- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Conservative corrections to the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) of a Kerr black hole: A new gauge-invariant post-Newtonian ISCO condition, and the ISCO shift due to test-particle spin and the gravitational self-force

Marc Favata*

  • Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, California 91109, USA and Theoretical Astrophysics, 350-17, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA

  • *favata@tapir.caltech.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 83, 024028 – Published 21 January, 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.024028

Abstract

The innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) delimits the transition from circular orbits to those that plunge into a black hole. In the test-mass limit, well-defined ISCO conditions exist for the Kerr and Schwarzschild spacetimes. In the finite-mass case, there are a large variety of ways to define an ISCO in a post-Newtonian (PN) context. Here I generalize the gauge-invariant ISCO condition of Blanchet and Iyer [Classical Quantum Gravity 20, 755 (2003)] to the case of spinning (nonprecessing) binaries. The Blanchet-Iyer ISCO condition has two desirable and unexpected properties: (1) it exactly reproduces the Schwarzschild ISCO in the test-mass limit, and (2) it accurately approximates the recently calculated shift in the Schwarzschild ISCO frequency due to the conservative-piece of the gravitational self-force [L. Barack and N. Sago, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 191101 (2009)]. The generalization of this ISCO condition to spinning binaries has the property that it also exactly reproduces the Kerr ISCO in the test-mass limit (up to the order at which PN spin corrections are currently known). The shift in the ISCO due to the spin of the test-particle is also calculated. Remarkably, the gauge-invariant PN ISCO condition exactly reproduces the ISCO shift predicted by the Papapetrou equations for a fully relativistic spinning particle. It is surprising that an analysis of the stability of the standard PN equations of motion is able (without any form of “resummation”) to accurately describe strong-field effects of the Kerr spacetime. The ISCO frequency shift due to the conservative self-force in Kerr is also calculated from this new ISCO condition, as well as from the effective-one-body Hamiltonian of Barausse and Buonanno [Phys. Rev. D 81, 084024 (2010)]. These results serve as a useful point of comparison for future gravitational self-force calculations in the Kerr spacetime.

View figure in article

See Also

Conservative self-force correction to the innermost stable circular orbit: Comparison with multiple post-Newtonian-based methods

Marc Favata
Phys. Rev. D 83, 024027 (2011)

Article Text

References (68)

  1. A. Ori and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D 62, 124022 (2000).
  2. A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D 62, 064015 (2000).
  3. Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov.
  4. E. Poisson, Living Rev. Relativity 7, 6 (2004).
  5. C. O. Lousto, Classical Quantum Gravity 22, S369 (2005).
  6. S. Detweiler, arXiv:0908.4363.
  7. L. Barack, Classical Quantum Gravity 26, 213001 (2009).
  8. L. Barack and N. Sago, Phys. Rev. D 75, 064021 (2007).
  9. S. Detweiler, Phys. Rev. D 77, 124026 (2008).
  10. M. V. Berndtson, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder, 2007, arXiv:0904.0033.
  11. N. Sago, L. Barack, and S. Detweiler, Phys. Rev. D 78, 124024 (2008).
  12. T. S. Keidl, A. G. Shah, J. L. Friedman, D. Kim, and L. R. Price, Phys. Rev. D 82, 124012 (2010).
  13. A. Shah, T. Keidl, J. Friedman, D. Kim, and L. Price, arXiv:1009.4876.
  14. L. Barack and N. Sago, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 191101 (2009).
  15. L. Barack and N. Sago, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084021 (2010).
  16. A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D 59, 084006 (1999).
  17. T. Damour, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 23, 1130 (2008).
  18. T. Damour and A. Nagar, arXiv:0906.1769.
  19. T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D 81, 024017 (2010).
  20. E. Barausse and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084024 (2010).
  21. M. Favata, preceding Article, Phys. Rev. D 83, 024027 (2011).
  22. A. Buonanno, Y. Pan, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, L. T. Buchman, and L. E. Kidder, Phys. Rev. D 79, 124028 (2009).
  23. M. Caudill, G. B. Cook, J. D. Grigsby, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. D 74, 064011 (2006).
  24. L. Blanchet and B. R. Iyer, Classical Quantum Gravity 20, 755 (2003).
  25. A. Buonanno, Y. Chen, and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D 67, 024016 (2003); 74, 029903(E) (2006).
  26. L. E. Kidder, C. M. Will, and A. G. Wiseman, Classical Quantum Gravity 9, L125 (1992).
  27. L. E. Kidder, C. M. Will, and A. G. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. D 47, 3281 (1993).
  28. T. Damour, B. R. Iyer, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 57, 885 (1998).
  29. J. M. Bardeen, W. H. Press, and S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J. 178, 347 (1972).
  30. S. Suzuki and K. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D 58, 023005 (1998).
  31. T. Tanaka, Y. Mino, M. Sasaki, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D 54, 3762 (1996).
  32. S. Suzuki and K. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D 55, 4848 (1997).
  33. A. Papapetrou, Proc. R. Soc. A 209, 248 (1951).
  34. E. Corinaldesi and A. Papapetrou, Proc. R. Soc. A 209, 259 (1951).
  35. M. Mathisson, Z. Phys. 67, 826 (1931); Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 42, 989 (2010).
  36. M. Mathisson, Acta Phys. Pol. 6, 163 (1937); Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 42, 1011 (2010).
  37. W. G. Dixon, Proc. R. Soc. A 314, 499 (1970).
  38. W. G. Dixon, Proc. R. Soc. A 319, 509 (1970).
  39. W. G. Dixon, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 277, 59 (1974).
  40. E. Barausse, E. Racine, and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D 80, 104025 (2009).
  41. L. Blanchet, Living Rev. Relativity 9, 4 (2006).
  42. B. M. Barker and R. F. O’Connell, Phys. Rev. D 2, 1428 (1970).
  43. H. Tagoshi, A. Ohashi, and B. J. Owen, Phys. Rev. D 63, 044006 (2001).
  44. G. Faye, L. Blanchet, and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D 74, 104033 (2006).
  45. E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D 57, 5287 (1998).
  46. É. Racine, A. Buonanno, and L. Kidder, Phys. Rev. D 80, 044010 (2009).
  47. L. Blanchet, A. Buonanno, and G. Faye, Phys. Rev. D 74, 104034 (2006); 75, 049903(E) (2007); 81, 089901(E) (2010).
  48. L. E. Kidder, Phys. Rev. D 52, 821 (1995).
  49. R. A. Porto and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 021101 (2006).
  50. R. A. Porto and I. Z. Rothstein, arXiv:0712.2032.
  51. R. A. Porto and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. D 78, 044012 (2008); 81, 029904(E) (2010).
  52. R. A. Porto and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. D 78, 044013 (2008); 81, 029905(E) (2010).
  53. J. Steinhoff, S. Hergt, and G. Schäfer, Phys. Rev. D 78, 101503 (2008).
  54. S. Hergt and G. Schäfer, Phys. Rev. D 78, 124004 (2008).
  55. J. Steinhoff and G. Schäfer, Phys. Rev. D 80, 088501 (2009).
  56. G. Schaefer, arXiv:0910.2857.
  57. S. Hergt, J. Steinhoff, and G. Schäfer, Classical Quantum Gravity 27, 135007 (2010).
  58. T. J. Rothe and G. Schäfer, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 51, 082501 (2010).
  59. M. Levi, Phys. Rev. D 82, 064029 (2010).
  60. N. Yunes, A. Buonanno, S. A. Hughes, Y. Pan, E. Barausse, M. C. Miller, and W. Throwe, arXiv:1009.6013.
  61. L. Blanchet, S. Detweiler, A. Le Tiec, and B. F. Whiting, Phys. Rev. D 81, 064004 (2010).
  62. L. Blanchet, S. Detweiler, A. Le Tiec, and B. F. Whiting, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084033 (2010).
  63. L. Barack, T. Damour, and N. Sago, Phys. Rev. D 82, 084036 (2010).
  64. L. Blanchet and G. Faye, Phys. Rev. D 63, 062005 (2001).
  65. L. Blanchet, G. Faye, B. R. Iyer, and B. Joguet, Phys. Rev. D 65, 061501(R) (2002).
  66. V. C. de Andrade, L. Blanchet, and G. Faye, Classical Quantum Gravity 18, 753 (2001).
  67. G. B. Cook and M. A. Scheel, Phys. Rev. D 56, 4775 (1997).
  68. M. Saijo, K. Maeda, M. Shibata, and Y. Mino, Phys. Rev. D 58, 064005 (1998).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 83, 024028– Published 21 January, 2011
  • Received 12 October 2010
Article part of CHORUS

© 2011 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation