Gravitational Wave Extraction in Simulations of Rotating Stellar Core Collapse

TL;DR

This paper compares various gravitational wave extraction methods in simulations of rotating stellar core collapse, highlighting the accuracy and limitations of each technique, especially in strongly relativistic regimes.

Contribution

It introduces and evaluates fully curvature-based GW extraction methods in core collapse simulations, comparing them with traditional quadrupole formulas and establishing their reliability.

Findings

Curvature-based methods agree well with each other and with CCE at null infinity.

Quadrupole formula underpredicts GW amplitude by 5-11%.

NP extraction results are nearly phase-aligned but slightly amplitude-variant.

Abstract

We perform simulations of general relativistic rotating stellar core collapse and compute the gravitational waves (GWs) emitted in the core bounce phase of three representative models via multiple techniques. The simplest technique, the quadrupole formula (QF), estimates the GW content in the spacetime from the mass quadrupole tensor. It is strictly valid only in the weak-field and slow-motion approximation. For the first time, we apply GW extraction methods in core collapse that are fully curvature-based and valid for strongly radiating and highly relativistic sources. We employ three extraction methods computing (i) the Newman-Penrose (NP) scalar Psi_4, (ii) Regge-Wheeler-Zerilli-Moncrief (RWZM) master functions, and (iii) Cauchy-Characteristic Extraction (CCE) allowing for the extraction of GWs at future null infinity, where the spacetime is asymptotically flat and the GW content is unambiguously defined. The latter technique is the only one not suffering from residual gauge and finite-radius effects. All curvature-based methods suffer from strong non-linear drifts. We employ the fixed-frequency integration technique as a high-pass waveform filter. Using the CCE results as a benchmark, we find that finite-radius NP extraction yields results that agree nearly perfectly in phase, but differ in amplitude by ~1-7% at core bounce, depending on the model. RWZM waveforms, while in general agreeing in phase, contain spurious high-frequency noise of comparable amplitudes to those of the relatively weak GWs emitted in core collapse. We also find remarkably good agreement of the waveforms obtained from the QF with those obtained from CCE. They agree very well in phase but systematically underpredict peak amplitudes by ~5-11% which is comparable to the NP results and is within the uncertainties associated with core collapse physics. (abridged)