole expected

2087: from the coalescence of the two initial (spinning) black holes.

2088: This issue was investigated {\it in the adiabatic} approximation

2089: in \cite{TD}. There, it was shown that, when using the

2090: 3PN-accurate EOB Hamiltonian, the ratio $|\mathbf{J}|/E^2$

2091: estimated {\it at the LSSO}, was {\it always smaller than unity}.

2092: This result was not at all guaranteed in advance, and resulted

2093: from a delicate  competition between the linear increase of $|\mathbf{J}|$

2094: when increasing the (aligned) spin of the individual BH's,

2095: and its non-linear decrease because of the displacement of the LSSO

2096: towards smaller radii for aligned spinning configurations.

2097: It was found in \cite{TD} that the maximum of

2098: $(|\mathbf{J}|/E^2)_{\rm LSSO}$ was about $0.83$, and was reached for

2099: $\chi_L \simeq + 0.3$.

2100: 

2101: The fact that this maximum value is significantly below one,

2102: leaves room for not running into any consistency problem even when

2103: taking into account the further changes of both $E$ and $\vJ$

2104: during the plunge that follows the crossing of the LSSO.

2105: Though our present attack on the problem does not properly

2106: consider the final matching between the plunge and the

2107: formation of a final Kerr hole, it goes beyond the previous

2108: treatments in going beyond the adiabatic approximation.

2109: In the lower panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:eloss}, we plot the

2110: continuous time evolution of the ratio $|\mathbf{J}|/E^2$

2111: during the late stages of the inspiral and its subsequent

2112: non-adiabatic ending (which, in many cases, except

2113: in fact for the most dangerous  aligned, is a

2114: post-LSSO plunge). It is convenient to use

2115: the gravitational wave frequency $f_{\rm GW}$ to label

2116: the ``time'' along this evolution. Satisfactorily, we

2117:  observe that, for all the binaries we have considered,

2118: $|\mathbf{J}|/E^2$ decrease to below $1$ before either the

2119: LSSO or the end of our evolution, whichever comes first. This means

2120: there are no a priori obstacles to having a Kerr

2121: black hole form right after the end of the non-adiabatic ``quasi-plunge''.

2122: This means also that, contrary to an early

2123: suggestion \cite{FH98}

2124: based on rather coarse estimates, there is no ground for expecting

2125:  a large emission of gravitational waves between the plunge

2126:  and the merger. In Table~\ref{tab:EJ} we also list the values

2127: of $|\mathbf{J}|/E^2$, at LSSO frequency (if reached) and ending

2128: frequency, for SEP(2,2.5) and SEP(3,3.5) models.

2129: 

2130: In a pioneering work,

2131: Baker et al.~\cite{BCLT} evaluated by a 3D numerical

2132: simulation the energy radiated from moderately spinning

2133: BH binaries with spins aligned or anti-aligned with the orbital angular-momentum.

2134: They started the (very short) numerical evolution close to the LSSO predicted 

2135: by the effective potential method of Pfeiffer et al.~\cite{PTC}.

2136: As already mentioned above, the numerical initial data chosen in these

2137: works rely only on an Initial Value Problem (IVP)

2138:  formulation, and significantly differ both from the numerical initial data

2139: constructed by the HKV method \cite{GGB, Cook} and from

2140: the predictions made by the EOB method (while the HKV

2141: and EOB results are quite close to each other \cite{DGG,CookPfeiffer}).

2142: For instance, \cite{DGG} estimated that the ratio between the

2143: orbital frequencies $\omega_{\rm IVP}/\omega_{\rm EOB}$ was about 2.

2144: One should probably wait until HKV-type initial data for

2145: spinning BH's are evolved until coalescence to meaningfully

2146: compare their results with the results derived above for

2147: energy releases within the EOB approach. However,

2148: to have an idea of the current distance between analytical

2149: estimates and numerical ones, we

2150:  have determined the energy released between the LSSO and

2151: the final frequency, at 2PN and 3PN order, for two of the spin configurations 

2152: investigated by Baker et al. For spins aligned (anti-aligned) and  

2153: $\chi_1 = \chi_2 = 0.17$ ($\chi_1 = \chi_2 = 0.25$), we find that 

2154: the energy released is $\sim (0.6 - 0.9) \% M$ [$\sim (1 - 3)\% M$]. 

2155: Baker et al. found $\sim (1.7-1.9) \% M$ and $\sim (1.9-2.1) \% M$, 

2156: respectively. It should be noted that the energy released 

2157: evaluated by Baker et al. includes also the ring-down phase. Ours does not.

2158: 

2159: \subsection{Complete waveforms describing the  non-adiabatic inspiral and coalescence

2160: of precessing binary black holes}

2161: 

2162: Finally, though we have not yet carefully studied at which stage

2163: we could meaningfully join our ``quasi-plunge'' evolution to the

2164: formation of a ringing BH, we have decided, to show the promise

2165: of a purely analytical EOB-base approach to follow

2166:  Ref.~\cite{BD2} in matching (by

2167: requiring first-order continuity of the emitted waveform)

2168:  the end of our  waveform (here defined by the first violation

2169:  of the ``adiabatic criteria'' \eqref{cond3}--\eqref{cond4}) to

2170:  a ringdown waveform generated from the lowest $l=m=2$

2171: quasi-normal mode of a Kerr black hole. We determine

2172: the  mass and spin parameters of the final hole

2173:  by the energy and angular momentum of the binary at the

2174: end of our evolution:

2175: %

2176: \begin{equation}

2177: M_{\rm BH} = E_{\rm fin}\,,\quad a_{\rm BH} = \left[{|\mathbf{J}|}/{E^2}\right]_{\rm fin}\,.

2178: \end{equation}

2179: %

2180: In Fig.~\ref{fig:ringdown}, we plot the complete waveforms,

2181: so obtained,  for non-spinning, and

2182: maximally spinning $(15+15)M_\odot$ binaries in the generic-up and

2183: generic-down configurations (these refer to the configuration at

2184: $f_{\rm GW}=40\,$Hz, the starting point of evolution). We have shifted

2185: these waveforms in time so that the end of inspiral evolutions all

2186: happen at $t=0$.  Notice that at this stage the waveform which includes 

2187: the ring-down phase should be considered as an example.  

2188: Indeed, by restricting ourselves to the quasi-normal mode $l=m=2$, 

2189: we have tacitly assumed that the total angular momentum at the time 

2190: the ring-down phase starts is dominated by the orbital angular momentum. 

2191: However, this is not generally the case when spins are present and 

2192: the quasi-normal modes with $l\neq 2$ might be excited, as well, 

2193: and contribute to the waveform. A more thourough analysis is left for 

2194: the future.

2195: 

2196: 

2197: \section{Conclusions}

2198: \label{sec5}

2199: 

2200: We provided a first attack on the problem of analytically determining

2201: the gravitational waveforms emitted during the last stages of

2202: dynamical evolution of precessing binaries of spinning black holes,

2203: i.e. during the non-adiabatic ending of the inspiral phase, and its

2204: transition to a plunge. We reviewed the various available Hamiltonian

2205: descriptions of the dynamics of spinning black hole (BH) binaries, and

2206: studied (following \cite{TD}) the characteristics of the stable

2207: spherical orbits that exist when spin-spin effects are neglected

2208: compared to spin-orbit ones. We derived the contribution to radiation

2209: reaction (for quasi-circular orbits) which is linear in the spins. Our

2210: results agree with the corresponding recent results of \cite{Will}. We then

2211: used this analytical description of the radiation-reaction-driven

2212: inspiral of spinning binaries to construct non-adiabatic models of

2213: coalescing binary waveforms.  We compared the various models and

2214: concluded, in confirmation of previous results, that our current

2215: ``best bet'' for a non-adiabatic model describing the transition from 

2216: adiabatic inspiral to plunge is obtained by combining: (i) an effective one body (EOB)~

2217: \cite{BD1,BD2}, 3PN-accurate \cite{DJS} resummed Hamiltonian, including 

2218: spin-dependent interactions \cite{TD}, with (ii) Pad\'e-resummed radiation reaction force 

2219: (including spin-terms). Conclusion (i) is rather robust, since 

2220: as Fig.~\ref{fig:eomega} shows, the PN-expanded Hamiltonian does not show any 

2221: LSSO and differs significantly from the PN-expanded analytically computed 

2222: function ${E}(\Omega)$; conclusion (ii) is based on the assumption 

2223: that the flux function in the equal-mass case is a smooth deformation of 

2224: the test-mass limit result. Since in the latter case Pad\'e approximants 

2225: were shown \cite{DIS98,PS} to have better agreement with exact 

2226: numerical flux functions, we would conclude that this is also true in the 

2227: equal-mass case. 

2228: 

2229: Our main results, obtained by means of this ``best bet'' EOB model are:

2230: 

2231: (1) An estimate of the energy and angular momentum released by the

2232: binary system during its last stages of evolution:  inspiral, transition

2233: from inspiral to plunge, and plunge;

2234: 

2235: (2) The finding (which confirms the conclusions of \cite{TD}) that

2236: the dimensionless rotation parameter $j/E^2$ is always smaller than unity

2237: at the end of the inspiral;

2238: 

2239: (3) The construction of complete waveforms, approximately describing

2240: the entire gravitational-wave emission process from

2241: precessing binaries of spinning black holes: adiabatic inspiral,

2242: non-adiabatic transition between inspiral and plunge, plunge,

2243: merger and ringdown. Following \cite{BD2} these waveforms were

2244: constructed by matching a quasi-normal-mode ringdown to the end

2245: of the plunge signal. These tentative complete waveforms are

2246:  preliminary because we did not include here a careful study

2247: of how to join, in a physically motivated manner, the last stages

2248: of the plunge to the merger phase. They extend, however, the

2249: (better justified) complete waveforms constructed in \cite{BD2}

2250: to the more genral case of spinning and precessing binaries.

2251: 

2252: \acknowledgements

2253: 

2254: A.B. thanks the Max-Planck Institut f\"ur Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut) for support during her visit.  Y.C.'s research is supported by Alexander von Humboldt Foundation's Sofja Kovalevskaja Award (funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research), and by the NSF grant PHY-0099568 (during his stay at Caltech); he also thanks the Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris (CNRS) for support during his visit.

2255: 

2256: \begin{thebibliography}{999}

2257: \frenchspacing

2258: %

2259: \bibitem{LIGO} A. Abramovici et al., Science {\bf 256}, 325 (1992); 

2260: \url{http://www.ligo.caltech.edu}.

2261: %

2262: \bibitem{VIRGO} B. Caron et al., Class. Quantum Grav. {\bf 14}, 1461 (1997); 

2263: \url{http://www.virgo.infn.it}.

2264: %

2265: \bibitem{GEO} H. L\"uck et al., Class. Quantum Grav. {\bf 14}, 1471 (1997); 

2266: \url{http://www.geo600.uni-hannover.de}.

2267: %

2268: \bibitem{TAMA} M. Ando et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 3950 (2001); 

2269: \url{http://tamago.mtk.nao.ac.jp}.

2270: %

2271: \bibitem{TD} T.~Damour, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 124013 (2001).

2272: %

2273: \bibitem{BD1} A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 084006 (1999). 

2274: %

2275: \bibitem{BD2} A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 064015 (2000).

2276: %

2277: \bibitem{ACST94} T. A. Apostolatos, C. Cutler, G.J. Sussman and K.S. Thorne, {Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 49}, 6274 (1994).

2278: %

2279: \bibitem{K} L. E. Kidder, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52}, 821 (1995).

2280: %

2281: \bibitem{apostolatos0} T. A. Apostolatos, {Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 52}, 605 (1995).

2282: %

2283: \bibitem{apostolatos1} T. A. Apostolatos, {Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 54}, 2421 (1996).

2284: %

2285: \bibitem{apostolatos2} T. A. Apostolatos, {Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 54}, 2438 (1996).

2286: %

2287: \bibitem{GKV} P. Grandcl\'ement, V. Kalogera  and A. Vecchio, {Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 67}, 042003 (2003). 

2288: %

2289: \bibitem{GK} P. Grandcl\'ement and V. Kalogera, {Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 67}, 082002 (2003). 

2290: %

2291: \bibitem{bcv2} A. Buonanno, Y. Chen, and M. Vallisneri, {Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{67}, 104025 (2003).

2292: %

2293: \bibitem{pbcv1} Y. Pan, A. Buonanno, Y. Chen and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 104017 (2004).

2294: %

2295: \bibitem{bcpv1} A. Buonanno, Y. Chen, Y. Pan and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 104003 (2004). 

2296: %

2297: \bibitem{Gpc} P. Grandcl\'ement, M. Ihm, V. Kalogera, and K. Belczynski, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 102002 (2004). 

2298: %

2299: \bibitem{DIS98} T. Damour, B.R. Iyer and B.S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 885 (1998). 

2300: %

2301: \bibitem{DIS00}T.~Damour, B.~R.~Iyer and B.~S.~Sathyaprakash, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 084036 (2000).

2302: %

2303: \bibitem{DJS} T. Damour, P. Jaranowski and G. Sch\"afer, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 084011 (2000).

2304: %

2305: \bibitem{DIS01} T. Damour, B.R. Iyer and B.S. Sathyaprakash, 

2306: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 044023 (2001); {\it ibidem} {\bf 66}, 027502 (2002).

2307: %

2308: \bibitem{DGG} T. Damour, E. Gourgoulhon and P. Grandcl\'ement, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 024007 (2002).

2309: 

2310: \bibitem{GGB} P. Grandcl\'ement, E. Gourgoulhon and S. Bonazzola, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 044021 (2002).

2311: %

2312: \bibitem{bcv1} A. Buonanno, Y. Chen, and M. Vallisneri, {Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{67}, 024016 (2003).

2313: %

2314: \bibitem{DIS03} T.~Damour, B.~R.~Iyer, P.~Jaranowski and B.~S.~Sathyaprakash, 

2315: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 064028 (2003).

2316: %

2317: \bibitem{BBCLT} J. Baker, B. Br\"ugmann, M. Campanelli, C.O. Lousto and R. Takahashi,

2318: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 121103 (2001).

2319: %

2320: \bibitem{BCLT} J. Baker, M. Campanelli, C.O. Lousto and R. Takahashi,

2321: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 027505 (2004).

2322: %

2323: \bibitem{K00} V. Kalogera, Astrophys. J. {\bf 541}, 319 (2000).

2324: %

2325: \bibitem{DS88} T. Damour and G. Sch\"afer, Nuov. Cimento {\bf 101} (1988) 127.

2326: %

2327: \bibitem{JS98} P.~Jaranowski and G.~Schafer,

2328:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 7274 (1998)

2329:   [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 63}, 029902 (2001)].

2330: %

2331: \bibitem{DJSd} T.~Damour, P.~Jaranowski and G.~Schafer, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 513}, 147 (2001).

2332: %

2333: \bibitem{EP} E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57} (1998) 5287.

2334: %

2335: \bibitem{Will} C.~M.~Will, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 084027 (2005).

2336: %

2337: \bibitem{DJSPoincare}T.~Damour, P.~Jaranowski and G.~Schafer,

2338:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 021501 (2000)

2339:   [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 63}, 029903 (2001)].

2340: %

2341: \bibitem{KWW}

2342:  L.~E.~Kidder, C.~M.~Will and A.~G.~Wiseman,

2343:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47}, 3281 (1993).

2344: %

2345: \bibitem{WS} N.~Wex and G.~Schafer, Class.\ Quantum Grav.

2346: {\bf 10}, 2729 (1993).

2347: %

2348: \bibitem{BGH} B.M. Barker, S.N. Gupta and R.D. Haracz, Phys. Rev. {\bf 149} (1966) 1027.

2349: %

2350: \bibitem{BO} B.M. Barker and R.F. O'Connell, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 2} (1970) 1428; 

2351: B.M. Barker and R.F. O'Connell, Gen. Relativ. and Gravit. 

2352: {\bf 11} (1979) 149; {\bf 5} (1974) 539.

2353: %

2354: \bibitem{TH} K.S. Thorne and J.B. Hartle, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 31} (1985) 1815.

2355: %

2356: 

2357: \bibitem{PTC} H. Pfeiffer, S.A. Teukolsky and G.B. Cook, Phys. Rev. D 62, 104018 (2000).

2358: %

2359: \bibitem{Cook} G.~B.~Cook, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 084003 (2002).

2360: %

2361: \bibitem{CookPfeiffer} G.~B.~Cook and H.~P.~Pfeiffer,

2362:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 104016 (2004).

2363: %

2364: \bibitem{LB} L. Blanchet, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 124009 (2002).

2365: %

2366: \bibitem{DJSinvar} T.~Damour, P.~Jaranowski and G.~Schafer,

2367:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 044024 (2000).

2368: %

2369: \bibitem{BDE}L.~Blanchet, T.~Damour and G.~Esposito-Farese,

2370:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 124007 (2004).

2371: %

2372: \bibitem{Itoh} Y.~Itoh,  Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 064018 (2004).

2373: %

2374: \bibitem{DJS01} T. Damour, P. Jaranowski and G. Sch\"afer, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 044021 (2001).

2375: %

2376: \bibitem{ABF01} V. de Andrade, L. Blanchet and G. Faye, Class. Quantum Grav. {\bf 18}, 753 (2001).

2377: %

2378: \bibitem{BIJ02} L. Blanchet, B.R. Iyer and B. Joguet, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 064005 (2002).

2379: %

2380: \bibitem{B98} L. Blanchet, Class. Quantum Grav. {\bf 15}, 113 (1998).

2381: %

2382: \bibitem{BDEI04} L. Blanchet, T. Damour, G. Esposito-Far\`ese and B.R. Iyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 091101 (2004).

2383: %

2384: \bibitem{fluxnoS} E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52}, 5719 (1995).

2385: %

2386: \bibitem{fluxS} M. Shibata (private communication).

2387: %

2388: \bibitem{PS} E. Porter and B.S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 024017(2005)

2389: %

2390: \bibitem{Sathya} B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{50}, R7111 (1994).

2391: %

2392: \bibitem{O} B. J. Owen, \prd \textbf{53}, 6749--6761 (1996).

2393: %

2394: \bibitem{BD01} A. Buonanno and T. Damour , contributed paper to the IX$^{\rm th}$ Marcel 

2395: Grossmann Meeting (Rome, July 2000); 2000, gr-qc/0011052.

2396: %

2397: \bibitem{FH98} E.E. Flanagan and S.A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 4535 (1998).

2398: \end{thebibliography}

2399: 

2400: \begin{table}

2401: \begin{tabular}{c|cccccccc}

2402: \hline

2403: \hline

2404: $(\theta_{\rm S1}, \phi_{\rm S2}, \theta_{\rm S1}, \phi_{\rm S2}) $

2405:   & $f_{\rm fin}^{\rm SEP}$ (Hz) & $f_{\rm LSSO}^{\rm SEP}$(Hz) & 

2406: ${\rm R}_{\rm fin}^{\rm SEP}/M$ & $f_{\rm fin}^{\rm SHT}$(Hz) & 

2407: $f_{\rm LSSO}^{\rm SHT}$(Hz) &

2408: ${\rm R}_{\rm fin}^{\rm SHT}/M$ 

2409: & $\rho_{\rm max, 2}$ & $\rho_{\rm max, 5}$ \\

2410: \hline

2411: \hline

2412: \multicolumn{9}{l}{\hspace{6cm}$(10+10)M_\odot$}\\

2413: \hline

2414: \hline

2415: no spin & 289 & 285 & 4.8 & 287 & 285 & 4.2 & 0.9150 & - \\

2416: \hline

2417: $(0^o, 0^o, 0^o, 0^o)$ & 745  & 2145  & 2.5 & 466 & 2145 & 2.8 & 0.3750 &  -   \\	

2418: $(180^o, 0^o, 0^o, 0^o)$  & 290  & 285  & 4.8 & 285 & 285 & 4.2 & 0.9166 &  -   \\	

2419: $(180^o, 0^o, 180^o, 0^o)$  & 145  & 145 & 8.1 & 145 & 145 & 7.4 & 0.5587 &  -   \\	

2420: $(60^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 633 & 873 & 2.6 & 502 & 502 & 2.6 & 0.4851 & 0.5883 \\ 

2421: $(120^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 280 & 280 & 4.9 & 269 & 269 & 4.4 & 0.5420 & 0.9472 \\ 

2422: $(120^o, 90^o, 120^o, 0^o)$ & 187 & 187 & 6.7 & 186 & 186 & 6.0 & 0.6096 & 0.9536 \\ 

2423: \hline

2424: \hline

2425: \multicolumn{9}{l}{\hspace{6cm}$(15+15)M_\odot$} \\

2426: \hline

2427: \hline

2428: no spin & 192 & 190 & 4.8 & 192 & 190 & 4.2 & 0.8137 & - \\

2429: \hline

2430: $(0^o, 0^o, 0^o, 0^o)$ & 497  & 1430  & 2.6 & 311 & 1430 & 2.6 & 0.4550 &  -   \\	

2431: $(180^o, 0^o, 0^o, 0^o)$  & 193  & 190  & 4.8 & 191 & 190 & 4.2 & 0.8148 &  -   \\	

2432: $(180^o, 0^o, 180^o, 0^o)$  & 98  & 97 & 8.0 & 97 & 97 & 7.4 & 0.6403 &  -   \\	

2433: $(60^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 429 & 758 & 2.6 & 347 & 347 & 2.4 & 0.5067 & 0.6290  \\ 

2434: $(120^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 185 & 185 & 4.9 & 180 & 180 & 4.4 & 0.5112 & 0.9456  \\ 

2435: $(120^o, 90^o, 120^o, 0^o)$ & 124 & 124 & 6.7 & 124 & 124 & 6.7 & 0.6868 & 0.9684 \\ 

2436: \hline

2437: \hline

2438: \multicolumn{9}{l}{\hspace{6cm}$(15+5)M_\odot$}\\

2439: \hline

2440: \hline

2441: no spin & 267 & 265 & 5.2 & 265 & 265  &4.2 & 0.6023 & - \\

2442: \hline

2443: $(0^o, 0^o, 0^o, 0^o)$ & 862  & 1442  & 2.3 & 479 & 1442 & 2.5 & 0.3268 &  -   \\	

2444: $(180^o, 0^o, 0^o, 0^o)$  & 176  & 175  & 7.0 & 177 & 175 & 6.2 & 0.5188 &  -   \\	

2445: $(180^o, 0^0, 180^o, 0^o)$  & 141  & 140 & 8.3 & 140 & 140 & 7.5 & 0.4445 &  -   \\	

2446: $(60^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 715 & 796 & 2.4 & 425 & 743 & 2.4 & 0.4478 & 0.6111  \\ 

2447: $(120^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 208 & 207 & 6.2 & 208 & 208 & 5.3 & 0.5471 & 0.7496  \\ 

2448: $(120^o, 90^o, 120^o, 0^o)$ & 224 & 224 & 5.9 & 225 & 225 & 4.9 & 0.5735 & 0.8360  \\ 

2449: \hline

2450: \end{tabular}

2451: \caption{We list the overlaps between STHTF(3,3.5), used as target model, and 

2452: SEHPF(3,3.5), used as template model, for several binary masses and 

2453: initial spin orientations.  

2454: The two black holes are assumed to carry maximal spins $\chi_1=\chi_2=1$, 

2455: but for comparion we also show the results in absence of spins. 

2456: The evolution starts at $f_{\rm in} = 30$ Hz. In the first three columns 

2457: we list the ending frequency, the LSSO frequency  and the 

2458: BH radial separation at $t_{\rm fin}$ for the template model and 

2459: in the second three columns we show the same quantities but for the target 

2460: model. The last two columns contains the overlap maximized only over 2 extrinsic 

2461: parameters $\rho_{\rm max,2}$ and maximed over 5 extrinsic parameters 

2462: $\rho_{\rm max, 5}$, as described in the text. [Notice that for the spin configuration 

2463: $(60^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ and masses $(10+10)M_\odot$ and $(15+5)M_\odot$, due to 

2464: a pole in the Pad\'e-approximant flux, we apply the Pad\'e resummation only to 

2465: the non-spinning terms in the flux.]  

2466: \label{overlapmax3pn}}

2467: \end{table}

2468: 

2469: \begin{table}

2470: \begin{tabular}{c|cccccccc}

2471: \hline

2472: \hline

2473: $(\theta_{\rm S1}, \phi_{\rm S2}, \theta_{\rm S1}, \phi_{\rm S2}) $

2474:   & $f_{\rm fin}^{\rm SEP}$ (Hz) & $f_{\rm LSSO}^{\rm SEP}$(Hz) & 

2475: ${\rm R}_{\rm fin}^{\rm SEP}/M$ & $f_{\rm fin}^{\rm SHT}$(Hz) & 

2476: $f_{\rm LSSO}^{\rm SHT}$(Hz) &

2477: ${\rm R}_{\rm fin}^{\rm SHT}/M$ 

2478: & $\rho_{\rm max, 2}$ & $\rho_{\rm max, 5}$ \\

2479: \hline

2480: \hline

2481: \multicolumn{9}{l}{\hspace{6cm}$(10+10)M_\odot$}\\

2482: \hline

2483: \hline

2484: no spin & 242 & 237 & 5.6 & 237 & 237 & 4.5 & 0.4691 & - \\

2485: \hline

2486: $(0^o, 0^o, 0^o, 0^o)$ & 628  & 628  & 2.9 & 628 & 628 & 2.6 & 0.3170 &  -   \\	

2487: $(180^o, 0^o, 0^o, 0^o)$  & 237  & 237  & 5.6 & 237 & 237 & 4.5 & 0.4681 &  -   \\	

2488: $(180^o, 0^o, 180^o, 0^o)$  & 139  & 139 & 8.4 & 139 & 139 & 7.6 & 0.6433 &  -   \\	

2489: $(60^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 367 & 367 & 4.1 & 342 & 342 & 3.5 & 0.4197 & 0.4882 \\ 

2490: $(120^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 234 & 234 & 5.7 & 229 & 229 & 4.7 & 0.4220 & 0.6015 \\ 

2491: $(120^o, 90^o, 120^o, 0^o)$ & 173 & 173 & 7.1 & 172 & 172 & 6.3 & 0.6681 & 0.9556 \\ 

2492: \hline

2493: \hline

2494: \multicolumn{9}{l}{\hspace{6cm}$(15+15)M_\odot$} \\

2495: \hline

2496: \hline

2497: no spin & 158 & 158 & 5.6 & 158 & 158 & 4.5 & 0.4880 & - \\

2498: \hline

2499: $(0^o, 0^o, 0^o, 0^o)$ & 419  & 419  & 2.9 & 419 & 419 & 2.6 & 0.4044 &  -   \\	

2500: $(180^o, 0^o, 0^o, 0^o)$  & 158  & 158  & 5.6 & 158 & 158 & 4.5 & 0.4885 &  -   \\	

2501: $(180^o, 0^o, 180^o, 0^o)$  & 93  & 93 & 8.4 & 93 & 93 & 7.6 & 0.7140 &  -   \\	

2502: $(60^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 240 & 238 & 4.2 & 241 & 241 & 4.1 & 0.4549 & 0.5186  \\ 

2503: $(120^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 156 & 155 & 5.7 & 152 & 152 & 4.7 & 0.4827 & 0.6767  \\ 

2504: $(120^o, 90^o, 120^o, 0^o)$ & 115 & 115 & 7.1 & 116 & 116 & 6.2 & 0.7227 & 0.9442 \\ 

2505: \hline

2506: \hline

2507: \multicolumn{9}{l}{\hspace{6cm}$(15+5)M_\odot$}\\

2508: \hline

2509: \hline

2510: no spin & 232 & 232 & 5.7 & 233 & 232  & 4.7 & 0.6111 & - \\

2511: \hline

2512: $(0^o, 0^o, 0^o, 0^o)$ & 608  & 608  & 2.9  & 608 & 608 & 2.6 & 0.2695 &  -   \\	

2513: $(180^o, 0^o, 0^o, 0^o)$  & 167  & 166  & 7.3 & 166 & 166 & 6.5 & 0.8720 &  -   \\	

2514: $(180^o, 0^0, 180^o, 0^o)$  & 136  & 136 & 8.5 & 136 & 136 & 7.7 & 0.6743 &  -   \\	

2515: $(60^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 352 & 352 & 4.2 & 367 & 367 & 3.2 & 0.2696 & 0.4978  \\ 

2516: $(120^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 192 & 192 & 6.6 & 191 & 191 & 5.7 & 0.6566 & 0.8173  \\ 

2517: $(120^o, 90^o, 120^o, 0^o)$ & 169 & 169 & 7.2 & 167 & 167 & 6.5 & 0.6207 & 0.8970  \\ 

2518: \hline

2519: \end{tabular}

2520: \caption{Overlaps between STHTF(2,2), used as target model, and 

2521: SEHPF(2,2.5), used as template model, for several binary masses and 

2522: initial spin orientations.  

2523: The two black holes are assumed to carry maximal spins $\chi_1=\chi_2=1$, 

2524: but for comparion we also show the results in absence of spins. 

2525: The evolution starts at $f_{\rm in} = 30$ Hz. In the first three columns 

2526: we list the ending frequency, the LSSO frequency  and the 

2527: BH radial separation at $t_{\rm fin}$ for the template model and 

2528: in the second three columns we show the same quantities but for the target 

2529: model. The last two columns contains the overlap maximized only over 2 extrinsic 

2530: parameters $\rho_{\rm max,2}$ and maximed over 5 extrinsic parameters 

2531: $\rho_{\rm max, 5}$, as described in the text. 

2532: \label{overlapmax2pn}}

2533: \end{table}

2534: 

2535: \begin{table}

2536: \begin{tabular}{c|ccccccc}

2537: \hline

2538: \hline

2539: $(\theta_{\rm S1}, \phi_{\rm S2}, \theta_{\rm S1}, \phi_{\rm S2}) $

2540: & $f_{\rm fin}^{\rm SEP, noF_L}$ (Hz) & 

2541: $f_{\rm LSSO}^{\rm SEP, noF_L}$ (Hz) & ${\rm R}_{\rm fin}^{\rm SEP, noF_L}/M$ 

2542: & $f_{\rm fin}^{\rm SEP}$(Hz) & $f_{\rm LSSO}^{\rm SEP}$ (Hz) &

2543: ${\rm R}_{\rm fin}^{\rm SEP}/M$ & $\rho_{\rm max, 5}$ \\

2544: \hline

2545: \hline

2546: \multicolumn{8}{l}{\hspace{6cm}$(10+10)M_\odot$}\\

2547: \hline

2548: \hline

2549: $(60^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 633 & 872 & 2.7 & 660 & 1211 &2.7 & 0.9860 \\ 

2550: $(120^o, 90^o, 120^o, 0^o)$ & 187 & 186 & 6.7 & 186 & 186 &6.7 & 0.9953 \\ 

2551: \hline

2552: \hline

2553: \multicolumn{8}{l}{\hspace{6cm}$(15+5)M_\odot$} \\

2554: \hline

2555: \hline

2556: $(60^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 743 & 767 & 2.3 & 564 & 564 &2.9 & 0.9839 \\ 

2557: $(120^o, 90^o, 120^o, 0^o)$ & 178 & 177 & 7.0 & 179 & 179 &6.9 & 0.9969 \\ 

2558: \hline

2559: \hline

2560: \end{tabular}

2561: \caption{Effect of radiation-reaction force along $L$ over the binary evolution and 

2562: waveforms by comparing SEHPF(3,3.5) with no $F_L$, used as target model, and 

2563: SEHPF(3,3.5), used as template model, for several binary masses and 

2564: initial spin orientations. 

2565: The two black holes are assumed to carry maximal spins $\chi_1=\chi_2=1$. 

2566: The evolution starts at $f_{\rm in} = 30$ Hz. In the first three columns 

2567: we list the ending frequency, the LSSO frequency  and the 

2568: BH radial separation at $t_{\rm fin}$ for the template model and 

2569: in the second three columns we show the same quantities but for the target 

2570: model. The last two columns contains the overlap maximized only over 2 extrinsic 

2571: parameters $\rho_{\rm max,2}$ and maximed over 5 extrinsic parameters 

2572: $\rho_{\rm max, 5}$, as described in the text. [Notice that for the spin configuration 

2573: $(60^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ and masses $(10+10)M_\odot$ and $(15+5)M_\odot$, due to 

2574: a pole in the Pad\'e-approximant flux, we apply the Pad\'e resummation only to 

2575: the non-spinning terms in the flux.]    

2576: \label{overlapnoFL}}

2577: \end{table}

2578: 

2579: \begin{table}

2580: \begin{tabular}{c|ccccccc}

2581: \hline

2582: \hline

2583: $(\theta_{\rm S1}, \phi_{\rm S2}, \theta_{\rm S1}, \phi_{\rm S2}) $

2584: & $f_{\rm fin}^{\rm SET}$ (Hz) & 

2585: $f_{\rm LSSO}^{\rm SET}$(Hz) & 

2586: ${\rm R}_{\rm fin}^{\rm SET}/M$ & $f_{\rm fin}^{\rm SEP}$(Hz) & 

2587: $f_{\rm LSSO}^{\rm SEP}$(Hz) & 

2588: ${\rm R}_{\rm fin}^{\rm SEP}/M$ & $\rho_{\rm max, 5}$ \\

2589: \hline

2590: \hline

2591: \multicolumn{8}{l}{\hspace{6cm}$(10+10)M_\odot$}\\

2592: \hline

2593: \hline

2594: $(60^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 632 & 872 & 2.6 & 616 & 1252 &2.6 & 0.8566 \\ 

2595: $(120^o, 90^o, 120^o, 0^o)$ & 185 & 185 & 6.7 & 186 & 185 &6.7 & 0.9762 \\ 

2596: \hline

2597: \hline

2598: \multicolumn{8}{l}{\hspace{6cm}$(15+5)M_\odot$} \\

2599: \hline

2600: \hline

2601: $(60^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 743 & 767 & 2.3 & 661 & 772 &2.5 & 0.8232 \\ 

2602: $(120^o, 90^o, 120^o, 0^o)$ & 178 & 177 & 7.0 & 179 & 178 &6.9 & 0.9913 \\ 

2603: \hline

2604: \hline

2605: \end{tabular}

2606: \caption{Effect of Pad\'e and Taylor flux on the binary evolution and 

2607: waveforms by comparing SEHTF(3,3.5), used as target model, and 

2608: SEHPF(3,3.5), used as template model, for several binary masses and initial 

2609: spin orientations. 

2610: The two black holes are assumed to carry maximal spins $\chi_1=\chi_2=1$. 

2611: The evolution starts at $f_{\rm in} = 30$ Hz. In the first three columns 

2612: we list the ending frequency, the LSSO frequency  and the 

2613: BH radial separation at $t_{\rm fin}$ for the template model and 

2614: in the second three columns we show the same quantities but for the target 

2615: model. The last two columns contains the overlap maximized only over 2 extrinsic 

2616: parameters $\rho_{\rm max,2}$ and maximed over 5 extrinsic parameters 

2617: $\rho_{\rm max, 5}$, as described in the text. [Notice that for the spin configuration 

2618: $(60^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ and masses $(10+10)M_\odot$ and $(15+5)M_\odot$, due to 

2619: a pole in the Pad\'e-approximant flux, we apply the Pad\'e resummation only to 

2620: the non-spinning terms in the flux.]  

2621: \label{overlapflux}}

2622: \end{table}

2623: 

2624: 

2625: \begin{table}

2626: \begin{tabular}{c|ccccccc}

2627: \hline

2628: \hline

2629: $(\theta_{\rm S1}, \phi_{\rm S2}, \theta_{\rm S1}, \phi_{\rm S2}) $

2630: & $f_{\rm fin}^{\rm SEP, noQM}$ (Hz) & $f_{\rm LSSO}^{\rm SEP, noQM}$(Hz) & 

2631: ${\rm R}_{\rm fin}^{\rm SEP, noQM}/M$ & $f_{\rm fin}^{\rm SEP}$(Hz) & 

2632: $f_{\rm LSSO}^{\rm SEP}$(Hz) & ${\rm R}_{\rm fin}^{\rm SEP}/M$ 

2633: & $\rho_{\rm max, 5}$ \\

2634: \hline

2635: \hline

2636: \multicolumn{8}{l}{\hspace{6cm}$(10+10)M_\odot$}\\

2637: \hline

2638: \hline

2639: $(60^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 650 & 1257 & 2.6 & 633 & 872 & 2.6 & 0.9959 \\ 

2640: $(120^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 185 & 184 & 6.8 & 186 & 186 & 6.7 & 0.9988 \\ 

2641: \hline

2642: \hline

2643: \multicolumn{8}{l}{\hspace{6cm}$(15+5)M_\odot$} \\

2644: \hline

2645: \hline

2646: $(60^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 702 & 766 & 2.3 & 743 & 767 & 2.3 & 0.9823 \\ 

2647: $(120^o, 90^o, 120^o, 0^o)$ & 178 & 178 & 7.0 & 178 & 177 & 7.0 & 0.9979 \\ 

2648: \hline

2649: \hline

2650: \end{tabular}

2651: \caption{Effect of quadrupole-monopole (QM) interaction on the binary evolution and 

2652: waveforms by comparing SEHPF(3,3.5) with QM interaction, 

2653: used as target model, and SEHPF(3,3.5) without QM terms, 

2654: used as template model, for several binary masses and initial spin orientations. 

2655: The two black holes are assumed to carry maximal spins $\chi_1=\chi_2=1$. 

2656: The evolution starts at $f_{\rm in} = 30$ Hz. In the first three columns 

2657: we list the ending frequency, the LSSO frequency  and the 

2658: BH radial separation at $t_{\rm fin}$ for the template model and 

2659: in the second three columns we show the same quantities but for the target 

2660: model. The last two columns contains the overlap maximized only over 2 extrinsic 

2661: parameters $\rho_{\rm max,2}$ and maximed over 5 extrinsic parameters 

2662: $\rho_{\rm max, 5}$, as described in the text. [Notice that for the spin configuration 

2663: $(60^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ and masses $(10+10)M_\odot$ and $(15+5)M_\odot$, due to 

2664: a pole in the Pad\'e-approximant flux, we apply the Pad\'e resummation only to 

2665: the non-spinning terms in the flux.]   

2666: \label{overlapnoQM}}

2667: \end{table}

2668: 

2669: 

2670: \begin{table}

2671: \begin{tabular}{c|ccccccc}

2672: \hline

2673: \hline

2674: $(\theta_{\rm S1}, \phi_{\rm S2}, \theta_{\rm S1}, \phi_{\rm S2}) $

2675: & $f_{\rm fin}^{\rm SEP, adiab}$ (Hz) & 

2676: $f_{\rm LSSO}^{\rm SEP, adiab}$(Hz) & 

2677: ${\rm R}_{\rm fin}^{\rm SEP, adiab}/M$ & $f_{\rm fin}^{\rm SEP}$(Hz) & 

2678: $f_{\rm LSSO}^{\rm SEP}$(Hz) & 

2679: ${\rm R}_{\rm fin}^{\rm SEP}/M$ & $\rho_{\rm max, 5}$ \\

2680: \hline

2681: \hline

2682: \multicolumn{8}{l}{\hspace{6cm}$(10+10)M_\odot$}\\

2683: \hline

2684: $(60^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 636 & 1185 & 2.6 & 633 & 872 & 2.7 & 0.9666 \\ 

2685: $(120^o, 90^o, 120^o, 0^o)$ & 186 & 185 & 6.7 & 186 & 186 & 6.7 & 0.9932  \\ 

2686: \hline

2687: \hline

2688: \multicolumn{8}{l}{\hspace{6cm}$(15+5)M_\odot$} \\

2689: \hline

2690: \hline

2691: $(60^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ & 699 & 827 & 2.3 & 743 & 767 & 2.3 & 0.9665  \\ 

2692: $(120^o, 90^o, 120^o, 0^o)$ & 177 & 177 & 7.0 & 178 & 177 & 7.0 &  0.9914  \\ 

2693: \hline

2694: \hline

2695: \end{tabular}

2696: \caption{Effect of assuming that spins evolve adiabatically. 

2697: We compare SEHPF(3,3.5), used as target model, and SEHPF(3,3.5) obtained 

2698: by averaging the spin couplings over an orbit, 

2699: as template model, for several binary masses and initial spin orientations. 

2700: The two black holes are assumed to carry maximal spins $\chi_1=\chi_2=1$. 

2701: The evolution starts at $f_{\rm in} = 30$ Hz. In the first three columns 

2702: we list the ending frequency, the LSSO frequency  and the 

2703: BH radial separation at $t_{\rm fin}$ for the template model and 

2704: in the second three columns we show the same quantities but for the target 

2705: model. The last two columns contains the overlap maximized only over 2 extrinsic 

2706: parameters $\rho_{\rm max,2}$ and maximed over 5 extrinsic parameters 

2707: $\rho_{\rm max, 5}$, as described in the text. [Notice that for the spin configuration 

2708: $(60^o, 90^o, 60^o, 0^o)$ and masses $(10+10)M_\odot$ and $(15+5)M_\odot$, due to 

2709: a pole in the Pad\'e-approximant flux, we apply the Pad\'e resummation only to 

2710: the non-spinning terms in the flux.]   

2711: \label{overlapadiab}}

2712: \end{table}

2713: 

2714: 

2715: \begin{table*}

2716: \begin{tabular}{c|c|ccc|ccc}

2717: \hline

2718: \hline

2719: $(\theta_{\rm S1}, \phi_{\rm S1}, \theta_{\rm S2}, \phi_{\rm S2}) $

2720:   & $[\delta E_H]_{f<40\,{\rm Hz}}/M$  & $f_{\rm LSSO}$ (Hz) & $[\delta E_H]_{\rm LSSO}^{40\,{\rm Hz}}/M$ 

2721:   & $\left[|\mathbf{J}|/E^2\right]_{\rm LSSO}$ 

2722:   & $f_{\rm fin}$ &

2723:    $\left[\delta E_H\right]_{\rm fin}^{40,{\rm Hz}}/M$

2724: &$\left[|\mathbf{J}|/E^2\right]_{\rm fin}$\\

2725: \hline

2726: \hline

2727: \multicolumn{8}{l}{\hspace{6cm}$(15+15)M_\odot$, 3PN}\\

2728: \hline

2729: \hline

2730: nospin &   0.0082 & 190 & 0.0107 & 0.82 & 325 & 0.0182 & 0.77  \\

2731: \hline

2732: %

2733: ($0^\circ$,$0^\circ$,$0^\circ$,$0^\circ$) &

2734: 0.0086 & (1430) &   $-$ & $-$ & 474 & 0.0527 &  0.96 \\

2735: %

2736: ($180^\circ$,$0^\circ$,$180^\circ$,$0^\circ$) &

2737: 0.0077 & 97 &   0.0033 & 0.51 & 194 & 0.0064 &  0.47 \\

2738: %

2739: ($60^\circ$,$90^\circ$,$60^\circ$,$0^\circ$) &

2740: 0.0084 & (760) &  $-$ & $-$ & 440 & 0.0352 &  0.91 \\

2741: %

2742: ($120^\circ$,$90^\circ$,$120^\circ$,$0^\circ$) &

2743: 0.0079 & 123 &   0.0054 & 0.74 & 242 & 0.0101 &  0.70 \\

2744: \hline\hline

2745: \multicolumn{8}{l}{\hspace{6cm}$(15+5)M_\odot$, 3PN}\\

2746: \hline\hline

2747: nospin & 0.0048 &  265  & 0.0084 & 0.62 & 484 & 0.0141 & 0.58 \\

2748: \hline

2749: %

2750: ($0^\circ$,$0^\circ$,$0^\circ$,$0^\circ$) &

2751: 0.0049 & (1442) &   $-$ & $-$ & 819 & 0.0493 &  0.95 \\

2752: %

2753: ($180^\circ$,$0^\circ$,$180^\circ$,$0^\circ$) &

2754: 0.0046 & 140 &   0.0034 & 0.14 & 289 & 0.0054 &  0.11 \\

2755: %

2756: ($60^\circ$,$90^\circ$,$60^\circ$,$0^\circ$) &

2757: 0.0049& (793) &  $-$ & $-$ & 719  & 0.0294 &  0.91 \\

2758: %

2759: ($120^\circ$,$90^\circ$,$120^\circ$,$0^\circ$) &

2760: 0.0047 & 

2761: 177 &   0.0049 & 0.62 & 351 & 0.0080 &  0.60 \\

2762: \hline

2763:  \end{tabular}

2764: \caption{Energy released and the magnitude of angular momentum

2765: through the evolution (with spin-spin terms ignored). For non-spinning

2766: binaries, and four configurations of maximally spinning binaries, we

2767: give the energy released below 40\,Hz, from 40\,Hz up to the LSSO, and

2768: from 40\,Hz up to to the end of the evolution. [In some cases the

2769: evolution stops before LSSO can be reached.] We also show the

2770: corresponding values of $|\mathbf{J}|/E^2$. Note that these results 

2771: do not include the ring-down phase. 

2772: \label{tab:EJ}}

2773: \end{table*}

2774: 

2775: \clearpage 

2776: 

2777: 

2778: \begin{figure}

2779: \begin{center}

2780: \epsfig{file=eomegaH.eps,width=0.95\sizetwofig,angle=0} \hspace{0.5cm}

2781: \epsfig{file=eomega.eps,width=0.95\sizetwofig,angle=0} 

2782: \caption{

2783: \label{fig:eomega}

2784: The energy for circular orbits as function of the frequency evaluated using 

2785: the PN-expanded Hamiltonian (left panel) and the 

2786: PN-expansion of the analytically computed function given by Eq.~(\ref{s1}) (right panel)  

2787: at various PN orders for maximal spins and equal mass binaries.}

2788: \end{center}

2789: \end{figure}

2790: 

2791: \vspace{0.3cm}

2792: 

2793: \begin{figure}

2794: \begin{center}

2795: \epsfig{file=eomegaEOB.eps,width=0.95\sizetwofig,angle=0}

2796: \caption{

2797: \label{fig:eomegaEOB}

2798: The energy for circular orbits as function of the frequency evaluated from the 

2799: EOB Hamiltonian at various PN orders for maximal spins and equal mass binaries.}

2800: \end{center}

2801: \end{figure}

2802: 

2803: \vspace{0.1cm}

2804: 

2805: \begin{figure}

2806: \begin{center}

2807: \epsfig{file=e-a.eps,width=0.95\sizetwofig,angle=0} \hspace{0.5cm}

2808: \epsfig{file=omega-a.eps,width=0.95\sizetwofig,angle=0}

2809: \caption{

2810: \label{fig:e-a}

2811: The energy (left panel) and the frequency (right panel) 

2812: at the LSSO as function of $\chi_L/M^2 \equiv

2813: S_{\rm eff} \cdot \hL/M^2$ in the

2814: equal mass case for EOB Hamiltonian and PN-expanded 

2815: analytically computed function ${E}(\Omega)$ [see right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:eomega}]. 

2816: The horizontal dashed line in the right panel marks the highest LSSO angular frequency 

2817: for BBHs with total mass in the range $10\mbox{--}40 M_\odot$, assuming the 

2818: LIGO frequency band $40 \leq f_{\rm GW} \leq 240 Hz$.}

2819: \end{center}

2820: \end{figure}

2821: 

2822: \vspace{0.1cm}

2823: 

2824: \begin{figure}

2825: \begin{center}

2826: \epsfig{file=snr.eps,width=0.95\sizetwofig,angle=0} 

2827: \caption{\label{snr}

2828: Signal-to-noise ratio versus binary total mass at 100 Mpc for equal-mass binaries with LSSO 

2829: determined by the 3PN-EOB Hamiltonian.}

2830: \end{center}

2831: \end{figure}

2832: 

2833: \vspace{0.1cm}

2834: 

2835: 

2836: \begin{figure}

2837: \begin{center}

2838: \epsfig{file=CompT_ex_co_em.eps,width=0.95\sizetwofig,angle=0} \hspace{0.5cm}

2839: \epsfig{file=CompP_ex_co_em.eps,width=0.95\sizetwofig,angle=0}

2840: \caption{Newton-normalized flux in the equal-mass case with both BH spins aligned 

2841: (and maximal $\chi = \chi_1=\chi_2$) 

2842: with orbital angular momentum when T-approximants (left panel) and (upper-diagonal) 

2843: P-approximants (right panel) are used. \label{Fig6}}

2844: \end{center}

2845: \end{figure}

2846: 

2847: \vspace{0.1cm}

2848: 

2849: \begin{figure}

2850: \begin{center}

2851: \epsfig{file=CompT_ex_cr_em.eps,width=\sizetwofig,angle=0} \hspace{0.5cm}

2852: \epsfig{file=CompP_ex_cr_em.eps,width=\sizetwofig,angle=0}

2853: \caption{Newton-normalized flux in the equal-mass case with both BH spins antialigned

2854: (and maximal $\chi = \chi_1=\chi_2$) with orbital angular momentum 

2855: when T-approximants (left panel) and (upper-diagonal) P-approximants (right panel) are used. 

2856: \label{Fig7}}

2857: \end{center}

2858: \end{figure}

2859: 

2860: \vspace{0.1cm}

2861: 

2862: \begin{figure}

2863: \begin{center}

2864: \epsfig{file=Comparison_Flux3PN.eps,width=\sizetwofig,angle=0} 

2865: \caption{Comparison between the T- and (upper diagonal) P-approximant 

2866: Newton-normalized flux in the equal mass case 

2867: at 3PN and 3.5PN order.\label{Fig5}}

2868: \end{center}

2869: \end{figure}

2870: 

2871: \vspace{0.1cm}

2872: 

2873: \begin{figure}

2874: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{rdot.eps}

2875: \caption{Oscillations in $\dot{r}$ when spin-spin interactions are

2876: present, in $(10+10)M_{\odot}$ (left panel) and $(15+5)M_{\odot}$

2877: (right panel) binaries. Dark curves show $\dot{r}/(r\omega)$ as

2878: functions of $f_{\rm GW}$ when both spin-orbit and spin-spin

2879: interactions are take into account, while light curves show the same

2880: quantity when only spin-orbit interactions are included.

2881: \label{fig:rdot}}

2882: \end{figure}

2883: 

2884: \vspace{0.1cm}

2885: 

2886: \begin{figure}

2887: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{wf-rel-orb.eps}

2888: \caption{\label{fig:rel-orb-phase} Relative orbital phase measured with respect to $\mathbf{S}_{\rm tot}

2889: \times \hat{\mathbf{L}}_N $.  For maximally spinning $(15+15)M_\odot$

2890: binaries, we start evolution at $40\,$Hz, with

2891: $(\theta_{S_1},\phi_{S_1};\theta_{S_2},\phi_{S_2})=(60^\circ,90^\circ;60^\circ,0^\circ)$,

2892: and orbital phases $\phi_{\rm orb}=0$ and $\pi/2$, and plot the

2893: difference $\Delta\phi_{\rm orb}$. }

2894: \end{figure}

2895: 

2896: \vspace{0.1cm}

2897: 

2898: \begin{figure}

2899: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{ss-non-adiabatic.eps}

2900: \caption{Comparison between waveforms from configurations with

2901: different initial orbital phases.  For a $(15+15)M_\odot$ maximally

2902: spinning binary, we start evolution at $40\,$Hz, with

2903: $(\theta_{S_1},\phi_{S_1};\theta_{S_2},\phi_{S_2})=(60^\circ,90^\circ;60^\circ,0^\circ)$,

2904: and orbital phases $\phi_{\rm orb}=0$ and $\pi/2$, and compare the

2905: waveforms detected with $(F_+,F_\times;\Theta,\varphi)=

2906: (1,0;\pi/4,0)$.  \label{fig:orbphase}}

2907: \end{figure}

2908: 

2909: 

2910: \vspace{0.1cm}

2911: 

2912: \begin{figure}

2913: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{compare_energy_eob.eps}

2914: \caption{

2915: \label{fig:comp:eloss}

2916: Comparison between the three different prescriptions, $\delta E_I$

2917: (dashed curves), $\delta E_h$ (dotted curves) and $\delta E_H$ (solid

2918: curves), for calculating energy losses. We use Newtonian-order

2919: radiation reaction in the left panel, and Pad\'e at 3.5PN order in the

2920: right panel. We use the EOB Hamiltonian at 3PN order}

2921: \end{figure}

2922: 

2923: \vspace{0.1cm}

2924: 

2925: 

2926: \begin{figure}

2927: \begin{tabular}{c}

2928: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{energy-release.eps} \\

2929: \vspace{0.2cm}\\

2930: \hspace{0.15cm}\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{angular-momentum.eps}

2931: \end{tabular}

2932: \caption{

2933: Accumulative energy release (upper panels) and instantaneous

2934: values of $|\mathbf{J}|/E^2$ (lower panels) of $(15+15)M_{\odot}$

2935: (left panels) and $(15+5)M_{\odot}$ (right panels) binaries. LSSO

2936: frequencies for the anti-aligned, generic-down, and non-spinning

2937: configurations are shown in vertical grid lines, while LSSOs of

2938: generic-up and aligned configurations are above the ranges of our

2939: plots. [Spin-spin terms are not included in these evolutions.] 

2940: We use the SEHPF(3,3.5) model. 

2941:  \label{fig:eloss}

2942: }

2943: \end{figure}

2944: 

2945: \vspace{0.1cm}

2946: 

2947: \begin{figure}

2948: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{ending-wf.eps}

2949: \caption{

2950: \label{fig:ringdown}

2951: Inspiral waveforms (which end at $t=0$ in our plot) matched to ring-down 

2952: waveforms for non-spinning (light solid curve), and half-maximally

2953: spinning $(15+15)M_\odot$ binaries (left panel) and $(15+5)M_\odot$ binaries (right panel) 

2954: in the generic-up (dark solid curve) and generic-down (dark dashed curve) configurations. We start

2955: our evolutions at $40\,$Hz, and use $(F_+,F_\times;\Theta,\varphi)=(1,0;\pi/4,0)$. 

2956: In the plot we mark the position of the LSSO with solid curves. The waveforms have been 

2957: shifted in time such that the end of the inspiral occurs at $t/M =0$.  

2958: }

2959: \end{figure}

2960: 

2961: \end{document}

2962: 

2963: 

2964: 

2965: 

2966: 

2967: 

2968: 

2969: 

2970: 

2971: 

2972: 

2973: 

2974: