Understanding initial data for black hole collisions

TL;DR

This paper investigates the initial data used in numerical relativity simulations of black hole collisions, revealing limitations of common prescriptions and emphasizing the importance of accurate near-field representation.

Contribution

It provides a gauge-invariant analysis of initial data validity in black hole collisions, especially highlighting issues with prescribed data for unequal mass cases.

Findings

Prescribed data on late hypersurfaces often fail for unequal mass black holes.

Failure attributed to poor representation of the smaller hole's near field.

Discrepancies in extrinsic curvature are more significant than in 3-geometry.

Abstract

Numerical relativity, applied to collisions of black holes, starts with initial data for black holes already in each other's strong field. The initial hypersurface data typically used for computation is based on mathematical simplifying prescriptions, such as conformal flatness of the 3-geometry and longitudinality of the extrinsic curvature. In the case of head on collisions of equal mass holes, there is evidence that such prescriptions work reasonably well, but it is not clear why, or whether this success is more generally valid. Here we study these questions by considering the ``particle limit'' for head on collisions of nonspinning holes. Einstein's equations are linearized in the mass of the small hole, and described by a single gauge invariant spacetime function psi, for each multipole. The resulting equations have been solved by numerical evolution for collisions starting from various initial separations, and the evolution is studied on a sequence of hypersurfaces. In particular, we extract hypersurface data, that is psi and its time derivative, on surfaces of constant background Schwarzschild time. These evolved data can then be compared with ``prescribed'' data, evolved data can be replaced by prescribed data on any hypersurface, and evolved further forward in time, a gauge invariant measure of deviation from conformal flatness can be evaluated, etc. The main findings of this study are: (i) For holes of unequal mass the use of prescribed data on late hypersurfaces is not successful. (ii) The failure is likely due to the inability of the prescribed data to represent the near field of the smaller hole. (iii) The discrepancy in the extrinsic curvature is more important than in the 3-geometry. (iv) The use of the more general conformally flat longitudinal data does not notably improve this picture.