1: % $Header: /numrelcvs/Papers/D3Compare/d3.tex,v 1.110 2007/04/23 17:04:35 schnetter Exp $
2: \documentclass[12pt]{iopart}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{times}
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{Are moving punctures equivalent to moving black holes?}
8:
9: \author{Jonathan~Thornburg$^{1,2}$, Peter~Diener,$^{3,4}$,
10: Denis~Pollney$^{1,3}$, Luciano~Rezzolla$^{1,4}$,
11: Erik~Schnetter$^{3,4}$, Ed Seidel$^{3,4}$, Ryoji~Takahashi$^{3,5}$}
12:
13: \address{$^{1}$
14: Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Gravitationsphysik,
15: Albert-Einstein-Institut,
16: % Am~M\"uhlenberg 1, D-14476~
17: Potsdam, Germany
18: }
19: \address{$^{2}$
20: School of Mathematics,
21: University of Southampton,
22: Southampton, England
23: }
24:
25: \address{$^{3}$
26: Center for Computation \& Technology,
27: Louisiana State University,
28: Baton~Rouge, LA, USA
29: %LA~70803, USA
30: }
31: \address{$^{4}$
32: Department of Physics and Astronomy,
33: Louisiana State University,
34: Baton~Rouge, LA, USA
35: %LA~70803, USA
36: }
37:
38: \address{$^{5}$
39: Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Aut\'onoma de
40: M\'exico, M\'exico D.F., M\'exico}
41:
42:
43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
44: %%% ABSTRACT %%%
45: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
46:
47: \begin{abstract}
48: When simulating the inspiral and coalescence of a binary
49: black-hole system, special care needs to be taken in handling
50: the singularities. Two main techniques are used in
51: numerical-relativity simulations: A first and more traditional
52: one ``excises'' a spatial neighbourhood of the singularity from
53: the numerical grid on each spacelike hypersurface. A second
54: and more recent one, instead, begins with a ``puncture''
55: solution and then evolves the full 3-metric, including the
56: singular point. In the continuum limit, excision is justified
57: by the light-cone structure of the Einstein equations and, in
58: practice, can give accurate numerical solutions when suitable
59: discretizations are used. However, because the field variables
60: are non-differentiable at the puncture, there is no proof that
61: the moving-punctures technique is correct, particularly in the
62: discrete case. To investigate this question we use both
63: techniques to evolve a binary system of equal-mass
64: non-spinning black holes. We compare the evolution of two
65: curvature 4-scalars with proper time along the
66: invariantly-defined worldline midway between the two black
67: holes, using Richardson extrapolation to reduce the influence
68: of finite-difference truncation errors. We find that the
69: excision and moving-punctures evolutions produce the same
70: invariants along that worldline, and thus the same spacetimes
71: throughout that worldline's causal past. This provides
72: convincing evidence that moving-punctures are indeed
73: equivalent to moving black holes.
74: \end{abstract}
75:
76: \pacs{
77: 04.25.Dm, % numerical relativity
78: 04.30.Db, % gravitational wave generation and sources
79: 04.70.Bw, % classical black holes
80: 95.30.Sf, % relativity and gravitation
81: 97.60.Lf % black holes (astrophysics)
82: }
83: %\submitto{\CQG}
84: %\maketitle
85:
86:
87: \section{Introduction and Motivations}
88:
89: Binary black hole coalescences are both natural laboratories in which
90: to study the nonlinear strong-field dynamics of General Relativity and
91: among the most promising sources of gravitational radiation for modern
92: laser-interferometric detectors. Despite these being very simple
93: systems, as the black holes are assumed to be in vacuum and the
94: solution of the Einstein equations fully describes the binary, no
95: analytic solutions are known and numerical methods represent the only
96: viable approach to investigate these systems' strong-field dynamics.
97: The past
98: few years have seen major advances in these numerical simulations,
99: with demonstrations of multiple orbit evolutions through
100: merger~\cite{Pretorius:2005gq, Pretorius:2006tp, Baker:2006yw,
101: Campanelli:2006gf, Baker:2006ls}, recoils from unequal-mass
102: systems~\cite{Baker:2006nr, Gonzales06tr}, and studies of spin
103: couplings in the final orbit~\cite{Campanelli:2006uy,
104: Campanelli:2006vp, Campanelli:2006fy}. Convergence studies and
105: cross-checks between independent codes~\cite{Baker-etal:2007a} have
106: demonstrated an impressive consistency, lending support to their
107: credibility as reliable modellers of these sources.
108:
109: Any such numerical simulation must use some means to treat the
110: singularities contained within the black holes and modern simulations
111: therefore use different techniques to treat the black holes, either
112: ``excision'' or ``moving punctures''. The excision
113: technique~\cite{Seidel92a} can use a slicing which intersects the
114: singularity, but removes part of the interior of the horizon from the
115: numerical domain on each slice. Excision is straightforward in
116: spherical symmetry, but technically more difficult to implement in
117: higher dimensions for grids using Cartesian coordinates, in which the
118: excision region is an irregular surface of spherical topology. The
119: simplest case is that of ``stationary'' excision, where once a given
120: grid point is excised, it stays excised for the remainder of the
121: numerical simulation. For an orbiting binary black hole system this
122: requires using coordinates which corotate with the black holes. This
123: technique has been used by several authors (see,
124: \textit{e.g.},~\cite{Alcubierre00a, Bruegmann:2003aw,
125: Alcubierre2003:pre-ISCO-coalescence-times, Diener-etal-2006a}) but
126: we have so far not been able to compute useful waveforms from inspiral
127: simulations using this technique. In contrast, a technically more
128: difficult form of excision allows the excision region to move with
129: respect to the numerical grid. This technique has also been used by
130: several authors (see, \textit{e.g.},~\cite{Shoemaker2003a,
131: Sperhake:2003fc, Sperhake2005a, Pretorius:2005gq, Pretorius:2006tp,
132: Szilagyi-etal-2006a}) and in some cases has allowed the calculation of
133: waveforms~\cite{Pretorius:2005gq, Pretorius:2006tp,
134: Szilagyi-etal-2006a}.
135:
136: The ``moving puncture'' technique, on the other hand, makes use of
137: ``puncture data''~\cite{Brandt97b} which are evolved \emph{without
138: excision} using suitable gauges~\cite{Alcubierre02a} and allowing the
139: singularities to be advected across the computational
140: grid~\cite{Baker:2005vv, Campanelli:2005dd}. We recall that by this
141: method the curvature singularity at the centre of a black hole is
142: avoided and replaced by an asymptotically flat spacetime through the
143: throat. A coordinate singularity at the effective $r=0$ of each black
144: hole still remains, and this represents a non-differentiable point
145: which, at least in principle, needs special treatment. Standard
146: finite-difference techniques, in fact, require smooth functions at
147: each gridpoint and thus would not be able to evaluate derivatives in
148: the neighbourhood of the puncture. In practice, however, the
149: inaccuracies at these points are isolated and, at least in the
150: continuum limit, the physical causality of the spacetime ensures that
151: these errors do not propagate out of the horizon. In addition, the
152: standard singularity-avoiding gauge conditions used in puncture
153: evolutions lead to spacetimes that are essentially stationary in their
154: neighbourhood. This has been pointed out in~\cite{Baiotti06} and more
155: extensively discussed in~\cite{Hannam:2006vv}.
156:
157: An important remark should be made at this point. Mathematically,
158: either use of the excision or moving-punctures technique is justified
159: by the light-cone causality of the Einstein equations near a black
160: hole, which guarantee that within the horizon physical modes only
161: propagate inwards, towards the spacelike excision boundary or the
162: puncture. In practice, there are two factors which complicate this
163: picture. Firstly, the conformal-traceless formulations of the Einstein
164: equations~\cite{Nakamura87, Baumgarte99, Alcubierre99d} evolution
165: system, with the commonly used gauges, are known to have gauge modes
166: which propagate superluminally in the neighbourhood of the black
167: hole~\cite{Alcubierre99e}. And secondly, it is only in the
168: \textit{continuum form} that the characteristic structure completely
169: determines the causality. For the \textit{discretized form} of the
170: Einstein equations, numerical errors having high spatial frequencies
171: with respect to the grid spacing are inevitably generated. Such
172: signals are not propagated accurately by a finite-differencing scheme
173: and, in particular, they are not constrained to propagate within the
174: light cone; indeed they can propagate at any speeds up to the
175: finite-difference domain of dependence speed. It is thus not obvious
176: that such spurious modes will remain confined within the black hole
177: horizon. This concept is so essential for understanding this work that
178: we will stress it again: there are as yet no rigorous proofs that
179: either excision or moving-punctures techniques yield stable evolution
180: schemes for the conformal-traceless formulations of the Einstein
181: equations, or that if so, that the results will converge to a
182: (correct) solution of the Einstein equations as the grid is refined.
183:
184: %---->
185: The purpose of this paper is to improve our confidence in both methods
186: in situations that go beyond simple static or stationary solution of
187: isolated black holes. We do this by comparing the spacetimes generated
188: using corotating-excision (CE) and moving-punctures (MP) evolutions of
189: the same initial data, representing an equal-mass non-spinning binary
190: black hole in its last orbit before coalescence. In particular, we
191: concentrate on the evolution of two curvature invariants measured
192: along a well-defined geodesic between the two black holes and provide
193: the first strong-field evidence that excised and moving-puncture yield
194: the same solution of the Einstein equations for this system.
195:
196: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
197: %%% METHODS & RESULTS %%%
198: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
199:
200: \section{Methods and Results}
201:
202: The simplest way to compare evolutions of binary systems using either
203: CE or MP techniques would involve the direct use of gauge-invariant
204: quantities such as waveforms. Indeed, this has been done
205: in~\cite{Alcubierre2003:BBH0-excision}, for head-on collisions of pure
206: puncture evolutions, as well as in~\cite{Baker-etal:2007a}, where
207: waveforms coming from different implementations of the moving puncture
208: technique and from a generalized harmonic formulation of the Einstein
209: equations~\cite{Pretorius:2006tp} were compared. While both of these
210: works have shown there are close similarities in the waveforms, they
211: have also highlighted small differences. Most importantly, however,
212: the comparisons were not using Richardson extrapolation to reduce
213: the influence of finite-difference truncation errors. Unfortunately,
214: because of technical complications in the wave-extraction when using
215: corotating coordinates, the evolutions of corotating and excised
216: punctures have not produced usable asymptotic
217: waveforms~\cite{Bruegmann:2003aw, Diener-etal-2006a}
218: (\cite{Scheel-etal-2006:dual-frame} presents a possible route to
219: overcoming these problems). Thus, the use of waveforms is not a
220: viable route for this comparison.
221:
222: However, an alternative route, which also allows to probe regions of
223: the spacetime with strong and highly dynamical curvature, consists of
224: first identifying corresponding events in the two spacetimes, and then
225: gauge-transform quantities that are gauge-dependent. (Note that
226: similar issues arise in almost any comparison of different
227: numerical-relativity codes~\cite{Choptuik-Goldwirth-Piran-1992}.). For
228: an equal-mass binary system this is particularly simple and to
229: identify corresponding events we consider the central worldline midway
230: between the two black holes. The initial data has $\pi$-symmetry about
231: this worldline, and this is preserved by both evolutions, so this
232: worldline is invariantly defined. We can thus use proper time along
233: this worldline as a 4-invariant parameterization, matching up
234: corresponding events in the two simulations.
235:
236: All the numerical simulations for both corotating excision and moving
237: punctures have been performed using the same evolution code and
238: initial data. The latter, in particular, are constructed as
239: in~\cite{Ansorg:2004ds} and have orbital parameters to approximate a
240: binary system of non-spinning black holes in quasi-circular orbit,
241: with initial proper separation $L \,{=}\, 9.32M$, mass parameters $m
242: \,{=}\,0.47656M$, where $M$ is the total mass of the system, and equal
243: and opposite linear momenta $p \,{=}\,\pm
244: 0.13808M$~\cite{Bruegmann:2003aw}. The evolutions are carried out
245: using a conformal-traceless formulation of the Einstein equations as
246: described in~\cite{Alcubierre02a}, with ``$1{+}\log$'' slicing and
247: $\Gamma$-driver shift. The CE runs benefit from insights gained
248: in~\cite{Diener-etal-2006a} and use the GC2~gauge condition of that
249: work. The MP runs use the optimal gauge conditions
250: of~\cite{vanMeter:2006vi}, with the lapse evolved via
251: $\partial_t{\alpha} = -2\alpha K+\beta^{i}\partial_{i}\alpha$, while
252: the shift evolution follows prescription~8 in Table~I
253: of~\cite{vanMeter:2006vi} with $\eta = 0.5$. Individual apparent
254: horizons are located every few timesteps during the
255: evolution~\cite{Thornburg95,Thornburg2003:AH-finding}.
256: The code is implemented in the Cactus framework.
257:
258: Spatial differentiation is performed via straightforward
259: finite-differencing using second- or fourth-order algorithms for CE
260: and MP, respectively. In addition, for the MP runs a fifth-order
261: Kreiss-Oliger artificial dissipation is also added to all evolution
262: variables. Vertex-centred AMR is employed using nested mesh-refined
263: grids~\cite{Schnetter-etal-03b} with the highest resolution
264: concentrated in the neighbourhood of the individual horizons. In the
265: case of CE evolutions, eight levels of refinement have been used; the
266: corotating gauge conditions guarantee that the black holes remain on
267: the fine grids throughout the evolution. In the case of MP
268: evolutions, on the other hand, nine levels of refinement are used,
269: with the finest two levels being locked to the position of the
270: centroid of the apparent horizon. For either the CE or MP approach, we
271: have carried out simulations with at least three different
272: resolutions. However, because the two approaches have rather
273: different truncation errors, with MP using higher-order finite differencing,
274: the CE simulations have fine-grid spatial resolutions of
275: $h=0.018$, $0.015$, and $0.0125\,M$, while the MP ones have coarser
276: resolutions, with $h=0.032$, $0.025$, and $0.020\,M$.
277:
278: As mentioned earlier, an unambiguous measure of the CE and MP spacetimes
279: can be made by using the 4-invariant spacetime curvature scalars $I
280: \,{\equiv}\, \tilde{C}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}
281: \tilde{C}^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}$ and $J \,{\equiv}\,
282: \tilde{C}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} \tilde{C}^{\gamma\delta}{}_{\mu\nu}
283: \tilde{C}^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}$, where
284: $\tilde{C}_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} \,{=}\, C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}
285: + \frac{1}{2} i \epsilon_{\alpha\beta\mu\nu} C^{\mu\nu}{}_{\gamma\delta}$
286: is the self-dual part of the Weyl tensor $C_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}$.
287: Note that while $I$ and $J$ are complex numbers, for our evolutions their
288: real parts are at least 12 orders of magnitude larger than the imaginary
289: ones, so that $I,\,J=\Re(I,\,J)$ to very good precision. Hereafter we
290: will concentrate on reporting results for $I$ only, as a very similar
291: behaviour is found also for $J$.
292:
293:
294: \begin{figure}[tbp!]
295: \centerline{
296: \resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-0]{I_vs_t_2}
297: }}
298: \caption{Evolution in coordinate time of $\log I$ for the MP
299: evolutions (solid lines) and the smoothed CE ones (dashed lines),
300: while the raw CE-data is indicated with squares for the coarsest
301: resolution only. A magnification of the overlapping MP curves is
302: shown in the inset.}
303: \label{fig:I_vs_t}
304: \end{figure}
305:
306: The measure of the invariants has to be made along exactly the same
307: worldine in the two spacetimes, and when the black holes have equal
308: masses, the spatial point midway between the black holes is
309: invariantly defined, and its worldline can be used for this
310: measure. Clearly, evolutions with different gauges will generate
311: different coordinate descriptions of this point, but this ambiguity is
312: absent when the affine parameter along the geodesic is chosen to be
313: the proper time $\tau$. As a result, $I$ expressed as a function of
314: $\tau$ along the worldline of the midway point between the two black
315: holes can be used as a gauge-invariant diagnostic of the evolution. We
316: note that because $I(\tau)$ has a super-exponential behaviour, all of
317: the analysis has been performed in terms of $\log I$ to increase
318: accuracy.
319:
320: Figure~\ref{fig:I_vs_t} shows the evolution in coordinate time of $\log
321: I$ for the MP evolutions (solid lines) and the smoothed CE ones (dashed
322: lines). The raw $I$-timeseries for the CE evolutions are quite noisy
323: (cf.\ small squares in Fig.~\ref{fig:I_vs_t}), and for further analysis
324: we smoothed these with a fourth-order Savitzky-Golay
325: filter~\cite{Savitzky-Golay-1964} over a $\pm 10\,M$ sliding window in
326: coordinate time. We have verified the smoothing does not introduce
327: systematic errors; no smoothing was necessary for the MP evolutions.
328:
329: Because it is not practical to make $h$ small enough so that
330: finite-differencing errors are negligible, we exploit the known
331: convergence properties of finite-difference schemes to
332: Richardson-extrapolate our finite-$h$ results to the limit $h \to
333: 0$. In particular, given some quantity~$u$ computed at numerical
334: resolution~$h$, we write the Richardson-extrapolation series $u(h)$ as
335: $u(h) = u(0) + p h^n + q h^{n{+}1} + {\cal O}(h^{n+2}) \;,$
336: %
337: %% %
338: %% \begin{equation}
339: %% u(h) = u(0) + p h^n + q h^{n{+}1} + {\cal O}(h^{n+2}) \;,
340: %% \label{eq:RE}
341: %% \end{equation}
342: %% %
343: where $n \,{=}\, 2\, (4)$ for CE~(MP), and where the coefficients $p$
344: and $q$ depend on $u$, but not on the resolution~$h$. Given $u(h)$ at
345: three distinct resolutions, we solve for $u(0)$ as the
346: Richardson-extrapolated value for $u$, i.e., ${\cal R}(u) \equiv
347: u(0)$. Clearly, slightly different values for ${\cal R}(u)$ will be
348: obtained depending on which of the higher-order terms are neglected in
349: the series expansion,
350: %
351: %~(\ref{eq:RE}),
352: %
353: and we use the magnitude of the last known term in the expansion
354: %
355: %~(\ref{eq:RE})
356: %
357: at the highest resolution as a rough estimate of the errors in ${\cal
358: R}(u)$.
359:
360: In practice, for each evolution we have first extracted the timeseries
361: of $\alpha$ and $I$ up to the detection of a common apparent horizon
362: and then time-integrated $\alpha(t)$ to obtain $\tau(t)$, as shown in
363: Fig.~\ref{fig:tau_vs_t} for simulations using MP (thin solid lines) or
364: CE (thin dashed lines). Using this data and the Richardson-extrapolation
365: series expansion%%%
366: %
367: %~(\ref{eq:RE})
368: %
369: , an estimate for ${\cal R}(\tau(t))$ is then
370: obtained and shown with thick lines (solid for MP and dashed for CE),
371: with the inset offering a view. Despite having lower resolutions, the
372: MP evolutions show a closer match between the different resolutions
373: and the Richardson-extrapolated result than do the CE ones.
374:
375: Finally, we have Richardson-extrapolated $\log I(t)$, and removed the
376: dependence on the time coordinate by mapping $t$ to ${\cal R}\bigr(
377: \tau(t) \bigr)$ (cf.~Fig.~\ref{fig:tau_vs_t}). Our end results are
378: therefore ${\cal R} \bigl( \log I_{_{\rm CE}} \bigr)$ and ${\cal R}
379: \bigl( \log I_{_{\rm MP}} \bigr)$, both as functions of ${\cal
380: R}(\tau)$.
381:
382: The results of this procedure are summarized in
383: Fig.~\ref{fig:I_vs_tau}, which shows the proper-time evolution of
384: $\log I(\tau)$, together with the estimated error bands. More
385: specifically, thick lines show the Richardson-extrapolated results
386: (solid for MP and dashed for CE) while the dotted lines report the
387: error bars, with the larger ones referring to CE evolutions. Clearly,
388: the two Richardson-extrapolated evolutions of the invariant lie well
389: within the estimated error-bands for both evolutions and are almost
390: indistinguishable for large portions of the simulations, despite the
391: large dynamical range. The inset highlights this, with a view in a
392: representative window in proper time. Overall, the results in
393: Fig.~\ref{fig:I_vs_tau}, together with the similar ones for $J$,
394: demonstrate that, despite the different gauges and the different way
395: in which the singularities are treated in the two approaches, the two
396: approaches are indeed converging to the same spacetime, at least along
397: the fiducial central geodesic.
398:
399: \begin{figure}[tbp!]
400: \centerline{
401: \resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-0]{tau_vs_t_1}
402: }}
403: \caption{Relationship between coordinate time~$t$ and proper
404: time~$\tau$ for simulations using MP (solid lines) or CE (dashed
405: lines). The inset offers a magnification over a representative
406: window in time.}
407: \label{fig:tau_vs_t}
408: \end{figure}
409: %
410:
411: \begin{figure}[tbp!]
412: \centerline{
413: \resizebox{8.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-0]{I_vs_tau_5}
414: }}
415: \caption{$\log I(\tau)$ for each evolution family, together with the
416: estimated errors. Thick lines show the Richardson-extrapolated
417: results (solid for MP and dashed for CE) while the dotted lines
418: report the error bars, with the larger ones referring to CE
419: evolutions. Note the excellent agreement as highlighted in the
420: inset.}
421: \label{fig:I_vs_tau}
422: \end{figure}
423:
424:
425: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
426: %%% CONCLUSIONS %%%
427: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
428: \section{Conclusions}
429:
430: Excision and moving punctures both seem to work well in practice, and
431: are used by multiple research groups, yet lack rigorous mathematical
432: correctness proofs. To help improve our confidence in both methods,
433: we have compared them by evolving the same equal-mass non-spinning
434: binary black hole system using both corotating-excision and
435: moving-punctures techniques. Comparing the evolution of the $I$ and
436: $J$ curvature 4-scalars with proper time along the invariantly-defined
437: worldline midway between the two black holes, and using Richardson
438: extrapolation to reduce the effects of finite-difference truncation
439: errors, we find that moving-punctures and excision evolutions agree to
440: within our estimated numerical errors.
441:
442: $I$ and $J$ are sensitive and nonlinear functions of many components
443: of the Riemann tensor with markedly different nonlinearities: $I$ is
444: quadratic in the Riemann tensor, while $J$ is cubic. The fact they
445: both agree in the two different techniques makes it very unlikely that
446: this is just an artifact of the symmetry. A rigorous proof of the
447: equivalence of the two spacetimes would require a detailed examination
448: of the curvature components and their derivatives in an invariant
449: frame~\cite{Karlhede:1979ri}. However, the established equivalence of
450: $I$ and $J$ is a strong validation that the entire Riemann tensors for
451: this algebraically general spacetime agree along the central
452: worldline. Given the causal structure of the Einstein equations, this
453: agreement extends to the entire causal past of the central worldline.
454: %% Stated differently, if the excision and moving-punctures evolutions
455: %% \emph{disagreed} anywhere in the causal past of the central worldline,
456: %% this would probably cause $I$ and/or $J$ to disagree on the central
457: %% worldline, contradicting our findings.
458: Furthermore, because our data span a time much longer than the initial
459: separation of the two black holes (our evolutions last for $\sim
460: 70\,M$, while the initial separation is $\sim 9\,M$), the causal past
461: of central worldline includes a large part of the strong-field region
462: of the spacetime extending well out into the wave zone. Therefore, for
463: the evolutions reported here these results provide convincing evidence
464: that the corotating-excision and the moving-punctures techniques yield
465: the same spacetime as solution of the Einstein equations.
466:
467:
468:
469: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
470: %%% ACKNOWLEDGMENTS %%%
471: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
472:
473: \ack
474:
475: The numerical calculations were performed on \textit{Peyote} and
476: \textit{Belladonna} at AEI, \textit{Jacquard} at NERSC,
477: \textit{Tungsten} at NCSA, \textit{Supermike} and \textit{Santaka} at
478: LSU and on \textit{Ducky} and \textit{Neptune} at LONI. This work was
479: supported in part by the DFG grant SFB TR/7 and by the CCT at LSU.
480:
481: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
482: %%% REFERENCES %%%
483: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
484:
485: \section*{References}
486:
487:
488: \bibliographystyle{iopart-num-noeprint}
489: %\bibliographystyle{iopart-num}
490:
491: %% % Do not show urls, and do not use "et al."
492: %% \bibliographystyle{apsrev-nourl-manyauthors}
493:
494: %% % Do not show urls
495: %% \bibliographystyle{apsrev-nourl}
496:
497: \bibliography{references}
498:
499:
500: \end{document}
501: