1: %%%%%%%%%% FOR SUBMISSION UNCOMMENT THIS %%%%%%%%%%
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %%\ccc{none} % Copyright Type
4: %\shortauthors{Herrmann, Hinder, Shoemaker, Laguna, Matzner}
5: %\shorttitle{Kicks from Spinning Black Hole Mergers}
6: %%%%%%%%%% FOR EMULATION OF THE ApJ STYLE UNCOMMENT THIS %%%%%%%%%%
7: \documentclass{emulateapj}
8: %%\usepackage{natbib}
9: %\bibliographystyle{apj}
10: \bibliographystyle{astroads}
11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
12: \def\etal{{\it et al.}}
13: \newcommand{\KMS}{\mbox{km s}^{-1}}
14:
15: \def\olap#1#2#3#4{\langle #1, #2 | #3, #4 \rangle}
16: \def\Vkick{$V = 475\,\KMS\,a\,$}
17:
18: \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
19: \def\ltsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
20: \def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
21: \def\gtsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
22:
23:
24: \def\maya#1{\textsc{Maya}#1}
25: \def\grsph#1{\textsc{Grsph}#1}
26: \def\cactus#1{\textsc{Cactus}#1}
27: \def\carpet#1{\textsc{Carpet}#1}
28: \def\teukolsky#1{\textsc{Teukolsky}#1}
29:
30: \def\newacronym#1#2#3{\gdef#1{#3 (#2)\gdef#1{#2}}}
31:
32: \def\MPR#1{{\it Moving Puncture Recipe}#1 (MPR#1)\gdef\MPR{MPR}}
33: \def\ahz#1{apparent horizon#1 (AH#1)\gdef\ahz{AH}}
34: \def\CLA#1{close-limit approximation#1 (CLA#1)\gdef\CLA{CLA}}
35: \def\pnw#1{post-Newtonian#1 (PN#1)\gdef\pnw{PN}}
36: \def\qnm#1{quasi-normal mode#1 (QNM#1)\gdef\qnm{QNM}}
37: \def\isco#1{innermost stable circular orbit#1 (ISCO#1)\gdef\isco{ISCO}}
38: \def\eos#1{equation of state#1 (EOS#1)\gdef\eos{EOS}}
39: \def\ns#1{neutron star#1 (NS#1)\gdef\ns{NS}}
40: \def\bbh#1{binary black holes#1 (BBH#1)\gdef\bbh{BBH}}
41: \def\bhns#1{black hole -- neutron star#1 (BHNS#1)\gdef\bhns{BHNS}}
42: \def\nsns#1{neutron star -- neutron star#1 (NSNS#1)\gdef\nsns{NSNS}}
43: \def\emri#1{extreme mass-ratio inspiral#1 (EMRI#1)\gdef\emri{EMRI}}
44: \def\emrb#1{extreme mass-ratio binaries#1 (EMRB#1)\gdef\emrb{EMRB}}
45: \def\grb#1{gamma-ray burst#1 (GRB#1)\gdef\grb{GRB}}
46: \def\imbh#1{intermediate mass black hole#1 (IMBH#1)\gdef\imbh{IMBH}}
47: \def\smbh#1{supermassive black hole#1 (SMBH#1)\gdef\smbh{SMBH}}
48: \def\bh#1{black hole#1 (BH#1)\gdef\bh{BH}}
49: \def\ulx#1{ultra-luminous x-ray source#1 (ULX#1)\gdef\ulx{ULX}}
50: \def\lmxbs{low-mass x-ray Binaries (LMXBs)\gdef\lmxbs{LMXBs}\gdef\lmxb{LMXB}}
51: \def\lmxb{low-mass x-ray Binary (LMXB)\gdef\lmxbs{LMXBs}\gdef\lmxb{LMXB}}
52:
53: \begin{document}
54: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
55: \title{Gravitational recoil from spinning binary black hole mergers}
56:
57: \author{Frank Herrmann, Ian Hinder, Deirdre Shoemaker\altaffilmark{1}, Pablo
58: Laguna\altaffilmark{2}}
59:
60: \affil{Center for Gravitational Wave Physics, \\
61: The Pennsylvania State University,
62: University Park, PA 16802, USA}
63:
64: \author{Richard A. Matzner}
65:
66: \affil{Center for Relativity and Department of Physics\\
67: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA}
68:
69: \altaffiltext{1}{IGPG, Department Physics,
70: The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
71:
72: \altaffiltext{2}{IGPG, Departments of Astronomy \& Astrophysics and Physics,
73: The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
74:
75: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
76: \begin{abstract}
77: The inspiral and merger of binary black holes
78: will likely involve
79: black holes with both unequal masses and arbitrary spins. The
80: gravitational radiation emitted by these binaries will carry angular
81: as well as linear momentum. A net flux of emitted linear momentum
82: implies that the black hole produced by the merger will experience a
83: recoil or kick. Previous studies have focused on the recoil
84: velocity from unequal mass, non-spinning binaries. We present results from
85: simulations of equal mass but spinning black hole binaries and show
86: how a significant gravitational recoil can also be obtained in these
87: situations. We consider the case of black holes with opposite spins
88: of magnitude $a$ aligned/anti-aligned with the orbital angular momentum,
89: with $a$ the dimensionless spin parameters of the individual holes.
90: For the initial setups under consideration, we find a recoil velocity of \Vkick.
91: Supermassive black hole mergers producing kicks of this
92: magnitude could result in the ejection from the cores of
93: dwarf galaxies of the final hole produced by the
94: collision.
95: \end{abstract}
96:
97: \keywords{
98: black hole physics ---
99: galaxies: nuclei ---
100: gravitation ---
101: gravitational waves ---
102: relativity
103: }
104:
105:
106: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
107: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
108:
109: There is ample observational evidence that \smbh{s} are common at the
110: centers of galaxies~\citep{Richstone:1998ea,Magorrian:1997hw}, with
111: masses in the range $10^5 - 10^9 M^{}_{\odot}$. These \smbh{s} are involved in
112: exciting astrophysical phenomena. For instance, there is a remarkable, not
113: completely understood, correlation between the velocity
114: dispersion of the bulge of the host galaxy and the mass of the
115: \smbh{}~\citep{Ferrarese:2000fm}. There is also indication
116: of a correlation of the mass of the
117: \smbh{} with the mass
118: of the host dark matter halo~\citep{Ferrarese:2002la}. An interesting
119: aspect of \smbh{ } growth arises as a consequence of hierarchical cold
120: dark matter cosmologies, in which large-scale structures are formed by
121: mergers. \smbh{s} would then grow both by gas accretion and by
122: coalescence with other \smbh{s} (brought together when their host
123: galaxies collide~\citep{Volonteri:2002am,Begelman:1980vb}). The work
124: in this paper focuses on one aspect of the merger of \smbh{s}, the
125: kick in the final \smbh{}.
126:
127: The late inspiral and merger of \smbh{s} produces extremely energetic
128: gravitational radiation, which will be observable by the planned
129: space-based gravitational wave antenna
130: LISA~\citep{Danzmann:2003ad,Prince:2003aa}. Gravitational radiation
131: produced during the inspiral and merger of \bh{s} not only carries
132: energy with it, but, except in special-symmetry cases,
133: can also transport net linear and angular momentum.
134: For instance, in
135: the merger of unequal mass \smbh{s}, a net flux of linear momentum will
136: be emitted by the system~\citep{Peres:1962ap,Bekenstein:1973jd}. As a
137: consequence, the final \bh{} will experience a gravitational recoil or
138: kick. There are observations that hint at such scenarios, in which a
139: \smbh{} has been ejected in an ongoing galaxy
140: merger~\citep{Haehnelt:2006hd}. (An alternative explanation could be
141: that the ejection is due to gravitational slingshot of three or more
142: \smbh{s} in the merger.) It is then very important to get good
143: estimates of recoil velocities in \bh{} mergers. These estimates have
144: a profound effect on the understanding of the demographics of \smbh{s}
145: at the cores of galaxies, their growth~\citep{Haiman:2004ve} and their
146: merger rates~\citep{Micic:2006ta}. Knowledge of the conditions under
147: which kicks are produced could also help explain the absence of
148: massive \bh{s} in dwarf galaxies and stellar
149: clusters~\citep{Madau:2004mq,Merritt:2004xa}, and could determine the
150: population of \bh{s} in the interstellar and intergalactic medium.
151:
152: Gravitational recoil estimates of unequal mass binaries have been
153: addressed using both analytic and full numerical relativity
154: approaches. The first quasi-Newtonian analytic studies
155: ~\citep{Fitchett:1983fc,Fitchett:1984fd} produced kick velocities as
156: large as $\sim 1500\, \KMS$. \citet{Wiseman:1992dv} and more recently
157: \citet{Blanchet:2005rj} and \citet{Damour:2006tr} improved these
158: estimates by including \pnw{} effects. The maximum kick in these
159: studies was found to be in the range of $\sim 74 - 250\, \KMS$, and it
160: occurred for $\eta \sim 0.2$, where $\eta \equiv M_1M_2/(M_1+M_2)^2$
161: is the symmetrized mass ratio parameter. (This corresponds to
162: a mass ratio $q \equiv M_1/M_2 \sim 0.38$.) These analytic \pnw{}
163: studies also showed that the final value of the kick is mostly
164: accumulated during the merger or plunge phase of the binary. Since
165: the plunge phase is beyond the limit of applicability of \pnw{}
166: approximations, the results can only be taken as ``best-bet
167: estimates''~\citep{Damour:2006tr}.
168:
169: There are two semi-analytic studies that in principle had a better
170: handle on the plunge phase. \citet{Campanelli:2004zw} obtained kick
171: velocities of $\sim 300\, \KMS$ using the {\em Lazarus} approach, a
172: framework~\citep{Baker:2001sf} that combines full numerical relativity
173: and \CLA{} perturbation theory~\citep{1994PhRvL..72.3297P}. More
174: recently, \citet{2006astro.ph.11110S} and \citet{2006PhRvD..74l4010S}
175: combined \pnw{} estimates during the inspiral with kick estimates
176: using the \CLA{.} The maximum recoil obtained in this work was $\sim 167
177: (1 + e) \KMS$, with $e$ the eccentricity of the binary. Finally, full
178: numerical relativity studies have also been carried out by \citet{Herrmann:2006ks},
179: \citet{Baker:2006vn} and
180: \citet{Gonzalez:2006md}. Only full numerical relativity approaches
181: provide accurate estimates of kicks since they correctly handle the
182: non-linear behavior of the plunge. The most comprehensive study so
183: far is that by \citet{Gonzalez:2006md}, in which a maximum kick
184: velocity of $\sim 175\, \KMS$ was obtained also for $\eta \sim 0.2$
185: $(q \sim 0.38$), consistent with \pnw{} studies. What
186: is interesting is that the findings of \citet{2006astro.ph.11110S}
187: based on the \CLA{} are remarkably close to the full
188: numerical relativity results by \citet{Gonzalez:2006md},
189: supporting the view that the kick is mostly due to the linear momentum
190: emitted during the plunge, where the \CLA{} has been demonstrated to
191: provide a good approximation \citep{1995PhRvD..52.4462A}.
192: To our knowledge, the only kick study involving spinning \bh{s} is
193: that by~\citet{Favata:2004wz}.
194: They considered
195: the case of an extreme-mass-ratio system with a spinning
196: \smbh{}. Using \bh{} perturbation theory they estimated kick
197: velocities of $\sim 100 - 200\, \KMS$.
198: Head-on collisions of spinning \bh{s} have also been recently
199: considered~\citep{Dale07}.
200:
201: To help us understand {\it our} computational results, we present next a
202: rough order-of-magnitude estimate of the kicks one should expect.
203: Note first that there must be some asymmetry between the \bh{s} in
204: order for there to be asymmetric radiation which can lead to
205: kicks. Thus, in the non-spinning case, unequal masses are required;
206: here we consider binaries of equal masses, but different spin
207: (magnitude or direction). The kick is expected to increase as
208: the relevant spin increases, but especially symmetric cases will still
209: show zero kick (e.g.~when the \bh{s} have their spins aligned parallel to the
210: orbital angular momentum). The
211: order-of-magnitude estimate can be obtained from the radiative
212: linear momentum loss formula
213: \citep{RevModPhys.52.299,PhysRevD.52.821}. Excluding non-spin
214: terms, this formula reads
215: \begin{eqnarray}
216: \label{kick}
217: \frac{dP^i}{dt} &=& \frac{16}{45} \epsilon^{ijk} I^{(3)}_{jl}
218: H^{(3)}_{kl}
219: + \frac{4}{63} H^{(4)}_{ijk} H^{(3)}_{jk}\nonumber \\
220: &+& \frac{1}{126} \epsilon^{ijk} I^{(4)}_{jlm} H^{(4)}_{klm}\,.
221: \end{eqnarray}
222: Here $I_{ij}$ and $I_{ijk}$ are respectively the mass quadrupole and
223: octupole. Similarly, $H_{ij}$ and $H_{ijk}$ are the spin quadrupole
224: and octupole, respectively. In (\ref{kick}), a super-index $\,^{(n)}$
225: denotes an $n$th-time derivative. Clearly equation (\ref{kick}) predicts
226: a periodic force for exactly circular orbits. As the \bh{s} spiral
227: together the strength of the periodic kick increases, so we estimate
228: the kick from the last half orbit before merger.
229:
230: Consider a binary system consisting of \bh{s} in circular orbit
231: with equal masses ($M_1 = M_2 = M/2$). In the absence of spin
232: this would produce no kick, but here we set data with each \bh{}
233: having spin perpendicular to the orbit, the spins oppositely directed,
234: each with dimensionless Kerr spin parameter $a$ ($0 \le a\le 1$).
235: This is the configuration we use below for our
236: computational evaluation of the kick.
237: The calculation of the mass quadrupole is familiar,
238: and for circular orbits in the $xy$ plane with orbital angular
239: velocity $\omega$ and coordinate separation $d$ gives nonzero values:
240: \begin{eqnarray}
241: I^{(3)}_{xx} &=& 2M\,d^2\,\omega^3 \sin{(2\omega t)}\nonumber\\
242: I^{(3)}_{xy} &=& - 2M\,d^2\,\omega^3 \cos{(2\omega t)}\nonumber\\
243: I^{(3)}_{yy} &=& - 2M\,d^2\,\omega^3 \sin{(2\omega t)}\,.
244: \label{massQP}
245: \end{eqnarray}
246: The spin quadrupole can be most easily calculated by imagining a spin dipole
247: (charges $\pm M/2$, separation $a\,M/2$) and conceptually taking the limit
248: at the end.
249: The result is
250: \begin{eqnarray}
251: H^{(3)}_{xz} &=& \frac{1} {4}\, M^2 d\,a\,\omega^3 \sin{(\omega t)}\nonumber\\
252: H^{(3)}_{yz} &=& -\frac{1} {4}\, M^2 d\,a\,\omega^3 \cos{(\omega t)}\,.
253: \label{spinQP}
254: \end{eqnarray}
255: Inserting (\ref{massQP}) and (\ref{spinQP}) into the first term in
256: equation~(\ref{kick}) gives
257: \begin{eqnarray}
258: \frac{dP^x}{dt} &=& \frac{8} {45} M^3 d^3a\, \omega^6 \sin{( \omega t)}
259: \nonumber\\
260: \frac{dP^y}{dt} &=& -\frac{8} {45} M^3 d^3a\, \omega^6 \cos{( \omega t)} \,.
261: \label{Pxy}
262: \end{eqnarray}
263: Notice that the force is in the plane of the orbit and
264: rotates with the orbit. The average over half a
265: cycle is $2/ \pi$, so equation (\ref{Pxy}) is a good estimate for any half
266: cycle as the orbit spirals in. The total force can then be
267: approximated as
268: \begin{equation}
269: \frac{dP}{dt} = \frac{16} {45\,\pi} M^3 d^3a\, \omega^6 \,.
270: \end{equation}
271: Compare this to the total luminosity:
272: \begin{eqnarray}
273: \frac{dE}{dt} &=& \frac{2}{5} M^2 d^4 \omega^6 \,.
274: \label{Py}
275: \end{eqnarray}
276: Thus the asymmetry in radiation that contributes to the kick is
277: \begin{eqnarray}
278: \frac{dP}{dE} = \frac{dP}{dt} \big{/} \frac{dE}{dt}&=& \frac{4\,a}{9\,\pi}\frac{M}{d}\,,
279: \end{eqnarray}
280: which is $\sim 0.02$ for dimensionless spin parameter $a\sim 1/2 $ and $d \sim 6 M$.
281: (The latter is an estimate of the separation near the ``last orbit''.)
282: If $\Delta E$ is the total energy radiated by the binary, an estimate of the
283: (half orbit) kick is
284: \begin{eqnarray}
285: V &\sim& c \left(\frac{dP}{dE}\right)\left(\frac{\Delta E}{M}\right)\nonumber\\
286: &\sim& 300 \KMS \left(\frac{dP/dE}{0.02}\right)\left(\frac{\Delta E/M}{0.05}\right) \,.
287: \end{eqnarray}
288:
289: For another estimate, we note that ~\citet{Favata:2004wz} specialized the \pnw{} equation~(3.31) in
290: ~\citet{Kidder:1995zr} to the case of circular orbit with spins parallel and anti-parallel
291: to the orbital angular momentum. The resultant kick velocity is given by
292: \begin{equation}
293: V = V_q + 883\KMS \left(\frac{f_{SO}(q,a1,a2)}{f_{SO,\mathrm{max}}}\right)
294: \left(\frac{2\,M}{r_{\mathrm{term}}}\right).
295: \label{eq:kidder}
296: \end{equation}
297: Above $V_q$ is the contribution to the kick that depends only on the
298: mass ratio $q$; this contribution vanishes
299: for equal mass binaries ($q=1$). The radius $r_{\mathrm{term}}$ is the separation
300: at which gravitational radiation terminates. The scaling function in equation~(\ref{eq:kidder})
301: is given by $f_{SO}(q,a_1,a_2) = q^2(a_2-q\,a_1)/(1+q)^5$ with
302: $f_{SO,\mathrm{max}} = f_{SO}(1,\pm1,\mp1) = 1/16$. Therefore, for the cases
303: we have investigated, equation (\ref{eq:kidder}) reduces to
304: $V = 883\,\KMS a\, (2\,M/r_{\mathrm{term}})$, comparable to our estimate above, for reasonable choices of $r_{\mathrm{term}}$.
305:
306: There is another effect similar to the pulsar kick mechanism described
307: by~\citet{1975ApJ...201..447H}. It involves explicit retardation
308: effects (so is not captured in the multipole expression
309: of equation~(\ref{kick})), and gives estimates of similarly sized kicks.
310: We shall see that full numerical relativity simulations give
311: comparable kicks to this estimate.
312:
313: The paper is organized as follows: In Sec.~\ref{sec:movingpunc}, we
314: present the computational methodology and details of how the initial
315: data were constructed. Sec.~\ref{sec:recoil} gives details of
316: the method to estimate kicks. Code tests and a convergence analysis are
317: given in Sec.~\ref{sec:converge}. The gravitational recoil estimates
318: are presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:results}, with
319: conclusions given in Sec.~\ref{sec:discussion}.
320:
321: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
322: \section{Computational Methodology and Initial Data}
323: \label{sec:movingpunc}
324:
325: The numerical simulations of \bbh{} in our work were obtained
326: following the \MPR{}. The essence of this recipe is: (A) a particular
327: formulation of the Einstein field equations and (B) a set of
328: coordinate or gauge conditions for updating field variables during
329: evolution as well as for handling the \bh{} singularities. The form
330: of the evolutions required by the \MPR{} is the so-called BSSN 3+1
331: formulation of Einstein's equations~\citep{Nakamura87, Shibata95,
332: Baumgarte99}. A derivation of the BSSN equations and a few examples
333: of their applications can be found in the review
334: by~\citet{Baumgarte:2002jm}.
335:
336: In addition to the form of the evolution equations, the success of the
337: \MPR{} is due to the coordinate or gauge
338: conditions~\citep{Alcubierre02a,Baker:2005vv,Campanelli:2005dd}. The \MPR{} gauge
339: conditions are equations that determine the lapse function $\alpha$
340: and the shift vector $\beta^i$. The lapse is a ``local'' measure of
341: proper time, and the shift vector encapsulates the freedom of labeling
342: events at a given time~\citep{Baumgarte:2002jm}. The explicit form of
343: the evolution equations for the lapse and shift
344: in the \MPR{} are $\partial_0\alpha = - 2\alpha K$
345: and for the shift $\partial_0 \beta^i= 3/4 B^i$ and
346: $\partial_0 B^i = \partial_0 \widetilde{\Gamma}^i -\xi B^i$, where
347: $\partial_0 = \partial_t - \beta^j \partial_j$. $K$
348: is the trace of the extrinsic curvature, $\widetilde\Gamma^i$ is the
349: trace of the conformal connection and $\xi=2$ is a free dissipative
350: parameter. The importance of these gauge conditions is twofold:
351: first, they avoid the need of excising the \bh{} singularity from the
352: computational domain since they effectively halt the evolution
353: (i.e. the lapse function $\alpha$ vanishes) near the \bh{}
354: singularity~\citep{Hannam:2006vv}. Second, they allow for movement of
355: the \bh{} or {\it puncture} throughout the computational domain while
356: freezing the evolution inside the \bh{} horizon.
357:
358: The code used for this work was produced by the \texttt{Kranc} code
359: generation package~\citep{Husa:2004ip}, the \texttt{Cactus}
360: infrastructure~\citep{Cactusweb} for parallelization and
361: \texttt{Carpet}~\citep{Schnetter-etal-03b} for mesh refinement. The
362: code is based on fourth order accurate finite differencing of
363: spatial operators and uses 4th order Runge-Kutta for time integration with a
364: Courant factor of 0.5.
365:
366: The initial data use punctures~\citep{Brandt97b} to represent \bh{s}.
367: In Einstein's theory, initial data are not completely freely
368: specifiable; they must satisfy the Hamiltonian and momentum
369: constraints. We use the spectral code
370: developed by~\citet{Ansorg:2004ds} to solve these constraints. The
371: initial free-data (e.g.~angular momentum, spins, masses, separations)
372: are chosen according to the effective potential
373: method~\citep{Cook94,Baumgarte00a}. This method yields \bbh{} initial
374: data sets representing \bbh{s} in quasi-circular orbit. In general
375: terms, the effective potential method consists of minimizing the
376: ``binding energy'' of the binary to determine the \bbh{} parameters.
377:
378: %\clearpage
379: \begin{deluxetable}{l c c c c c c }
380: \tablewidth{0pt}
381: \tablecaption{\label{tab:initial_data}Initial Data Parameters}
382: \tablehead{
383: \colhead{Model} & \colhead{$x/M$} & \colhead{$P/M$} & \colhead{$S/M^2$}
384: & \colhead{$m_1/M$} & \colhead{$m_2/M$} &\colhead{$E/M$} }
385: \startdata
386: S0.05 & 2.95 & 0.13983 & 0.05 & 0.4683 & 0.4685 & 0.98445\\
387: S0.10 & 2.98 & 0.13842 & 0.10 & 0.4436 & 0.4438 & 0.98455\\
388: S0.15 & 3.05 & 0.13547 & 0.15 & 0.3951 & 0.3953 & 0.98473\\
389: S0.20 & 3.15 & 0.13095 & 0.20 & 0.2968 & 0.2970 & 0.98499\\
390: \enddata
391: \end{deluxetable}
392: %\clearpage
393:
394: Table~\ref{tab:initial_data} contains the \bbh{} parameters of our
395: simulations. The \bh{s} are located at positions $(\pm x/M,0,0)$,
396: have linear momentum $(\pm P/M,0,0)$, spin $(0,0,\pm S/M^2)$ and bare
397: puncture masses $m_{1,2}/M$, with $M=M_1+M_2$ the total mass of the
398: binary. Notice that the bare puncture masses are slightly different.
399: The reason for this difference is because of the spin contribution to
400: the mass of each hole (measured from the area of their apparent horizons);
401: in order to keep the individual masses of the \bh{s}, $M_1$ and $M_2$,
402: equal, (slight) adjustments to the bare masses are necessary.
403: The configurations are such that the total angular momentum
404: is for all cases $J/(\mu M) = 3.3$ with $\mu = M_1M_2/(M_1+M_2)$.
405: It is important to notice that $S$ is not the Kerr spin parameter $0\le a_{Kerr}\le
406: m_{BH}$ typically associated with rotating \bh{s}. The dimensionless spin parameter for
407: each \bh{} is given by $a_{1,2}=S/M_{1,2}^2$ with $M_{1,2}=M/2$.
408: The cases considered here, $S/M^2 = \lbrace 0.05, 0.10, 0.15, 0.20 \rbrace$,
409: correspond to $a = \lbrace 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 \rbrace$, respectively.
410: For reference, the total ADM mass $E/M$ in the initial data
411: is also reported in Table~\ref{tab:initial_data}.
412:
413: The computational grids consist of a nested set of 10 refinement
414: levels, with the finest mesh having resolution $h=M/40$. This
415: resolution translates into a resolution of about $h=m/19 - m/12$, with
416: respect to the bare mass $m$ of the puncture according to
417: Table~\ref{tab:initial_data}. The minimal resolution found to be
418: adequate for spinning cases according to~\citet{Campanelli:2006uy} is
419: $h < M/30$. In our $h=M/40$ simulations there are 4 refinement levels
420: of $58^3$ grid-points nested within 6 levels of $102^3$ grid-points.
421: During the evolution the shape and number of grid-points per
422: refinement level vary as the centers of the grids track the positions
423: of the black holes. The coarsest mesh is kept fixed and extends to
424: $650 M$ from the origin in each direction.
425:
426: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
427: % ESTIMATING THE TOTAL RECOIL
428: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
429: \section{Gravitational Recoil}
430: \label{sec:recoil}
431:
432: The gravitational recoil is computed from the rate of change of linear momentum
433: \begin{equation}
434: \frac{dP^i}{dt} = \lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}\left\lbrace
435: \int \frac{d^2E}{d\Omega dt} n^i \,r^2 d\Omega \right\rbrace \,,
436: \label{eq:dPdt}
437: \end{equation}
438: which is determined by the fluxes of energy $E$ and linear momentum $P^i$
439: ($n^i$ is the unit normal to the sphere). In order to compute the
440: recoil velocity, the Newtonian momentum relation is used, $V^i=P^i/M$.
441:
442: In terms of $\Psi_4$, the component of the Weyl curvature tensor representing
443: outgoing radiation, equation~(\ref{eq:dPdt}) reads \citep{1980grg2.conf....1N}
444: \begin{equation}
445: \frac{dP^i}{dt} = \lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}\left\lbrace
446: \frac{1}{4\pi}\int \left |\int^t_{-\infty}\Psi_4\,dt^\prime\right |^2 n^i \,r^2 d\Omega
447: \right\rbrace\,.
448: \label{eq:dPdtpsi4}
449: \end{equation}
450: Equation (\ref{eq:dPdtpsi4}) is applied at a finite radius $r>30M$
451: away from the ``center of mass'' of the binary but far enough from the
452: boundary of the computational domain to avoid the effects from
453: spurious reflection from the
454: boundary~\citep{Zlochower2005:fourth-order}. The Weyl scalar $\Psi_4$
455: is computed in the bulk of the computational domain and is then
456: projected onto the sphere and used in the computation of
457: equation~(\ref{eq:dPdtpsi4}).
458:
459: We also estimate the gravitational recoil using a mode decomposition.
460: Instead of constructing $\Psi_4$ in the bulk of the computational
461: domain and interpolating it on a sphere to be used in
462: equation~(\ref{eq:dPdtpsi4}), we decompose $\Psi_4$ into spin-weight
463: $-2$ spherical harmonics and then compute the recoil. That is, one
464: first constructs the coefficients $\,_{-2}C_{\ell m}$ such that
465: \begin{equation}
466: \Psi_4=\sum_{\ell m} \,_{-2}C_{\ell m}(t,r) \,_{-2}Y_{\ell m}(\theta,\varphi)\,.
467: \end{equation}
468: Given these coefficients, the gravitational recoil is given by
469: \begin{equation}
470: \frac{dP^i}{dt}=\sum_{\ell m \bar\ell \bar m}
471: \olap{\ell}{m}{\bar\ell}{\bar m}
472: \label{eq:recoil.modes}
473: \end{equation}
474: where $\olap{\ell}{m}{\bar\ell}{\bar m}$ represents the contribution to $dP^i/dt$
475: from the overlap
476: \begin{equation}
477: \olap{\ell}{m}{\bar\ell}{\bar m} \propto Re\left[ {}_{-2}\hat{C}_{\ell m}^\star \,_{-2}\hat{C}_{\bar \ell \bar m}
478: \int n^i \,_{-2}Y_{\ell m}^\star {}_{-2}Y_{\bar \ell\bar m} d\Omega\right]\,,
479: \end{equation}
480: with $\,_{-2}\hat{C}_{\ell m}\equiv \int_{-\infty}^{t} \,_{-2}C_{\ell m} dt^\prime$.
481: This mode-overlap decomposition has the advantage that the
482: contribution from different overlapping modes can be studied
483: individually.
484:
485: There is an important issue to keep in mind when using both
486: equations (\ref{eq:dPdtpsi4}) and (\ref{eq:recoil.modes}) to estimate
487: kicks. It is well known that initial data in \bbh{} simulations
488: contain spurious radiation. Fortunately, this radiation does not
489: seem to have a significant effect on the dynamics of the binary.
490: However, because of the time-integration involved in the kick formulas,
491: the estimates are affected by the spurious radiation.
492: To alleviate this problem, we set the lower limit in the
493: time integral to be $t_{\mathrm{min}}$ and choose
494: $t_{\mathrm{min}}$ as the time after which the spurious burst has passed.
495: As an example, Figure~\ref{fig:fig1} displays
496: the fluxes of energy $dE/dt$, linear momentum $dP^i/dt$ and angular momentum $dJ/dt$ through the detector at
497: $r_{det}=30\,M$ for the $S0.10$ case.
498: It is clear from these rates that there is a spurious burst from the initial data for $t<50\,M$.
499: In particular, notice the effect on $dP^i/dt$ at early times.
500: The line at $t_{\mathrm{min}}=60\,M$ shows our choice for this cut-off.
501: The precise choice of $t_{\mathrm{min}}$ is not important, as
502: long as the initial spurious burst is eliminated and $t_{\mathrm{min}}$
503: is not too close to the time when the amplitude of the
504: gravitational wave becomes relevant. Since we use several locations (``detectors'')
505: at different radii to compute fluxes, the value of $t_{\mathrm{min}}$
506: is adjusted as
507: $t_{\mathrm{min}}=30\,M+r_{\mathrm{det}}$, where
508: $r_{\mathrm{det}}$ denotes the detector radius.
509: Note the smallness of $dP^z/dt$ from Figure~\ref{fig:fig1}.
510: It translates to velocities of $\sim 0.2\,\KMS$; thus, we will not plot $V^z$ in subsequent figures.
511:
512: %\clearpage
513: \begin{figure}
514: \plotone{fig1}
515: \caption{\label{fig:fig1} Fluxes of energy $dE/dt$, linear momentum
516: $dP^i/dt$ and angular momentum $dJ/dt$ as a function of time for the $S0.10$
517: ($a=0.4$) case. The vertical
518: line at $60\,M$ denotes $t_{\mathrm{min}}$, the lower limit of the time integration
519: used to estimates kicks which avoids contamination from the spurious radiation in the
520: initial data.}
521: \end{figure}
522: %\clearpage
523:
524: Another important check when computing kicks using
525: equations (\ref{eq:dPdtpsi4}) and (\ref{eq:recoil.modes}) is
526: the dependence of the results on the
527: extraction radius $r_{\mathrm{det}}$.
528: The kick formulas are in principle valid in the limit
529: $r \rightarrow \infty$, but one applies them at a finite
530: extraction radius $r_{\mathrm{det}}$ where there is sufficient resolution.
531: Figure~\ref{fig:recoil.detectors} shows the recoil velocity as a function
532: of time computed at different detector radii, $r_{\mathrm{det}}/M=(30,40,50)$.
533: The time dependence of the velocities has not been adjusted by
534: the lag in arrival times at each detector.
535: Although small, one can see from Figure~\ref{fig:recoil.detectors} that
536: there a is slight sensitivity of the extracted kick velocity to the
537: location of the detector for the ranges we considered.
538: This variation is within the error estimates of our kicks.
539: The origin of this dependence of the extracted kick on the detector
540: location could be numerical (e.g.~outer boundary, mesh refinement interfaces, etc.)
541: or due to the redshift and tail effects.\footnote{We thank the anonymous referee
542: for bringing this to our attention.}
543:
544: %\clearpage
545: \begin{figure}
546: \plotone{fig2}
547: \caption{\label{fig:recoil.detectors} Recoil velocity $V^x$ and $V^y$
548: computed from different detector locations for $S0.10$ with resolution $h=M/40$.
549: The detectors were located at $r_{\mathrm{det}}/M=(30,40,50)$.}
550: \end{figure}
551: %\clearpage
552:
553: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
554: \section{Code Tests and Waveform Convergence}
555: \label{sec:converge}
556:
557: We have tested that our code produces a sufficient level of
558: convergence for equal mass, non-spinning \bh{} binaries that we are
559: confident in the results. In particular, we have carried out extensive
560: tests~\citep{Shoemaker07} for the $R1$ run in \citet{Baker:2006yw}
561: and found resolution ranges that yield between 3rd- and 4th- order convergence.
562: Also as a code test,
563: we carried out a non-spinning, unequal mass simulation for $\eta
564: =0.23$. The kick obtained from this run ($\sim 130 \KMS$) matches that
565: by \citet{Gonzalez:2006md}. Because the \bbh{} setups in our present
566: work have no symmetries, the computational cost of each simulation is
567: high (for our $h=M/40$ resolution runs the cost is $\sim 44$ hours on $32$ CPU
568: cores for a total of about $\sim 1400$ CPU hours on a supercomputer),
569: so to demonstrate convergence our runs were limited to resolutions
570: $h\le M/40$. We present convergence results for the $S0.10$ case; the other
571: cases have similar behavior.
572:
573: Figure~\ref{fig:fig3} shows the amplitude of the dominant $\ell=2,
574: m=2$ mode of $\Psi_4$. The top panel of the figure displays the mode
575: at the three different resolutions ($h/M = 1/32, 1/35, 1/40$). The
576: bottom panel shows the coarse-medium (``c-m'') differences and the
577: medium-fine (``m-f'') differences rescaled for 2nd, 3rd and 4th
578: order. As the plot shows, this mode converges between 3rd and 4th order. In our
579: convergence studies for other systems (e.g.~equal mass \bh{s}) getting
580: closer to 4th-order convergence required at least a factor of two
581: between the coarsest and finest resolution. Given the range of
582: resolutions that we are able to do for the present study, the
583: deterioration of our convergence should not be surprising.
584: Nonetheless, we believe that the observed level of convergence in our
585: simulations will not affect the astrophysical implications of the
586: magnitude of our kick estimates.
587:
588: %\clearpage
589: \begin{figure}
590: \plotone{fig3}
591: \caption{\label{fig:fig3} The amplitude of the dominant $\ell=2,\, m=2$ mode of
592: $\Psi_4$ for the case $S0.10$ ($a=0.4$). The top plot shows the mode at three different
593: resolutions ($h/M = 1/32, 1/35, 1/40$), while
594: the bottom shows the small differences between the medium-coarse (``c-m'') and
595: the medium-fine (``m-f'') simulations rescaled for 2nd, 3rd and 4th order. The waveform
596: is between 3rd- and 4th-order convergent.
597: }
598: \end{figure}
599: %\clearpage
600:
601: As a check of our implementation of the kick extraction,
602: Figure~\ref{fig:recoil.mode.full} compares the recoil velocity
603: computed from equation~(\ref{eq:dPdtpsi4}) and
604: equation~(\ref{eq:recoil.modes}) for the case $S0.10$ with
605: resolution $h=M/40$. For equation~(\ref{eq:recoil.modes}), we include up to
606: $\ell=4$ modes. It is evident from this plot that with the modes $\ell\le 4$
607: one can reconstruct most of the total recoil velocity.
608:
609: %\clearpage
610: \begin{figure}
611: \plotone{fig4}
612: \caption{\label{fig:recoil.mode.full} Recoil velocity $V^x$ and $V^y$
613: versus time computed from equation~(\ref{eq:dPdtpsi4}) and
614: equation~(\ref{eq:recoil.modes}) for the $S0.10$ model with resolution
615: $h=M/40$ extracted at $r_{det}=30\,M$. $V^z$ is below 0.2 km/s and hence is not
616: shown. The insets labeled ``differences'' show the difference
617: between the recoil from equation~(\ref{eq:dPdtpsi4}) and
618: equation~(\ref{eq:recoil.modes}) with modes up to and including $\ell=4$}.
619: \end{figure}
620: %\clearpage
621:
622: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
623: \section{Results}
624: \label{sec:results}
625:
626: First, we present the main results of our work, namely the kick estimates
627: together with the radiated energy and angular momentum, followed by a discussion of
628: convergence and a mode analysis of the kicks.
629:
630: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
631: \subsection{Kicks and Radiated Energy and Momentum}
632:
633: %\clearpage
634: \begin{deluxetable}{l c c c c}
635: \tablewidth{0pt}
636: \tablecaption{\label{tab:radiated}Radiated Quantities}
637: \tablehead{
638: \colhead{Model} & \colhead{$a$} & \colhead{$V (\KMS)$} & \colhead{$\Delta E (\%)$} & \colhead{$\Delta J (\%)$} }
639: \startdata
640: S0.05 & 0.2 & $\phantom{0}96\pm 7$ & 3.24 & 26.82\\[1mm]
641: S0.10 & 0.4 & $190\pm 10$ & 3.30 & 27.05\\[1mm]
642: S0.15 & 0.6 & $285\pm 12$ & 3.33 & 27.12\\[1mm]
643: S0.20 & 0.8 & $392\pm 33$ & 3.34 & 26.83\\[1mm]
644: \enddata
645: \end{deluxetable}
646: %\clearpage
647:
648: The core results of our work are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:radiated}.
649: Table~\ref{tab:radiated} lists the values for the total
650: recoil $V$, energy $\Delta E$ and angular momentum $\Delta J$ radiated
651: for each of the cases considered. The reported values
652: were obtained with resolutions $h=M/40$ and extracted at $r_{det} = 40\,M$.
653: For reference, we include also the dimensionless spin parameter $a$.
654: Figure~\ref{fig:recoil.spin.dep} displays the recoil
655: velocity $V$ as a function of the dimensionless spin parameter $a$ for all the resolutions
656: used in our simulations.
657: Solid circles denote resolutions
658: $h=M/40$, diamonds resolutions $h=M/32$ and inverted triangles
659: resolutions $h=M/30$.
660: The error bars correspond to the conservatively estimated errors
661: listed in Table~\ref{tab:radiated}, and are
662: larger than the actual scatter of the results at different resolution.
663:
664: %\clearpage
665: \begin{figure}
666: \plotone{fig5}
667: \caption{\label{fig:recoil.spin.dep} Magnitude of the recoil velocity $V$
668: as a function of the dimensionless spin parameter $a$. Solid circles are for resolutions
669: $h=M/40$, diamonds for resolutions $h=M/32$ and inverted triangles
670: for resolutions $h=M/30$. In each case, the results at different resolution
671: cluster more tightly than the conservatively estimated error
672: bars (Table~\ref{tab:radiated}). }
673: \end{figure}
674: %\clearpage
675:
676: In order to estimate these errors, for each spin case,
677: we perform Richardson error estimates of the total
678: recoil velocity $V$ assuming 2nd order convergence.
679: We then increase these errors to
680: take into account factors such as
681: the deterioration of convergence in the weak mode-overlaps
682: (see below).
683: We believe these are conservative best-guess errors
684: that could be reduced with, among other things, higher resolution.
685:
686: Note in Figure~\ref{fig:recoil.spin.dep}
687: the linear dependence of
688: the magnitude of the kick velocity $V$ on the spin parameter,
689: as expected from the multipole example in Section~\ref{sec:intro}.
690: A fit to the data yields \Vkick.
691:
692: An interesting aspect of the spin configuration we have considered is
693: the fraction of radiated energy $\Delta E$ and angular momentum $\Delta
694: J$. The fraction radiated is approximately constant within the accuracy
695: of our simulations. One possible reason why $\Delta E$ and $\Delta J$
696: do not seem to depend on the spins of the holes could be due to the
697: set up of our initial data. By construction, the four
698: cases we considered have the same total initial angular momentum
699: $J/\mu\,M = 3.3$. In our case with spins oppositely directed and
700: with equal magnitude the variations in the total ADM energy are $<
701: 0.05\%$, as can be seen from Table~\ref{tab:initial_data}.
702:
703: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
704: \subsection{Mode Analysis and Convergence}
705:
706: With the kick formula (\ref{eq:recoil.modes}), we were able to
707: investigate the contribution of each mode-overlap
708: $\olap{\ell}{m}{\bar\ell}{\bar m}$ to the total recoil velocity.
709: Figure~\ref{fig:recoil.mode.sorted} shows the contribution that each
710: mode-overlap makes to the total kick velocity for the $S0.10$ case
711: with $h=M/40$ resolution. The mode-overlaps have been sorted from
712: largest to smallest. The total recoil is labeled with an inverted
713: triangle. Positive mode-overlap contributions are labeled with
714: circles and negative with diamonds. There are two important points to
715: take from this figure: A) Note how quickly the contribution to $V^x$ and
716: $V^y$ from each mode-overlap falls off; that is, there are few mode-overlaps
717: that have significant contribution. B) The two
718: most dominant mode-overlaps $\olap{2}{-2}{2}{-1}$ and
719: $\olap{2}{2}{2}{1}$ contribute almost equally $54\,\%$ (note that
720: other modes contribute negatively) in $V^x$ and $40\,\%$ in $V^y$.
721:
722: %\clearpage
723: \begin{figure}
724: \plotone{fig6}
725: \caption{\label{fig:recoil.mode.sorted}
726: Contribution to the recoil velocity components $V^x$ and $V^y$
727: from each $\olap{\ell}{m}{\bar\ell}{\bar m}$ mode-overlap
728: for the $S0.10$ case with resolution $h=M/40$ extracted
729: at $r_{det}=30\,M$.
730: The recoil from combining all mode-overlaps is labeled with an inverted triangle.
731: Positive mode-overlap contributions are labeled with circles and negative with diamonds.}
732: \end{figure}
733: %\clearpage
734:
735: Another way of showing the dominance of the
736: $\olap{2}{-2}{2}{-1}$ and $\olap{2}{2}{2}{1}$
737: mode-overlaps is presented in Figure~\ref{fig:recoil.mode.acc}.
738: This figure shows the accumulated velocity as a function of time.
739: The solid line gives the accumulation in time of recoil from all mode-overlaps combined, the
740: dotted line shows the combined accumulations of the two most dominant mode-overlaps,
741: $\olap{2}{-2}{2}{-1}$ and $\olap{2}{2}{2}{1}$, and the dashed line displays
742: the accumulation in time of the $\olap{2}{-2}{2}{-1}$ mode overlap.
743:
744: %\clearpage
745: \begin{figure}
746: \plotone{fig7}
747: \caption{\label{fig:recoil.mode.acc} Recoil velocity components $V^x$ and $V^y$
748: versus time for the case $S0.10$ case with resolution $h=M/40$ extracted at $r_{det}=30\,M$.
749: The solid line gives the accumulation in time of recoil from all mode-overlaps combined,
750: dotted line denotes the combined accumulations of only the two most dominant mode-overlaps,
751: $\olap{2}{-2}{2}{-1}$ and $\olap{2}{2}{2}{1}$, and the dashed line
752: the accumulation in time of the $\olap{2}{-2}{2}{-1}$ mode-overlap.}
753: \end{figure}
754: %\clearpage
755:
756: Given that the mode-overlaps $\olap{2}{-2}{2}{-1}$ and $\olap{2}{2}{2}{1}$
757: are the principal contributors to the total kick velocity,
758: we analyzed the convergence properties of these overlaps.
759: Figure~\ref{fig:recoil.mode.conv} displays the differences of the
760: $\olap{2}{-2}{2}{-1}$ mode-overlap from three resolutions,
761: $h/M=( 1/32, 1/35, 1/40)$. The
762: solid line is the difference between the coarse and medium resolutions (``c-m'').
763: The other lines show the difference between the medium and fine resolutions (``m-f''),
764: scaled to match (``c-m'') for 3rd, 4th and 5th order convergence.
765: It is clear from this figure that this mode-overlap is close to being
766: 4th-order convergent. A similar situation occurs for the other
767: dominant mode-overlap $\olap{2}{2}{2}{1}$.
768: Unfortunately, the situation is different for the other weaker
769: mode-overlaps. These overlaps involve
770: higher modes of $\Psi_4$ that are much more difficult to resolve given
771: the range of resolutions we have.
772: When these weaker modes are added to obtain the total recoil,
773: one is no longer able to reach the desired 4th-order convergence.
774: In some instances it drops to 1st-order convergence.
775: Fortunately, as we have seen from Figure~\ref{fig:recoil.mode.sorted},
776: their contribution to the overall recoil is small.
777: We are confident that our
778: total kick velocities will not change significantly if one is able to
779: achieve finer resolutions than $h=M/40$.
780:
781: %\clearpage
782: \begin{figure}
783: \plotone{fig8}
784: \caption{\label{fig:recoil.mode.conv} Convergence analysis of the recoil
785: contribution from the dominant overlap $\olap{2}{-2}{2}{-1}$ for the
786: $S0.10$ case extracted at $r_{det}=30\,M$.
787: The solid line gives the difference between the coarse and medium resolutions (``c-m'').
788: The other lines show the difference between the medium and fine resolutions (``m-f''),
789: scaled to match (``c-m'') for 3rd, 4th and 5th order convergence.
790: }
791: \end{figure}
792: %\clearpage
793:
794: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
795: \section{Summary and Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
796:
797: We have computed estimates of \bh{} merger kick velocities from
798: previously untreated physical effects arising from the spin of the holes.
799: Our computational simulations provided firm predictions of kick velocities
800: for \bbh{} systems of equal mass and anti-aligned spins.
801: Because we are able to accurately resolve the dominant modes
802: that contribute to the kick and estimate those kicks by a number of methods,
803: we are confident in our astrophysical conclusions involving the binary types we considered.
804: Previous studies which considered the merger of (non-spinning) \bh{s} of unequal masses
805: produced kicks $\sim 200\,\KMS$ with a reasonably broad maximum
806: near the symmetrized mass ratio of $\eta=0.2$ (mass ratio $0.38$).
807: From the astrophysical point of view, $200\, \KMS$ is interesting. For instance,
808: the escape velocity from the center of dwarf elliptical galaxies is $~300~\KMS $,
809: assuming the standard picture of dark matter halos.
810: We found spin kick velocities \Vkick, where $a$ is the dimensionless spin parameter,
811: in opposite-spin configurations (see Figure~\ref{fig:recoil.spin.dep}).
812:
813: For black holes ($10 - 20\, M_\odot$) seen in the galaxy,
814: there are observations supporting spin parameters $a \gtsim 0.8$~\citep{2006ApJ...652..518M},
815: and theoretical explanations of why this is so
816: are generally applicable to \smbh{s} also.
817: Thus we expect substantial kicks due to spin interactions.
818: Our simulations predict typical kicks $\gtsim 400 \,\KMS$ in astrophysical \bh{} mergers of all masses.
819: These results could explain the observed
820: absence of central black holes in dwarf elliptical galaxies.
821: Our simulations show limitations, mostly due to the high cost of
822: performing very high resolution runs. But, because we are
823: able to accurately resolve the dominant modes that contribute to the kick,
824: we believe that our astrophysical conclusions are secure\footnote{Soon after the completion of our work,
825: results that support our findings of spin effects on kicks were obtain by~\citet{2007gr.qc.....1164C, Koppitz:2007ev}.}.
826:
827: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
828: \acknowledgments
829: Thanks to Jos\'e Gonz\'alez, Ben Owen, Carlos Sopuerta, Ulrich Sperhake and Nico Yunes
830: for helpful conversations.
831: The authors acknowledge the support of the Center for
832: Gravitational Wave Physics funded by the National Science Foundation
833: under Cooperative Agreement PHY-0114375. This work was supported by
834: NSF grants PHY-0354821 to Deirdre Shoemaker, PHY-0244788 and
835: PHY-0555436 to Pablo Laguna and PHY-0354842 and NASA grant NNG 04GL37G
836: to Richard Matzner. Computations were carried out at NCSA under
837: allocation TG-PHY-060013N, and at the Texas Advanced Computation Center, University of Texas System.
838:
839: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
840: %\nocite*
841: % Create the reference section using BibTeX:
842: \bibliography{references}
843:
844: \begin{thebibliography}{58}
845: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
846: \expandafter\ifx\csname href\endcsname\relax
847: \def\href#1#2{}\fi
848: \expandafter\ifx\csname urllinklabel\endcsname\relax
849: \def\urllinklabel{[LINK]}\fi
850: \expandafter\ifx\csname adsurllinklabel\endcsname\relax
851: \def\adsurllinklabel{[ADS]}\fi
852:
853: \bibitem[{Alcubierre {et~al.}(2003)Alcubierre, Br\"ugmann, Diener, Koppitz,
854: Pollney, Seidel, \& Takahashi}]{Alcubierre02a}
855: Alcubierre, M., Br\"ugmann, B., Diener, P., Koppitz, M., Pollney, D., Seidel,
856: E., \& Takahashi, R. 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 084023
857:
858:
859: \bibitem[{{Anninos} {et~al.}(1995){Anninos}, {Price}, {Pullin}, {Seidel}, \&
860: {Suen}}]{1995PhRvD..52.4462A}
861: {Anninos}, P., {Price}, R.~H., {Pullin}, J., {Seidel}, E., \& {Suen}, W.-M.
862: 1995, \prd, 52, 4462
863:
864:
865: \bibitem[{Ansorg {et~al.}(2004)Ansorg, Br\"ugmann, \& Tichy}]{Ansorg:2004ds}
866: Ansorg, M., Br\"ugmann, B., \& Tichy, W. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 064011
867:
868:
869: \bibitem[{Baker {et~al.}(2002)Baker, Campanelli, \& Lousto}]{Baker:2001sf}
870: Baker, J., Campanelli, M., \& Lousto, C.~O. 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 044001
871:
872:
873: \bibitem[{Baker {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}})Baker, Centrella, Choi, Koppitz, \&
874: van Meter}]{Baker:2006yw}
875: Baker, J.~G., Centrella, J., Choi, D.-I., Koppitz, M., \& van Meter, J.
876: 2006{\natexlab{a}}, Phys. Rev., D73, 104002
877:
878:
879: \bibitem[{Baker {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}})Baker, Centrella, Choi, Koppitz, \&
880: van Meter}]{Baker:2005vv}
881: ---. 2006{\natexlab{b}}, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 111102
882:
883:
884: \bibitem[{{Baker} {et~al.}(2006){Baker}, {Centrella}, {Choi}, {Koppitz}, {van
885: Meter}, \& {Miller}}]{Baker:2006vn}
886: {Baker}, J.~G., {Centrella}, J., {Choi}, D.-I., {Koppitz}, M., {van Meter},
887: J.~R., \& {Miller}, M.~C. 2006, \apjl, 653, L93
888:
889:
890: \bibitem[{Baumgarte(2000)}]{Baumgarte00a}
891: Baumgarte, T.~W. 2000, Phys. Rev. D, 62, 024018
892:
893:
894: \bibitem[{Baumgarte \& Shapiro(1999)}]{Baumgarte99}
895: Baumgarte, T.~W. \& Shapiro, S.~L. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 024007
896:
897:
898: \bibitem[{Baumgarte \& Shapiro(2003)}]{Baumgarte:2002jm}
899: ---. 2003, Physics Reports, 376, 41
900:
901:
902: \bibitem[{{Begelman} {et~al.}(1980){Begelman}, {Blandford}, \&
903: {Rees}}]{Begelman:1980vb}
904: {Begelman}, M.~C., {Blandford}, R.~D., \& {Rees}, M.~J. 1980, \nat, 287, 307
905:
906:
907: \bibitem[{{Bekenstein}(1973)}]{Bekenstein:1973jd}
908: {Bekenstein}, J.~D. 1973, ApJ, 183, 657
909:
910:
911: \bibitem[{Blanchet {et~al.}(2005)Blanchet, Qusailah, \& Will}]{Blanchet:2005rj}
912: Blanchet, L., Qusailah, M. S.~S., \& Will, C.~M. 2005, ApJ, 635, 508
913:
914:
915: \bibitem[{Brandt \& Br{\"u}gmann(1997)}]{Brandt97b}
916: Brandt, S. \& Br{\"u}gmann, B. 1997, Phys. Rev. Lett., 78, 3606
917:
918:
919: \bibitem[{Cactus(2007)}]{Cactusweb}
920: Cactus. 2007, \texttt{http://www.cactuscode.org}
921:
922:
923: \bibitem[{Campanelli(2005)}]{Campanelli:2004zw}
924: Campanelli, M. 2005, Class. Quant. Grav., 22, S387
925:
926:
927: \bibitem[{Campanelli {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}})Campanelli, Lousto,
928: Marronetti, \& Zlochower}]{Campanelli:2005dd}
929: Campanelli, M., Lousto, C.~O., Marronetti, P., \& Zlochower, Y.
930: 2006{\natexlab{a}}, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 111101
931:
932:
933: \bibitem[{Campanelli {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}})Campanelli, Lousto, \&
934: Zlochower}]{Campanelli:2006uy}
935: Campanelli, M., Lousto, C.~O., \& Zlochower, Y. 2006{\natexlab{b}}, preprint
936: (gr-qc/0604012)
937:
938:
939: \bibitem[{{Campanelli} {et~al.}(2007){Campanelli}, {Lousto}, {Zlochower}, \&
940: {Merritt}}]{2007gr.qc.....1164C}
941: {Campanelli}, M., {Lousto}, C.~O., {Zlochower}, Y., \& {Merritt}, D. 2007,
942: preprint (gr-qc/0701164)
943:
944:
945: \bibitem[{Choi(2007)}]{Dale07}
946: Choi, D. 2007, private communication
947:
948:
949: \bibitem[{Cook(1994)}]{Cook94}
950: Cook, G.~B. 1994, Phys. Rev. D, 50, 5025
951:
952:
953: \bibitem[{Damour \& Gopakumar(2006)}]{Damour:2006tr}
954: Damour, T. \& Gopakumar, A. 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 124006
955:
956:
957: \bibitem[{{Danzmann}(2003)}]{Danzmann:2003ad}
958: {Danzmann}, K. 2003, Advances in Space Research, 32, 1233
959:
960:
961: \bibitem[{Favata {et~al.}(2004)Favata, Hughes, \& Holz}]{Favata:2004wz}
962: Favata, M., Hughes, S.~A., \& Holz, D.~E. 2004, Astrophys. J., 607, L5
963:
964:
965: \bibitem[{{Ferrarese}(2002)}]{Ferrarese:2002la}
966: {Ferrarese}, L. 2002, \apj, 578, 90
967:
968:
969: \bibitem[{{Ferrarese} \& {Merritt}(2000)}]{Ferrarese:2000fm}
970: {Ferrarese}, L. \& {Merritt}, D. 2000, \apjl, 539, L9
971:
972:
973: \bibitem[{{Fitchett}(1983)}]{Fitchett:1983fc}
974: {Fitchett}, M.~J. 1983, \mnras, 203, 1049
975:
976:
977: \bibitem[{{Fitchett} \& {Detweiler}(1984)}]{Fitchett:1984fd}
978: {Fitchett}, M.~J. \& {Detweiler}, S. 1984, \mnras, 211, 933
979:
980:
981: \bibitem[{{Gonzalez} {et~al.}(2006){Gonzalez}, {Sperhake}, {Bruegmann},
982: {Hannam}, \& {Husa}}]{Gonzalez:2006md}
983: {Gonzalez}, J.~A., {Sperhake}, U., {Bruegmann}, B., {Hannam}, M., \& {Husa}, S.
984: 2006, preprint (gr-qc/0610154)
985:
986:
987: \bibitem[{{Haehnelt} {et~al.}(2006){Haehnelt}, {Davies}, \&
988: {Rees}}]{Haehnelt:2006hd}
989: {Haehnelt}, M.~G., {Davies}, M.~B., \& {Rees}, M.~J. 2006, \mnras, 366, L22
990:
991:
992: \bibitem[{{Haiman}(2004)}]{Haiman:2004ve}
993: {Haiman}, Z. 2004, \apj, 613, 36
994:
995:
996: \bibitem[{Hannam {et~al.}(2006)Hannam, Husa, Pollney, Brugmann, \&
997: O'Murchadha}]{Hannam:2006vv}
998: Hannam, M., Husa, S., Pollney, D., Brugmann, B., \& O'Murchadha, N. 2006,
999: preprint (gr-qc/0606099)
1000:
1001:
1002: \bibitem[{{Harrison} \& {Tademaru}(1975)}]{1975ApJ...201..447H}
1003: {Harrison}, E.~R. \& {Tademaru}, E. 1975, \apj, 201, 447
1004:
1005:
1006: \bibitem[{{Herrmann} {et~al.}(2006){Herrmann}, {Shoemaker}, \&
1007: {Laguna}}]{Herrmann:2006ks}
1008: {Herrmann}, F., {Shoemaker}, D., \& {Laguna}, P. 2006, preprint (gr-qc/0601026)
1009:
1010:
1011: \bibitem[{Husa {et~al.}(2006)Husa, Hinder, \& Lechner}]{Husa:2004ip}
1012: Husa, S., Hinder, I., \& Lechner, C. 2006, Computer Physics Communications,
1013: 174, 983
1014:
1015:
1016: \bibitem[{Kidder(1995{\natexlab{a}})}]{PhysRevD.52.821}
1017: Kidder, L.~E. 1995{\natexlab{a}}, Phys. Rev. D, 52, 821
1018:
1019:
1020: \bibitem[{Kidder(1995{\natexlab{b}})}]{Kidder:1995zr}
1021: ---. 1995{\natexlab{b}}, Phys. Rev., D52, 821
1022:
1023:
1024: \bibitem[{Koppitz {et~al.}(2007)}]{Koppitz:2007ev}
1025: Koppitz, M. {et~al.} 2007, preprint (gr-qc/0701163)
1026:
1027:
1028: \bibitem[{{Madau} \& {Quataert}(2004)}]{Madau:2004mq}
1029: {Madau}, P. \& {Quataert}, E. 2004, \apjl, 606, L17
1030:
1031:
1032: \bibitem[{Magorrian {et~al.}(1998)}]{Magorrian:1997hw}
1033: Magorrian, J. {et~al.} 1998, Astron. J., 115, 2285
1034:
1035:
1036: \bibitem[{{McClintock} {et~al.}(2006){McClintock}, {Shafee}, {Narayan},
1037: {Remillard}, {Davis}, \& {Li}}]{2006ApJ...652..518M}
1038: {McClintock}, J.~E., {Shafee}, R., {Narayan}, R., {Remillard}, R.~A., {Davis},
1039: S.~W., \& {Li}, L.-X. 2006, \apj, 652, 518
1040:
1041:
1042: \bibitem[{Merritt {et~al.}(2004)Merritt, Milosavljevic, Favata, Hughes, \&
1043: Holz}]{Merritt:2004xa}
1044: Merritt, D., Milosavljevic, M., Favata, M., Hughes, S.~A., \& Holz, D.~E. 2004,
1045: Astrophys. J., 607, L9
1046:
1047:
1048: \bibitem[{Micic {et~al.}(2006)Micic, Abel, \& Sigurdsson}]{Micic:2006ta}
1049: Micic, M., Abel, T., \& Sigurdsson, S. 2006, preprint (astro-ph/0609443)
1050:
1051:
1052: \bibitem[{Nakamura {et~al.}(1987)Nakamura, Oohara, \& Kojima}]{Nakamura87}
1053: Nakamura, T., Oohara, K., \& Kojima, Y. 1987, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 90, 1
1054:
1055:
1056: \bibitem[{{Newman} \& {Tod}(1980)}]{1980grg2.conf....1N}
1057: {Newman}, E.~T. \& {Tod}, K.~P. 1980, General Relativity and Gravitation: One
1058: hundread years after the birth of Albert Einstein, ed. A.~Held, Vol.~2
1059: (Plenum Press N.Y.), pp 1
1060:
1061:
1062: \bibitem[{{Peres}(1962)}]{Peres:1962ap}
1063: {Peres}, A. 1962, Phys. Rev., 128, 2471
1064:
1065:
1066: \bibitem[{{Price} \& {Pullin}(1994)}]{1994PhRvL..72.3297P}
1067: {Price}, R.~H. \& {Pullin}, J. 1994, Physical Review Letters, 72, 3297
1068:
1069:
1070: \bibitem[{{Prince}(2003)}]{Prince:2003aa}
1071: {Prince}, T. 2003, American Astronomical Society Meeting, 202, 3701
1072:
1073:
1074: \bibitem[{{Richstone} {et~al.}(1998)}]{Richstone:1998ea}
1075: {Richstone}, D. {et~al.} 1998, \nat, 395, 14
1076:
1077:
1078: \bibitem[{Schnetter {et~al.}(2004)Schnetter, Hawley, \&
1079: Hawke}]{Schnetter-etal-03b}
1080: Schnetter, E., Hawley, S.~H., \& Hawke, I. 2004, Class. Quantum Grav., 21, 1465
1081:
1082:
1083: \bibitem[{Shibata \& Nakamura(1995)}]{Shibata95}
1084: Shibata, M. \& Nakamura, T. 1995, Phys. Rev. D, 52, 5428
1085:
1086:
1087: \bibitem[{Shoemaker {et~al.}(2007)Shoemaker, Herrmann, Hinder, \&
1088: Vaishnav}]{Shoemaker07}
1089: Shoemaker, D., Herrmann, F., Hinder, I., \& Vaishnav, B. 2007, in preparation
1090:
1091:
1092: \bibitem[{{Sopuerta} {et~al.}(2006){Sopuerta}, {Yunes}, \&
1093: {Laguna}}]{2006PhRvD..74l4010S}
1094: {Sopuerta}, C.~F., {Yunes}, N., \& {Laguna}, P. 2006, \prd, 74, 124010
1095:
1096:
1097: \bibitem[{{Sopuerta} {et~al.}(2007){Sopuerta}, {Yunes}, \&
1098: {Laguna}}]{2006astro.ph.11110S}
1099: ---. 2007, \apjl, 656, L9
1100:
1101:
1102: \bibitem[{Thorne(1980)}]{RevModPhys.52.299}
1103: Thorne, K.~S. 1980, Rev. Mod. Phys., 52, 299
1104:
1105:
1106: \bibitem[{{Volonteri} {et~al.}(2003){Volonteri}, {Haardt}, \&
1107: {Madau}}]{Volonteri:2002am}
1108: {Volonteri}, M., {Haardt}, F., \& {Madau}, P. 2003, \apj, 582, 559
1109:
1110:
1111: \bibitem[{Wiseman(1992)}]{Wiseman:1992dv}
1112: Wiseman, A.~G. 1992, Phys. Rev. D, 46, 1517
1113:
1114:
1115: \bibitem[{Zlochower {et~al.}(2005)Zlochower, Baker, Campanelli, \&
1116: Lousto}]{Zlochower2005:fourth-order}
1117: Zlochower, Y., Baker, J.~G., Campanelli, M., \& Lousto, C.~O. 2005, Phys. Rev.
1118: D, 72, 024021
1119:
1120:
1121: \end{thebibliography}
1122:
1123: \end{document}
1124: