3+1 formalism and bases of numerical relativity - LUTh ...
3+1 formalism and bases of numerical relativity - LUTh ...
3+1 formalism and bases of numerical relativity - LUTh ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
4.5 ADM Hamiltonian formulation 65<br />
field on Σ0 <strong>and</strong> p a vector field on Σ0, which obeys the constraint equations (4.65)-(4.66):<br />
R + K 2 − KijK ij = 16πE (4.93)<br />
DjK j<br />
i − DiK = 8πpi, (4.94)<br />
does there exist a spacetime (M,g,T) such that (g,T) fulfills the Einstein equation <strong>and</strong> Σ0 can<br />
be embedded as an hypersurface <strong>of</strong> M with induced metric γ <strong>and</strong> extrinsic curvature K ?<br />
Darmois (1927) [105] <strong>and</strong> Lichnerowicz (1939) [176] have shown that the answer is yes for<br />
the vacuum case (E = 0 <strong>and</strong> pi = 0), when the initial data (γ,K) are analytical functions<br />
<strong>of</strong> the coordinates (x i ) on Σ0. Their analysis is based on the Cauchy-Kovalevskaya theorem<br />
mentioned in Sec. 4.4.2 (cf. Chap. 10 <strong>of</strong> Wald’s textbook [265] for details). However, on physical<br />
grounds, the analytical case is too restricted. One would like to deal instead with smooth (i.e.<br />
differentiable) initial data. There are at least two reasons for this:<br />
• The smooth manifold structure <strong>of</strong> M imposes only that the change <strong>of</strong> coordinates are<br />
differentiable, not necessarily analytical. Consequently if (γ,K) are analytical functions<br />
<strong>of</strong> the coordinates, they might not be analytical functions <strong>of</strong> another coordinate system<br />
(x ′i ).<br />
• An analytical function is fully determined by its value <strong>and</strong> those <strong>of</strong> all its derivatives at a<br />
single point. Equivalently an analytical function is fully determined by its value in some<br />
small open domain D. This fits badly with causality requirements, because a small change<br />
to the initial data, localized in a small region, should not change the whole solution at all<br />
points <strong>of</strong> M. The change should take place only in the so-called domain <strong>of</strong> dependence <strong>of</strong><br />
D.<br />
This is why the major breakthrough in the Cauchy problem <strong>of</strong> general <strong>relativity</strong> has been<br />
achieved by Choquet-Bruhat in 1952 [127] when she showed existence <strong>and</strong> uniqueness <strong>of</strong> the<br />
solution in a small neighbourhood <strong>of</strong> Σ0 for smooth (at least C 5 ) initial data (γ,K). We shall<br />
not give any sketch on the pro<strong>of</strong> (beside the original publication [127], see the review articles<br />
[39] <strong>and</strong> [88]) but simply mentioned that it is based on harmonic coordinates.<br />
A major improvement has been then the global existence <strong>and</strong> uniqueness theorem by Choquet-<br />
Bruhat <strong>and</strong> Geroch (1969) [87]. The latter tells that among all the spacetimes (M,g) solution<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Einstein equation <strong>and</strong> such that (Σ0,γ,K) is an embedded Cauchy surface, there exists<br />
a maximal spacetime (M ∗ ,g ∗ ) <strong>and</strong> it is unique. Maximal means that any spacetime (M,g) solution<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Cauchy problem is isometric to a subpart <strong>of</strong> (M ∗ ,g ∗ ). For more details about the<br />
existence <strong>and</strong> uniqueness <strong>of</strong> solutions to the Cauchy problem, see the reviews by Choquet-Bruhat<br />
<strong>and</strong> York [88], Klainerman <strong>and</strong> Nicolò [169], Andersson [15] <strong>and</strong> Rendall [212].<br />
4.5 ADM Hamiltonian formulation<br />
Further insight in the <strong>3+1</strong> Einstein equations is provided by the Hamiltonian formulation <strong>of</strong><br />
general <strong>relativity</strong>. Indeed the latter makes use <strong>of</strong> the <strong>3+1</strong> <strong>formalism</strong>, since any Hamiltonian<br />
approach involves the concept <strong>of</strong> a physical state “at a certain time”, which is translated in<br />
general <strong>relativity</strong> by the state on a spacelike hypersurface Σt. The Hamiltonian formulation