4.7 Article

Extra-large remnant recoil velocities and spins from near-extremal-Bowen-York-spin black-hole binaries

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 78, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.024039

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [PHY-0722315, PHY-0653303, PHY 0714388, PHY 0722703]
  2. NASA [07-ATFP07-0158]
  3. CONICET (Argentina)
  4. PIP [6354/05]
  5. Secyt-UNC (Argentina)
  6. Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics, Albert-Einstein-Institute (Germany)
  7. Division Of Physics
  8. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0855892] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evolve equal-mass, equal-spin black-hole binaries with specific spins of a/m(H)similar to 0.925, the highest spins simulated thus far and nearly the largest possible for Bowen-York black holes, in a set of configurations with the spins counteraligned and pointing in the orbital plane, which maximizes the recoil velocities of the merger remnant, as well as a configuration where the two spins point in the same direction as the orbital angular momentum, which maximizes the orbital hangup effect and remnant spin. The coordinate radii of the individual apparent horizons in these cases are very small and the simulations require very high central resolutions (h similar to M/320). We find that these highly spinning holes reach a maximum recoil velocity of similar to 3300 km s(-1) (the largest simulated so far) and, for the hangup configuration, a remnant spin of a/m(H)similar to 0.922. These results are consistent with our previous predictions for the maximum recoil velocity of similar to 4000 km s(-1) and remnant spin; the latter reinforcing the prediction that cosmic censorship is not violated by merging highly spinning black-hole binaries. We also numerically solve the initial data for, and evolve, a single maximal-Bowen-York-spin black hole, and confirm that the 3-metric has an O(r(-2)) singularity at the puncture, rather than the usual O(r(-4)) singularity seen for nonmaximal spins.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据