Arxiv:1310.7499V2 [Gr-Qc] 2 Feb 2014 Yrﬃi&Wlo 1 Seas 2) Ntecnetof Context the in [2])

arXiv:1310.7499v2 [gr-qc] 2 Feb 2014 yRffii&Wlo 1 seas 2) ntecnetof context the In [2]). also (see [1] considered Wilson was & extrac- accretion Ruffini energy magnetized by weakly rotational to Black-hole due cases. tion both extrac- by energy in (spin), as tors rotation invoked either fields its powered magnetic by large-scale or be with pull gravitational can phenomena. hole jets energy black the high relativistic source spectacular principle, ultimate these In the of there to as but energy agreement holes, of general black no onto been accretion mech- has to jet-launching the related that is doubt galac- anism no by is active There ejected some nuclei. in also tic holes are black phe- jets supermassive burst accreting relativistic gamma-ray Powerful the of part nomenon. fundamental the believed be produced are to and be systems to binary observed black-hole stellar-mass are in They holes. black accreting ∗ † rneo etrfrTertclSineFlo n AAEi NASA and Fellow Fellow Science stein Theoretical for Center Princeton [email protected] eaiitcjt r fe anhdfo h iiiyof vicinity the from launched often are jets Relativistic 4 .P Lasota, J.-P. UH bevtied ai,CR,UiestePrsDider Université Paris CNRS, Paris, de Observatoire LUTH, xrcigbakhl oainleeg:Tegeneralized The energy: rotational black-hole Extracting 9 etrfrTertclSine awnHl,PictnUni Princeton Hall, Jadwin Science, Theoretical for Center ASnmes 04.70.Bw,95.30.Sf,95.30.Qd,97.60.Lf numbers: PACS c current. this Noether in the works of energ extraction terms rotational energy hole’s rotational black black-hole the how tapping from results flows nryetato ffiinyu to up efficiency m extraction Blandford-Znajek ne the energy the when that standard obeyed show is the condition we absorption reproduces th disks” In process arrested Penrose “magnetically horizon. the producing a of of part den occurrence some fo energy-momentum on the condition conserved null) or necessary (the (timelike a current directed absorp that Noether show process: the also Penrose for We mechanical the momentum. in angular that to analogous hwta h eesr n ucetcniinfrextracti for condition sufficient and necessary the that show fabtayfilso atrdsrbdb nuseie,gen pa unspecified, an of by occurs absorption described horizon matter is black-hole or the hole fields at arbitrary black torque of No rotating momenta. a angular from energy extract 7 2 ntecs novn atce h eesr n ucetc sufficient and necessary the particles involving case the In 3 arneBree ainlLbrtr,1CcornRa,B Road, Cyclotron 1 Laboratory, National Berkeley Lawrence ioasCpriu srnmclCne,uiaBryk 1 Bartycka ulica Center, Astronomical Copernicus Nicolaus srnmclOsraoy ailoinUiest,ulic University, Jagiellonian Observatory, Astronomical .INTRODUCTION I. 10 nttt o hoyadCmuain Harvard-Smithsonia Computation, and Theory for Institute ,2 3, 2, 1, 5 eateto hsc,Uiest fGtebr,SE-412-9 Gothenburg, of University Physics, of Department 8 nvriyo aionaBree,Bree,Bree,Ca Berkeley, Berkeley, Berkeley, California of University ∗ .Gourgoulhon, E. 0Gre tet S5,Cmrde ascuet 23,US 02138, Massachusetts Cambridge, 51, MS Street, Garden 60 PCUi ai 6 8i dAao 51 ai,France Paris, 75014 Arago, Bd 98bis 06, Paris Univ UPMC erˇ oona.1,C-4-1Oaa zc Republic Czech Opava, CZ-746-01 13, Bezruˇcovo nám. 1 ntttdAtohsqed ai,UR79 CNRS, 7095 UMR Paris, de d’Astrophysique Institut 6 nttt fPyis ieinUiest nOpava, in University Silesian Physics, of Institute 4 ∼ .Abramowicz, M. Dtd 1Jnay2014) January 31 (Dated: 0%fudi eetnmrclsmltoso uhaccretio such of simulations numerical recent in found 300% n- a ers rcs.Kmsao 5 rusta h BZ the mechani- that a argues not [5] is Komissarov clearly process. inertia it Penrose particle therefore mechanism, cal neglected; BZ the be absorbed In can particle hole. infin- black ergoregion-trapped from the the by (“seen” of negative energy the a by ity) Penrose for (“mechanical”) explained [7] this is (see in process gain particle than energy parent The infalling larger and review). initial, energy hole, the with the black infinity, of of reaching the that one one by with other absorbed ergoregion, the being the products in decay two par- into infalling an decays which was in ticle [6], mechanism extraction Penrose energy by BZ proposed rotational process black-hole the discussion the 5] of to of relation ([4, meaning its subject solved physical Another and the clarified about therein). been references now has seems and It problem surface Universe. this causally the the is of that where surface) rest hole’s the setup black from a (the disconnected body in rotating disk the ana- Faraday of the the of identification a of viable to logue a analogy was this hole black applying analogy rotating with the phe- difficulty induction) The on (unipolar nomenon. based disk Faraday energy classical the rotational with hole’s extraction black electromagnetic (here- of of [3] model a Znajek proposed & BZ) after Blandford jets, magnetized strongly ,2 6 2, 5, t lc ue ase,910Muo,France Meudon, 92190 Janssen, Jules place 5 ot, est,Pictn e esy054 USA 08544, Jersey New Princeton, versity, hog h ers rcs.W show We process. Penrose the through y s ydsrbn h ers rcs in process Penrose the describing by ase .Tchekhovskoy, A. no lc oesrttoa nryis energy rotational hole’s black a of on ra11 024Kraków, Poland 30-244 171, Orla a caimi twr,adhnetehigh the hence and work, at is echanism for criterion general our case, particle e rleeg-oetmtensor energy-momentum eral aieeeg n angular-momentum and energy gative ino eaieeeg n negative and energy negative of tion eut ntecs frltvsi jet- relativistic of case the In result. nti ril ecnie h case the consider we article this In . niinfrtePnoepoesto process Penrose the for ondition iyvco)t esaeieo past or spacelike be to vector) sity ,P-076Wrzw,Poland Warszawa, PL-00-716 8, tce ihngtv nrisand energies negative with rticles ree,Clfri 42,USA 94720, California erkeley, h ers rcs oocris occur to process Penrose the r etrfrAstrophysics, for Center n iona94720-3411 lifornia Göteborg, Sweden 6 ,,9, 7,8, ers process Penrose A † n .Narayan R. and T µν and n 10 2 mechanism is an example of an energy counterflow, a tensor, while Carter considered fields that are time pe- black-hole extraction phenomenon supposed to be more riodic (cf. Sec. 6.4.2 of Ref. [14]). Moreover we obtain general than the Penrose process. a new condition on a general electromagnetic field con- In the present article we discuss the relation between figuration [Eq. (7.7) below] and we apply it to interpret any mechanism extracting black-hole rotational energy recent numerical simulation of relativistic jet production. and the mechanical Penrose process using a general- In a recent paper [15] the MAD simulations have been relativistic, covariant description of the energy fluxes in described in the framework of the so-called “membrane the metric of a stationary and axisymmetric rotating paradigm” [16]. This picture of the interaction of elec- black hole (this framework encompasses the Kerr metric tromagnetic fields with the black-hole surface has the ad- as the special case of a black hole surrounded by non- vantage of using the analogues of the usual electric and self-gravitating matter). In particular, using energy and magnetic fields in a 3-D flat space. Penna et al. [15] angular-momentum conservation laws, we prove that for showed that the results of MAD simulations can be con- any matter or field, tapping the black-hole rotational en- sistently described in the membrane framework. ergy is possible if and only if negative energy and angular momentum are absorbed by the black hole and no torque at the black-hole horizon is necessary (or possi- II. THE MECHANICAL PENROSE PROCESS ble). The conditions on energy and angular-momentum fluxes through the horizon are analogous to those on par- Penrose [6] considered1 a free-falling particle that en- ticle energy and angular momentum in the mechanical ters the ergosphere of a rotating black hole with energy Penrose process. From these conditions, we deduce a nec- E = η~ p~ , where η~ is the Killing vector associated 1 − · 1 essary condition for a general (passive) electromagnetic with stationarity [see also Eq. (3.1) below], p~1 the particle field configuration to allow black-hole energy extraction 4-momentum vector and the dot denotes the spacetime µ ν µ through the Penrose process. In the case of stationary, scalar product: η~ p~1 = g(η~, p~1) = gµν η p1 = ηµp1 . axisymmetric, and force-free fields we obtain the well- Here g is the metric· tensor, whose signature is chosen known condition [3] on the angular speed of the field to be ( , +, +, +). Note that although E1 is called an lines. We also describe the Penrose process in terms of energy,− it is not the particle’s energy measured by any the Noether current. This description is particularly use- observer since η~ is not a unit vector (i.e. cannot be con- ful in the description of results of numerical simulations. sidered as the 4-velocity of any observer), except in the Finally, we use our generalized Penrose process frame- asymptotically flat region infinitely far from the black work to interpret the results of recent numerical studies hole. For this reason E1 is often called the energy at in- of accretion onto black holes by [9–11], which indicate finity. The virtue of E1 is to remain constant along the that the BZ mechanism can tap the black-hole rotational particle’s worldline, as long as the latter is a geodesic, energy very efficiently (efficiency η> 100%). These sim- i.e., as long as the particle is free falling. In the ergore- ulations are based on large-scale numerical simulations gion, the particle disintegrates into two particles with, involving a particular state of accretion around rotat- say, 4-momenta p~2 and p~∗. Their conserved energies are, ing black holes: “magnetically arrested disks” (MADs), respectively, E = η~ p~ and ∆EH = η~ p~ (the 2 − · 2 − · ∗ first in Newtonian gravity [see, e.g., 12, 13], and later in notation ∆EH is for future convenience). The first par- GR [e.g., 9], [10]). MADs were also called “magnetically ticle escapes to infinity, which implies E2 > 0, while the choked accretion flows” (MCAFs) in [11]. We show that second one falls into the black hole. Since in the ergore- the resulting configurations satisfy the Penrose-process gion η~ is a spacelike vector (from the very definition of conditions for black-hole energy energy extraction. an ergoregion), it is possible to have ∆EH < 0 on cer- Our results agree, in most respects, with those obtain geodesics. The falling particle is then called a nega- tained by Komissarov [5]. The difference between the two tive energy particle, although its energy measured by any approaches worth noticing, is that we derive our general- observer, such as for instance a zero-angular-momentum ized Penrose condition from the fundamental, and univer- observer (ZAMO), remains always positive. At the disin- sally accepted, null energy condition, while Komissarov tegration point, the conservation of 4-momentum implies introduces a new concept of the energy counterflow. This p~1 = p~2+p~∗; taking the scalar product with η~, we deduce difference will be investigated in a future paper. that E1 = E2 + ∆EH . Then, as a result of ∆EH < 0, we More than 30 years ago Carter [14], analyzing the get E2 > E1. At infinity, where the constants E1 and E2 BZ mechanism in a covariant framework obtained sev- can be interpreted as the energies measured by an inertial eral results similar to ours. Using energy and angular- observer at rest with respect to the black hole (thanks to momentum rates (integrated fluxes, while we use energy the asymptotic behavior of η~), one has clearly some en- and angular momentum) he showed the necessity of a ergy gain: the outgoing particle is more energetic than negative energy absorption rate at the horizon for this the ingoing one. This is the so-called mechanical Penrose mechanism to operate. Strangely, his paper has almost never been cited in the context of the discussion of the Penrose-BZ process. Our treatment is more general than 1 that of Carter since we use a general energy-momentum See also [17] 3 process of energy extraction from a rotating black hole. nature ( , +, +, +). We are considering a rotating un- In other words, the sufficient and necessary condition for charged− black hole that is stationary and axisymmetric. energy extraction from a rotating black hole is If the black hole is isolated, i.e., not surrounded by self- gravitating matter or electromagnetic fields, the space- ∆EH < 0. (2.1) time (M , g) is described by the Kerr metric (see A). From the condition that energy measured locally by a Here and in Secs. IV to VII, we do not restrict to this ZAMO must be non-negative one obtains (see e.g. [18]) case and consider a generic stationary and axisymmetric metric g. As already mentioned in Sec. II, we denote ωH ∆JH ∆EH , (2.2) by η~ the Killing vector associated with stationarity and ≤ by ξ~ that associated with axisymmetry. In a coordinate where ωH is the angular velocity of the black hole (de- system (xα) = (t, x1, x2, x3) adapted to stationarity, i.e. fined below) and ∆JH is the angular-momentum of the such that negative-energy particle absorbed by the black hole, de- ~ ~ ∂ fined by ∆JH = ξ p~∗, where ξ is the Killing vector = η~, (3.1) associated with axisymmetry.· Without loss of general- ∂t ity, we take ωH 0. Equations (2.1)-(2.2) imply that ≥ the components gαβ of the metric tensor are independent ωH = 0 and 6 of the coordinate t. In a similar way, if the coordinate x3, ∆JH < 0. (2.3) say, corresponds to the axial symmetry, the components gαβ will be independent of this coordinate. It worth stressing that in the mechanical Penrose process, particles move on geodesics along which (by construction) energy is conserved. Therefore the negative- B. The black-hole horizon energy particle must originate in the ergoregion, the only domain of spacetime where such particle can exist. In The event horizon is a null hypersurface; if it is the general case of interacting matter or fields, negative stationary and axisymmetric,H the symmetry generators energy at the horizon does not imply negative energy η~ and ξ~ have to be tangent to it (cf. Fig. 1). Moreover, elsewhere. any null normal ℓ~ to has to be a linear combination of Soon after Penrose’s discovery that rotating black holes ~ H may be energy sources, it was suggested that the mechan- η~ and ξ: up to some rescaling by a constant factor, we ical Penrose process may power relativistic jets observed may write in quasars. However, a careful analysis by [19–22] (see ~ ~ also [7]), showed that it is unlikely that negative energy ℓ = η~ + ωH ξ, (3.2) states, necessary for the Penrose process to work, may be achieved through the particles disintegration and/or where ωH 0 is constant over (rigidity theorem, cf. ≥ black-holeH angular velocity collision inside the ergosphere. This conclusion has been [14]) and is called the . Since ωH is constant, ℓ~ is itself a Killing vector and is called confirmed more recently by [23–25] for high energy parti- H cle collisions. The reason is that in the case of collisions, a Killing horizon. For a Kerr black hole of mass m and the particles with positive energies cannot escape because angular momentum am, we have ωH = a/[2mrH ], where 2 2 they must have large but negative radial momenta. Thus, rH = m + √m a is the radius of the black-hole hori- − they are captured (together with the negative energy par- zon. Since is a null hypersurface, the normal ℓ~ is null, H ticles) by the black hole. Note that for charged particles ℓ~ ℓ~ = 0. For this reason, ℓ~ is both normal and tangent · evolving in the electromagnetic field of a Kerr-Newman to . The field lines of ℓ~ are null geodesics tangent to ; black hole, the efficiency of the mechanical Penrose pro- theyH are called the null generators of . One of themH is cess can be very large [7, 26]. drawn in Fig. 1. H Attempts to describe the BZ mechanism as a mechan- Let (xα) = (t, x1, x2, x3) be a coordinate system on ical Penrose process have been unsuccessful ([5] and ref- M that is adapted to the stationarity, in the sense of erences therein). This leaves electromagnetic processes (3.1), and regular on . In the case of a Kerr black as the only astrophysically realistic way to extract rota- hole, this means that (Hxα) are not the standard Boyer- tional energy from a rotating black hole. Lindquist coordinates, which are well known to be singular on . Regular coordinates on are the Kerr coordinates,H either in their original versionH [8] or in the 3+1 III. GENERAL RELATIVISTIC one, and the Kerr-Schild coordinates, which are used in PRELIMINARIES the numerical computations by Tchekhovskoy, Narayan & McKinney [9], McKinney, Tchekhovskoy & Blandford A. The spacetime symmetries [11], Tchekhovskoy, Narayan & McKinney [27] discussed in Sec. VIII. See Appendix A for more details on the The spacetime is modeled by a four-dimensional coordinate system and the coordinate representation of smooth manifold M equipped with a metric g of sig- ℓ~. 4

Then, at each point of St, Span(~k, ℓ~) is the timelike 2- plane orthogonal to St. Note that ~k is transverse to H (i.e. is not tangent to it) and that, contrary to ℓ~, the vector ~k depends on the choice of the coordinates (t, xi) (more precisely on the slicing (St)t R of , see e.g. [29]). ∈ H The 2-surfaces St of constant t on are spacelike 2- spheres corresponding to what is commonlyH understood as the “black-hole surface”, in analogy to “stellar surface”.

C. Energy condition

Let T be the energy-momentum tensor of matter and non-gravitational fields surrounding the black hole. We shall assume that it fulfills the so-called null energy con- FIG. 1. Spacetime diagram showing the event horizon of a dition at the event horizon: Kerr black hole of angular momentum parameter a/m = 0.9. µ ν This three-dimensional diagram is cut at θ = π/2 of the four- Tµν ℓ ℓ H 0. (3.5) dimensional spacetime. The diagram is based on the 3+1 | ≥ Kerr coordinates (t,r,φ) described in Appendix A and the This is a very mild condition, which is satisfied by any axes are labelled in units of m. The event horizon H is the ordinary matter and any electromagnetic field. In par- blue cylinder of radius r = rH = 1.435m (this value results ticular, it follows (by some continuity argument timelike from a = 0.9m via (A3)) and the green cone is the future null) from the standard weak energy condition [30], light cone at the point (t = 0,θ = π/2,φ = 0) on H. The → ~ ~ according to which energy measured locally by observers null vectors ℓ and k (drawn in green) are tangent to this light is always non-negative. cone, but not η~ which, although tangent to H, being spacelike lies outside of the light cone. Note that relation (3.2) holds −1 with ωH = 0.313m (cf. Appendix A). The green line, to IV. ENERGY AND ANGULAR-MOMENTUM which ℓ~ is tangent, is a null geodesic tangent to H; if the CONSERVATION LAWS figure was extended upward, it would show up as a helix. n~ is the (timelike) unit normal to the hypersurface t = 0. s~ is the (spacelike) unit normal to the 2-sphere S0 defined by In the mechanical Penrose process particles move on t = 0 and r = rH . Note that this 2-sphere is drawn here as a geodesics along which the energy E and the angular mo- circle (the basis of the cylinder) because the dimension along mentum J, as defined in Sec. II, are conserved quantities. θ has been suppressed. The vector ~b is the unit vector along Therefore they can be evaluated anywhere along the par- ξ~ = ∂/∂φ. The vectors (n~ , s~,~b) form an orthonormal basis ticle trajectories. In particular at the black-hole surface (drawn in red) for the metric g. where an energy flux can be calculated. In the general case of matter with nongravitational interactions (e.g. a perfect fluid) or a field (e.g., electromagnetic) the energy Then from (3.1) and (3.2), t is the parameter along the and angular momentum must be evaluated using the con- null geodesics generating for which ℓ~ is the tangent servation equations and in such a case the fluxes of the H vector: conserved quantities play the role equivalent to that of 2 dxα energy and angular momentum in the case of particles. ℓα = . (3.3) dt (Note that in general t is not an affine parameter along A. Energy conservation these geodesics.) Since the coordinates (t, xi) are assumed regular on , the 2-surfaces St of constant t on Let us consider the “energy-momentum density” vector H provide a regular slicing of by a family of spacelike P~ H H defined by 2-spheres. Let us denote by ~k the future-directed null α α µ vector field defined on by the following requirements P = T µη . (4.1) (cf. Fig. 1): H −

1. ~k is orthogonal to St, 2 ~ In Abramowicz et al. [28] where generalizing the Penrose process 2. k obeys was attempted, Eqs. (B.3) and (B.4) are not correct because the “energy at inﬁnity” and “angular momentum at inﬁnity” that ~k ℓ~ = 1. (3.4) are used there, are not conserved quantities · − 5

If matter and nongravitational ﬁelds obey the standard dominant energy condition[30] then P~ must be a future- directed timelike or null vector as long as η~ is timelike, i.e. outside the ergoregion. In the ergoregion, where η~ is spacelike, there is no guarantee that P~ is timelike or null and even when it is timelike, P~ can be past-directed (an example in provided in Fig. 5 below). Therefore, P~ cannot be interpreted as a physical energy-momentum density, hence the quotes in the above denomination. Moreover, even outside the ergoregion, P~ does not correspond to the energy-momentum density measured by any physical observer, since η~ fails to be some observer’s 4-velocity, not being a unit vector, except at inﬁnity (cf. FIG. 2. Closed hypersurface V = Σ1 ∪ ∆H ∪ Σ2 ∪ Σext. The the discussion in Sec. II). The vector P~ is known as the green arrows depict the orientation of V , which is given by Noether current associated with the symmetry generator ǫ(m~ ). η~ [31, 32]. It is conserved in the sense that

µ µP =0. (4.2) Σ1 (Σ2) is a compact spacelike hypersurface delim- ∇ • ext ext ited by two 2-spheres, 1 and 1 ( 2 and 2 ), This is easily proved from the definition (4.1) by means of S S extS S ext µν such that 1 ( 2) lies on and 1 (resp. 2 ) (i) the energy-momentum conservation law µT = 0, is located farS fromS the blackH hole;S S (ii) the Killing equation obeyed by η~ and (iii)∇ the symmetry of the tensor T . By Stokes’ theorem, it follows Σ2 is assumed to lie entirely in the future of Σ1; from (4.2) that the flux of P~ through any closed3 ori- • ented hypersurface V vanishes: ∆ is the portion of the event horizon delimited • byH and ; H S1 S2 ǫ(P~ )=0, (4.3) ext ext IV Σext is a timelike hypersurface having 1 and 2 • for boundaries. S S where ǫ(P~ ) stands for the 3-form obtained by setting We may choose, but this is not mandatory, the 2-spheres P~ as the first argument of the Levi-Civita tensor ǫ (or and to coincide with some slices of the foliation volume 4-form) associated with the spacetime metric g: S1 S2 (St)t∈R of mentioned in Sec. III B: 1 = St1 and 2 = S H S S ǫ(P~ ) := ǫ(P~ , ., ., .). (4.4) t2 . We choose the orientation of V to be towards its exte- In terms of components in a right-handed basis, rior, but the final results do not depend upon this choice. The orientation of V is depicted by the vector m~ in µ µ ǫ(P~ )αβγ = P ǫµαβγ = √ gP [µ,α,β,γ], (4.5) Fig. 2. Note that this vector does not have to be normal − to the various parts of V (in particular it is not normal where g := det(gαβ) and [µ,α,β,γ] is the alternating to ∆ ). Its role is only to indicate that the orientation symbol of four indices, i.e. [µ,α,β,γ]= 1( 1) if H − of V is given by the 3-form ǫ(m~ ) restricted to vectors (µ,α,β,γ) is an even (odd) permutation of (0, 1, 2, 3), tangent to V . More precisely, m~ is defined as follows: and [µ,α,β,γ] = 0 otherwise. Note that the integral (4.3) is intrinsically well defined, as the integral of a 3-form on Σ , m~ = n~ , the vector n~ being the future- • 1 − 1 1 over a three-dimensional oriented manifold. The proof directed unit timelike normal to Σ1; of (4.3) relies on Stokes’ theorem according to which the integral over V is equal to the integral over the interior on Σ2, m~ = n~ 2, the future-directed unit timelike • of V of the exterior derivative of the 3-form ǫ(P~ ); the normal to Σ2; µ latter being d[ǫ(P~ )] = ( µP )ǫ, it vanishes identically ∇ on Σext, m~ = ~s, the unit spacelike normal to Σext as a consequence of (4.2). • oriented towards the exterior of V ; Let us apply (4.3) to the hypersurface V defined as the following union: on ∆ , m~ = ~k, the future-directed null vector • introducedH above [cf. (3.4)]. V := Σ ∆ Σ Σ , (4.6) 1 ∪ H ∪ 2 ∪ ext In view of (4.6), the property (4.3) gives where (cf. Fig. 2)

ǫ(P~ ) + ǫ(P~ ) + ǫ(P~ ) + ǫ(P~ )=0, ZΣ1↓ Z ∆H ZΣ2↑ Z Σext 3 ← → i.e. compact without boundary. (4.7) 6 where the arrows indicate the orientation (cf. Fig. 2). The second and third equalities in each of equations (4.8)- Let us then deﬁne the energy contained in Σ1 by (4.11) are established in Appendix B. With the above deﬁnitions, (4.7) can be written as the ~ µ E1 := ǫ(P )= Pµn1 dV energy conservation law ZΣ1↑ − ZΣ1

µ ν 1 2 3 E2 + ∆Eext E1 = ∆EH . (4.12) = Tµν η n1 √γ dx dx dx , (4.8) − − ZΣ1 Notice that the minus sign in front of E1 arises from the energy contained in Σ2 by the change of orientation of Σ1 between (4.7) and the deﬁnition (4.8) of E1. ~ µ E2 := ǫ(P )= Pµn2 dV ZΣ2↑ − ZΣ2

µ ν 1 2 3 B. Angular-momentum conservation = Tµν η n2 √γ dx dx dx , (4.9) ZΣ2 In a way similar to (4.1), we deﬁne the angular- the energy captured by the black hole between Σ and Σ 1 2 momentum density vector by by α α µ µ M = T µξ . (4.13) ∆EH := ǫ(P~ )= Pµℓ dV Z ∆H − Z∆H ← Since ξ~ is a Killing vector, M~ obeys the conservation law = T ηµℓν √q dt dy1 dy2 (4.10) µν µ Z∆H µM =0. (4.14) ∇ and the energy evacuated from the system between Σ1 Let us introduce the angular momentum contained in Σ1 and Σ2 by and that contained in Σ2 by ǫ P~ µ ∆Eext := ( )= Pµs dV ~ µ Z Σext ZΣext J1 := ǫ(M)= Mµn1 dV → ZΣ1↑ − ZΣ1 µ ν 1 2 = Tµν η s √ h dt dy dy . (4.11) µ ν 1 2 3 = Tµν ξ n1 √γ dx dx dx (4.15) − ZΣext − − ZΣ1 In the above formulas, and dV is the volume element induced on each hyper- • ~ µ surface by the spacetime Levi-Civita tensor ǫ; J2 := ǫ(M)= Mµn2 dV ZΣ2↑ − ZΣ2 1 2 3 (x , x , x ) are generic coordinates on Σ1 and Σ2 µ ν 1 2 3 • = Tµν ξ n2 √γ dx dx dx , (4.16) that are right-handed with respect to the hyper- − ZΣ2 surface orientation; the angular momentum captured by the black hole between γ is the determinant of the components with re- Σ1 and Σ2 by • spect to the coordinates (x1, x2, x3) of the 3-metric γ induced by g on Σ1 or Σ2; µ ∆JH := ǫ(M~ )= Mµℓ dV Z ∆H − Z∆H (t,y1,y2) are generic right handed coordinates on ← • Σext; µ ν 1 2 = Tµν ξ ℓ √q dt dy dy (4.17) − Z∆H h is the determinant of the components with re- • spect to the coordinates (t,y1,y2) of the 3-metric and the angular momentum evacuated from the system h induced by g on Σext (h < 0 since Σext is time- between Σ1 and Σ2 by like); J := ǫ(M~ )= M sµ dV (t,y1,y2) are right-handed coordinates on ∆ such ext µ Z Σext ZΣext • that t is the parameter along the null geodesicsH gen- → erating associated with the null normal ℓ~ (cf. = T ξµsν √ h dt dy1 dy2. (4.18) H µν (3.3)); ZΣext −

q is the determinant with respect to the coordi- We deduce then from (4.14) that, similarly to (4.12), • nates (y1,y2) of the 2-metric induced by g on the 2-surfaces t = const in ∆ . J2 + Jext J1 = ∆JH . (4.19) H − − 7

C. Explicit expressions in adapted coordinates Accordingly,

adapted coordinates ∆EH = ǫ(P )tθφ dt dθ dφ Let us call any right-handed Z∆H spherical-type coordinate system (xα) = (t,r,θ,φ) such r that (i) t and φ are associated with the two spacetime = √ gP [r,t,θ,φ] dt dθ dφ, Z∆H − symmetries, so that the two independent Killing vectors −1 are η~ = ∂/∂t and ξ~ = ∂/∂φ, (ii) the event horizon | {z } H (4.22) is the hypersurface deﬁned by r = const = rH , (iii) the r timelike hypersurface Σext is deﬁned by r = const = rext where the second equality results from (4.5). Since P = and t [t ,t ], where t and t are two constants such T r from (4.1), we get ∈ 1 2 1 2 − t that t1 0. E2. Consequently, >0 >0 |{z} |{z } (4.24) E = ǫ(P ) dr dθ dφ 1,2 rθφ We have therefore ZΣ1,2

t = √ gP [t,r,θ,φ] dr dθ dφ, ∆Eext = ǫ(P )tφθ dt dθ dφ ZΣ1,2 − ZΣext 1 | {z } = √ gP r [r,t,φ,θ] dt dθ dφ, ZΣext − where the second equality results from (4.5). Now, (4.1) 1 t t µ t α yields P = T µη = T t since η = (1, 0, 0, 0) in | {z } (4.25) adapted coordinates.− We− conclude that Substituting T r for P r, we get − t

t ∆E = T r √ g dt dθ dφ. (4.26) E1 = T t √ g dr dθ dφ ext t − Z ext − − ZΣ1 − Σ and The formulas for the angular momentum are similar t t t r E2 = T √ g dr dθ dφ. (4.20) to the above ones, with T t replaced by T φ and T t t r − − ZΣ2 − replaced by T : − φ

t As a check, we note that the above formulas can also J1 = T φ √ g dr dθ dφ µ ν ZΣ1 − be recovered from the expressions involving Tµν η n in 1,2 and (4.8)-(4.9). Indeed, the unit timelike normal n~ to Σ1 or Σ obeys nα = ( N, 0, 0, 0), where N is the lapse func- t 2 − J2 = T φ √ g dr dθ dφ, (4.27) tion of the spacetime foliation by t = const hypersur- ZΣ2 − µ ν ν µ faces (see e.g. [33]). Accordingly Tµν η n = T µη nν = T t ( N). Since N γ = √ g, we get (4.20). t √ r − − ∆JH = T φ √ g dt dθ dφ, (4.28) On ∆ , (t,θ,φ) are coordinates that are right handed − Z∆H − with respectH to the “inward” orientation used in the definition (4.10) of ∆EH . Indeed r ∆Jext = T φ √ g dt dθ dφ. (4.29) ZΣext − ǫ(m~ , ∂~t, ∂~θ, ∂~φ)= ǫ(~k, ∂~t, ∂~θ, ∂~φ) r r Expressions (4.20)-(4.26) and (4.27)-(4.29), as well = k ǫrtθφ = k ǫtrθφ > 0. − as the energy conservation law (4.12) and the angular- <0 >0 momentum conservation law (4.19), are rederived in Ap- |{z} |{z} (4.21) pendix D, via a pure coordinate-based calculation. 8

V. GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR BLACK-HOLE ROTATIONAL ENERGY EXTRACTION

A. General case

For deﬁniteness, let us consider that Σ1 and Σ2 are parts of a foliation of spacetime by a family of spacelike hypersurfaces (Σt)t∈R:

Σ1 =Σt1 and Σ2 =Σt2 with t2 >t1. (5.1)

For instance, in the case of a Kerr black hole, the hypersurface label t can be chosen to be the Kerr-Schild time coordinate introduced in Appendix A. In (4.12), we may then interpret E1 as the “initial energy”, i.e. the energy “at the time t1”, E2 as the “ﬁnal energy”, i.e. the energy “at the time t2” and ∆Eext as the energy evacuated from the system between the times t1 and t2. Accordingly, the “energy gained by the world outside of the black hole” between t1 and t2 is deﬁned as

∆E := E + ∆E E . (5.2) 2 ext − 1 Then, energy will be extracted from the black hole if, and only if ∆E > 0. In view of the conservation law (4.12), FIG. 3. Two views of the energy balance in a Penrose pro- we conclude that energy is extracted from a black hole cess. Top: Global (GL) with E2 > E1 and ∆Eext = 0. if, and only if, Bottom: local (LC) stationary view with E2 = E1 but ∆Eext = −∆EH > 0. The region of spacetime concerned with this view is marked “LC” on the top ﬁgure. ∆EH < 0. (5.3)

We refer to any process that accomplishes this as a Pen- rose process. For a matter distribution or a nongravita- Let us assume that the energy-momentum tensor obeys tional ﬁeld obeying the null energy condition, the null energy condition (cf. Sect. III C) on the event a necessary and suﬃcient condition for energy µ ν extraction from a rotating black hole is that horizon: Tµν ℓ ℓ H 0 [Eq. (3.5)]. As mentioned above, this is a rather mild| ≥ condition, implied by the standard it absorbs negative energy ∆EH and negative weak energy condition. From (3.2), (4.1) and (4.13), it angular momentum ∆JH . follows that Eqs. (5.3), (5.5) and (5.6) are identical with Eqs. (2.1), µ ν ν ν µ µ µ (2.2) and (2.3) describing the condition for the Penrose Tµν ℓ ℓ = Tµν (η + ωH ξ )ℓ = Pµℓ + ωH Mµℓ . − process. They describe the same physics: in order to Integrating (3.5) over ∆ yields then extract energy from a rotating black hole one must feed H it negative energy and angular momentum.

µ µ Any extraction of black hole’s rotational energy by in- Pµℓ dV + ωH Mµℓ dV 0, (5.4) teraction with matter and/or (nongravitational) ﬁelds is − Z∆H Z∆H ≥ a Penrose process. where we have used the fact that ωH is constant. Using (4.10) and (4.17), the above relation can be rewritten as ∆EH ωH ∆JH 0, i.e. − ≥ B. Penrose process in terms of the Noether current P~ ωH ∆JH ∆EH . (5.5) ≤ Given the expression (4.10) of ∆EH , we note that the In view of (5.5) and ωH 0, the black-hole energy ex- µ traction condition (5.3) implies≥ Penrose-process condition (5.3) implies Pµℓ > 0 on some part of ∆ . Since ℓ~ is a future-directed null vector, µ H ~ ∆JH < 0. (5.6) Pµℓ > 0 if, and only if, P is either (i) spacelike or (ii) past directed timelike or past directed null. Therefore, We conclude the following: we conclude that 9

A necessary condition for a Penrose process to occur is to have the Noether current P~ be spacelike or past directed (timelike or null) on some part of ∆ . H As we already noticed in Sec. IV A, if the matter or ﬁelds fulﬁl the standard dominant energy condition, the vector P~ is always future directed timelike or null outside the ergoregion; therefore it can be spacelike or past directed only in the ergoregion.

C. Applications of the Penrose-process energy balance FIG. 4. Penrose process for a particle. The dashed line E marks the ergosphere. The energy balance equations derived above can be applied to basically two views of energy extraction from where M M is the spacetime point at which Tαβ is a black hole. First, one can use global (GL) spacetime evaluated,∈τ stands for the particle’s proper time, A(τ) view applied to theoretically described “real” astrophys- M is the spacetime point occupied by the particle at the∈ ical systems (Fig. 3 - top). Matter and/or fields have µ proper time τ, gα (M, A) is the parallel propagator from limited space extent, the timelike hypersurface Σext is the point A to the point M along the unique geodesic4 placed sufficiently far so that ∆Eext = 0. When there connecting A to M (cf. Sec. 5 of [34] or Appendix I is energy extraction, i.e. when ∆E > 0, then E2 > E1. of [35]) and δA(M) is the Dirac distribution on (M , g) This is the view we will have in mind in Secs. VI and VII. centered at the point A: it is defined by the identity When dealing with numerical simulations, however, such global view is usually unpractical. The simulation 4 δA(M)f(M) √ g d x = f(A), (6.2) is performed in a box of limited size and the system is ZU − brought to stationary state. The view presented in the bottom part of Fig. 3 is then more adapted to the en- for any four-dimensional domain U around A and any U R ergy balance. Because of stationarity one has E2 = E1 scalar field f : . In terms of a coordinate system α → but ∆Eext > 0. When the numerical code conserves en- (x ) around A: ergy very well, the energy balance implies ∆EH < 0. 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 This is the view applied in Sec. VIII. δA(M)= δ(x z ) δ(x z ) δ(x z ) δ(x z ), √ g − − − − − (6.3) α VI. VARIOUS EXAMPLES OF THE PENROSE where δ is the standard Dirac distribution on R, (x ) PROCESS are the coordinates of M, (zα) those of A and g is the determinant of the components of the metric tensor with α In what follows we will apply Eqs. (4.8) to (4.12) respect to the coordinates (x ). and (4.15) to (4.19) to various black-hole plus matter (or The Noether current corresponding to (6.1) is formed fields) configurations. We first show that in the case of via (4.1): particles one recovers the standard Penrose-process for- +∞ m ν σ mulae. Then we shall apply our formalism to the cases Pα(M)= δA(τ)(M)[ gσ (M, A(τ))uν (τ)η (M)] of a scalar field and a perfect fluid. The case of the elec- Z−∞ − µ tromagnetic field is treated in Sec. VII. gα (M, A(τ))uµ(τ) dτ. (6.4) × This means that P~ is a distribution vector whose sup- A. Mechanical Penrose-process test port is the particle’s worldline and that is collinear to the particle’s 4-velocity. Let us choose Σ and Σ such that Σ encounters the Let us show that the formalism developed above repro- 1 2 1 original particle P (mass m , 4-velocity u~ ) at the event duces the mechanical Penrose process for a single particle 1 1 1 A , Σ encounters the escaping fragment P (mass m , that breaks up into two fragments in the ergoregion. 1 2 2 2 4-velocity u~ ) at the event A and the infalling fragment The energy-momentum tensor of a massive particle of 2 2 mass m and 4-velocity u~ is (cf. e.g. [34])

+∞ m µ 4 Tαβ(M)= δA(τ)(M) gα (M, A(τ))uµ(τ) Thanks to the Dirac distribution in (6.1), only the limit M → A Z−∞ matters, so that we can assume that there is a unique geodesic ν connecting A to M. g (M, A(τ))uν (τ) dτ, (6.1) × β 10

P (mass m , 4-velocity u~ ) crosses the horizon on ∆ , ∗ ∗ ∗ H at the event AH (cf. Fig. 4). By plugging (6.1) into (4.8), we get +∞ m ρ E1 = 1 δA(τ)(M) gµ (M, A(τ))(u1)ρ(τ) ZΣ1 Z−∞ σ µ ν g (M, A(τ))(u )σ(τ) η (M) n (M) × ν 1 1 √γdx1 dx2 dx3 dτ. (6.5) × This formula (see Appendix C1) can be reduced to µ µ E = m (ηµu ) = m ηµu , (6.6) 1 − 1 1 |A1 − 1 1 µ where the second equality stems from the fact that ηµu1 is constant along P1’s worldline, since the latter is a geodesic and η~ is a Killing vector. That P1’s worldline is a geodesic follows from the energy-momentum conser- αµ vation law µT = 0 with the form (6.1) for the energy- momentum∇ tensor (see Sec. 19.1 of [34] for details). We recover in (6.6) the standard expression of the energy in- FIG. 5. Spacetime diagram showing the 4-velocity u~ ∗ volved in textbook discussions of the Penrose process (see and the energy-momentum density vector P~∗ of a negative- [18, 35, 36] and Sec. II). energy particle P∗ entering the event horizon of a Kerr Similarly, for the outgoing particle one gets black hole of angular-momentum parameter a/m = 0.9 (see Figs. 1 and 4). At the horizon, the particle is character- m µ E2 = 2 ηµu2 . (6.7) ized by the following coordinate velocity: dr/dt = −0.32, − dθ/dt = 0, and dφ/dt = −0.18ωH , resulting in the 4-velocity α For the particle crossing the horizon, by plugging (6.1) u∗ = (2.38, −0.76, 0, −0.13) and in the positive scalar product P µ with the characteristics of the infalling fragment ∗ into ηµu∗ = 0.042. The “vector” P~∗, which is actually a distribu- (4.10), we get tion, is drawn with an arbitrary scale. ∞ µ ∆EH = m δ (M) (u )µ(τ)η (M) (u )ν (τ) ∗ A(τ) ∗ ∗ 2 Z∆H Z−∞ where Φ¯ stands for Φ’s complex conjugate and V ( Φ ) is 2 | | ℓν (M) √q dt dy1 dy2 dτ. (6.8) some potential (V ( Φ 2) = (m/~) Φ 2 for a free field of × mass m). The corresponding| | energy-momentum| | tensor is As shown in Appendix C 2 this can be reduced to 1 µ µ ¯ ¯ µ 2 ∆EH = m∗ (ηµu ) = m∗ ηµu . (6.9) Tαβ = (αΦ β)Φ µΦ Φ+ V ( Φ ) gαβ. (6.11) ∗ AH ∗ ∇ ∇ −2 ∇ ∇ | | − | − µ As for P1 and P2, the independence of ηµu∗ from the Let us plug the above expression into (4.10); using specific point of P∗’s worldline where it is evaluated re- adapted coordinates (t,r,θ,φ) (cf. Sec. IV C), we have P µ µ sults from the fact that ∗’s worldline is a geodesic. η µΦ = ∂Φ/∂t and ℓ µΦ = ∂Φ/∂t + ωH ∂Φ/∂φ. In Finally, in the present case, we have clearly ∆E = 0. ∇ µ ν ∇ ext addition, gµν η ℓ = 0, since η~ is tangent to and ℓ~ is Therefore the energy gain formula (5.2) reduces to ∆E = the normal to (cf. Sec. IIIB). Therefore, weH get E2 E1 and we recover the standard Penrose process H − ¯ ¯ ¯ discussed in Sec. II: E2 > E1 if, and only if, ∆EH < 0, ∂Φ ∂Φ ωH ∂Φ ∂Φ ∂Φ ∂Φ µ ∆EH = + + i.e., if and only if ηµu∗ > 0. This is possible only in the Z∆H ∂t ∂t 2 ∂t ∂φ ∂t ∂φ ergoregion, where the Killing vector η~ is spacelike. Note µ √q dt dθ dφ. (6.12) that ηµu∗ > 0 implies that the term in square brackets in × Let us consider a rotating scalar field of the form (6.4) is negative, so that the Noether current P~∗ of P∗ is a timelike vector (being collinear to u~ ) that is past ∗ Φ(t,r,θ,φ)=Φ (r, θ)ei(ωt−mφ), (6.13) directed. This is in agreement with the statement made 0 in Sec. V B and is illustrated in Fig. 5. where Φ0(r, θ) is a real-valued function, ω is a constant and m some integer. Then, (6.12) becomes

B. Scalar field (super-radiance) 2 ∆EH = Φ0ω(ω mωH ) √q dt dθ dφ. (6.14) Z∆H − Let us consider a complex scalar field Φ ruled by the standard Lagrangian In view of (5.3), we deduce immediately that a necessary and sufficient condition for a Penrose process to occur is 1 µ 2 = µΦ¯ Φ+ V ( Φ ) , (6.10) L −2 ∇ ∇ | | 0 <ω

In this context, the Penrose process is called super- the most general case, i.e. that F is not necessarily sta- radiance (see, e.g., [36] and [37]). Condition (6.15) was tionary or axisymmetric. Of course this is possible only obtained by Carter [14] in the more general case of a (not if F is a passive field, i.e. does not contribute as a source necessarily scalar) tensor field that is periodic in t with to the Einstein equation, so that the spacetime metric period 2π/ω. remains stationary and axisymmetric. The electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor is given by the standard formula: C. Perfect fluid 1 µ 1 µν Tαβ = FµαF β Fµν F gαβ . (7.1) Let us now consider a perfect fluid of 4-velocity u~, µ0 − 4 proper energy density ε and pressure p. The corresponding energy-momentum tensor is Accordingly, the integrand in formula (4.10) for ∆EH is

Tαβ = (ε + p)uαuβ + pgαβ. (6.16) ~ 1 ρ µ σ 1 µν ~ T (η~, ℓ)= Fµρη F σℓ Fµν F η~ ℓ . µ ν µ0 − 4 · Accordingly, and using gµν η ℓ = 0 as in Sec. VIB, formula (4.10) becomes Now, since η~ is tangent to and ℓ~ normal to , one has ~ H H µ ν 1 2 η~ ℓ = 0. There remains then ∆EH = (ε + p) ηµu ℓν u √q dt dy dy . (6.17) · Z ∆H ~ ρ µ σ µ0T (η~, ℓ)= Fµρη F σℓ . (7.2) ℓ~ being a future-directed null vector and u~ a future- directed timelike vector, we have necessarily Let us introduce on the “pseudoelectric field” 1-form H ν ([14, 38–40]) ℓν u < 0. (6.18) ~ According to (5.3), the Penrose process takes place if, E := F (., ℓ). (7.3) and only if, ∆E < 0. From (6.17), (6.18) and the H ~ assumption ε + p 0 (the weak energy condition), we If ℓ were a unit timelike vector, E would be a genuine conclude that for a≥ perfect fluid, a necessary condition electric field, namely the electric field measured by the ~ for the Penrose process to occur is observer whose 4-velocity is ℓ. But in the present case, ℓ~ is a null vector, so that such a physical interpretation µ ηµu > 0 in some part of ∆ . (6.19) H does not hold. E is called a corotating electric field in µ [14, 38] because ℓ~ is the corotating Killing vector on . We may have ηµu > 0 in some part of ∆ only be- 5 H cause η~ is there a spacelike vector (for isH inside the Note that, thanks to the antisymmetry of F , ergoregion). Note that (6.18) and (3.2) implyH E, ℓ~ =0. (7.4) µ µ h i ωH ξµu < ηµu . (6.20) − ~ µ This implies that the vector E deduced from the 1-form Hence, in the parts of ∆ where ηµu > 0, we have α µ H E by metric duality (i.e. the vector of components E = ξµu < 0. Therefore for a perfect fluid, a necessary con- αµ α µ g Eµ = F µℓ ) is tangent to . Equation (7.2) can be dition for the Penrose process to occur is written as H µ ξµu < 0 in some part of ∆ . (6.21) H µ0T (η~, ℓ~)= F (E~ , η~). (7.5) In other words, the fluid flow must have some azimuthal component counterrotating with respect to the black hole Thanks to (3.2) and (7.3), this expression can be recast in some part of ∆ . However, no physical process ex- as tracting black-holeH rotational energy through interaction µ T (η~, ℓ~)= F (E~ , ℓ~ ωH ξ~)= F (E~ , ℓ~) ωH F (E~ , ξ~) with a perfect fluid is known. 0 − − In the special case of dust (fluid with p = 0), the fluid = E, E~ ωH F (E~ , ξ~), h i− lines are geodesics and we recover from (6.19) the single- i.e. particle condition ∆EH < 0, with ∆EH given by (6.9).

µ T (η~, ℓ~)= E~ E~ ωH F (E~ , ξ~). (7.6) 0 · − VII. ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS

A. General electromagnetic field 5 In this section, we are using index-free notations. In particular, the action of a 1-form on a vector is denoted by brackets, hE, ℓ~i = µ Let us consider some electromagnetic field, described Eµℓ , and the scalar product of two vectors is denoted with a u v µ ν ν by the field 2-form F . For the moment we will deal with dot, ~ · ~ = gµν u v = uν v . 12

Given expression (4.10) for ∆EH , we conclude that the where the last equality follows from (7.10) and (7.11). necessary condition for the Penrose process to occur is Since ωH is constant, we conclude that the 1-form E is a pure gradient: ωH F (E~ , ξ~) > E~ E~ in some part of ∆ . (7.7) · H E = d(Φ + ωH Ψ). (7.15) Note that since E~ is tangent to [cf. (7.4)] and is a H H Remark: If the electromagnetic field is not passive, i.e. null hypersurface, E~ is either a null vector or a spacelike if it contributes significantly to the spacetime metric via one, so that in (7.7) one has always the Einstein equation, then T (ℓ~, ℓ~) must vanish in order for the black hole to be in equilibrium (otherwise it would E~ E~ 0. (7.8) · ≥ generate some horizon expansion, via the Raychaudhuri equation; see, e.g., [38]. Since by (7.1), T (ℓ~, ℓ~)= µ−1E~ Equation (7.7) is the most general condition on any elec- 0 · E~ , this implies that E~ is a null vector. Being tangent tromagnetic field configuration allowing black-hole en- to , the only possibility is to have E~ collinear to ℓ~: ergy extraction through a Penrose process. Obviously, H E~ = fℓ~. Then for any vector ~v tangent to , one has for ωH = 0 there is no energy extraction. H ~v E~ = 0. In view of (7.15), we get the remarkable result that· [38] B. Stationary and axisymmetric electromagnetic Φ+ ωH Ψ is constant over . (7.16) field H Returning to the case of passive fields we notice that In this section, we assume that the electromagnetic thanks to (7.10), the ∆EH integrand (7.5) becomes field obeys the spacetime symmetries, which is expressed by µ0T (η~, ℓ~)= E~ ∇~ Φ. (7.17) · L L In a similar way, from (7.11) one deduces that the ∆JH η~ F = 0 and ξ~F =0, (7.9) integrand µ0T (ξ~, ℓ~)= F (E~ , ξ~) takes the form of where Lv~ stands for the Lie derivative along the vector µ T (ξ~, ℓ~)= E~ ∇~ Ψ. (7.18) field ~v. Then it can be shown (see e.g. [41] for details) 0 · that F is entirely determined by three scalar fields Φ, Ψ, In view of (7.15), we get and I such that

µ T (η~, ℓ~)= ∇~ Φ ∇~ (Φ + ωH Ψ). (7.19) F (., η~)= dΦ (7.10) 0 · F (., ξ~)= dΨ (7.11) ⋆F (η~, ξ~)= I, (7.12) C. Force-free stationary and axisymmetric field (Blandford-Znajek) where d is the exterior derivative operator (reducing to the gradient for a scalar field such as Φ or Ψ) and ⋆F Let us assume that the electromagnetic field is force stands for the Hodge dual of F . Note that, being defined free, in addition of being stationary and axisymmetric: F η ξ~ solely from and the Killing fields ~ and , Φ, Ψ, and ~ I are gauge-independent quantities. Introducing an elec- F (j,.)=0, (7.20) tromagnetic potential 1-form A such that F = dA, one where ~j is the electric 4-current. In particular, F (~j, η~)= may use the standard electromagnetic gauge freedom to ~ ~ choose A so that 0 and F (j, ξ) = 0. From (7.10) and (7.11), it follows immediately that

Φ= A, η~ = At and Ψ= A, ξ~ = Aϕ. (7.13) h i h i ~j ∇~ Φ = 0 and ~j ∇~ Ψ=0. (7.21) · · In addition to (7.10)-(7.12), one has (see e.g. [41]) Taking into account that Φ and Ψ are stationary and ~ F (η~, ξ) = 0 and axisymmetric [cf. (7.14)], we may rewrite (7.21) in a coordinate system (t,r,θ,ϕ) adapted to stationarity and L L L L η~ Φ= ξ~Φ = 0 and η~ Ψ= ξ~Ψ=0, (7.14) axisymmetry as ∂Φ ∂Φ ∂Ψ ∂Ψ which means that the scalar fields Φ and Ψ obey the two jr + jθ = 0 and jr + jθ =0. spacetime symmetries. ∂r ∂θ ∂r ∂θ ~ From the definition (7.3) and expression (3.2) of ℓ, the We deduce that, generically, there exists a function ω = corotating pseudoelectric field E is ω(Ψ) such that

E = F (., ℓ~)= F (., η~)+ ωH F (., ξ~)= dΦ+ ωH dΨ, dΦ= ω(Ψ)dΨ. (7.22) − 13

Equation (7.19) becomes then A. The framework

µ T (η~, ℓ~)= ω(Ψ) (ω(Ψ) ωH ) ∇~ Ψ ∇~ Ψ. (7.23) 0 − · The BZ efficiency can be defined as BZ power normal- ˙ 2 Notice also that from (7.17), (7.18) and (7.22) it follows ized by Mc : that for an axisymmetric, stationary and force-free field 2 [PBZ]t κ 2 ωH rg ηBZ = = φBH t f(ωH ) (8.1) ∆E = ω(Ψ)∆J . (7.24) ˙ 2 4πc c H H M c h it Now, we have ˙ where M is the accretion rate; [... ]t designates the time ~ ∇~ ∇~ ~ ∇~ L L ℓ Ψ= η~ Ψ+ ωH ξ Ψ= η~ Ψ +ωH ξ~Ψ =0. average; κ 0.05 depends weakly on the magnetic field · · · ≈2 2 ˙ 2 geometry, φBH = ΦBH /Mrg c, ΦBH being the magnetic 0 0 flux through the black-hole surface; f(ωH ) 0.77 for | {z } |{z } 2 2 ≈ This means that the vector ∇~ Ψ is tangent to . Since a∗ = 1, where a∗ = J/m [10]; rg = Gm/c is black-hole H the latter is a null hypersurface, it follows that ∇~ Ψ is gravitational radius. either null or spacelike. Therefore, on , The efficiency ηBZ depends on spin and the magnetic H flux on the black hole. The spin is limited by a∗ < 1.0 2 ∇~ Ψ ∇~ Ψ 0. (7.25) (ωH < c/rS; where rS = 2Gm/c ); the magnetic flux is · ≥ limited by two factors. (1) How much of it can be pushed Accordingly (7.23) yields on to the black hole. (2) How much of it can be accumulated by diffusion through the accretion flow. In an MHD ω(Ψ) (ω(Ψ) ωH ) < 0 T (η~, ℓ~) < 0 − turbulent disk, accumulation of dynamically-important ⇐⇒ ∇~ Ψ ∇~ Ψ =0. · 6 magnetic field is possible only if it is not geometrically i.e. thin, i.e. only if h/r 1 [46]. Tchekhovskoy, Narayan & McKinney [9] considered∼ “slim” disks (h/r 0.3) in 0 <ω(Ψ) <ω ∼ T (η~, ℓ~) < 0 H . (7.26) which initially poloidal magnetic fields are accumulated ⇐⇒ ∇~ Ψ ∇~ Ψ =0 at the black hole until they obstruct the accretion and · 6 lead to the formation of a so-called magnetically arrested We recover the result (4.6) of Blandford and Znajek’s disk ([12, 13]). In such a configuration φBH 40 for article [3]. In view of (4.10) and (5.3), we may conclude ∼ a∗ = 0.99, leading to ηBZ > 100%, i.e., to net energy the following: extraction from a rotating black hole. For a stationary and axisymmetric force-free This result, as well as subsequent simulations of var- 6 electromagnetic field, a necessary condition ious MAD configurations [11], leaves little doubt that for the Penrose process to occur is the Blandford-Znajek mechanism can play a fundamental role in launching of (at least some) relativistic jets 0 <ω(Ψ) <ωH in some part of ∆ . (7.27) from the vicinity of black-hole surfaces. This conclusion H is supported by observational evidence of the role of spin In particular, for a nonrotating black hole (ωH = 0), no and accumulated magnetic flux in launching of relativis- Penrose process can occur. The condition (7.27) can be tic jets both in microquasars and active galactic nuclei compared to the condition (6.15) for a scalar field. (see, e.g.,[47–51]). In the previous section we obtained several conditions for the occurrence of a Penrose process in the presence VIII. SIMULATIONS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC of electromagnetic fields. All these criteria follow from EXTRACTION OF BLACK-HOLE ROTATIONAL the fundamental requirement ∆EH < 0. The most gen- ENERGY eral criterion applies to any electromagnetic field configuration: from the definition (4.10) and the general con- Until recently, the relevance of the Blanford-Znajek dition (5.3) we deduced a specific (necessary) condition process to observed high energy phenomena such as rel- (7.7) for the electromagnetic fields on the horizon. We ativistic jets has been hotly debated and the efficiency of then showed that in the case of stationary and axisym- this mechanism put in doubt (see, e.g., [42, 43]). Provid- metric force-free fields the condition (5.3) is equivalent ing jet production efficiencies of less than 20%, gen- to the Blandford & Znajek [3] condition on the angu- ∼ eral relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simu- lar velocity of the magnetic field lines. In this section lations were not of much help in ending the controversy. we will apply these conditions to the results GRMHD Only recently a new physical setup of GRMHD simula- simulations of magnetized jets we have discussed above. tions ([9, 11]) produced the first clear evidence of net energy extraction by magnetized accretion onto a spinning black hole. These simulations were carried out with general relativistic MHD code HARM [44] with recent 6 These were also called magnetically choked accretion flows by improvements [9, 45]. McKinney, Tchekhovskoy & Blandford [11]. 14

2.0 The aim of this exercise is twofold. First, using rigor- µ ν µ ωHFµνE ξ − EµE ous general-relativistic criteria we will conﬁrm that the 2 µ E ≡ EµE )

MAD BZ mechanism is indeed a Penrose process as sur- 2 1.5 mised by Tchekhovskoy, Narayan & McKinney [9]. Sec- E ond, our Penrose-process conditions can be used as a di- agnostic tool to test the physical and mathematical con- 1.0 sistency of numerical calculations reputed to represent in units max( the Blandford-Znajek/Penrose process. , In dealing with results of numerical simulations, we 0.5

will adopt the 3+1 Kerr coordinates (t,r,θ,φ) described Various in Appendix A, which are adapted coordinates in the sense defined in Sec. IVC. The energy captured by the 0.0 black hole over ∆ is given by (4.23). Since for the 3+1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Kerr coordinates,H√ g = (r2 + a2 cos2 θ) sin θ [cf. (A4)], θH/π − we get µ ν µ µ FIG. 6. Values of ωH Fµν E ξ − EµE and EµE plotted as 2 2 2 a function of θ for a stationary, axisymmetric and force-free ∆EH = e˙H (rH + a cos θ) sin θ dt dθ dφ, (8.2) field with a∗ = 0.99. The necessary condition: (8.5) for the Z∆H occurrence of a Penrose process is satisfied over all St (except where we have defined the poles).

r r e˙H := P = T . (8.3) H t H µ ν − | | 0.0 TEMν ηµℓ r 2 2 2 As a check of (8.2), we may recover it from the last TEM (rH + a cos θ)/(2mrH)

| t

µ ν ℓ µ ν µ integral in Eq. (4.10), noticing that η = (1, 0, 0, 0), µ −0.2 −ωHFµνE ξ + EµE η

2 2 2 µ ν ℓr = (rH + a cos θ)/(2mrH ), and √q = 2mrH sin θ [cf. EM T

(A11) in Appendix A]. | −0.4 A formula analogous to (8.2), withe ˙H replaced by r max T φ, gives ∆JH [cf. (4.28)]; accordingly, we deﬁne −0.6 − , f/ ˙ := M r = T r . (8.4) H H φ H −0.8

− | − Various

Since, as discussed in Sec. V C, in numerical simula- −1.0 tions one assumes stationarity, and Σ2 is deduced from Σ by time translation, one must have E = E (see Fig. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1 2 1 θH/π 3). Therefore, to test the Penrose-process condition (5.3) and (5.5) and show the details of the BZ mechanism, µ ν µ FIG. 7. Comparison of −ωH Fµν E ξ + EµE with the inte- we found it convenient to use the energy and angular- grands of (8.2) for the same field configuration and black-hole momentum flux densities e˙H (t,θ,φ) and ˙H (t,θ,φ) de- spin as in Fig. 6. fined by (8.3) and (8.4), and plot their (t and φ- averaged) longitudinal distribution on the t-constant− 2- surface St (the black hole’s surface; see Sec. IIIB) on achieve quasisteady state in which all quantities fluctu- . ate about their mean values, so we use the time average H In the MAD simulations the energy-momentum tensor of the left-hand side in (8.5). is the sum of the perfect fluid (6.16) and the electromagnetic (7.1) tensors:

(MA) (EM) B. Force-free stationary electromagnetic ﬁeld Tµν = Tµν + Tµν .

(MA) r As a warm-up, we present the results of simulations Consequently we definee ˙MA := T t and ˙MA := (MA) r of black-hole rotational energy extraction by a force-free T φ ;e ˙EM and ˙EM are defined in an analogous way electromagnetic field. As illustration, we consider the through− the electromagnetic energy-momentum tensor. simple case of a paraboloidal magnetic field for an a∗ = In the simulation of force-free fieldse ˙MA = 0. µ 0.99 black hole. The field configuration corresponds to The pseudoelectric field (7.3) is Eα = Fαµℓ . There- the ν = 1 case of Tchekhovskoy, Narayan & McKinney fore in the index notation, the general necessary condi- [27], where additional information about the setup of the tion (7.7) for the Penrose process to occur takes the form problem can be found. We have chosen a paraboloidal µ ν µ field in preference to a monopole because of the similarity ωH Fµν E ξ EµE H > 0. (8.5) − | of results with those of MAD simulations discussed later. In the case of MAD simulations, which are intrinsically time variable, we run the simulations long enough to First, in Fig. 6 we present the results of testing the 15

2.0 µ ν µ ωHFµνE ξ − EµE 0.6 2 µ E ≡ EµE ) 2 1.5 0.5 E H ω 0.4 1.0 0.3 in units of in units max( , , F ω 0.2 0.5 Various 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 θH/π θH/π

FIG. 8. ωF /ωH plotted as function of θ for a stationary, ax- FIG. 10. Same as in Fig. 6 but for a MAD simulation with isymmetric force-free paraboloidal magnetic field; a∗ = 0.99. a∗ = 0.99. Here the time- and φ-averaged quantities are used: µ ν µ µ The condition (7.27) for the occurrence of a Penrose process ωH hFµν E iξ −hEµE i and hEµE i. The necessary condi- is satisfied over the entire black-hole 2-surface St. tion (8.5) for the occurrence of a Penrose process is satisfied over all St. 0.5

0.0

| the interaction of a force-free ﬁeld with a spinning black ˙ e | −0.5 hole is a Penrose process.

−1.0 C. Magnetically arrested disks −1.5 in units of max , −2.0 Before discussing the results of GRMHD MAD simu-

Various lations in the context of the BZ/Penrose mechanism, we −2.5 have first to present the underlying assumptions in more e˙ e˙EM e˙MA ωH˙ −3.0 detail. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 θH/π The simulations are performed in a “box” of finite size delimited by ∆ and Σ in space and Σ and Σ in H ext 1 2 FIG. 9. Values of energy and angular-momentum density time. fluxes on the black-hole surface as function of θ for a force-free It is supposed that Σext is located at some reasonably field and a∗ = 0.99. In this casee ˙ =e ˙EM.e ˙ is everywhere large radius (> 30rg), which is far from the horizon but negative on St in agreement with the Penrose-process condi- still well inside∼ the converged volume of the simulation. tion (5.3); the same is true by construction of ˙ and (5.6) is One also assumes that the times t1 and t2 corresponding, obviously satisfied. respectively, to Σ1 and Σ2 are sufficiently far apart so that time averages are well defined and the system is in a steady state during this time. In a steady state E2 = E1; general condition (8.5). It is satisfied on the whole of i.e., the energy contained inside the volume defined by the black-hole surface St. Also (7.8) is satisfied which the boundaries ∆ and Σ is independent of time. H ext confirms that the simulations correctly reproduce the Simulation shows that ∆Eext > 0, i.e., there is a net spacetime structure near and at the horizon. Since flow of energy out of the system. From energy conserva- condition (8.5) follows from the requirement of nega- tion (4.12) one should therefore have ∆EH < 0 on some tive energy on the horizon we checked the consistency part of ∆ . Below we will show that stationary MAD of the numerical scheme by comparing the expression models ofH energy extraction from a spinning black hole µ ν µ ωH Fµν E ξ EµE with two forms of the integrand satisfy this condition and are an electromagnetic realiza- − − in (8.2). As expected the values of the two expressions tion of a Penrose process. are identical (see Fig. 7). We will use the results of the model A0.99N100 of The force-free BZ condition (7.27) is satisfied every- McKinney, Tchekhovskoy & Blandford [11]. In this where on the black hole’s surface (Fig. 8). Since in model the initial magnetic field is poloidal, a∗ = 0.99, a force-free fielde ˙H = ωH ˙H [cf. (7.24)] the Penrose- and the disk is moderately thick: the half-thickness h process condition (5.6) follows directly from ∆EH < 0 satisfies h/r 0.3 at Rext = 30rg and h/r < 0.1 at the [Eq. (5.3)]; see Fig. 9. black-hole surface.∼ ∼ Since it satisfies the required conditions on the horizon, We will first examine if the MAD simulations satisfy the BZ mechanism described by numerical simulations of the Penrose-process conditions (8.5), (5.3) and (5.6). As 16

µ EM ν near the equator where energy absorption is dominated 0.0 T ν ηµℓ r 2 2 2 TEM (rH + a cos θ)/(2mrH) by matter accretion. Therefore the simulations of rota-

| t ν

ℓ µ ν µ tional energy extraction from a a∗ =0.99 spinning black µ −0.2 −ωHFµνE ξ + EµE η µ ν hole by a MAD ﬁeld conﬁguration satisfy the condition EM

T (5.3) on part of the black-hole surface and therefore de- | −0.4 scribe a Penrose process involving electromagnetic fields. max −0.6 This is confirmed by the angular-momentum density flux , f/ being negative on the whole of the black hole surface. We −0.8 see that the angular-momentum flux is negative over the Various entire horizon, while the energy flux is negative only over −1.0 the part of the surface exterior to the equatorial accre- 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 tion flow. This is a characteristic property of the MAD θH/π configuration because the rest-mass energy flux due to the accreted mass overwhelms the energy flux into the µ ν µ FIG. 11. Comparison of −ωH hFµν E iξ + hEµE i with the black hole and makes it positive, while this matter car- integrands of (8.2) for the same field configuration and black- ries in very little angular momentum because its angular hole spin as in Fig. 10. momentum is sub-Keplerian due to the action of strong magnetic fields that extract its angular-momentum and 1.5 carry it away in the form of magnetized winds. To get more insight into the workings of the simulated black-hole rotational energy extraction process one has

| 1.0 ˙ e | to leave the horizon and see what is happening in the bulk above the black-hole surface. 0.5 We have shown that GRMHD MAD simulations of black-hole rotational energy extraction describe a Pen- 0.0 rose process but because of the approximations made we

in units of max have not learned how this process works in detail. In , −0.5 the case of free particles we know what is happening: a particle decays in the ergoregion into one with negative

Various −1.0 and another one with positive energies. The one with negative energy cannot leave the ergoregion and must be e˙ e˙EM e˙MA ωH˙ created there because negative energies exist only in the −1.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ergoregion and energy along the trajectories is conserved. θH/π This cannot be the case for a perfect fluid (with nonzero pressure) or an electromagnetic field. However, the me- FIG. 12. Same as in Fig. 9 for a MAD configuration. The chanical case can serve as a guide to what is happening black-hole spin is a∗ = 0.99. The electromagnetic energy in a more general case. For MAD simulations, one can- density flux is everywhere negative on St. The total energy densitye ˙ is negative everywhere except in the equatorial belt not expect to see negative energies in the “bulk” since by where matter accretion dominates the energy balance. The stationarity energy is constant. However, the workings of condition< ˙ 0 is satisfied everywhere on St (see the text for the Penrose process should be apparent through the be- details). havior of the Noether current P~ . Far from the black hole, the Noether current P~ is future directed timelike or null and is such that positive energy flows outwards. Near the for the force-free fields, we start with checking condition black hole, in the ergoregion, P~ should become spacelike (8.5) for the electromagnetic fields on the black-hole sur- or past directed. This is indeed what is happening in our µ ν µ face. As shown in Fig. 10 ωH Fµν E ξ EµE > 0 simulations. everywhere on the black-hole surface,h whichi − h impliesi that Figs. 13 and 14 show the behavior of P~ in numerical the electromagnetic energy is negative everywhere on results for the force-free and the MAD cases respectively. ∆ . Indeed, as shown in Fig. 11 the electromagnetic We see that for a force-free configuration P 2 = 0 at the H EM µ ν energy density Tµν η ℓ is everywhere negative on the surface of the ergosphere whereas in the MAD simula- black-hole surface. In the GRMHD MAD simulations tions the P 2 = 0 surface is very close to the surface of accretion of matter plays an essential role in accumulat- the ergosphere in the polar jet regions but lies inside of ing magnetic field lines on the black hole, and contrary it elsewhere. These patterns are in full agreement with to the force-free case the energy-momentum of matter is Figs. 9 and 12. They demonstrate the fundamental role not negligible. In Fig. 12 in addition to the electromag- played by the ergoregion in extracting black-hole energy netic and matter energy density fluxes we plot the sum of rotation. This can be explained analytically as follows. of the two representing the total energy flux. One can In the relativistic MHD code HARM, it is assumed see thate ˙ is negative on the black-hole surface St except that the Lorentz force on a charged particle vanishes in 17

2 2 FIG. 13. Color maps of P in monopolar force-free spin a∗ = FIG. 14. Color maps of P in the MAD simulations for a 0.99. The surface of the ergosphere is shown with cyan lines, black hole with spin a∗ = 0.99. Color codes and lines as in 2 the stagnation surface with orange lines. The region in which Fig. 13. In this case the surface P = 0 nearly coincides with P~ is spacelike is shown in orange, and the region in which P~ the surface of the ergosphere in magnetically-dominated polar is timelike is shown in blue (see color bar). Black-and-white jets, but lies inside of the surface of the ergosphere otherwise. striped lines represent the magnetic ﬁeld lines. As discussed in the main text, in a force-free conﬁguration P~ becomes null at the surface of the ergosphere. To see this let us use the general energy-momentum tensor

(MA) (EM) the ﬂuid frame: Tµν = Tµν + Tµν . µν uµF =0. (8.6) with T (MA) and T (EM) given by (6.16) and (8.9) respectively. One obtains then Then a magnetic four-vector bµ is deﬁned as 2 1 2 1 2 bµ := ǫµναβu F , (8.7) P = b + p gtt A, (8.13) 2 ν αβ 2 − with with

b uµ =0, (8.8) A = 2(Γ 1)ub2 +u2(ρ+u+p+b2)[(2 Γ)u+ρ], (8.14) µ − t t − following from F antisymmetry. This allows the electro- where u = ǫ ρ is the internal energy and the adiabatic magnetic energy-momentum tensor (7.1) to be written in index Γ (p =− (Γ 1)u) satisﬁes 1 Γ 2 (in the MAD the form of [44]: simulations Γ =− 4/3). For dust (p ≤= 0)≤ one gets

2 2 (EM) 2 1 2 P = (ρut) , T = b uµuν + b gµν bµbν . (8.9) µν 2 − − i.e., the Noether current is always timelike (but past directed for negative energy wordlines; see Sec. VIA). Therefore for the electromagnetic Noether current 2 (EM) (EM) For the force-free case (b ρ, p ρ) one recovers P = T ην one has µ µν (8.10) but in general (e.g. for≫ Γ = 4/3)≪A> 0. 2 1 Since PEM = 0 precisely at the surface of the ergo- P µ P (EM) = P 2 = b4g . (8.10) (EM) µ (EM) 4 tt sphere the same applies to the full Noether current in the highly magnetized regions: there P 2 P 2 = 0 ap- ≈ EM Since gtt > 0 inside ergosphere and < 0 outside, this fully proximately at the ergosphere. In the weakly magnetized explains the numerical results seen in Fig. 13: disk-corona region, however, P 2 = 0 will deviate from

2 the ergosphere by at least order unity. The first term P(EM) > 0 inside ergosphere, (8.11) on the right-hand side of Eq. (8.13) is positive inside 2 the ergosphere. Since the second term is nonpositive for P(EM) < 0 outside ergosphere. (8.12) 1 Γ 2 the surface P 2 = 0 lies inside the ergosphere Notice that this result applies not only to stationary ax- as≤ seen≤ in Fig. 14. isymmetric electromagnetic force-free field but also to Also shown in Figs. 13 and 14 is the stagnation limit time-dependent fully 3D (nonaxisymmetric) configura- at which the field drift velocity changes sign (ur = 0; in- tions. However, the above property of P~ applies only side this limit the velocity is pointing inwards). Inside the to the electromagnetic force-free case. stagnation surface, an energy counterflow [5] is present: 18 while the fields drift inwards, the energy flows outwards. ergy out of the black hole, since the “energy” associated The stagnation limit is always outside the ergoregion; for with the Noether current is not a measurable quantity: a∗ =0.99 it is very close to the ergosphere but for, e.g., no physical observer can measure it, except at infinity, a∗ =0.9999 the two surfaces are still well separated. The where the Killing vector η becomes a unit timelike vec- shapes and location of our stagnation limits are different tor and therefore is eligible as the 4-velocity of a physical from those found by Okamoto [52] and Komissarov [5]. observer: an inertial observer at rest with respect to the The reasons for these differences will be addressed in a BH location. future paper. As mentioned above, the main (and only important) difference between the mechanical and other versions of the Penrose process is that in the first version, particles IX. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS move along geodesics and therefore energy is conserved on their trajectories. Therefore the motion of a parti- We proved that for any type of matter or (nongravi- cle crossing the horizon with negative energy is from its tational) fields satisfying the weak energy condition, the start restricted to the ergoregion. This does not have to black hole’s rotational energy can be extracted if, and be the case of interacting matter and fields. It is still only if, negative energy and angular momentum are ab- true that the “outgoing flow of energy at infinity in the sorbed by the black hole. Applied to the case of a single Penrose process is inseparable from the negative energy particle, the general criterion (5.3) leads to the standard at infinity of an infalling ‘object’ ”[to quote 5], but this condition for a mechanical Penrose process. For a general inseparability concerns the negative energy of the object electromagnetic field, the criterion (5.3) leads to the con- when it is absorbed by the black hole. On its way to the dition (7.7) on the electromagnetic field at the horizon, final jump into the hole, the object’s energy may vary which does not seem to have been expressed before. depending on its interactions with the medium it is part In a sense our findings are obvious (which does not of. mean they are trivial). They follow from the fact that the black-hole surface is a stationary null hypersurface. A detailed description of these processes in the frame- Hence it can only absorb matter or fields; it cannot emit work of the GRMHD simulations will be the subject of a anything, cannot emit energy. No torque can be applied future work. to the horizon, since a torque results from a difference of material/field fluxes coming from the opposite sides of a surface [28]. The only way to lose energy, independent of the nature of the medium the hole is interacting with, is by absorbing a negative value of it. And, since the energy ACKNOWLEDGMENTS in question must be rotational, it must absorb negative angular momentum to slow it down. Our results do not specify how the effect of net nega- MA and JPL thank Serguei Komissarov for an en- tive energy absorption by a black hole is achieved. The lightening and stimulating exchange of Emails. Re- conditions for black-hole energy extraction do not guar- search reported here was partially supported by Pol- antee the existence of such a process in the real world. ish NCN Grants No. UMO-2011/01/B/ST9/05439, As is well known, the mechanical Penrose process requires No. UMO-2011/01/B/ST9/05437, and No. DEC- splitting of particles in the ergoregion but no realistic way 2012/04/A/ST9/00083. Research at the Silesian of achieving black-hole energy extraction has been found. University in Opava was supported by the Czech Using fluids (perfect or not) does not seem very promis- CZ.1.07/2.3.00/20.0071 “Synergy” grant for interna- ing in this context. The only known black-hole energy tional collaboration. JPL acknowledges a grant from extracting process that might be at work in the Universe the French Space Agency CNES and EG, Grant No. is the BZ mechanism. We showed that the process of ANR-12-BS01-012-01 “Analyse Asymptotique en Rela- energy extraction described by GRMHD simulations of tivitéGénérale” from Agence Nationale de la Recherche. magnetically arrested disk flows around rapidly spinning Support for this work was provided by a Princeton Center black holes is a Penrose process. This has been deduced for Theoretical Science Fellowship and by NASA through before from energy conservation and efficiencies well in Einstein Postdoctoral Fellowship Grant No. PF3-140115 excess of 100% but we showed that the solutions found awarded by the Chandra X-ray Center, which is operated by these simulations satisfy the rigorous and general con- by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for NASA ditions required by general relativity. Considering that under Contract No. NAS8-03060. We acknowledge sup- black holes are purely general-relativistic objects this is port by the NSF through TeraGrid/XSEDE resources a reassuring conclusion. provided by NICS Kraken and LONI QueenBee, where It is worth stressing that when in the GRMHD simula- simulations were carried out; NICS Nautilus, where data tions the Noether current has a positive flux in the out- were analyzed; and TACC Ranch and NCSA MSS, where ward direction everywhere (including at the BH horizon), data were backed up, under Grants No. TG-AST100040 it does not correspond to the flow of any physical en- (A.T.) and TG-AST080026N (R.N.). 19

Appendix A: Kerr solution in 3+1 Kerr coordinates From (A1), one can compute the determinant g of the metric with respect to the 3+1 Kerr coordinates and get The Kerr solution is described by two parameters: the the relatively simple expression: mass m and the specific angular momentum a := J/m, √ g = (r2 + a2 cos2 θ) sin θ. (A4) J being the total angular momentum. The metric com- − ponents with with respect to the “3+1” Kerr coordinates (t,r,θ,ϕ) are given by (see e.g. [29]) The metric (A1) is clearly stationary and axisymmetric and the two vectors µ ν 2mr 2 4mr gµν dx dx = 1 dt + dt dr ∂ ∂ − − ρ2 ρ2 η~ := and ξ~ := (A5) ∂tr,θ,ϕ ∂ϕt,r,θ 4amr 2 2mr 2 2 sin θ dt dϕ + 1+ 2 dr − ρ ρ are the two Killing vectors, η~ being associated with the 2mr ξ~ 2a sin2 θ 1+ dr dϕ + ρ2dθ2 stationarity and with the axial symmetry of the Kerr − ρ2 spacetime. These two Killing vectors are identical to the 2a2mr sin2 θ “standard” Killing vectors which are formed using the + r2 + a2 + sin2 θ dϕ2, (A1) Boyer-Lindquist coordinates (t , r, θ, ϕ ): ρ2 BL BL ∂ ∂ with η~ = and ξ~ = . ∂tBL ∂ϕBL 2 2 2 2 r,θ,ϕBL tBL,r,θ ρ := r + a cos θ. (A2) (A6) The Killing vector η~ ceases to be timelike at the bound- The coordinates (t,r,θ,ϕ) are a 3+1 version of the origi- ary of the ergoregion (the ergosphere), nal Kerr coordinates [8] and can be viewed as a spheroidal version of the well-known “Cartesian” Kerr-Schild coor- r = m + m2 a2 cos2 θ, (A7) dinates. The event horizon is located at erg − H p 2 2 below which it is spacelike (gtt = η~ η~ > 0). r = rH := m + m a . (A3) · p − The angular speed of the dragging of inertial frames and the black-hole angular velocity ωH defined by (3.2) can be written as takes the value ωH = a/(2mrH ). Since rH does not η~ ξ~ gtφ 2Jr 2amr depend upon θ nor ϕ, the Kerr coordinates are adapted ω = · = = = (A8) to , in the sense defined in Sec. IV C. ξ~ ξ~ gφφ A A NoteH that the metric components given by Eq. (A1) · are all regular at r = r .1 Note also that in the limit where A = (r2 +a2) ∆ a2 sin2 θ with ∆ = r2 2mr+a2. H − − a 0, then ρ r and the line element (A1) reduces to At the horizon ∆ = 0 and ω = ωH . → → the Schwarzschild metric in 3+1 Eddington-Finkelstein Setting dr = 0 and r = rH in the line element (A1) coordinates. yields the metric γH induced on : H

2 A B 2 2 sin θ 2 (γH )ABdx dx =2mrH (1 aωH sin θ) dθ + 2 (dφ ωH dt) , (A9) − 1 aωH sin θ − − where (xA) stands for the coordinates spanning : recover the fact that is a null hypersurface. (xA) = (t,θ,φ). This metric is clearly degenerate, withH Setting dt = 0 inH the line element (A9), we get the A the degeneracy direction along ℓ = (1, 0,ωH ). We thus induced metric q in the 2-surfaces St that foliate : H

2 a b 2 2 sin θ 2 qabdx dx =2mrH (1 aωH sin θ) dθ + 2 dφ , (A10) − 1 aωH sin θ −

1 On the contrary, most of them are singular at ρ = 0, which, 20

by h in (4.11)). By combining (B1), (B3) and (B4), we get a where (x ) stands for the coordinates spanning St: (xa) = (θ, φ). The metric q is clearly positive deﬁnite, ~ µ hence the 2-surfaces are spacelike. From (A10), we read ǫ(P )= Pµm dV. (B5) ZΣ ± ZΣ immediately the determinant of q with respect to the coordinates (θ, φ): This establishes the second equalities in (4.8), (4.9) and (4.11). √q =2mrH sin θ. (A11) Let (x1, x2, x3) be a coordinate system on Σ and let us choose the dx~ (i)’s as the corresponding elementary displacements: Appendix B: Flux integrals on a hypersurface ∂ ∂ ∂ dx~ = dx1 , dx~ = dx2 , dx~ = dx3 . Let Σ be an oriented hypersurface in the spacetime (1) ∂x1 (2) ∂x2 (3) ∂x3 (M , g). From the very deﬁnition of the integral of a 3- form over a three-dimensional manifold, we have Then

1 2 3 ~ ~ dV = γ dx dx dx , (B6) ǫ(P )= ǫ(P )(dx~ (1), dx~ (2), dx~ (3)) | | ZΣ ZΣ p where γ = det(γij ), the γij ’s being the components of ~ = ǫ(P , dx~ (1), dx~ (2), dx~ (3)), (B1) the induced 3-metric on Σ. This established the third Z Σ equalities in (4.8), (4.9) and (4.11). where the last equality follows from the deﬁnition (4.4) ~ of ǫ(P ) and (dx~ (1), dx~ (2), dx~ (3)) are inﬁnitesimal vectors forming an elementary right-handed parallelepiped on Σ. 2. Case of null hypersurface

Here we consider that Σ = ∆ , but the results are 1. Case of a spacelike or timelike hypersurface valid for any null hypersurface. SinceH ∆ is null, there is H no orthogonal decomposition of P~ of the type (B2). Let If Σ is spacelike or timelike, we may introduce the unit us consider instead the slicing of ∆ by the 2-spheres St normal m~ that is compatible with Σ’s orientation (i.e. of constant t (cf. Sec. III B). ThenH we have the following such that the orientation is given by the 3-form ǫ(m~ )= unique decomposition of P~ : ǫ(m~ , ., ., .), cf. Sec. IVA). The orthogonal decomposition ~ µ µ of P with respect to Σ is then P~ = (Pµℓ ) ~k (Pµk ) ℓ~ + P~ , (B7) − − || ~ µ ~ P = (Pµm ) m~ + P||, (B2) ~ S ± with P|| is tangent to t. This decomposition follows ~ ~ where is + (resp. ) if Σ is timelike (resp. spacelike) from the fact that k and ℓ generate the 2-plane orthog- ± − S and P~ is tangent to Σ. The four vectors P~ , dx~ , onal to t and from the normalization relation (3.4). || || (1) Let us choose the elementary parallelepiped dx~ (2) and dx~ (3) cannot be linearly independent, being ~ (dx~ (1), dx~ (2), dx~ (3)) on ∆ such that all tangent to Σ, so that ǫ(P||, dx~ (1), dx~ (2), dx~ (3)) = 0. H Hence ~ dx~ (1) = dt ℓ ~ ǫ(P , dx~ (1), dx~ (2), dx~ (3))= µ and dx~ (2) and dx~ (3) are tangent to St. The integrand in (Pµm ) ǫ(m~ , dx~ , dx~ , dx~ ) (B3) ± (1) (2) (3) (B1) is then Now, since m~ is a unit vector, ~ ~ ~ ǫ(P , dx~ (1), dx~ (2), dx~ (3)) = dt ǫ(P , ℓ, dx~ (2), dx~ (3)) (B8) dV := ǫ(m~ , dx~ (1), dx~ (2), dx~ (3)) (B4) Now, from (B7), is nothing but the volume of the elementary paral- µ lelepiped formed by (dx~ (1), dx~ (2), dx~ (3)) with respect to ǫ(P~ , ℓ~, dx~ , dx~ )= (Pµℓ ) ǫ(~k, ℓ~, dx~ , dx~ ) (2) (3) − (2) (3) the 3-metric γ induced by g on Σ (for Σext, γ is denoted µ (Pµk ) ǫ(ℓ~, ℓ~, dx~ , dx~ ) − (2) (3) 0 ~ ~| {z } + ǫ(P||, ℓ, dx~ (2), dx~ (3)) via (A2), corresponds to r = 0 and θ = π/2. In Kerr-Schild coordinates, this corresponds to the ring x2 + y2 = a2 in the 0 plane z = 0. This is the ring singularity of Kerr spacetime. µ = | (Pµℓ ) ǫ{z(~k, ℓ~, dx~ } , dx~ ). − (2) (3) 21

Therefore we may rewrite (B1) as whereg ˜ is the determinant of the components of g in the basis (~k, ℓ~,∂/∂y1,∂/∂y2). Given the deﬁnitions of ~k and µ q, these components are ǫ(P~ )= Pµℓ dV, (B9) Z∆H − Z∆H 0 10 0 with 10− 0 0 g˜αβ =  −  . (B12) 0 0 q11 q12 ~ ~   dV = ǫ(k, ℓ, dx~ (2), dx~ (3)) dt. (B10)  0 0 q12 q22 

This establishes the second equality in (4.10). Henceg ˜ = q, with q := det(qab), and (B11) becomes 1 2 − Let (y ,y ) be a coordinate system on St and let us dV = √q dt dy1 dy2. (B13) choose the dx~ (2) and dx~ (3) as the corresponding elementary displacements: This establishes the third equality in (4.10). ∂ ∂ x 1 x 2 d~ (2) = dy 1 , d~ (3) = dy 2 , ∂y ∂y Appendix C: Calculation of particle energy as a ﬂux through some hypersurface We have then ~ ~ 1. Case of a spacelike hypersurface dV = ǫ(k, ℓ, dx~ (2), dx~ (3)) dt ǫ ~k ℓ~ 1 2 = ( , ,∂/∂y1,∂/∂y2) dt dy dy As shown in Sec. VI A, the particle energy at the event = g˜ dt dy1 dy2, (B11) A on Σ is − 1 1 p

+∞ m ρ σ µ ν 1 2 3 E1 = 1 δA(τ)(M) gµ (M, A(τ))(u1)ρ(τ) gν (M, A(τ))(u1)σ(τ) η (M) n1 (M)√γ dx dx dx dτ. (C1) ZΣ1 Z−∞

Thanks to the Dirac distribution, only the terms for which M = A(τ) contribute to the above integral. We may then drop the parallel propagators and write

+∞ m µ ν 1 2 3 E1 = 1 δA(τ)(M) (u1)µ(τ) η (M) (u1)ν (τ) n1 (M)√γ dx dx dx dτ. ZΣ1 Z−∞

Let us introduce in the vicinity of A1 a coordinate sys- along it and perform the change of variable τ t in the 1 2 3 0→ tem (t, x , x , x ) such that Σ1 is the hypersurface t =0 above integral. Taking into account that u1 = dt/dτ and t increases towards the future. Then the normal n~ 1 (from the very deﬁnition of a 4-velocity), we get is collinear to the gradient of t: (n1)α = N αt, the co- +∞ − ∇ µ eﬃcient N > 0 being called the lapse function. We have E1 = m1 δA t (M) ηµ(M) u (t) − Z Z ( ) 1 then (n )α = ( N, 0, 0, 0) and Σ1 −∞ 1 − N√γ dx1 dx2 dx3 dt. (C2) ν ν 0 (u )ν n = (n )ν u = Nu . × 1 1 1 1 − 1 Within the coordinate system (t, x1, x2, x3), the coordi- 1 2 3 Hence nates of A(t) are (t,z (t),z (t),z (t)) and those of M are (0, x1, x2, x3) (for M Σ ). Therefore using (6.3) along +∞ ∈ 1 m µ with the identity √ g = N√γ (see e.g. Eq. (5.55) in E1 = 1 δA(τ)(M) ηµ(M) u1 (τ) − − ZΣ1 Z−∞ [33]), we obtain 1 2 3 0 +∞ N√γ dx dx dx u1dτ. 1 1 2 2 × E1 = m1 δ( t) δ(x z (t)) δ(x z (t)) Since the particle’s worldline is timelike and therefore − ZΣ1 Z−∞ − − − 3 3 µ 1 2 3 never tangent to Σ , we may use t as a regular parameter δ(x z (t)) ηµ(M) u (t) dx dx dx dt. 1 × − 1 22

Since δ( t)= δ(t), performing the integration on t leads to −

m 1 1 2 2 3 3 µ 1 2 3 m 1 2 3 µ E1 = 1 δ(x z (0)) δ(x z (0)) δ(x z (0)) ηµ(M) u1 (0) dx dx dx = 1 ηµ(0,z (0),z (0),z (0)) u1 (0). − ZΣ1 − − − −

1 2 3 Since (0,z (0),z (0),z (0)) are the coordinates of A1 and 2. Case of a null hypersurface µ u1 (0) are the components of u~ 1 at A1, we conclude that µ µ In Sec. VIA we obtained for the energy of particle E = m (ηµu ) = m ηµu . (C3) 1 − 1 1 |A1 − 1 1 crossing the event horizon

∞ µ ν 1 2 ∆EH = m∗ δA(τ)(M) (u∗)µ(τ)η (M) (u∗)ν (τ)ℓ (M) √q dt dy dy dτ. (C4) Z∆H Z−∞

Note that, for the same reasons as above, we have Performing the integration on w, we get dropped the parallel propagators. Let us introduce in 1 2 m 1 1 2 2 3 the vicinity of AH a coordinate system (w,t,y ,y ) such ∆EH = ∗ δ(t z (0)) δ(y z (0)) δ(y z (0)) − Z∆H − − − that is the hypersurface w = 0, ~k = ∂/∂w on and H H µ √q 1 2 ℓ~ = ∂/∂t on . Let us expand u~ in the associated ηµ(M) u∗ (0) dt dy dy . H ∗ × √ g coordinate basis: On ∆ , the components of the metric tensor− with respect toH the coordinates (w,t,y1,y2) are given by (B12), 0 1 2 ∂ 3 ∂ from which we deduce that √ g = q. Noticing that u~ ∗ = u ~k + u ℓ~ + u + u . √ ∗ ∗ ∗ 1 ∗ 2 1 2 3 − ∂y ∂y (0,z (0),z (0),z (0)) are the coordinates of AH , we conclude that We have then, given (3.4) and the orthogonality of ℓ~ to m µ m µ ∆EH = ∗ (ηµu∗ ) A = ∗ ηµu∗ . (C6) itself and to ∂/∂y1 and ∂/∂y2, − | H −

Appendix D: Energy and angular-momentum ν ν 0 dw (u∗)ν ℓ = u ℓν = u = . (C5) conservation laws in adapted coordinates ∗ − ∗ − dτ

In this appendix, we derive the energy conserva- Since the worldline of P∗ is crossing , we may use w as a regular parameter on it and performH the change of tion law (4.12), as well as the angular-momentum one variable τ w in the integral (C4), taking advantage of (4.19), by a direct calculation within adapted coordinates α (C5). Therefore→ (x ) = (t,r,θ,φ), as deﬁned in Sec. IVC. The start- ing point is the covariant energy-momentum conserva- µ tion law µT α = 0, which can be expressed in terms of ∆EH = partial derivatives∇ thanks to a standard formula for the +∞ m µ 1 2 covariant divergence of a symmetric tensor tensor ﬁeld: ∗ δA(w)(M) ηµ(M)u∗ (w) √q dt dy dy dw. − Z∆H Z−∞ 1 ∂ 1 ∂g √ gT µ µν T µν =0. (D1) √ g ∂xµ − α − 2 ∂xα 1 2 − Within the coordinate system (w,t,y ,y ), the coordi- For α = 0 and α = 3, the second term in the left- 1 2 3 nates of A(w) are (w,z (w),z (w),z (w)) and those of hand side vanishes, due to the spacetime symmetries 1 2 M are (0,t,y ,y ) (for M ∆ ). Therefore, using (6.3), (∂gµν /∂t = 0 and ∂gµν/∂φ = 0). We are thus left with we obtain ∈ H ∂ µ µ √ gT α = 0 (α =0, 3). (D2) +∞ ∂x − 1 1 2 ∆EH = m∗ δ( w) δ(t z (w)) δ(y z (w)) Let us integrate this equation over the coordinate − Z∆H Z−∞ − − − 4-volume formed by the Cartesian product [t ,t ] 1 2 × 2 3 µ √q 1 2 [rH , rext] [0, π] [0, 2π]. This corresponds to the co- δ(y z (w))ηµ(M) u (w) dt dy dy dw. × − ∗ √ g ordinate ranges× of× the spacetime 4-volume enclosed in − the hypersurface V := Σ1 ∆ Σ2 Σext considered in Sec. IV and to which the∪ coordinatesH ∪ ∪ (t,r,θ,φ) are adapted. We get 23

t=t2 r=rext θ=π φ=2π ∂ √ gT µ dt dr dθ dφ = 0 (α =0, 3). (D3) Z Z Z Z ∂xµ − α t=t1 r=rH θ=0 φ=0 Since the integral bounds are independent from one another, we may permute the various integrals and use the identities t=t2 ∂ √ gT t dt = √ gT t √ gT t (D4) Z ∂t − α − α t=t2 − − α t=t1 t=t1

r=rext ∂ r r r √ gT α dr = √ gT α √ gT α (D5) Z ∂r − − r=rext − − r=rH r=rH

θ=π ∂ √ gT θ dθ = √ gT θ √ gT θ = 0 (D6) Z ∂θ − α − α θ=π − − α θ=0 θ=0

φ=2π ∂ √ gT φ dφ = √ gT φ √ gT φ =0. (D7) Z ∂φ − α − α φ=2π − − α φ=0 φ=0 The “= 0” in (D6) results from √ g =0 at θ = 0 and θ = π, as a consequence of regularity properties of spherical coordinates, while the “= 0” of (D7)− results from the 2π-periodicity associated with the coordinate φ. Taking into account (D4)-(D7), Eq. (D3) becomes

t t r r T α√ g dr dθ dφ T α√ g dr dθ dφ + T α√ g dt dθ dφ T α√ g dt dθ dφ =0 ZΣ2 − − ZΣ1 − ZΣext − − Z∆H − (α =0, 3). (D8) For α = 0, we recognize the energy conservation law (4.12), the four integrals being, respectively, E , E , ∆E − 2 1 − ext and ∆EH as given by (4.20)-(4.26). For α = 3, we get the angular-momentum conservation law (4.19), the four − integral being respectively J2, J1, ∆Jext and ∆JH as given by (4.27)-(4.29). Note that in the above derivation,− as in the geometrical derivation of Sec. IV, we have not assumed that the energy-momentum tensor T obeys the spacetime symmetries.

[1] Ruﬃni, R., & Wilson, J. R. 1975, Phys. Rev. D, 12, 2959 [12] Igumenshchev, I. V., Narayan, R., & Abramowicz, M. A. [2] Damour, T., Ruﬃni, R., Hanni, R. S., & Wilson, J. R. 2003, Astrophys. J., 592, 1042 1978, Phys. Rev. D, 17, 1518 [13] Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I.V. & Abramowicz, M.A. [3] Blandford, R.D. & Znajek, R.L., 1977, Mon. Not. Roy. 2003, PASJ, 55, L69 astr. Soc., 179, 433 [14] Carter, B. 1979, The general theory of the mechanical, [4] Komissarov, S.S., 2006, in Challenges electromagnetic and thermodynamic properties of black of Relativistic Jets, Published online at holes, in General relativity — an Einstein centenary sur- http://www.oa.uj.edu.pl/2006jets/talks.html vey, Eds. S.W. Hawking and W. Israel, Cambridge Uni- [5] Komissarov, S.S., 2009, Journal of the Korean Physical versity Press, Cambridge (1979), p. 294 Society, 54, 2503 [15] Penna, R. F., Narayan, R., & Sadowski, A. 2013, Mon. [6] Penrose, R., 1969, Rev. Nuovo Cimento 1, Special No. Not. Roy. astr. Soc., submitted; arXiv:1307.4752 252 [16] Thorne, K. S., Price, R. H., & MacDonald, D. A. 1986, [7] Wagh, S.M. and Dadhich, N. Phys. Rep. 183, 137 (1989). Black Holes: The Membrane Paradigm, Yale Univ. Press [8] Kerr R.P., 1963, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 237 [17] Penrose, R., & Floyd, G. R. 1971, Nature, 229, 177 [9] Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J.C. 2011, [18] Hartle, J. B. 2003, Gravity / James B. Hartle. San Fran- Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc., 418, L79 cisco, CA, USA: Addison Wesley, ISBN 0-8053-8662-9, [10] Tchekhovskoy, McKinney, J.C. A. & Narayan, R., 2012, 2003, XXII + 582 pp. J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 372, 012040 [19] Bardeen, J.M., Press, W.H., & Teukolsky, S.A. 1972, [11] McKinney, J.C.; Tchekhovskoy, A. & Blandford, R.D., Ap.J., 178, 347 2012, Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc., 423, 3083-3117 [20] Wald, R.M. 1974, Astrophys. J. , 191, 231 24

[21] Kovetz, A., & Piran, T. 1975, Nuovo Cimento Lettere, [37] LászlóA. & Rácz I., 2013, in Relativity and Gravitation: 12, 39 100 Years after Einstein in Prague, edited by J. Biˇcák, [22] Piran, T., & Shaham, J. 1977, Phys. Rev. D , 16, 1615 T. Ledvinka and B.F. Schutz, Edition Open Access, in [23] Bejger, M., Piran, T., Abramowicz, M.A., H˚akson F., press [preprint: arXiv:1212.4847] 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 109, 121101 [38] Carter, B. 1973, General theory of stationary black hole [24] Harada T., Nemoto H., Miyamoto U., 2012, PhRvD, 86, states, in Black holes — Les Houches 1972, Eds. C. De- 024027 Witt and B.S. DeWitt, Gordon & Breach Science Pub- [25] Zaslavskii O. B., 2012, PhRvD, 86, 084030 lishers, New York, p. 125 [26] Bhat, M., Dhurandhar, S. and Dadhich, N. J. Astrophys. [39] Damour, T. 1979, Quelques propriétés mécaniques, Astr. 6, 85, (1985). électromagnétiques, thermodynamiques et quantiques des [27] Tchekhovskoy, A., Narayan, R., & McKinney, J. C. 2010, trous noirs, Thèse de doctorat d’Etat,´ UniversitéParis 6 ApJ, 711, 50 [40] Damour, T. 1982, Surface effects in black hole physics, in [28] Abramowicz, M. A., Jaroszyński, M., Kato, S, Lasota, J.- Proceedings of the Second Marcel Grossmann Meeting on P., Ró˙zańska, A., S¸adowski, A., 2010, Astron. Astrophys., General Relativity, Ed. R. Ruffini, North Holland, p. 587. 521, A15 [41] Gourgoulhon, E., Markakis, C., Uryu, K. & Eriguchi, Y., [29] Gourgoulhon, E.& Jaramillo, J.L., 2006, Physics Reports 2011, Phys. Rev. D 83, 104007 423, 159; arXiv:gr-qc/0503113v2 [42] Ghosh, P. & Abramowicz, M.A., 1997, Mon. Not. Roy. [30] Hawking, S.W. & Ellis, G.F.R., 1973, The large scale astr. Soc., 292, 887 structure of space-time, Cambridge University Press, [43] Livio, M., Ogilvie, G.I. & Pringle, J.E., 1999, Astrophys. Cambridge J., 512, 100-104 [31] Szabados L.B. 2009, Living Rev. Relat. 12, 4; [44] Gammie, C. F., McKinney, J. C., & Tóth, G. 2003, As- http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2009-4 trophys. J., 589, 444 [32] Jaramillo J.L. & Gourgoulhon E., 2011, in Mass and Mo- [45] McKinney, J. C., & Blandford, R. D. 2009, Mon. Not. tion in General Relativity, edited by L. Blanchet, A. Spal- Roy. astr. Soc., 394, L126 licci and B. Whiting, Fundamental Theories of Physics [46] Lubow, S. H., Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Pringle, J. E. 1994, 162, 87-124, Springer Mon. Not. Roy. astr. Soc., 267, 235 [33] Gourgoulhon, E., 2012, 3+1 Formalism in General Rel- [47] Narayan, R., & McClintock, J.E., 2012, Mon. Not. Roy. ativity ; Bases of Numerical Relativity, Lecture Notes in astr. Soc., 419, L69 Physics, Vol. 846, Springer, Berlin [48] McClintock, J. E., Narayan, R., & Steiner, J. F. 2013, [34] Poisson, E.; Pound, A. & Vega, I. 2011, Living Rev. Re- arXiv:1303.1583 lat. 14, 7; http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2011-7 [49] Narayan, R., McClintock, J. E., & Tchekhovskoy, A. [35] Carroll, S.M. 2004, Spacetime and Geometry: An Intro- 2013, arXiv:1303.3004 duction to General Relativity, Addison Wesley (Pearson [50] Sikora, M., & Begelman, M. C. 2013, Astrophys. J., 764, Education), San Francisco (2004) L24 [36] Wald, R.M., 1984 General relativity, The University of [51] Sikora, M., Stasińska, G., Koziel-Wierzbowska, D., Chicago Press, Chicago Madejski, G. M., & Asari, N. V. 2013, Astrophys. J, 765, 62 [52] Okamoto, I. 2006, Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan, 58, 1047