Arxiv:1610.01590V2 [Gr-Qc] 15 Mar 2017 Recoil [17–19] Produced During a Black-Hole Merger [20]

Gravitomagnetic dynamical friction

Benjamin Cashen,1, ∗ Adam Aker,1, † and Michael Kesden1, ‡ 1Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX 75080, USA (Dated: March 16, 2017) A supermassive black hole moving through a field of stars will gravitationally scatter the stars, inducing a backreaction force on the black hole known as dynamical friction. In Newtonian gravity, the axisymmetry of the system about the black hole’s velocity v implies that the dynamical friction must be anti-parallel to v. However, in general relativity the black hole’s spin S need not be parallel to v, breaking the axisymmetry of the system and generating a new component of dynamical friction similar to the Lorentz force F = qv×B experienced by a particle with charge q moving in a magnetic field B. We call this new force gravitomagnetic dynamical friction and calculate its magnitude for a spinning black hole moving through a field of stars with Maxwellian velocity dispersion σ, assuming that both v and σ are much less than the speed of light c. We use post-Newtonian equations of motion accurate to O(v3/c3) needed to capture the effect of spin-orbit coupling and also include direct stellar capture by the black hole’s event horizon. Gravitomagnetic dynamical friction will cause a black hole with uniform speed to spiral about the direction of its spin, similar to a charged particle spiraling about a magnetic field line, and will exert a torque on a supermassive black hole orbiting a galactic center, causing the angular momentum of this orbit to slowly precess about the black-hole spin. As this effect is suppressed by a factor (σ/c)2 in nonrelativistic systems, we expect it to be negligible in most astrophysical contexts but provide this calculation for its theoretical interest and potential application to relativistic systems.

PACS numbers: 98.10+z, 04.70.Bw, 04.25.Nx

I. INTRODUCTION ever, if the perturber is a black hole, it can have a spin S [24] that need not be parallel to v, breaking the ax- Chandrasekhar was the first to recognize that a mas- isymmetry of the system. Like a paddle dipped over the sive perturber moving through a stellar background side of a canoe, the spin will disturb the wake of the would scatter stars, resulting in a net deceleration in the black hole and cause it to deviate from a straight path direction of its motion known as dynamical friction [1]. through the stellar background. As the relative veloci- Dynamical friction is responsible for many astrophysical ties v between supermassive black holes and the stars in phenomena [2] including satellite galaxies inspiraling to- their host galaxies are usually much less than the speed wards the centers of their host galaxies [3–5], mass segre- of light c, and the distances r between the black holes gation of heavy objects in globular clusters [6, 7], the dis- and these stars is much greater than the gravitational 2 tribution of galaxies within clusters [8, 9], and the migra- radius rg ≡ GM/c of a black hole of mass M, we will tion of planetesimals in protoplanetary disks [10–12]. It work in the post-Newtonian (PN) approximation [25] in also causes supermassive black holes to sink towards the which the equations of motion are expanded in powers of 2 galactic center following a galaxy merger [13–16], helping the small parameters (v/c) and rg/r. We will show that them to reach sub-parsec separations at which gravita- the lowest-order spin-dependent terms in the scattering tional radiation is effective in promoting black-hole merg- of stars by a supermassive black hole induce a dynamical ers. Dynamical friction also damps out the oscillations of backreaction force on the black hole in the direction given supermassive black holes that have been displaced from by v×S. In an analogy with the Lorentz force qv×B ex- the centers of their host galaxies following a gravitational perienced by a charge q moving through a magnetic field arXiv:1610.01590v2 [gr-qc] 15 Mar 2017 recoil [17–19] produced during a black-hole merger [20]. B, we dub this force gravitomagnetic dynamical friction. Dynamical friction can also be interpreted as the grav- Although individual stars have a well defined orbital an- itational drag force exerted by the effective wake of stars gular momentum L with respect to the black hole and ex- created behind a massive perturber by its gravitational ert a gravitomagnetic force proportional to v×L at lower scattering [21–23]. If the stellar background is homoge- PN order, symmetry implies that the homogeneous stel- neous and isotropic in its rest frame, and the perturber lar background has zero total orbital angular momentum is treated as a Newtonian point mass, the system is ax- and thus exerts no net spin-independent gravitomagnetic isymmetric about the velocity v of the perturber and dynamical friction. the wake produced will be axisymmetric as well. How- Recent work on the two-body problem in the PN approximation is too extensive to review here, but the lowest-order spin-dependent terms have been known for ∗ [email protected] over twenty years [26–31]. The existing literature on rel- † [email protected] ativistic dynamical friction is far more sparse. Lee [32] ‡ [email protected] considered how the lowest-order spin-independent PN ef- 2 fects modify classical dynamical friction, while Syer [33] allowed both the test mass and scattered particles to be relativistic but only included small-angle scattering. Mo- tivated by extreme-mass-ratio inspirals of compact objects into accreting supermassive black holes, Barausse [34] calculated the dynamical friction acting on a test mass moving relativistically through a perfect fluid. Pike and Rose [35] extended the work of Spitzer [36] on the dynamical friction on charged particles moving through plasmas to relativistic systems. To our knowledge, this paper provides the first calculation of dynamical friction in which the spin of the test mass is taken into account. Although the magnitude of the gravitomagnetic contri- FIG. 1. A Keplerian orbit in three dimensions, showing the bution to dynamical friction is strongly suppressed com- angles that define its orientation in space: the inclination i, pared to the Newtonian one for supermassive black holes the argument of periapsis ω, and the longitude of ascending in realistic host galaxies, we present this calculation for node Ω. The true anomaly f specifies the position of a star its theoretical interest and potential applicability to rel- on its orbit with f = 0 at pericenter. ativistic systems. In Sec. II, we review how spinning supermassive black and holes scatter stars on hyperbolic orbits in general relativ- 1 δm ity. In Sec. III, we describe how these results can be used a = 6ˆr (ˆr × v) · 2S + ∆ to perform a Monte Carlo calculation of the gravitomag- SO r3 M netic contribution to the coefficient of dynamical friction. δm In Sec. IV, we present the results of this calculation and − v × 7S + 3 ∆ M explore the how the coefficient depends on the black-hole δm velocity and spin. A brief summary and discussion of the + 3r ˙ ˆr × 3S + ∆ (4) potential astrophysical applications of gravitomagnetic M dynamical friction are provided in Sec. V. 2 where v is the relative velocity, η ≡ m1m2/M is the symmetric mass ratio, S ≡ S1 +S2 is the total spin, δm ≡ m1 − m2 is the mass difference, and ∆ ≡ M(S2/m2 − S1/m1). These expressions simplify in the limit that the II. POST-NEWTONIAN ORBITAL supermassive black hole is much more massive than the PRECESSION stars it scatters (m1 m2) in which case η → 0, S → S1, δm/M → 1, ∆ → −S, and (with the help of some vector The equations of motion for two Newtonian point par- identites) ticles with masses m1 and m2 and separation r can be 2 converted into an effective one-body equation of motion 2M aSO → − v × [−χ + 3(ˆr · χ)ˆr] (5) with acceleration r3 2 where χ ≡ S1/m1 is the dimensionless spin of the black M hole. aN = − ˆr , (1) r2 Dynamical friction is caused by the gravitational scattering of stars by the black hole as it moves through the where M ≡ m1 + m2 is the total mass and we use units stellar background. These stars are gravitationally un- where G = c = 1. In the PN approximation, this New- bound to the black hole; they approach from large dis- tonian acceleration is supplemented by higher-order cor- tances, reach orbital pericenter, and then return to infin- rections [31] ity. Well before and after each scattering event, the PN accelerations given by Eqs. (3) and (4) are highly sub- dominant compared to the Newtonian acceleration a a = a + a + a + ... (2) N N 1PN SO and the stellar orbits are well described by Keplerian hy- perbolae. In addition to its semi-major axis a and eccen- where tricity e, a hyperbolic orbit is specified by its inclination i, argument of periapsis ω, and longitude of ascending M M 3 node Ω as shown in Fig. 1. The line of nodes is the inter- a = − ˆr (1 + 3η)v2 − 2(2 + η) − ηr˙2 1PN r2 r 2 section between a chosen reference plane and the orbital plane; the portion of this line extending from the origin − 2(2 − η)r ˙v (3) through the point at which the star crosses the reference plane from below is called the line of ascending nodes. 3

FIG. 3. Gravitomagnetic dynamical friction caused by preces- FIG. 2. Gravitomagnetic dynamical friction caused by spin- sion of the longitude of ascending node ∆ΩSO. The black-hole velocity (yellow arrow) is directed towards the top of the page dependent precession of the argument of periapsis ∆ωSO.A black hole with velocity directed towards the top of the page as in Fig. 2, but the black-hole spin (black arrow) is now di- (yellow arrow) will encounter more stars with relative veloci- rected towards the left of the page making the solid blue and ties directed towards the bottom of the page as indicated by dashed red curves correspond to polar orbits with orbital an- the downwards black arrows on both orbits. The black-hole gular momenta directed out of and into the page respectively. spin is directed out of the page. Eq. (7a) implies that stars Precession of the longitude of ascending node causes the or- on prograde orbits (cos i > 0, solid blue curve) will experi- bital angular momenta to precess about the black-hole spin, ence negative spin-dependent pericenter precession and thus deflecting stars on both orbits into the page as indicated by a smaller deflection than stars on retrograde orbits (cos i < 0, the ⊗ symbols on these orbits as they recede from the black dashed red curve). The vector sum of the two outwards di- hole. The backreaction force on the black hole is directed out rected arrows on these orbits has a component directed to the of the page as shown by the green symbol. right side of the page yielding a net backreaction force on the black hole directed to the left (leftwards green arrow). The 1.5PN spin-orbit correction to the acceleration aSO causes both the argument of periapsis and the lon- The argument of periapsis ω is the angle in the orbital gitude of ascending node to precess by [38] plane between the line of ascending nodes and pericenter, M 3 while the longitude of ascending node Ω is the angle in ∆ωSO = −12πχ cos i , (7a) the reference plane between a chosen reference direction L and the line of ascending nodes. We choose the reference M 3 ∆Ω = 4πχ . (7b) plane to correspond to the equatorial plane perpendicular SO L to the spin of the black hole implying that the inclination i is the angle between the orbital angular momentum of These two changes to the orbital elements during a scat- the star and the spin of the black hole. tering event each contribute to gravitomagnetic dynam- Although the five orbital elements a, e, i, ω, and Ω ical friction. Let us first consider the effects of spin- are conserved by the Newtonian acceleration aN , in the dependent pericenter precession as illustrated in Fig. 2 Kerr geometry of a spinning black hole, conservation of where the velocity of the black hole is directed towards the energy E, z-component of the angular momentum the top of the page and the black-hole spin is directed out Lz, and Carter constant Q [37] only require that the first of the page. The negative sign in Eq. (7a) implies that three orbital elements remain unchanged by the scatter- stars passing on the left side of the black hole (prograde ing event. The 1PN acceleration a1PN given by Eq. (3) orbits with cos i > 0) will be scattered by smaller angles causes the argument of periapsis for a star on an unbound than those passing on the right side (retrograde orbits orbit with specific orbital angular momentum L (orbital with cos i < 0). The black hole will therefore preferen- angular momentum divided by the reduced mass) to pre- tially scatter stars towards the right side of the page and cess by an amount experience a backreaction force to the left. This force is anti-aligned with v × S allowing us to identify it as M 2 gravitomagnetic dynamical friction. ∆ω = 6π (6) 1PN L Let us next consider the effects of precession of the longitude of ascending node as illustrated in Fig. 3. The as was famously shown by Einstein to account for the velocity of the black hole is again directed towards the anomalous precession of Mercury’s orbit [25]. Although top of the page, but the black-hole spin is now directed to this pericenter precession should induce a small correc- the left side of the page. This choice allows the plane of tion to non-relativistic calculations of dynamical friction, the page to correspond to the initial orbital plane of polar it does not depend on the black-hole spin and thus can- orbits. The solid blue and dashed red orbits have angular not generate the gravitomagnetic dynamical friction that momenta directed out of and into the page respectively, is our concern in this paper. which according to Eq. (7b) will precess about the black- 4 hole spin as stars are scattered. In both cases, the final velocity v as orbital plane will dip into the top of the page causing stars to be preferentially scattered below the plane of L vx = vr sin θ cos φ − (cos φv sin φ + sin φv cos θ cos φ) the page. This induces a backreaction force on the black r hole out of the page in the direction of v × S as expected (10a) for a gravitomagnetic force. As this contribution to the L v = v sin θ sin φ + (cos φ cos φ − sin φ cos θ sin φ) gravitomagnetic dynamical friction has the opposite sign y r r v v of that from the spin-dependent pericenter precession as (10b) shown in Fig. 2, a quantitative calculation is needed to L v = v cos θ + sin φ sin θ (10c) determine which effect predominates. We will provide z r r v such a calculation in Sec. III. where (θ, φ) is the star’s angular position defined such We conclude this section by briefly considering rela- that v0 is along the z axis, v is the radial velocity, L tivistic corrections beyond 1.5 PN order. Black-hole spin BH r is the magnitude of the orbital angular momentum, and induces a mass-quadrupole moment [39, 40] which in turn φ is an azimuthal angle about the radial direction de- generates precession of the pericenter and longitude of v fined such that the tangential component of v is purely ascending node at 2PN order [38] azimuthal for φv = 0. In terms of these variables, the poloidal and azimuthal components of the velocity v are 2 4 vθ = −(L/r) sin φv and vφ = (L/r) cos φv. These new 3πχ 2 M ∆ωQ = − (1 − 5 cos i) , (8a) variables, the distribution function (9), and the addi- 2 L tional definition µ ≡ cos θ allow the differential flux of M 4 stars entering a sphere of radius r GM/σ2 to be ex- ∆Ω = 3πχ2 cos i . (8b) Q L pressed as 5 d F nLvr 0 2 2 = e−|v+v BH | /2σ . (11) 2 3/2 These terms have the opposite parity under reflection dµdφdvrdLdφv (2πσ ) through the equatorial plane (cos i → − cos i) of the 1.5 PN terms given by Eq. (7) implying that, like the 1PN If a star with mass m∗ scattered by a black hole of mass term of Eq. (6), they will not give rise to gravitomagnetic M experiences a velocity change ∆v∗(µ, φ, vr, L, φv), dynamical friction. We have confirmed this result by conservation of linear momentum implies that the ve- showing that including these terms does not affect our locity of the black hole will be changed by an amount subsequent numerical calculations.

∆vBH = −(m∗/M)∆v∗ . (12)

Eq. (11) then indicates that the coefficient of dynamical friction h∆vi will be III. COEFFICIENT OF GRAVITOMAGNETIC DYNAMICAL FRICTION Z d5F h∆vi = ∆vBH dµ dφ dvr dL dφv dµdφdvrdLdφv Z In this section, we calculate the component of the co- m∗n −v02 /2σ2 = − e BH ∆v Lv efficient h∆vi responsible for gravitomagnetic dynamical M(2πσ2)3/2 ∗ r friction. This coefficient specifies the time rate of change 2 0 2 −(v +2vr v µ)/2σ of the black hole’s velocity, i.e. its acceleration. Fol- × e r BH dµ dφ dvr dL dφv (13) lowing Chandrasekhar’s original treatment of dynamical where the limits of integration are −1 < µ < +1, 0 < friction [1], we assume that the stellar distribution func- φ < 2π, v < 0, L > 0, and 0 < φ < 2π. tion far from the black hole is spatially homogeneous and r v To evaluate this integral, we must first derive an ex- has a Maxwellian velocity distribution pression for the change in stellar velocity ∆v∗. Qual- itatively, there are two possibilities: either the star is n 02 2 f(x, v0) = e−v /2σ , (9) directly captured by the black hole’s event horizon or it (2πσ2)3/2 is scattered by the black hole and returns to infinity. Let us first consider direct capture by the black hole. If the stellar velocity is given by Eq. (10), the star’s specific where n is the stellar number density and σ is the one- orbital angular momentum L = r × v will be dimensional velocity dispersion. If the black hole has 0 a velocity v BH in this mean stellar rest frame, we can Lx = L(sin φv sin φ − cos φv cos θ cos φ) (14a) perform a change of variables v ≡ v0 − v0 to find a BH L = −L(sin φ cos φ + cos φ cos θ sin φ) (14b) star’s velocity in the black-hole rest frame. In this frame, y v v we can express the Cartesian components of the stellar Lz = L cos φv sin θ . (14c) 5

If we choose without loss of generality for the black-hole initial velocity v and thus ∆v∗ = vf − v 6= −2v. To spin direction Sˆ to lie in the xz plane at an angle θS with determine ∆v∗(µ, φ, vr, L, φv), we begin by calculating v respect to the z axis, the inclination will be and L from Eqs. (10) and (14) in the limit r → ∞ appro- priate for the initial quantities at large separations. To cos i = Lˆ · Sˆ determine the components of these vectors in the ”spin = cos θS cos φv sin θ frame” in which the equatorial plane perpendicular to the black-hole spin serves as the reference plane shown + sin θS(sin φv sin φ − cos φv cos θ cos φ) . (15) in Fig. 1, we rotate them by an angle −θS about the y axis. The stellar inclination i (which remains unchanged The values Lmb±(χ) of the orbital angular momentum below which stars on parabolic orbits in the equatorial by precession) is given by Eq. (15). The unit vector plane of the black hole are captured by the black hole ˆn = (Sˆ ×Lˆ)/ sin i points along the line of ascending node can be found from the geodesic equations; the approxi- and its azimuthal angle in spherical coordinates of the mation of strictly parabolic orbits (specific energy E = 1) spin frame is the initial longitude of ascending node Ω. for both capture and scattering is valid since the star’s Since the initial stellar velocity v points towards pericen- velocities at infinity v ∼ σ c are highly nonrelativistic. ter for parabolic (e = 1) orbits, the argument of periapsis For non-spinning black holes (χ = 0), Lmb± = 4M since ω will be the azimuthal angle of v in a frame with ˆn along the inclination is undefined, while for maximally spin- the x axis and Lˆ along the z axis as shown in Fig. 1. Once we have determined the initial orbital elements ning black holes (χ = 1), Lmb+ = 2M√ for prograde orbits (cos i = +1) while Lmb− = 2(1 + 2)M for retrograde Ω, i, and ω in the spin frame, the final orbital elements orbits (cos i = −1) [41]. We can calculate Lmb for non- are equatorial orbits by finding the value of L for which there Ωf = Ω + ∆ΩSO , (18a) is an unstable circular geodesic with E = 1, Lz = L cos i, 2 and Q = (L sin i) ; Lmb is a monotonically increasing if = i , (18b) function of the inclination i with Lmb+ ≤ Lmb ≤ Lmb−. ωf = ω + ∆ωSO , (18c) When a star is captured, all of its linear momentum is transferred to the black hole and ∆v∗ = −v. Since where ∆ωSO and ∆ΩSO are given by Eq. (7). The final all stars with L < Lmb+ are captured, the net linear stellar velocity vf in the spin frame is found by succes- momentum they contribute to the black hole must be sively rotating −vˆx by the three Euler angles given in 0 anti-aligned with v BH and thus cannot contribute to Eq. (18): we rotate first by Ωf about the black-hole spin the gravitomagnetic dynamical friction. The prograde S, next by if about the line of ascending node ˆn, and fi- marginally bound orbital angular momentum Lmb+ can nally by ωf about the orbital angular momentum L. We thus serve as an effective lower limit for the integral in then calculate the change in stellar velocity ∆v∗ = vf −v Eq. (13). and rotate by an angle θS about the y axis to transform The second possible fate of the star is that it is scat- back from the spin frame to the black-hole rest frame. tered by the black hole and returns to infinity. The much We use this ∆v∗ in Eq. (13) and Monte Carlo methods larger mass of the black hole (M m∗) implies that the to perform the required integration, allowing us to calcu- star’s speed is nearly conserved (vi ' vf ). In Newtonian late the coefficient of dynamical friction. gravity, a star with specific energy E = E −1 (not including the rest-mass energy) and specific angular momentum L will have eccentricity IV. RESULTS

" #1/2 L 2 The coefficient of dynamical friction h∆vi given by e = 1 + 2E (16) GM Eq. (13) is a vector that consists of two components: the traditional dynamical friction h∆vki anti-aligned with the 0 and be scattered by an angle black-hole velocity vBH and our new coefficient of gravitomagnetic dynamical friction h∆v⊥i perpendicular to −1 −1 0 δ = 2 cos (−e ) − π , (17) vBH . In Fig. 4, we show h∆v⊥i as a function of Lmax, the upper limit of the integral over L in Eq. (13). We 6 −3 6 where we have temporarily restored the factors of G and use fiducial parameters n = 10 pc , M = 10 M , c for clarity of presentation. Stars described by the dis- m∗ = M , and σ = 100 km/s typical of a supermas- tribution function of Eq. (9) have E ∼ σ2, and if they are sive black hole moving in a galactic nuclear star cluster. to experience significant spin-orbit coupling according to We measure this acceleration using the unusual units of Eq. (7) must have L & GM/c. This implies eccentrici- km/s/Gyr as galactic speeds and dynamical times are ties e − 1 ' (σ/c)2 1 and deflections δ ' π. We can typically measured in km/s and Gyr respectively. All therefore approximate that in the absence of precession, stars with L ≤ Lmb+ = 2M are directly captured by scattering will change a star’s velocity by ∆v∗ = −2v. the black hole implying by symmetry that they provide Precession will change the direction of the final stellar zero net contribution to the gravitomagnetic dynamical velocity vf so that it is no longer anti-aligned with the friction. As Lmax increases from Lmb+ to Lmb−, stars 6

FIG. 4. The component of the coefficient of dynamical fric- 0 tion h∆v⊥i perpendicular to the black-hole velocity vBH as a function of L , the upper limit of the integral over the or- max FIG. 5. The coefficient of gravitomagnetic dynamical friction bital angular momentum L in Eq. (13). The black hole has a h∆v i as a function of the ratio v0 /σ between the speed maximal spin (χ = 1) perpendicular to its velocity (θ = π/2). ⊥ BH s of the black-hole and the stellar velocity dispersion. Three The speed of the black hole is equal to the 1D stellar velocity different values of the angle θ between the black-hole spin dispersion (v0 = σ) and all other parameters are fixed at S BH and velocity are shown: π/2 (solid yellow curve), π/4 (dashed the fiducial values listed in the text. The solid yellow curve orange curve), and π/6 (dot-dashed blue curve). in the range 2M < L < 7M shows the total contribution to the gravitomagnetic dynamical friction using the exact Euler rotations to relate the stellar orbits before and after scatter- L 30M because the spin-orbit acceleration given ing. For L > 7M we linearize in the precession angles ∆ωSO max & and ∆ΩSO given by Eq. (7) allowing us to show their sepa- by Eq. (4) falls off more rapidly than the inverse-square rate contributions with the dot-dashed blue and dotted orange law. curves respectively. The dashed purple curve shows the total We can obtain a crude estimate for the coefficient of contribution which converges for Lmax & 30M. gravitomagnetic dynamical friction h∆v⊥i by assuming that it is comparable to the contribution to the Newto- nian coefficient of dynamical friction h∆vki from stars on orbits with increasing inclination manage to escape with orbital angular momenta L . Lmax ∼ M at which to infinity and exert a net transverse force on the su- the spin-orbit precession of Eq. (7) is significant. In the 0 permassive black hole as indicated by the dashed pur- limit that vBH , σ c, we estimate (using Eq. (5.20) of ple curve in Fig. 4. This curve reaches a maximum Merritt [38]) that at Lmax ' 4.875 quite close to the maximum orbital 2πG2nMm L v0 angular momentum√ for capture from retrograde orbits ∗ max √BH h∆v⊥i ' − 2 K Lmb− = 2(1 + 2). The precession angles ∆ω and ∆Ω c M 2σ diverge for true marginally bound Kerr geodesics, unlike n M the 1.5PN results given by Eq. (7), but greater preces- ' −1.3 km/s/Gyr 106 pc−3 106 M sion would not necessarily lead to larger gravitomagnetic m L v0 dynamical friction. The effect would be eliminated if ωf × ∗ max K √BH , (19) and Ωf were fully randomized. As it would be compu- M M 2σ tationally prohibitive to solve the geodesic equations for each star in our Monte Carlo simulation, we rely on the where 1.5PN results which should provide a reasonable approx- (2x2 − 1)erf(x) + x erf0(x) imation for values of L modestly above the marginally K(x) ≡ , (20) 2x2 bound values. For Lmb+ < L < Llin = 7M, we use the exact rotations specified by the Euler angles of Eq. (7) and erf and erf0 are the error function and its first deriva- to calculate the velocity change ∆v∗ of each star, but tive.√ This function has the limiting behavior K(x) ' for higher values of L where the precession angles are 4x/(3 π) for x 1 and K(x) ' 1 for x 1. We smaller we linearize in these angles to remove the dom- show the coefficient of gravitomagnetic dynamical fric- 0 inant Newtonian contribution to dynamical friction and tion hv⊥i as a function of the ratio vBH /σ in Fig. 5. Our speed up the convergence of our Monte Carlo integration. estimate (19) provides the correct order of magnitude for This linearization allows us to separate the contributions Lmax ∼ M. Furthermore, hv⊥i depends linearly on the 0 from apsidal and nodal precession which partially cancel black-hole velocity for vBH σ and asymptotes to a 0 as anticipated by Figs. 2 and 3. Our results converge for constant value for vBH σ as predicted by Eq. (20). 7

FIG. 6. The coefficient of dynamical friction h∆v⊥i as a func- FIG. 7. The coefficient of dynamical friction h∆v⊥i as a func- 0 tion of the dimensionless black-hole spin χ for θS = π/2 tion of the angle θS between the velocity v BH and spin S 6 −3 and our fiducial parameters n = 10 pc , m∗ = M , and of the black hole for the same fiducial parameters listed in 6 M = 10 M . The three curves show three different choices the caption to Fig. 6. The three curves show three different for the ratio between the black-hole velocity and stellar veloc- choices for the dimensionless spin magnitude: χ = 1 (solid 0 0 ity dispersion: vBH /σ = 5 (solid yellow curve), vBH /σ = 3 yellow curve), χ = 1/2 (dashed red curve), and χ = 1/4 (dot- 0 (dashed red curve), and vBH /σ = 1 (dot-dashed blue curve). dashed blue curve).

We can compare gravitomagnetic dynamical friction to Although gravitomagnetic dynamical friction is sup- Newtonian dynamical friction for the same stellar distri- pressed by a factor (σ/c)2 1 compared to Newto- bution function nian dynamical friction in the nonrelativistic limit, as the black-hole velocity approaches the speed of light these 2 0 4πG nMm∗ ln Λ vBH two effects become comparable. Although the PN ex- h∆vki = − H √ σ2 2σ pansion used to calculate these coefficients breaks down 0 n M in the limit vBH → c, there is no reason to expect that = −2.4 × 107 km/s/Gyr higher-order terms will be finely tuned so as to cause 106 pc−3 106 M a cancellation that would suppress the gravitomagnetic −2 0 m∗ σ v dynamical friction. × ln Λ H √BH , M 100 km/s 2σ We show how the coefficient of gravitomagnetic dy- (21) namical friction h∆v⊥i depends on the black-hole spin in Figs. 6 and 7. Fig. 6 shows the dependence on the where the Coulomb logarithm ln Λ ∼ 10 and dimensionless spin magnitude χ which appears approxi- mately linear for χ . 0.7 but then grows more steeply as erf(x) − x erf0(x) one approaches the maximal spin limit χ = 1. Although H(x) ≡ (22) 2x2 the precession angles given by Eq. (7) are linear in the √ dimensionless spin χ, this linearity is only preserved for has the limiting behavior H(x) ' 2x/(3 π) for x 1 contributions to h∆v⊥i with L > Llin for which we lin- and H(x) ' 1/(2x2) for x 1 [38]. Taking the ratio of earize the Euler rotations in these angles. The nonlin- Eqs. (19) and (21), we find earity in both these rotations and the spin dependence of the limits Lmb on marginally bound orbits account h∆v i K L σ 2 ⊥ ' max (23) for the steepening slopes of the curves h∆v⊥i(χ) seen in h∆vki 2H ln Λ M c Fig. 6 for χ & 0.7. Fig. 7 shows how the coefficient of gravitomagnetic dy- which has the limiting behavior namical friction h∆v⊥i depends on the angle θS between 0 the velocity v BH and spin S of the black hole. The ax- h∆v i 1 L σ 2 0 lim ⊥ = max , (24a) isymmetry of the system when v BH and S are parallel 0 vBH →0 h∆vki ln Λ M c (θS = 0 or π) implies that the coefficient must vanish 2 for these values. The symmetry of geodesics reflected h∆v i 1 L v0 lim ⊥ = max BH . (24b) through the equatorial plane perpendicular to the black- v0 →c BH h∆vki 2 ln Λ M c hole spin implies that the coefficient must be symmetric 8 under reflection through this plane (θS → π/2−θS). The perpendicular to both the velocity and spin of a su- combination of these two properties suggests that the di- permassive black hole traveling through a stellar back- rection of the gravitomagnetic dynamical friction force is ground. This force results from the spin-dependent gravi- parallel to ˆv × Sˆ like the Lorentz force law F = qv × B, tational scattering of stars on hyperbolic orbits in general even if it is not strictly linear in the magnitudes of v or relativity. We calculate the coefficient of gravitomagnetic S as indicated by Figs. 5 and 6. dynamical friction h∆v⊥i numerically using apsidal and Gravitomagnetic friction described by the force law nodal precession at 1.5PN order given by Eq. (7) and F = Cv × S, where the exact spin-dependent angular-momentum threshold for direct capture. We also provide a reasonable ana- Mh∆v i C = ⊥ , (25) lytical estimate of this effect in Eq. (19) based on the vS sin θS assumption supported by our Monte-Carlo simulations that gravitomagnetic dynamical friction is produced by would cause a black hole to move on a helical orbit about scattering stars with L ∼ GM/c where relativistic ef- an axis parallel to its spin S, just as the Lorentz force law fects are significant. This estimate suggests that our new causes a charged particle to move on a helix about the 2 coefficient h∆v⊥i is suppressed by a factor (σ/c) com- magnetic field. The radius of this helix would be pared to the Newtonian coefficient of dynamical friction h∆v i anti-aligned with the black-hole velocity v0 . Mv sin θ (v sin θ )2 k BH R = S = S . (26) This suppression implies that gravitomagnetic dynami- CS h∆v⊥i cal friction will be negligible in galactic systems where v0 , σ ∼ 100 km/s and (σ/c)2 ∼ 10−7. However, the For v ' 100 km/s and h∆v i given by Eq. (19), R ' BH ⊥ limiting behavior of our estimate shown by Eq. (24) sug- 10 Mpc, far larger than any stellar system with a den- gests that as the black-hole velocity becomes relativis- sity as high as n = 106 pc−3. A black hole moving on tic (v0 → c), the two coefficients become comparable a circular orbit with orbital angular momentum L will BH and therefore our new effect could be relevant to a black experience an orbit-averaged torque hole interacting with a photon background, circumbinary dL C disk, or relativistic plasma [33–35]. Even in the absence = − S × L = Ω × L (27) dt 2M p of an immediate application to such a system, it is inter- esting to consider this qualitatively new dynamical effect implying that L will precess about S with a period τp = introduced by black-hole spin interacting with a collision- 2π/Ωp ' 100 Gyr for our fiducial parameters, far longer less many-body system in general relativity. than the dynamical-friction time [38]

r 3 v 3 2 σ Tdf = = 2 h∆vki 8 π G Mnm∗ ln Λ ' 1.6 × 103 yr (28) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS for our ﬁducial parameters and v σ.

We thank Juan Servin for sharing a program to calcu- V. DISCUSSION late the angular momentum Lmb± of marginally bound orbits as a function of black-hole spin. M. K. is supported This paper introduces the concept of gravitomagnetic by Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Grant No. FG-2015-65299 dynamical friction, a component of dynamical friction and NSF Grant No. PHY-1607031.

[1] S. Chandrasekhar, Astrophys. J. 97, 255 (1943). [7] J. N. Bahcall and R. A. Wolf, Astrophys. J. 216, 883 [2] J. Binney and S. Tremaine, Galactic Dynamics: Second (1977). Edition, by James Binney and Scott Tremaine. ISBN [8] C. S. Frenk, A. E. Evrard, S. D. M. White, and 978-0-691-13026-2 (HB). (Princeton University Press, F. J. Summers, Astrophys. J. 472, 460 (1996), astro- 2008). ph/9504020. [3] T. Murai and M. Fujimoto, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn. 32, [9] J. Dubinski, Astrophys. J. 502, 141 (1998), astro- 581 (1980). ph/9709102. [4] D. N. C. Lin and D. Lynden-Bell, Mon. Not. R. As- [10] E. C. Ostriker, Astrophys. J. 513, 252 (1999), astro- tron. Soc. 198, 707 (1982). ph/9810324. [5] R. A. Ibata and G. F. Lewis, Astrophys. J. 500, 575 [11] P. Goldreich, Y. Lithwick, and R. Sari, Ann. Rev. As- (1998), astro-ph/9802212. tron. Astrophys. 42, 549 (2004), astro-ph/0405215. [6] L. Spitzer, Jr., Astrophys. J. Lett. 158, L139 (1969). 9

[12] E. Grishin and H. B. Perets, Astrophys. J. 811, 54 (2015), [27] A. Papapetrou, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- arXiv:1503.02668 [astro-ph.EP]. don Series A 209, 248 (1951). [13] M. C. Begelman, R. D. Blandford, and M. J. Rees, Na- [28] B. M. Barker and R. F. Oconnell, General Relativity and ture 287, 307 (1980). Gravitation 11, 149 (1979). [14] G. D. Quinlan, New A 1, 35 (1996), astro-ph/9601092. [29] K. S. Thorne and J. B. Hartle, Phys. Rev. D 31, 1815 [15] M. Milosavljevićand D. Merritt, Astrophys. J. 563, 34 (1985). (2001), astro-ph/0103350. [30] L. E. Kidder, C. M. Will, and A. G. Wiseman, [16] F. Antonini and D. Merritt, Astrophys. J. 745, 83 (2012), Phys. Rev. D 47, R4183 (1993), gr-qc/9211025. arXiv:1108.1163. [31] L. E. Kidder, Phys. Rev. D 52, 821 (1995), gr- [17] J. A. González,M. Hannam, U. Sperhake, B. Brügmann, qc/9506022. and S. Husa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 231101 (2007), gr- [32] E. P. Lee, Astrophys. J. 155, 687 (1969). qc/0702052. [33] D. Syer, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 270, 205 (1994), [18] M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, Y. Zlochower, and D. Mer- astro-ph/9404063. ritt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 231102 (2007), gr-qc/0702133. [34] E. Barausse, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 382, 826 (2007), [19] M. Campanelli, C. Lousto, Y. Zlochower, and D. Merritt, arXiv:0709.0211. Astrophys. J. Lett. 659, L5 (2007), gr-qc/0701164. [35] O. J. Pike and S. J. Rose, Phys. Rev. E 89, 053107 (2014). [20] A. Gualandris and D. Merritt, Astrophys. J. 678, 780 [36] L. Spitzer, Physics of Fully Ionized Gases, New York: (2008), arXiv:0708.0771. Interscience (2nd edition), 1962 (1962). [21] J. M. A. Danby and G. L. Camm, Mon. Not. R. As- [37] B. Carter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 331 (1971). tron. Soc. 117, 50 (1957). [38] D. Merritt, Dynamics and Evolution of Galactic Nuclei, [22] A. J. Kalnajs, in IAU Colloq. 10: Gravitational N- by David Merritt. ISBN 978-0-691-15860-0. (Princeton Body Problem, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, University Press, 2013). Vol. 31, edited by M. Lecar (1972) p. 13. [39] R. Geroch, J. Math. Phys. 11, 2580 (1970). [23] W. A. Mulder, Astron. Astrophys. 117, 9 (1983). [40] R. O. Hansen, J. Math. Phys. 15, 46 (1974). [24] R. P. Kerr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 237 (1963). [41] J. M. Bardeen, W. H. Press, and S. A. Teukolsky, As- [25] A. Einstein, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen trophys. J. 178, 347 (1972). Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin), Seite 831-839. (1915). [26] J. Lense and H. Thirring, Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 156 (1918).