1: \documentclass[preprint,12pt,tightenlines,eqsecnum,floats,aps,amsmath,amssymb%

2: ,nofootinbib,prd,showpacs]{revtex4}

3: 

4: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts}

5: \usepackage{graphicx}

6: \usepackage{enumerate}

7: %\usepackage{colordvi} % for color text

8: 

9: \usepackage{LQC-symbols}

10: 

11: 

12: \begin{document}

13: 

14: \preprint{\vbox{\baselineskip=12pt \rightline{IGC-08/3-3}

15: }}

16: 

17: \title{Anti-deSitter universe dynamics in LQC}

18: 

19: \author{Eloisa Bentivegna${}^{2,3}$}

20: \email{bentiveg@gravity.psu.edu}

21: \author{Tomasz Pawlowski${}^{1,2}$}

22: \email{tomasz@iem.cfmac.csic.es}

23: \affiliation{

24:   ${}^{1}$Instituto de Estructura de la Materia, \\

25:   Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient\'ificas (CSIC), \\ 

26:   Serrano 121, 28006 Madrid, Spain\\

27:   ${}^{2}$Institute for Gravitational Physics and Geometry,\\ 

28:   Physics Department, Penn State, \\

29:   University Park, PA 16802, U.S.A.\\

30:   ${}^{3}$Center for Gravitational Wave Physics,\\ 

31:   Physics Department, Penn State, \\

32:   University Park, PA 16802, U.S.A.

33: }

34: 

35: \begin{abstract}

36:   A model for a flat isotropic universe with a negative cosmological

37:   constant $\Lambda$ and a massless scalar field as sole matter content is

38:   studied within the framework of Loop Quantum Cosmology. By application

39:   of the methods introduced for the model with $\Lambda=0$, the physical

40:   Hilbert space and the set of Dirac observables are constructed. As in

41:   that case, the scalar field plays here the role of an emergent

42:   time. The properties of the system are found to be similar to those of the

43:   $k=1$ FRW model: for small energy densities, the quantum dynamics reproduces

44:   the classical one, whereas, due to modifications at near-Planckian

45:   densities, the big bang and big crunch singularities are replaced by a

46:   quantum bounce connecting deterministically the large semiclassical

47:   epochs. Thus in Loop Quantum Cosmology the evolution is

48:   qualitatively cyclic.

49: \end{abstract}

50: 

51: 

52: \pacs{04.60.Kz, 04.60.Pp, 98.80.Qc, 03.65.Sq}

53: 

54: \maketitle

55: 

56: 

57: \section{Introduction}

58: \label{sec:intro}

59: 

60: Loop Quantum Cosmology \cite{lqc} -- an application of methods of Loop

61: Quantum Gravity \cite{lqg} to symmetry reduced models -- constitutes a

62: promising way of studying quantum-gravitational effects in

63: cosmological models. In particular one of the simplest models, a flat 

64: Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe was analyzed within its

65: framework \cite{aps,aps-old,aps-imp}. In that case, the structure of the

66: Hamiltonian constraint allowed to treat the constrained system as a

67: free one, evolving with respect to the scalar field which thus plays the

68: role of an emergent time. This, in turn, allowed the construction of

69: a physical Hilbert space and a set of Dirac observables, which were used 

70: next to extract the physics by means of numerical methods. The results were

71: quite surprising: the analysis has shown that, when the matter energy

72: density approaches the Planck scale, the quantum-geometric effects

73: cause gravity to become repulsive. In consequence, a large

74: semiclassical expanding universe is preceded by a (also large and

75: semiclassical) contracting one, deterministically connected to the

76: former by a quantum bridge. The transition point of the evolution 

77: (called quantum bounce) is characterized by an energy density which, at

78: this point, equals the critical value $\rho_c \approx 0.82\rhoPl$. 

79: Furthermore, even when quantum corrections actually dominate the

80: dynamics, the state representing the universe remains semiclassical --

81: its evolution is to great precision described by the so called

82: classical effective dynamics \cite{pv,aps-imp}.   

83: 

84: The results obtained for the flat FRW model were next generalized to

85: the spherical one \cite{apsv} (the $k=1$ FRW model). The properties of

86: the Hilbert space and an evolution operator were investigated analytically

87: \cite{klp,klp-nL} and the robustness of their features was confirmed

88: through the analysis of its approximation (known as {\it sLQC})

89: \cite{acs,cs-rec}. Further generalizations to anisotropic (and

90: further inhomogeneous) models by different research groups are in

91: various stages of progress \cite{chv,gp,gm-letter}. 

92: 

93: Thus far, however, the only models described rigorously were universes

94: with a vanishing cosmological constant $\Lambda$ and a massless

95: scalar field. In this article, we extend the analysis of \cite{aps-imp}

96: to include the universes with negative $\Lambda$.   

97: Although the observations favor a positive $\Lambda$, this model 

98: constitutes a convenient way of testing which features of the previously 

99: investigated model we can hope to generalize to more realistic

100: systems. Also, since it is a classically recollapsing system, we can use

101: it to investigate semiclassicality issues (dispersion after many 'cycles'

102: of evolution). The specific questions we intend to address here are the

103: following: 

104: \begin{itemize}

105:   \item Do the qualitative features of the $\Lambda=0$ model survive

106:     also in this case? In particular, are the big bang/crunch

107:     singularities replaced by quantum bounces as in the previously

108:     investigated cases? All the models analyzed so far not only

109:     experienced the bounce, but for Gaussian states the observed 

110:     dispersion of the wave packet after the bounce was severely restricted

111:     by the values of the spreads before it. In the flat case this result

112:     was next generalized analytically to a space of states admitting

113:     semiclassical epoch\footnote{The states for which either

114:       at early or late times the relative dispersions of chosen Dirac

115:       observables are $\ll 1$.} \cite{cs-rec} within the context of

116:     sLQC. Therefore, 

117:     it is important to ask whether such behavior will occur also in

118:     the considered model, or it was just a result of the extreme

119:     simplicity of the previous ones. 

120:   \item If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, then

121:     is the critical energy density $\rho_c$ still a fundamental bound? 

122:     In both the $k=0$ and $k=1$ models for physically 

123:     sensible\footnote{This indicates the states of the scalar field

124:       with momentum sufficiently high for the closed universe to grow

125:       to macroscopic ($>1$ megaparsec) scales before recollapsing.}

126:     states, the matter energy density at the bounce point agreed to

127:     great precision with $\rho_c$. Furthermore, later investigations

128:     within the sLQC model have shown that $\rho_c$ is indeed a

129:     fundamental energy bound. But again, we do not know a priori

130:     whether this feature is characteristic just of the models

131:     investigated so far and how (if at all) it generalizes.  

132:   \item Does this model possess any new feature not observed in

133:     $\Lambda=0$ or $k=1$ case ? 

134: \end{itemize}

135: A preliminary investigation of the $\Lambda<0$ model has been conducted

136: already in \cite{aps-imp}. However, the physical Hilbert space was not

137: constructed; the goal there was only to verify the persistence of the

138: bounce. Recently, a heuristically constructed effective classical

139: Hamiltonian was used \cite{eff} to obtain the effective trajectories

140: of both the $\Lambda<0$ and $\Lambda>0$ systems and analyze the effect

141: of the quantum-geometric corrections on the universe's dynamics. 

142: However, since the effective Hamiltonian was not derived systematically, 

143: the results have to be confirmed against genuine quantum evolution. 

144: 

145: In addition to the problems described above, we also address the concerns

146: about the choice of the symmetric sector of the physical Hilbert space

147: that is sometimes raised. Because of the absence of fermions, the triad

148: orientation reflection is a large gauge symmetry. This allowed one to

149: restrict the physical Hilbert space to the states symmetric under parity

150: reflection. However, since the choice of antisymmetric states 

151: is equally justified, it is natural to ask whether the results of LQC

152: are robust and will continue to hold if the antisymmetric sector 

153: is chosen. We address this issue by analyzing, in addition to the standard

154: symmetric states, also the space of antisymmetric ones and establish

155: robustness.  

156: 

157: The paper is organized as follows: 

158: %

159: we start with a brief summary of the basic framework (introduced

160: already in earlier papers) in section \ref{sec:frame}. Its content is

161: divided into three parts: the classical theory, the kinematics of LQC

162: and the derivation of the quantum Hamiltonian constraint.

163: %

164: In section \ref{sec:WDW} we consider a geometrodynamical equivalent of

165: the model -- the Wheeler-DeWitt (WDW) one. The reason for that is

166: two-fold: first, it will allow us to compare the results of LQC

167: against a standard quantum model and identify the nonperturbative

168: quantum-geometric effects. Second, it will serve as an introduction to

169: the methodology of extracting physics, used next on the LQC model. The

170: analytical solvability of the WDW model will allow us to 

171: show these methods without having to deal with the complications of

172: numerical analysis.

173: %

174: Analysis of the physical sector is carried out in section 

175: \ref{sec:LQC}. There, we extensively use the results of the numerical

176: study described in turn in section \ref{sec:num}. That section

177: contains also a description of the construction and analysis of the

178: states semiclassical at late times. The final results and their

179: discussion are placed in section \ref{sec:concl}.   

180: 

181: Apart from the main body, the article contains two appendices: in section

182: \ref{sec:antisymm}, we analyze the space of antisymmetric states,

183: whereas \ref{sec:heu} contains a description of the heuristic methods used

184: to extract some of the results.

185: 

186: 

187: \section{The LQC quantization scheme}

188: \label{sec:frame}

189: 

190: In this section, we introduce the quantization framework used in later

191: sections of the paper. Since we directly apply the framework described

192: in detail in \cite{aps-imp,apsv}, we will just present a brief sketch

193: of it. For a more detailed discussion, the reader is referred to the

194: above mentioned articles.  

195:   

196: The content of this section is divided into three parts. In the first, 

197: we present the classical theory used as a basis for quantization. 

198: The second part is dedicated to the description of the LQC kinematics. 

199: Finally, we recall the derivation of the LQC Hamiltonian constraint.

200: 

201:   

202: \subsection{Classical theory}

203: \label{sec:frameClass}

204: 

205: A flat ($k=0$) FRW model represents a spacetime admitting a foliation by

206: spatial isotropic $3$-surfaces $M$ of topology $\re^3$. Its metric

207: tensor can be written in the form 

208: \begin{equation}

209:   g = -\rd t^2 + a^2(t) \fidq \ ,

210: \end{equation}

211: where $t$ is a time parameter (the {\it cosmic time}), $\fidq$ is a unit

212: (fiducial) Cartesian metric on the surface $M$ and the function $a(t)$ is

213: called a scale factor. 

214: 

215: Due to the homogeneity and noncompactness of $M$, one cannot write an

216: action or Hamiltonian as an integral of the appropriate density over the

217: entire $M$. Instead, we can define them as integrals over a chosen fiducial

218: cubical cell $\fV$, constant in comoving coordinates\footnote{The considered 

219:   model is of the Bianchi type A: the equations of motion derived from

220:   the Hamiltonian specified in this way are identical to the Einstein

221:   field equations reduced to the isotropic case.}. Given such a cell,

222: one can define a triad $\fide$ (and cotriad $\fidw$ dual to it) as

223: directed along the edges of $\fV$ and orthonormal with respect to $\fidq$.

224: 

225: As gravitational phase space variables, we choose the connections

226: $A^i_a$ and the density-weighted triads $E^a_i$

227: \begin{subequations}\label{eq:AE-def}\begin{align}

228:   A^i_a\ &=\ c V_o^{-\frac{1}{3}}\,\fidw^i_a \ ,  &

229:   E^a_i\ &=\ p V_o^{-\frac{2}{3}}\sqrt{\fidq}\,\fide^a_i \ ,

230:   \tag{\ref{eq:AE-def}}

231: \end{align}\end{subequations}

232: where $V_o$ is a volume of $\fV$ with respect to $\fidq$. The real

233: parameters $c,p$ called respectively {\it connection} and {\it triad

234:   coefficients} 

235: coordinatize the ($2$-dimensional) phase space of the gravitational

236: degrees of freedom. Appropriate scaling by $V_o$ ensures the invariance of

237: the symplectic structure of this phase space (when written in terms of

238: $c,p$) under different choices of $\fidq$. The Poisson bracket

239: between $c$ and $p$ equals 

240: \begin{equation}

241:   \{c,p\}\ =\ \frac{8\pi\gamma G}{3} \ ,

242: \end{equation}

243: where $\gamma$ is the Barbero-Immirzi parameter.

244: 

245: The basic variables defined as in \eqref{eq:AE-def} automatically

246: satisfy the Gauss and diffeomorphism constraints. The contribution of

247: the geometry to the only nontrivial constraint -- the Hamiltonian

248: one -- is of the form 

249: \begin{equation}\label{eq:classHgrav}

250:   \Cgrav\ =\ -\frac{1}{\gamma^2} \int_{\fV} \rd^3 x \left( \varepsilon_{ijk}

251:              e^{-1} E^{ai} E^{bj} F^k_{ab} - \gamma^2\Lambda \right) 

252:         \ =\ -\frac{6}{\gamma^2} c^2\sqrt{p} 

253:              + {\Lambda}p^{\frac{3}{2}}

254: \end{equation}

255: where $e\ :=\ \sqrt{|\det E|}$ and the field strength

256: $F^k_{ab}\ :=\ 2\partial_a A^k_b + \varepsilon^k_{ij} A^i_a A^j_b$. 

257: 

258: The only matter content -- a homogeneous massless scalar field -- is

259: described by two global variables: the field value $\phi$ and its

260: conjugate momentum $p_{\phi}$, with Poisson bracket between them 

261: \begin{equation}

262:   \{\phi,p_{\phi}\}\ =\ 1 \ .

263: \end{equation} 

264: The pair $(\phi,p_{\phi})$ coordinatizes the phase space corresponding

265: to the matter degrees of freedom. The full phase space of the system

266: is thus $4$-dimensional. The complete Hamiltonian constraint is of the form

267: \begin{equation}\label{eq:classHcompl}

268:   C\ =:\ \Cgrav + \Cphi\ =\ 0 \ , \qquad 

269:   \text{where}\ \ \Cphi\ =\ 8\pi G p^{-\frac{3}{2}} p^2_{\phi} \ .

270: \end{equation}

271: The above constraint defines a $3$D hypersurface in the $4$D phase

272: space. Furthermore, since $C$ does not depend explicitly on $\phi$, the

273: momentum $p_{\phi}$ is a constant of motion. Therefore, the dynamical

274: trajectories can be represented as a (parametrized by $p_{\phi}$) family

275: of functions $p(\phi)$

276: \begin{equation}\label{eq:pre-class-traj}

277:   p(\phi)\ =\ \frac{(4\pi G)^{\frac{1}{3}}p_{\phi}^{\frac{2}{3}}}%

278:     {|\Lambda|^{\frac{1}{3}}\cosh(\sqrt{12\pi G}(\phi-\phi_o))}

279: \end{equation}

280: Their form implies that the considered system recollapses. Each

281: trajectory starts at the big bang singularity and ends in a big crunch.

282: 

283: 

284: \subsection{Kinematics of LQC}

285: \label{sec:frameKin}

286: 

287: To quantize the system, we follow the Dirac program. First we construct a

288: kinematical Hilbert space: in our case, it is the tensor product of

289: spaces corresponding to, respectively, gravitational and matter degrees

290: of freedom: $\Hilk = \Hilkg\otimes\Hilkf$. 

291: 

292: For the matter we apply the standard Schr{\"o}dinger quantization. 

293: As $\Hilkf$ we choose the standard Hilbert space of square integrable

294: functions $\Hilkf = L^2(\re,\rd\phi)$. The basic operators are

295: $\hat{\phi}$ and $\hat{p}_{\phi}$. To describe the state we choose the

296: (dual) basis $\dbra{\phi}$ of eigenstates of $\hat{\phi}$. The action

297: of $\hat{\phi}$, $\hat{p}_{\phi}$ on the state can be then expressed

298: as follows 

299: \begin{subequations}\label{eq:phiOp}\begin{align}

300:   \hat{\phi}\Psi(\phi)\ &=\ \phi\Psi(\phi) \ , &

301:   \hat{p}_{\phi}\Psi(\phi)\ &=\ -i\hbar\partial_{\phi}\Psi(\phi) \ , &

302:   \text{where}\ \Psi(\phi)\ :=\ \dip{\phi}{\Psi} \ .

303: \tag{\ref{eq:phiOp}}\end{align}\end{subequations}

304: 

305: The quantization of the gravitational degrees of freedom within LQC at the

306: kinematical level has been rigorously performed in \cite{abl}. The

307: procedure is the analog of the quantization scheme used in full LQG

308: (see for example \cite{lqc-MB}). 

309: Here the basic variables are triads and connections along straight

310: edges generated by $\fide^a_i$. The kinematical Hilbert space is

311: the space of square integrable functions on the Bohr compactification of

312: the real line $\Hilkg = L^2(\rBohr,\rd\mu_{\Bohr})$. We will represent

313: its elements using the basis consisting of the eigenfunctions of $p$ 

314: (promoted to an operator), labeled by $\mu\in\re$. Despite

315: the continuity of $\mu$, the elements of the chosen basis are

316: orthonormal with respect to Kronecker delta 

317: \begin{equation}\label{eq:kinIP}

318:   \sip{\mu_1}{\mu_2}\ =\ \delta_{\mu_1\mu_2} \ .

319: \end{equation}  

320: As basic quantum operators, we select $\hat{p}$ and $\whexp(i\fracs{\lambda

321:   c}{2})$ \footnote{Since the family $\whexp(i\lambda c/2)$ is not

322:   weakly continuous, the operator $\hat{c}$ does not exists.}. Their

323: action on the basis elements $\sket{\mu}$ is given by:   

324: \begin{subequations}\label{eq:ph-act}\begin{align}

325:   \hat{p}\sket{\mu}\ &=\ \frac{8\pi\gamma G\lPl^2}{6}\sket{\mu} \ , &

326:   \whexp(i\fracs{\lambda c}{2})\sket{\mu}\ &=\ \sket{\mu+\lambda}

327:   \ .

328:   \tag{\ref{eq:ph-act}}

329: \end{align}\end{subequations}

330: Since the holonomy along the edge of fiducial length $\lambda$

331: generated by $\fide^a_i$ can be expressed via $\exp(i\lambda c/2)$

332: \begin{equation}\label{eq:hexp}

333:   \hol{\lambda}{k}\ =\ \fracs{1}{2}[\exp(\fracs{i\lambda c}{2})

334:                         + \exp(-\fracs{i\lambda c}{2})]\id 

335:                   +\fracs{1}{i} [\exp(\fracs{i\lambda c}{2}) 

336:                         - \exp(-\fracs{i\lambda c}{2})] \tau_k 

337: \end{equation}

338: (where the $\tau_k$ are related to the Pauli matrices $\sigma_k$ via

339: $2i\tau_k=\sigma_k$), its quantum analog $\qhol{\lambda}{k}$ can

340: be expressed in terms of the operators $\whexp$ in the same way. 

341: 

342: 

343: \subsection{LQC: the Hamiltonian constraint}

344: \label{sec:frameH}

345: 

346: In order to write the quantum operator corresponding to the Hamiltonian

347: constraint (\ref{eq:classHgrav},~\ref{eq:classHcompl}), we need to

348: reexpress it in terms of the basic objects selected in the previous

349: subsection.  

350: 

351: Let us start with $\Cgrav$ \eqref{eq:classHgrav}. The quantization of the

352: cosmological term is straightforward (and just amounts to promoting

353: $p$ to operator $\hat{p}$). The remaining part is an integral of the

354: product of two terms: $e^{-1} E^{ai} E^{bj}$ and $F^k_{ab}$. 

355: 

356: Following Thiemann \cite{ThTrick}, we can rewrite the first term 

357: in the following form

358: \begin{equation}\label{eq:eEE}

359:   \varepsilon_{ijk}e^{-1}E^{ai}E^{bj}\ =\ \sum_k

360:   \frac{\sgn(p)}{2\pi\gamma G\lambda V_o^{\frac{1}{3}}}

361:   \fidveps^{abc} \fidw^k_c \Tr \left( h^{(\lambda)}_k

362:   \{{h^{(\lambda)}_k}^{-1},V\}\tau_i \right)

363: \end{equation}

364: where $V=|p|^{\frac{3}{2}}$ is the (physical) volume of the cell $\fV$. 

365: 

366: The field strength term $F^k_{ab}$ can, on the other hand, be approximated

367: via holonomies along the square loop $\square_{ij}$ oriented on the

368: $i$-$j$ plane.  

369: \begin{subequations}\label{eq:Fdef}\begin{align}

370:   F^k_{ab}\ &=\ -2 

371:   \Tr\left( \frac{\hol{\lambda}{\square_{ij}}-1}{\lambda^2

372:     V_o^{\frac{2}{3}}} \right)

373:   \tau^k \fidw^i_a \fidw^j_b \ ,  &

374:   \hol{\lambda}{\square_{ij}}\ &=\ 

375:   \hol{\lambda}{i} \hol{\lambda}{j} \hol{\lambda}{i}^{-1}

376:   \hol{\lambda}{j}^{-1} \ .

377:   \tag{\ref{eq:Fdef}}

378: \end{align}\end{subequations}

379: The size of $\square_{ij}$ is fixed by the requirement that its

380: physical area equals the lowest nonzero eigenvalue of the LQG area

381: operator 

382: \begin{equation}\label{eq:mubar}

383:   \lambda\ =\ \bar{\mu}(\mu)\ \ \ \text{s.t.}\ \ \

384:   \Ar{}_{\square_{ij}}\ =\ \bar{\mu}^2|p|\ =\ \Delta\ 

385:   :=\ (2\sqrt{3}\pi\gamma)\lPl^2 \ .

386: \end{equation}

387: To express the action of the operator corresponding to $\hol{\bar{\mu}}{}$,

388: it is convenient to use, instead of the label $\mu$, a new label $v$ defined

389: as follows

390: \begin{equation}

391:   v\ :=\ K\sgn(\mu)|\mu|^{\frac{3}{2}} \ , 

392:   \qquad K\ :=\ \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3\sqrt{3\sqrt{3}}} \ .

393: \end{equation}

394: In the new labeling an exponent operator

395: $\widehat{\exp}(\frac{i\bar{\mu}c}{2})$ --the component of

396: $\hol{\bar{\mu}}{}$ (via \eqref{eq:hexp})-- acts simply as a unit

397: translation 

398: \begin{equation}

399:   \widehat{\exp} ( \fracs{i}{2}{\bar{\mu}c} ) \sket{v}\ =\ \sket{v+1}

400:   \ .

401: \end{equation}

402: 

403: In the matter part of the Hamiltonian constraint, the only nontrivial

404: component is $|p|^{-3/2}$, but again this can be reexpressed in terms of

405: holonomies via Thiemann's method

406: \begin{equation}\label{eq:invVdef}

407:   |p|^{-\frac{3}{2}}\ =\ \sgn(p)\left[ \frac{1}{2\pi\lPl^2\gamma\bar{\mu}} 

408:                         \Tr\sum_k \tau^k h^{(\bar{\mu})}_k

409:                         \{ {h^{(\bar{\mu})}_k}^{-1} , V^{\frac{1}{3}}\}

410:                         \right]^3 \ .

411: \end{equation}

412: 

413: Finally, applying all the results (\ref{eq:hexp}-\ref{eq:invVdef}) to

414: \eqref{eq:classHcompl}, one can write the operator $\hat{C}$. We do so

415: choosing, in the process, a particular factor ordering (the so called

416: Kaminski ordering) \cite{aps-imp}, in which $\hCgrav$ is manifestly

417: symmetric and positive-definite. The action of the final result on

418: the state $\Psi\in\Hilk$ can be written in the following form

419: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Theta}

420:   \partial^2_{\phi}\Psi(v,\phi)\ =\ -\Theta\Psi(v,\phi)\ 

421:   =\ -\Theta_o\Psi(v,\phi) + [B(v)]^{-1} C_{\Lambda} \Psi(v,\phi)

422:   \ ,

423: \end{equation}

424: where $\Psi(v,\phi):=\sip{v,\phi}{\Psi}$ and the functions $B(v)$,

425: $C_{\Lambda}(v)$ equal

426: \begin{subequations}\label{eq:BCLcoeff}\begin{align}

427:   B(v)\ &:=\ \frac{27K}{8}|v|

428:              \left||v+1|^{\frac{1}{3}}-|v-1|^{\frac{1}{3}}\right|^3

429:              \ , &

430:   C_{\Lambda}(v)\ &:=\ \frac{16\pi^2\gamma^3\lPl^4}{27K\hbar} \Lambda

431:            |v| 

432:   \tag{\ref{eq:BCLcoeff}}

433: \end{align}\end{subequations}

434: and $\Theta_o$ is an operator corresponding to the $\Lambda=0$ case

435: derived in \cite{aps-imp} 

436: \begin{equation}\label{Theta0} 

437:   \Theta_o\Psi(v,\phi)\ 

438:   =\ -[B(v)]^{-1}\left( C^+(v)\Psi(v+4,\phi) + C^o(v)\Psi(v,\phi) 

439:          + C^-(v)\Psi(v-4,\phi) \right) \ ,

440: \end{equation}

441: with coefficients $C^{\pm}$, $C^o$, equal to

442: \begin{subequations}\label{eq:ThCoeffdef}\begin{align}

443:   C^+(v)\ &=\ \frac{3\pi KG}{8}|v+2|\, \big||v+3|-|v+1|\big| \ , & & \\

444:   C^-(v)\ &=\ C^+(v-4) \ , 

445:   &

446:   C^o(v)\ &=\ -C^+(v)-C^-(v) \ .

447: \end{align}\end{subequations}

448: For reasons we will explain in later sections of the paper, the operator

449: $\Theta$ is called an {\it evolution operator}. It is symmetric and

450: positive-definite (with respect to the measure $B(v)\rd\mu_{\Bohr}$) on

451: the domain $\Dom$ of finite linear combination of states $\sket{v}$.

452: 

453: 

454: 

455: \section{The Wheeler-DeWitt limit}

456: \label{sec:WDW}

457: 

458: The quantization scheme presented in the previous section is motivated by

459: LQG; however, it is not the only method applicable to the system.

460: By replacing $\Hilkg$ with $\ubHilkg:=L^2(\re,\rd\mu)$ and taking the

461: limit $\Delta\to 0$ in expressions 

462: (\ref{eq:eEE},~\ref{eq:Fdef},~\ref{eq:invVdef}),

463: one arrives to the system equivalent to the one originating from

464: geometrodynamics, known as the Wheeler-DeWitt system. In the literature, the

465: system obtained from LQC via this procedure is called a {\it WDW

466:   limit}. We will study it in this section in order to identify the

467: effects of the spacetime discreteness. We will keep this terminology

468: in the paper although (as it was shown in \cite{acs}) the WDW model

469: is not the limit of the LQC model in any precise sense. One

470: should think about it as the {\it WDW equivalent} of an LQC model. 

471: 

472: 

473: \subsection{WDW constraint equation, emergent time}

474: 

475: The evolution operator $\Theta$ is a sum of two terms: a $\Lambda=0$

476: operator $\Theta_o$ and a $\Lambda$-dependent potential term \eqref{eq:Theta}. 

477: The WDW limit of $\Theta_o$ was derived in \cite{aps-imp} and is of

478: the form 

479: \begin{equation}

480:   \ub{\Theta}_o\,\ub{\Psi}(v,\phi)\ 

481:   = \ -12\pi G(v\partial_v)^2\ub{\Psi}(v,\phi)

482: \end{equation}

483: where $\ub{\Psi}\in\ubHilk:=\ubHilkg\otimes\Hilkf$. Calculating the

484: limit of the cosmological constant term requires just replacing $B$ in

485: the potential term by its point limit $\ub{B} := K/|v|$ for $\Delta\to 0$. 

486: In consequence, the WDW equivalent of equation \eqref{eq:Theta} has

487: the form  

488: \begin{equation}\label{eq:WDWmain}

489:   \partial_{\phi}^2\,\ub{\Psi}(v,\phi)\ 

490:   =\ -\ub\Theta\,\ub{\Psi}(v,\phi)\ 

491:   = 12\pi G(v\partial_v)^2\ub{\Psi}(v,\phi)

492:               +\frac{16\pi^2\gamma^3\lPl^4}{27K^2\hbar}\Lambda 

493:                v^2 \ub{\Psi}(v,\phi) \ ,

494: \end{equation}

495: where the operator $\ub{\Theta}$ is symmetric and positive-definite

496: with respect to the measure $\ub{B}\rd v$ in the standard domain of 

497: fast-decaying functions (Schwartz space). 

498: 

499: % orientation independance

500: The above constraint divides the domain of $v$ into two independent

501: sectors, corresponding to different signs of $v$, i.e. to different

502: orientations of the triad $E^a_i$. Due to the absence of a parity

503: violating interaction in the considered system, we can restrict the 

504: studies to states that are symmetric/antisymmetric with respect to a reflection

505: in $v$. For further analysis, we choose the symmetric sector, that is 

506: $\ub{\Psi}(\phi,v)=\ub{\Psi}(\phi,-v)$; however, the presented

507: construction can be repeated directly also in the antisymmetric case, with

508: equivalent results. 

509: 

510: \subsection{General solutions, frequency decomposition}

511: \label{sec:WDWsols}

512: 

513: % emergent time

514: The constraint \eqref{eq:WDWmain} is similar in its form to the

515: Klein-Gordon equation. Furthermore, since there is no explicit

516: dependence on $\phi$ in either \eqref{eq:classHcompl} or

517: \eqref{eq:WDWmain}, $p_{\phi}$ is a constant of motion of both

518: the classical and the quantum system. Also, at the classical level $\phi$ is

519: monotonic in time: we can thus follow the prescription of

520: \cite{aps-imp} and reinterpret the constraint, treating it as an

521: evolution equation of a free system evolving with respect to

522: $\phi$. The scalar field becomes then an emergent time as in the case

523: $\Lambda=0$.  

524: 

525: % spectrum

526: To construct the physical Hilbert space we need to find the spectrum

527: of the self-adjoint extension of $\ub{\Theta}$. The eigenfunction

528: corresponding to an eigenvalue $\omega^2$ satisfying

529: \begin{equation}

530:   \omega^2\ub{\psi}(v)\ =\ -12\pi G(v\partial_v)^2\ub{\psi}(v)

531:               -\frac{16\pi^2\gamma^3\lPl^4}{27K^2\hbar}\Lambda 

532:                v^2 \ub{\psi}(v)

533: \end{equation}

534: can be written in terms of Bessel functions of the third kind

535: \begin{equation}\label{eq:WDWgeneig}

536:   \psi_{\omega}(v)\ =\ c_{(I)} \BesI_{ik}(\beta\sqrt{-\Lambda}|v|) 

537:             + c_{(K)} \BesK_{ik}(\beta\sqrt{-\Lambda}|v|)\ ,

538: \end{equation}

539: where $k := \omega/\sqrt{12\pi G}$, $\beta :=

540: 2\sqrt{\pi\gamma^3}\hbar\lPl/(9K)$ and $c_{(I)},c_{(K)} \in \compl$.

541: When $\beta\sqrt{-\Lambda}|v|<k$, both $\BesI$ and $\BesK$ show

542: oscillatory behavior. In particular, as $|v|\to 0$, they approach

543: the eigenfunctions of the $\ub{\Theta}_o$ operator corresponding to the same

544: frequency $\omega$

545: \begin{equation}\label{eq:WDWelimit}

546:   \psi_{\omega}(v)\ =\ \tilde{c}^{+}\exp(ik\ln|v|)

547:     + \tilde{c}^{-}\exp(-ik\ln|v|) \ .

548: \end{equation}

549: The complex coefficients $\tilde{c}^{+}$, $\tilde{c}^{-}$ of the limit

550: can be determined uniquely as functions of $c_{(I)}$, $c_{(K)}$. 

551: 

552: For $\beta\sqrt{-\Lambda}|v|>k$, the functions $\BesI$ grow exponentially,

553: whereas the functions 

554: $\BesK$ exponentially decay. In consequence, only the eigenfunctions

555: with $c_{(I)}=0$ will contribute to the spectral decomposition of

556: $\ub{\Theta}$. This implies that the spectrum of $\ub{\Theta}$ equals

557: $\Sp(\ub{\Theta})=[0,\infty)$ and is continuous. Furthermore, due to

558: \eqref{eq:WDWelimit}, the eigenfunctions with $c_{(I)}=0$ are Dirac

559: delta normalizable. Therefore, we can choose the basis setting 

560: $\ub{e}_{\omega}:=\alpha(\omega)\BesK_{ik}(\beta\sqrt{-\Lambda}|v|)$,

561: where $\alpha$ is a real, positive, $\omega$-dependent normalization 

562: factor chosen to satisfy the relation

563: \begin{equation}

564:   \sip{\ub{e}_{\omega}}{\ub{e}_{\omega'}}\ =\ \delta(\omega,\omega') \ .

565: \end{equation}

566: 

567: % positive and negative frequency

568: At this point, we note that the structure of the spectral decomposition of

569: $\ub{\Theta}$ is similar to the one of the WDW limit for the $k=1$ FRW model

570: \cite{apsv}, so that we can follow the construction used there. Each

571: element $\psi(v)$ of $L^2(\re,\ub{B}(v)\rd v)$ can be decomposed in the

572: basis $\ub{e}_{\omega}$:

573: \begin{equation}

574:   \psi(v)\ =\ \int_0^{\infty} \rd \omega \tilde{\psi}(\omega)

575:              \ub{e}_{\omega}(v) \ .

576: \end{equation}

577: where $\tilde{\psi}\in L^2(\re,\rd\omega)$. Therefore, the solutions

578: to the evolution equation \eqref{eq:WDWmain} with initial data

579: in the Schwartz space can be represented in terms of the two functions 

580: $\Psi_{\pm}(\omega)\in L^2(\re,\rd\omega)$

581: \begin{equation}\label{eq:WDWgensol}

582:   \Psi(v,\phi)\ =\ \int\rd\omega\left[

583:     \tilde{\Psi}_+(\omega)\ub{e}_{\omega}(v)e^{i\omega\phi} +

584:     \tilde{\Psi}_-(\omega)\bar{\ub{e}}_{\omega}(v)e^{-i\omega\phi}

585:   \right] \ .

586: \end{equation}

587: The solutions with vanishing $\ub{\tilde{\Psi}}_{+}$ and

588: $\ub{\tilde{\Psi}}_{-}$ (denoted in the following as $\ub{\Psi}_-$,

589: $\ub{\Psi}_+$) are called the negative and positive frequency solutions

590: respectively. Their general form can be written in terms of the square

591: root of the $\ub{\Theta}$ operator; namely, for initial data $\psi_o(v)$

592: specified at $\phi=\phi_o$, we have: 

593: \begin{equation}\label{eq:WDWmainpm}

594:   \Psi_{\pm}(v,\phi)\ =\ e^{\pm i\sqrt{\ub{\Theta}}(\phi-\phi_o)}\psi_o(v) \ .

595: \end{equation}

596: 

597: 

598: \subsection{Physical Hilbert space, observables}

599: \label{sec:WDWphys}

600: 

601: % construction of Hilbert space

602: To construct the physical Hilbert space $\ubHilp$, we again follow

603: \cite{aps-imp,apsv}. As $\ub{\Theta}$ is the sum of the $\ub{\Theta}_o$

604: operator (which is just $\partial_{\ln|v|}^2$) and the positive potential

605: term, it is essentially self-adjoint and positive-definite \cite{klp-nL}.  

606: Friedrich's extension of it is thus a unique self-adjoint one. One can

607: then apply group averaging techniques \cite{gave} (see the discussion in

608: \cite{aps-old}) to find $\ubHilp$ and the inner product. The result is the

609: following: the space $\ubHilp$ itself consists of normalizable

610: solutions to \eqref{eq:WDWmain}; however, as the spaces of positive 

611: and negative frequency solutions are superselected sectors, we can

612: take as $\ubHilp$ the restriction to just one of them. Following

613: previous works, we chose positive frequency part, thus defining

614: $\ubHilp$ as:  

615: \begin{equation}

616:   \ub{\Psi}(v,\phi)\ =\ \int\rd\omega\tilde{\ub{\Psi}}(\omega)

617:     \ub{e}_{\omega} e^{i\omega\phi} \ , \qquad \

618:     \tilde{\ub{\Psi}}\in L^2(\re^+,\rd\omega) \ .

619: \end{equation}

620: The physical inner product within this space can be written as:

621: \begin{equation}

622:   \sip{\ub{\Psi}}{\ub{\Phi}}\ 

623:   =\ \int_{\phi=\phi_o} \ub{B}(v)\rd v \bar{\ub{\Psi}}(v)\ub{\Phi}(v) \ .

624: \end{equation}

625: 

626: %observables

627: In order to be able to extract physical information out of our system,

628: we need to define a set of Dirac observables, i.e. self-adjoint operators

629: preserving $\ubHilp$. Here again we can directly use the scalar field

630: momentum $\hat{p}_{\phi}$ and $|\hat{v}|_{\phi}$ , the amplitude of $v$ at 

631: a given $\phi$, defined already for $\Lambda=0$ and $k=1$. Their 

632: action on the elements $\Psi$ of $\ubHilp$ is the following

633: \begin{subequations}\label{eq:WDWobs}\begin{align}

634:   \hat{p}_{\phi}\Psi\ &=\ -i\hbar\partial_{\phi}\Psi \ , & 

635:   |\hat{v}|_{\phi'}\Psi\ 

636:   &=\ e^{i\sqrt{\ub{\Theta}}(\phi-\phi')}|v|\Psi(v,\phi') \ ,

637:   \tag{\ref{eq:WDWobs}}

638: \end{align}\end{subequations}

639: and their expectation values equal respectively:

640: \begin{subequations}\label{eq:WDWexpect}\begin{align}

641:   \sbra{\ub{\Psi}}\hat{p}_{\phi}\sket{\ub{\Psi}}\ &= \

642:     -i\hbar\int_{\phi=\const}\ub{B}(v)\rd v \bar{\ub{\Psi}}(v,\phi)

643:      (\partial_{\phi}\ub{\Psi})(v,\phi) \ , \\

644:   \sbra{\ub{\Psi}}|\hat{v}|_{\phi}\sket{\ub{\Psi}}\ &= \

645:      \int\ub{B}(v)\rd v |v||\ub{\Psi}(v,\phi)|^2 \ .

646: \end{align}\end{subequations}

647: 

648: 

649: \subsection{Semiclassical states}

650: \label{sec:WDWstates}

651: 

652: Once we have the physical Hilbert space, the inner product and the 

653: observables, we

654: can investigate the evolution of a universe represented by a given

655: state. A particularly interesting question one can ask is

656: whether, in the considered system, the singularity is resolved. To address

657: this question, we construct a Gaussian state which, at a given time

658: $\phi_o$, is sharply peaked at a large scalar field momentum

659: $p_{\phi}^{\star}=\hbar\omega^{\star}$ (with spread $\sigma/\sqrt{2}$)

660: and volume $v^{\star}$ and is expanding: 

661: \begin{equation}\label{eq:WDWpsi}

662:   \Psi(v,\phi)\ =\ \int_0^{\infty}\rd\omega \,

663:     e^{-\frac{(\omega-\omega^{\star})^2}{2\sigma^2}} \,

664:     \ub{e}_{\omega}(v) \,

665:     e^{i\omega(\phi-\phi^{\star})} \ , 

666: \end{equation}

667: where 

668: \begin{equation}\label{eq:phistar}

669:   \phi^{\star}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{12\pi G}}\arcosh\left( 

670:     \frac{3K\sqrt{12\pi G}}% 

671:     {(4\pi\gamma\lPl^2)^{3/2}} \frac{p_{\phi}^{\star}}% 

672:     {\sqrt{|\Lambda|}v^{\star}} \right) + \phi_o \ .

673: \end{equation}

674: 

675: Because of the complicated form of $\ub{e}_{\omega}$, the wave function

676: \eqref{eq:WDWpsi} and expectation values \eqref{eq:WDWexpect} were

677: calculated numerically (see section \ref{sec:num} for the details). An

678: example of the results is shown on Figs \ref{fig:WDW}. The state remains

679: semiclassical (sharply peaked) and simply follows the classical trajectory

680: \eqref{eq:pre-class-traj}

681: \begin{equation}\label{eq:WDWtraj}

682:   v(\phi)\ =\ \frac{3K\sqrt{12\pi G}}{(4\pi\gamma\lPl^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}}

683:   \,\frac{p_{\phi}^{\star}}{\sqrt{|\Lambda|}}\, 

684:   \left[\cosh\left(\sqrt{12\pi G}(\phi-\phi^{\star}+\phi_o)

685:   \right)\right]^{-1} \ 

686: \end{equation}

687: to the big bang and big crunch singularities. In consequence,

688: similarly to the $\Lambda=0$ case, the classical singularities are not

689: resolved.  

690: \begin{figure}[tbh!]\begin{center}

691:   $a)$\hspace{8cm}$b)$

692:   \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{plots/WDW-3d.eps}

693:   \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{plots/WDW-traj.eps}

694:   \caption{An example of a Wheeler-DeWitt Gaussian wave packet

695:     \eqref{eq:WDWpsi} generated for the parameter values

696:     $\Lambda=-0.01$, $p_{\phi}^{\star}=5\cdot 10^3$, $\Delta

697:     p_{\phi}/p_{\phi}^{\star}=0.02$ and $\phi^{\star}=0$. Fig.$a)$ shows the

698:     absolute value of the wave function. For the presentation clarity, only

699:     the points of $|\Psi(v,\phi)|>10^{-6}$ were plotted. Fig.$b)$

700:     presents the expectation values and dispersions of

701:     $|\hat{v}|_{\phi}$ (red bars) compared against the classical

702:     trajectory $v(\phi)$ (blue line). As we can see, the quantum

703:     trajectory agrees with the classical one (the difference being much

704:     smaller that the spread). Due to the large changes in magnitude of $v$

705:     during the evolution, the trajetory was plotted in logarythmic scale.} 

706:   \label{fig:WDW}

707: \end{center}\end{figure}

708: 

709: 

710: 

711: \section{Physical sector of LQC}

712: \label{sec:LQC}

713: 

714: The analysis in the previous section allowed to find dynamics

715: predicted by the WDW limit of the considered LQC model. Now we perform

716: an analogous study of the model of interest. Due to qualitative

717: similarities of the Hamiltonian constraint with its WDW limit, the

718: analysis can be performed analogously to the one done in section

719: \ref{sec:WDW} (with only slight modifications required by the fact that

720: $\Theta$ is now a difference operator). Following that work, we again

721: restrict the study to states symmetric under parity

722: reflection.\footnote{It is also correct to work with the antisymmetric

723:   sector of the theory. We discuss that case in Appendix \ref{sec:antisymm}.} 

724: 

725: First we note that, thanks to the fact that $\Theta$ is a difference

726: operator, we can naturally divide the gravitational kinematical

727: Hilbert space onto superselected sectors $\Hilkg =

728: \bigoplus_{\varepsilon\in[0,2]} \Hilkge$, where $\Hilkge$ are the  

729: restrictions of $\Hilkg$ to the functions supported on the sets

730: $\lat_{\varepsilon} := \{\pm\varepsilon+4n;\ n\in\integ\}$ preserved by the

731: action of the Hamiltonian constraint \eqref{eq:Theta} and parity reflection 

732: $\Pi: \psi(v)\mapsto \psi(-v)$. Following the literature, we call these

733: sets {\it lattices} and work with single sectors 

734: $\Hilke:=\Hilkge\otimes\Hilkf$. The kinematical inner product

735: corresponding to them is just a restriction of the product of $\Hilk$. 

736: 

737: For each of the sectors illustrated above, the operator $\Theta$ is

738: obviously well defined and symmetric (with respect to the measure

739: $B(v)\rd\mu_{\Bohr}$) on the domain $D_{\varepsilon}$ -- the space of finite

740: combinations of $\sket{v}$ with $v\in\lat_{\varepsilon}$. Its

741: mathematical properties were rigorously analyzed in \cite{klp-nL}. It

742: is essentially self-adjoint, its extension is positive-definite and

743: its spectrum is discrete.  

744: The first two properties allow us again to choose $\phi$ as an emergent

745: time and treat $\Theta$ as an evolution operator. 

746: 

747: The discreteness of $\Theta$'s spectrum implies that the eigenfunctions

748: relevant for its spectral decomposition are normalizable. Furthermore,

749: a numerical study (discussed in section \ref{sec:num}) shows that

750: the spectrum is nondegenerate. In consequence, for each allowed value

751: of the label $\varepsilon$, we can build the physical Hilbert space

752: $\Hilpe$ as a space of normalizable positive frequency solutions to

753: \eqref{eq:Theta}, analogously to the construction in sections

754: \ref{sec:WDWsols} and \ref{sec:WDWphys}:

755: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Psi}

756:   i\partial_{\phi}\Psi\ =\ \sqrt{\Theta}\Psi \ , \qquad

757:   \Psi(v,\phi)\ =\ \sum_{n\in\natu} \tilde{\Psi}_n\, e_n(v)\, 

758:     e^{i\omega_n\phi} \ ,

759: \end{equation}

760: where $\Tilde{\Psi}$ are square summable and $e_n(v)$ are symmetric

761: in $v$ and normalized eigenfunctions of $\Theta$, corresponding to

762: eigenvalues $\omega_n^2$ which form the basis of $\Hilpe$.

763: The physical inner product can be found through group averaging

764: analogously to the WDW case and can be written in the form

765: \begin{equation}\label{eq:IP}

766:   \sip{\Psi}{\Phi}\ =\ \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} 

767:   \bar{\tilde{\Psi}}_n\tilde{\Phi}_n\

768:   =\ \sum_{v\in\lat_{\epsilon}} B(v)\bar{\Psi}(v)\Phi(v) \ .

769: \end{equation}

770: 

771: % - observables

772: To complete the quantization program we need to choose a set of

773: Dirac observables. In order to be able to compare the results with the WDW

774: limit, we choose the operators analogous to \eqref{eq:WDWobs}

775: \begin{subequations}\label{eq:obs}\begin{align}

776:   \hat{p}_{\phi}\Psi\ &=\ -i\hbar\partial_{\phi}\Psi \ , & 

777:   |\hat{v}|_{\phi'}\Psi\ 

778:   &=\ e^{i\sqrt{\Theta}(\phi-\phi')}|v|\Psi(v,\phi') \ .

779:   \tag{\ref{eq:obs}}

780: \end{align}\end{subequations}

781: Their expectation values are equal respectively to

782: \begin{subequations}\label{eq:expect}\begin{align}

783:   \sbra{\Psi}\hat{p}_{\phi}\sket{\Psi}\ 

784:   &=\ -i\hbar

785:   \sum_{v\in\lat_{\epsilon},\ \phi=\const} B(v) 

786:         \bar{\Psi}(v,\phi) (\partial_{\phi}\Psi)(v,\phi) \ , \\

787:   \sbra{\Psi}|\hat{v}|_{\phi}\sket{\Psi}\

788:   &=\ 

789:   \sum_{v\in\lat_{\epsilon}} B(v) |\Psi(v,\phi)|^2 \ .

790: \end{align}\end{subequations}

791: 

792: To calculate an explicit form of $\Psi$ (needed to find the

793: expectation values) one needs to find the spectrum of $\Theta$ and the

794: explicit form of its normalizable eigenfunctions. Because of the

795: complicated structure of $\Theta$, in order to do so one needs to resort to

796: numerical methods. We present them in the next section. 

797: 

798: 

799: 

800: \section{Numerical study}\label{sec:num}

801: 

802: This section is divided onto two parts. In section \ref{sec:num-eig},

803: we present the methods and results of identifying the spectrum of the

804: $\Theta$ operator and finding normalizable eigenfunctions. The

805: techniques for computing the wave function and the expectation values

806: are presented in section \ref{sec:num-state}. In both parts, we

807: applied the (appropriately refined) methods used already for the $k=1$

808: model and introduced in \cite{apsv}. Unless specified otherwise, from

809: now on we will work with units in which $G=1$. 

810:  

811: \subsection{Spectrum of $\Theta$}\label{sec:num-eig}

812:   

813: In order to construct the Hilbert space $\Hilpe$, one needs to find the

814: eigenfunctions supported on the lattice $\lat_{\varepsilon}$, which

815: consists of two sublattices

816: $\lat_{\pm|\varepsilon|}:=\{\pm|\varepsilon|+4n;\ n\in\integ\}$  

817: invariant with respect to the action of the Hamiltonian constraint. Each of

818: such eigenfunctions (denoted here as $\psi$) is a solution to a

819: difference equation: 

820: \begin{equation}\label{eq:eigen}

821:   -\omega^2 B(v)\psi(v)\ =\ C^+(v)\psi(v+4) 

822:     + (C^o(v)+C_{\Lambda}(v))\psi(v) + C^-(v)\psi(v-4) \ ,

823: \end{equation}

824: where $\omega^2$ is the eigenvalue that each given eigenfunction

825: corresponds to and $C^o, C^{\pm}, C_{\Lambda}$ are given by

826: (\ref{eq:BCLcoeff},~\ref{eq:ThCoeffdef}). On each sublattice, this is a

827: second-order equation -- 

828: one needs to specify the initial data at two neighboring points ($v_{\init}$,

829: $v_{\init}+4$) to uniquely define a solution. The symmetry condition

830: $\psi(v)=\psi(-v)$, however, restricts the amount of initial data in 

831: the following way:

832: \begin{enumerate}[(i)]

833:   \item For $\varepsilon\in (0,2)$, the sublattices $\lat_{\pm|\varepsilon|}$ 

834:     are disjoint and the parity reflection $\Pi$ transforms one onto another.

835:     Therefore one needs to specify an initial data $\psi(v_{\init})$,

836:     $\psi(v_{\init}+4)$ for just one of them, say

837:     $\lat_{+|\varepsilon|}$, and complete it by the action of $\Pi$. We denote

838:     such lattices as {\it generic}.  

839:   \item When $\varepsilon=0,2$ the sublattice $\lat_{+|\epsilon|}$

840:     coincides with $\lat_{-|\epsilon|}$ and is invariant with respect

841:     to parity reflection. The condition $\psi(v)=\psi(-v)$, applied to

842:     \eqref{eq:eigen}, imposes on it an additional constraint of the

843:     form depending on the value of $\varepsilon$: 

844:     \begin{itemize}

845:       \item $\varepsilon=0$: $\psi(-4)=\psi(0)=\psi(4)$,

846:       \item $\varepsilon=2$: $\psi(-2)=\psi(2)$.  Here the equality 

847:         $C^-(2)=C^+(-2)=0$ implies additionally $\psi(\pm 6) = 

848:         -[(\omega^2B(2)+C_{\Lambda}(2)+C^o(2))/C^+(2)]\psi(\pm 2)$.

849:     \end{itemize} In consequence, the value of $\psi$ at just one point

850:     ($v=0$ or $v=2$) determines the entire eigenfunction. These cases are

851:     called {\it exceptional}.

852: \end{enumerate}

853: 

854: % preliminary results

855: The degrees of freedom specified above are complex; however, since

856: the coefficients of \eqref{eq:eigen} are real, $\psi$ satisfies it

857: iff so do its components $\Re(\psi)$, $\Im(\psi)$. Therefore, we can

858: safely restrict our study to a real $\psi$.  

859: 

860: Upon this restriction, the space of solutions to \eqref{eq:eigen}

861: is $1$-dimensional for exceptional lattices and $2$-dimensional for

862: generic ones. Once the initial data are specified appropriately for

863: each case, the function $\psi$ can be found by solving \eqref{eq:eigen}

864: iteratively. 

865: 

866: To determine the properties of $\psi$, we calculated the solutions in

867: a wide range of both $\Lambda$ ($[-10,-10^{-6}]$) and $\omega$

868: ($[0,10^5\hbar]$). The qualitative features of the found solutions is 

869: visualized on fig.\ref{fig:eig-exampl}; in general, for each $\psi$ one

870: can distinguish $5$ zones of distinct behavior, and the boundaries of

871: these zones are specified by the functions $v_B(\omega)$ and $v_R(\omega)$,

872: approximately equal to, respectively, the position of the bounce for a

873: $\Lambda=0$ universe with $p_{\phi}^{\star} = \hbar\omega$ (determined in

874: \cite{aps-imp}) and the value of $v$ at the recollapse point of the classical

875: universe (given by \eqref{eq:WDWtraj} at $\phi=\phi^{\star}-\phi_o$).

876: \begin{enumerate}[(i)]

877:   \item For $|v|<v_B(\omega)$, the amplitude of $\psi$ grows/decays

878:     quasi-exponentially. \label{it:z1}

879:   \item For $v_B<|v|<v_R$, the behavior of $\psi$ is oscillatory

880:     (similar in nature to the behavior of \eqref{eq:WDWgeneig}). \label{it:z2}

881:   \item When $|v|>v_R$ the eigenfunction grows/decays exponentially

882:     with $|v|$ (where the exponential growth is a generic behavior).

883:     \label{it:z3}

884: \end{enumerate}

885: Note that for small $\omega$, the zones \eqref{it:z1} and

886: \eqref{it:z2} may be empty (see fig.\ref{fig:eig-low} for examples). 

887: 

888: \begin{figure}[tbh!]\begin{center}

889:   $a)$\hspace{8cm}$b)$

890:   \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{plots/eig-exampl-0.eps}

891:   \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{plots/eig-exampl-1.eps}

892:   \caption{Examples of eigenfunctions of $\Theta$ supported on the

893:     lattices $\lat_{\varepsilon}$ for $\varepsilon=0$ $(a)$ and $\varepsilon=1$

894:     $(b)$.\\  

895:     $a)$ shows a normalizable eigenfunction of $\omega\approx300.45$

896:     (red) and two divergent ones of $\omega$ respectively smaller

897:     (green) and larger (blue) by $0.1$. For clarity, only the positive $v$

898:     part is shown.\\

899:     $b)$ presents the absolute value of a normalizable eigenfunction of

900:     $\omega\approx52.85$ (red) along with two divergent examples: generic

901:     (green) and left-converging (blue) generated for, respectively

902:     $\omega\approx53.35$ and $54.35$. To show the behavior in a wide range

903:     of values, a logarythmic scale was used for the $y$-axis.\\

904:     Both figures correspond to $\Lambda=-0.01$.}

905:   \label{fig:eig-exampl}

906: \end{center}\end{figure}

907: 

908: Since we search for normalizable functions only, we have to select the

909: ones which decay exponentially in the zones of type \eqref{it:z3}. We

910: identify them numerically using different methods depending on whether 

911: the eigenfunctions are supported on generic or exceptional lattices.  

912: 

913: % exceptional case

914: On exceptional lattices, each eigenfunction $\psi_{\omega}$ is (for

915: a given $\omega$) determined uniquely up to a global scaling. To find the

916: normalizable solutions, we scan the domain of $\omega$ using the

917: following observation: 

918: 

919: \begin{obs}

920:   For a chosen $\omega\in [\omega_{1},\omega_{2}]$,

921:   $\psi_{\omega}(\epsilon)=1$ and $v\gg v_R(\omega_2)$, the value

922:   $\psi_{\omega}(v)$ is a continuous function of $\omega$ (more specifically,

923:   a polynomial) and its sign changes

924:   quasi-periodically. Furthermore, if we define $\omega_{v,n}$ as the

925:   values of $\omega$ such that $\Psi_{\omega_{v,n}}(v) = 0$, the limits

926:   $\omega_n := \lim_{v\to\infty}\omega_{v,n}$ are well defined and

927:   correspond to the values of $\omega$ for which $\psi_{\omega}$

928:   decays in zone \eqref{it:z3}. 

929: \end{obs}

930: 

931: In practice, due to the precision bound posed by numerical round-off, 

932: it is enough to (instead of finding the limits) look for values

933: of $\omega_{v,n}$ at $v_T$ sufficiently far away from $v_R$. For the

934: actual search, we selected $v_T=\max(2000,1.3v_R)$. The search itself

935: was performed in two steps:

936: \begin{itemize}

937:   \item First the sign of $\Psi_{\omega}(v_T)$ was checked for

938:     values of $\omega$ uniformly separated by a distance around $0.1$.

939:   \item If a change of sign was detected between neighboring points, the

940:     value of $\omega_{n,v_T}$ was found via bisection. 

941: \end{itemize}

942: 

943: % generic case

944: For generic lattices, the space of solutions is, up a to global rescaling,

945: $1$-dimensional, so besides $\omega$ we need to specify the value of $\psi$

946: at two points $v_I,v_I+4\in\lat_{+|\epsilon|}$. An additional

947: complication is the fact that now the behavior in zones of type \eqref{it:z3}

948: for $v>0$ and $v<0$ is independent. The function may grow for positive $v$

949: while decaying for negative ones and vice versa. Therefore, to find the

950: desired functions we divide the search procedure onto two steps:

951: \begin{itemize}

952:   \item First we identify the family $\psi_{\omega}$ of functions

953:     decaying in zone \eqref{it:z3} for $v<0$ (further denoted as {\it

954:       left-converging}). To do so, we parametrize the initial data at

955:     $v_I,v_I+4$ by a parameter $\alpha\in[0,\pi]$ 

956:     \begin{subequations}\label{eq:ida}\begin{align}

957:       \psi_{\alpha,\omega}(v_I)\ &=\ \cos(\alpha) \ , &

958:       \psi_{\alpha,\omega}(v_I+4)\ &=\ \sin(\alpha) \ ,

959:     \tag{\ref{eq:ida}}\end{align}\end{subequations}

960:     and scan the domain of $\alpha$ for the values at which the limit  

961:     $\lim_{v\to-\infty}\psi_{\alpha,\omega}(v) = 0$. Analogously to

962:     the exceptional lattice case, it is enough here to just choose some

963:     value $-v_R(\omega)\gg v_{T^-}\in\lat_{+|\varepsilon|}$ and look

964:     for the values of $\alpha$ at which $\psi_{\alpha,\omega}(v_{T^-})=0$.

965:     In practice, it suffices to choose $v_{T^-}\approx -v_T$, where

966:     $v_T$ is the value defined for exceptional lattices. The scan

967:     method is analogous to the scan of $\omega$ in the exceptional case: we

968:     divide the domain of $\alpha$ into $10$ uniform intervals and if

969:     a change of sign of $\psi_{\alpha,\omega}(v_{T^-})$ is detected

970:     within an interval, the precise value of $\alpha$ is found via

971:     bisection. 

972: 

973:     It was checked by inspection that, for each $\omega$, there is

974:     exactly one value of $\alpha$ satisfying the above requirement. In

975:     consequence, for each $\omega$ the eigenspace of left-converging

976:     functions is $1$-dimensional.

977:   \item Once the family $\psi_{\omega}$ of left-converging functions

978:     is selected, we choose some $v_T\approx

979:     v_{T^+}\in\lat_{+|\varepsilon|}$ and scan the domain of $\omega$ 

980:     for values at which $\psi_{\omega}(v_{T^+})=0$, via the method

981:     specified for exceptional lattices.

982: \end{itemize}

983: 

984: % result for small w -- application of initial data

985: \begin{figure}[tbh!]\begin{center}

986:   $a)$\hspace{8cm}$b)$

987:   \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{plots/eigenfunct-0.eps}

988:   \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{plots/eigenfunct-1.eps}

989:   \caption{The eigenfunctions $e_0$ to $e_4$ of $\Theta$, corresponding to

990:     $\Lambda=-0.01$ and supported on $\lat_{\varepsilon}$ with

991:     $\varepsilon=0$ $(a)$ and $\varepsilon=1$ $(b)$. For clarity, only

992:     the $v>0$ part was shown in $a)$ and only the part supported on

993:     $\lat_{+|\varepsilon|}$ was shown in $b)$.}

994:   \label{fig:eig-low}

995: \end{center}\end{figure}

996: 

997: The search was first performed for small $\omega$ ($<50$) to find the

998: qualitative behavior of normalizable eigenfunctions. An example of the

999: results is shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:eig-low} and \ref{fig:dw}a. All

1000: found eigenfunctions belong to one of the following groups:

1001: \begin{enumerate}[(1)]

1002:   \item Suppressed on the $v<0$ side with suppression exponential in

1003:     $\omega$. 

1004:   \item Suppressed for $v>0$.

1005:   \item Peaked about $v=0$.

1006: \end{enumerate}

1007: In consequence, it is most convenient, from the point of view of

1008: the numerical precision of the solutions, to specify the initial data at 

1009: $v_I\approx\pm v_R$. However, because of the quasi-exponential behavior of

1010: the eigenfunctions in zone \eqref{it:z1},  we can calculate (with a sufficiently 

1011: small numerical error) only the solutions suppressed on

1012: the side where the initial data were specified. Therefore it is

1013: necessary to repeat the search twice: for $v_I\approx v_R$ and

1014: $v_I\approx -v_R$. 

1015: 

1016: \begin{figure}[tbh!]\begin{center}

1017:   $a)$\hspace{8cm}$b)$

1018:   \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{plots/Eigenvals.eps}

1019:   \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{plots/DwLimit.eps}

1020:   \caption{$a)$ The lowest ($\omega<44$) elements of $\Theta$'s spectrum are

1021:     shown as functions of $\pm|\varepsilon|$. The eigenvalues are divided

1022:     into three groups corresponding to the following eigenfuctions:

1023:     $(1)$ left-suppressed (red crosses), for which $>50\%$ of 

1024:     the norm is located on $v>0$, $(2)$ right-suppressed (green x-es)

1025:     defined analogously and $(3)$ singularity-peaked (blue stars),

1026:     where $>50\%$ of the norm is located at the three points closest

1027:     to $v=0$. \\ 

1028:     $b)$ The large $\omega$ limit of the eigenvalue separation

1029:     $\Delta\omega$, shown as function of $\Lambda$ (red crosses). The

1030:     blue line represents the small $\Lambda$ limit given by \eqref{eq:dwlow}.}

1031:   \label{fig:dw}

1032: \end{center}\end{figure}

1033: 

1034: % THE RESULTS of spectrum search

1035: The spectrum scan described above was performed for $18$

1036: values of $\Lambda$ ranging from $-20$ to $-10^{-6}$. It revealed

1037: the following properties (visualized in figs.~\ref{fig:eig-low} --

1038: \ref{fig:A}).  

1039: \begin{itemize}

1040:   \item As analytically predicted, for each $\epsilon$ the spectrum of

1041:     $\Theta$ is discrete and the eigenvalues are

1042:     isolated. With the exception of the lowest $\omega$, the eigenfunctions are

1043:     highly (exponentially in $\sqrt{\omega}$) suppressed for one triad

1044:     orientation (sign of $v$). The eigenvalues corresponding to them

1045:     are continuous functions of $\epsilon$. The density of eigenvalues

1046:     is twice higher on the generic lattices than on the exceptional

1047:     ones. Furthermore, for $\varepsilon=2$, the two families of left-suppressed

1048:     and right-suppressed eigenfunctions converge (see fig.~\ref{fig:dw}a).  

1049:   \item The separation $\Delta\omega_{n}:=\omega_{n+1}-\omega_n$ is

1050:     not uniform. It depends on $\epsilon$ and $\Lambda$ as well as

1051:     $n$. However, for large values of $\omega$, $\Delta\omega_n$

1052:     converges to the limit value $\Delta\omega$ with convergence rate

1053:     $\omega^{-2}$ (see fig.\ref{fig:A}a)

1054:     \begin{equation}\label{eq:dw}

1055:       \Delta\omega_n\ =\ \Delta\omega + O(\omega^{-2}) \ , \qquad

1056:       \Delta\omega\ =\ \lim_{n\to\infty}\Delta\omega_n \ .

1057:     \end{equation}

1058:     Numerical inspection shows that the correction satisfies (with

1059:     the exception of the lowest $\omega$) the following bound relation

1060:     \begin{equation}\label{eq:A-bound}

1061:       |\Delta\omega-\Delta\omega_n|\ \leq\ 

1062:         \frac{A (\Delta\omega)^2}{\omega^{2}} \ ,

1063:     \end{equation} 

1064:     where, for $|\Lambda|<10$, $A<0.21$ and $A$ decreases for smaller

1065:     $|\Lambda|$, reaching in the $|\Lambda|\to 0$ limit the value $A

1066:     \approx 0.1358\pm 2\cdot 10^{-4}$ (see fig.\ref{fig:A}). 

1067:   \item The limit $\Delta\omega$ was found numerically via $4$th order

1068:     polynomial extrapolation of $\Delta\omega_n$. 

1069:     It is a function of $\Lambda$

1070:     only, i.e. it does not depend on $\epsilon$. Its values

1071:     for different superselection sectors agree up to $10^{-9}$

1072:     precision. The dependence on $\Lambda$ found numerically is shown

1073:     on fig.~\ref{fig:dw}b. For small values of $|\Lambda|$ it can be

1074:     approximated via a power function 

1075:     \begin{equation}\label{eq:dwlow}

1076:       \Delta\omega \approx a |\Lambda G|^b

1077:     \end{equation}

1078:     where $a\approx3.87$ and $b\approx0.0489$. 

1079: \end{itemize}

1080: 

1081: \begin{figure}[tbh!]\begin{center}

1082:   $a)$\hspace{8cm}$b)$

1083:   \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{plots/A-range.eps}

1084:   \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{plots/A-limit.eps}

1085:   \caption{The rescaled eigenvalue separation correction term

1086:     $A(\omega):=|\Delta\omega_n-\Delta\omega| 

1087:     (\omega_n/\Delta\omega)^2$ is shown in $a)$ for several values of

1088:     $\Lambda$. Its $\omega\to\infty$ limit is plotted in $b)$ as a

1089:     function of $\Lambda$. The 'wiggles' at small values of

1090:     $|\Lambda|$ are the results of numerical errors due to the precision

1091:     limitation of the applied calculation method.}

1092:   \label{fig:A}

1093: \end{center}\end{figure}

1094: 

1095: 

1096: The spectrum and normalizable eigenfunctions found here may be next

1097: used to construct the semiclassical states. Details of this construction

1098: will be presented in the next section.

1099: 

1100: 

1101: \subsection{Semiclassical states, evolution}\label{sec:num-state}

1102: 

1103: Once we know the values of $\omega_n$ and $e_n(v)$, the construction of

1104: a physical state from \eqref{eq:Psi} is straightforward. There are two

1105: possibilities here: direct summation of equation 

1106: (\ref{eq:Psi}b) or numerical integration via equation

1107: (\ref{eq:Psi}a) (or equivalently via \eqref{eq:Theta}) of some initial data

1108: specified at a given $\phi_o$. To find these data, we again have two 

1109: methods at our disposal: one of them is the same direct summation of

1110: (\ref{eq:Psi}b), but applied to one slice, whereas the second

1111: possibility is the use of a slice of a WDW semiclassical state (see

1112: section \ref{sec:WDW}) peaked at

1113: large $v^{\star}$, where we do not expect strong quantum-geometric

1114: effects. In practice we used the second method, integrating the state

1115: in $\phi$ via equation \eqref{eq:Theta} and using as initial data both

1116: the WDW slices and the results of the summation of (\ref{eq:Psi}b). The first

1117: method of state calculation was used only to measure the wave packet

1118: spread increase in large intervals of $\phi$, as the integration

1119: methods were not precise enough for this application.

1120: 

1121: \subsubsection{Initial data}

1122: 

1123: Let us focus on the second method of initial data specification: constructing

1124: the WDW slice. 

1125: In order to be able to directly compare the dynamics of LQC model and

1126: its WDW limit described in section \ref{sec:WDW} we take as the

1127: initial data the $\phi=\phi_o$ section of the Gaussian state

1128: \eqref{eq:WDWpsi} peaked at $p^{\star}_{\phi}=\hbar\omega^{\star}$ and

1129: $v^{\star}$. Since \eqref{eq:Theta} is a second order equation, to

1130: specify the initial data completely we also need $\dot{\Psi}(v,\phi_o)$

1131: -- the first order derivative of $\Psi$ with respect to $\phi$. We get

1132: it by integrating the integrand of \eqref{eq:WDWpsi},

1133: multiplied by $i\omega$, over $\omega$.

1134: 

1135: In order to calculate the specified integrals, we first need to compute

1136: the values of $\ub{e}_{\omega}(v)$, which are the normalized Bessel functions

1137: $\BesK$ (see section \ref{sec:WDWsols}). To do so, we apply the

1138: combined method specified by Gil, Segura and Temme \cite{BesK}.  

1139: 

1140: Once we have  $\ub{e}_{\omega}(v)$, we integrate \eqref{eq:WDWpsi} (and

1141: the analogous expression for $\dot{\Psi}$) over the domain

1142: $[\omega^{\star}-7\sigma, \omega^{\star}+7\sigma]$, using the trapezoid

1143: method. Such choice of domain provides sufficient precision -- the errors

1144: due to the removed tails are much smaller than the error associated

1145: with the computation of the $\BesK$ functions. 

1146: 

1147: % note on negative frequency correction

1148: Note that we intend to construct the initial data corresponding to the

1149: positive frequency solution to \eqref{eq:Theta}. In that case,

1150: $\dot{\Psi}$ is already determined by $\Psi$ via (\ref{eq:Psi}a).

1151: On the other hand, we determined it using positive frequency WDW equation

1152: \eqref{eq:WDWmainpm}. Since $\sqrt{\Theta}$ differs from

1153: $\sqrt{\ub{\Theta}}$, our initial data is not a pure positive frequency 

1154: solution. To minimize the negative frequency part, we choose the following

1155: method to construct states sharply peaked at large $v^{\star}$:

1156: we require $v^{\star}$ be greater than $2.5p_{\phi}^{\star}/\hbar$, 

1157: which keeps the negative frequency part below $10^{-3}$ of the

1158: entire wave packet norm.  

1159: 

1160: % direct LQC construction

1161: We avoid the above problem if we use directly the basis of functions

1162: $e_n(v)$ and sum them using (\ref{eq:Psi}b). In that case, as 

1163: the spectral profile $\tilde{\Psi}_n$ we choose the restriction of the

1164: Gaussian to $\{\omega_n\}$, that is

1165: \begin{equation}\label{eq:tPsi}

1166:   \tilde{\Psi}_n\ =\ e^{-\frac{(\omega_n-\omega^{\star})^2}{2\sigma^2}}

1167:     e^{-i\omega_n\phi^{\star}}

1168: \end{equation}

1169: where $\hbar\omega^{\star}=p_{\phi}^{\star}$ is again the location of

1170: the peak in the momentum and $\hbar\sigma/\sqrt{2}$ is its spread. 

1171: The parameter $\phi^{\star}$ is determined by the position

1172:   $v^{\star}$ of the peak in $v$ and value of $\phi_o$ via \eqref{eq:phistar}.

1173: Similarly to the WDW initial data, we sum only over $\omega_n\in

1174: [\omega^{\star}-7\sigma, \omega^{\star}+7\sigma]$. The derivative

1175: $\dot{\Psi}$ is calculated by summing over the individual terms,

1176: multiplied by $i\omega_n$. 

1177: 

1178: \subsubsection{Evolution}

1179: 

1180: Given some initial data, one can integrate it over some interval

1181: $[\phi_o,\phi_1]$ using equation \eqref{eq:Theta}, which is a system of

1182: a countable number of coupled ordinary differential equations (ODE). Due to

1183: the $v$-reflection symmetry, it is enough to restrict the domain of

1184: integration to $\lat^+=\lat_{+|v|}$ for generic lattices and

1185: $\lat^+=\lat_{\epsilon}\cap\re^{+}$ for exceptional ones. 

1186: Additional, the numerical nature of our study requires that we further

1187: restrict the domain of $v$ to the finite subset $\lat^+_{v_{\max}} :=

1188: \lat^+\cap[-v_{\max},v_{\max}]$, imposing at the outermost points of

1189: the domain some (artificial) boundary conditions. Since the system

1190: under consideration is a classically recollapsing one, it is enough to

1191: choose the reflective conditions $\Psi = \dot{\Psi} = 0$. To prevent

1192: their interference with the dynamics, we have chosen $v_{\max}$ to be

1193: not smaller than $1.3v_R(\omega^\star)+2000$. 

1194: 

1195: Upon the above restriction of the $v$ domain, the equation

1196: \eqref{eq:Theta} becomes a finite system of ODEs. We integrate it

1197: using a $4th$-order adaptive Runge-Kutta method (RK4). To adapt the

1198: steps of integration, we compare solutions corresponding to step

1199: $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\phi/2$ and require the difference between

1200: them (at a single $\Delta\phi$ step / two $\Delta\phi/2$ steps) to

1201: satisfy the inequality:  

1202: \begin{equation}

1203:   \| \Psi_{\Delta\phi} - \Psi_{\Delta\phi/2} \|\ \leq\ 

1204:   \frac{\epsilon\Delta\phi}{|\phi_1-\phi_o|} \|\Psi_{\Delta\phi/2}\|  

1205:   \ ,

1206: \end{equation}

1207: where $\epsilon$ is a preset global bound. The two solutions are compared

1208: via the following norm

1209: \begin{equation}\label{eq:norm1}

1210:   \| \Psi \|\ :=\ \sup_{v\in\lat^+_{v_{\max}}} |\Psi(v,\phi)| \ .

1211: \end{equation}

1212: Since only $|\Psi|$ enters the formulae for the expectation values of

1213: $|\hat{v}|_{\phi}$ and $v^2_{\phi}$, it is also convenient to introduce

1214: an auxiliary metric measuring the error in absolute values only

1215: \begin{equation}\label{eq:norm2}

1216:   \| \Psi_1 - \Psi_2 \|_{A}\ 

1217:   =\ \sup_{v\in\lat^+_{v_{\max}}} \big||\Psi_1(v,\phi)|-|\Psi_2(v,\phi)|\big|

1218: \end{equation}

1219: An example of convergence test done with respect to both the norm

1220: \eqref{eq:norm1} and the metric \eqref{eq:norm2} is shown in

1221: fig.\ref{fig:conv}, where the results of integration with different

1222: error bounds $\epsilon$ were compared against the result of polynomial

1223: extrapolation at $\epsilon=0$. As we can see, the integration error is

1224: for $|\Psi|$ at least one order of magnitude smaller than that for

1225: $\Psi$ itself.

1226: 

1227: \begin{figure}[tbh!]\begin{center}

1228:   \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{plots/conv-test.eps}

1229:   \caption{Convergence test for the integration method of a

1230:     Gaussian wave packet generated with $\Lambda=-0.1$ and peaked at 

1231:     $p^{\star}_{\phi}=10^3$, with relative $p_{\phi}$ spread $0.05$ and 

1232:     $v^{\star}=0.5\,v_R(p^{\star}_{\phi})$. The initial data were

1233:     specified at $\phi=0$ and evolved till $\phi=1$. The upper (red)

1234:     curve shows the norm of the difference $\|\Psi_{(N)}-\Psi\|$ between

1235:     the slice $\phi=1$ of the solution $\Psi_{(N)}$ corresponding to

1236:     the integration with $N$ steps and the same slice of its $N\to\infty$

1237:     limit $\Psi$ (found via $8$th order polynomial extrapolation). The lower

1238:     (green) curve shows the analogous difference taken with respect to

1239:     the metric \eqref{eq:norm2}.}

1240:   \label{fig:conv}

1241: \end{center}\end{figure}

1242: 

1243: \subsubsection{Observables}\label{sec:lqc-obs}

1244: 

1245: Knowing an explicit form of $\Psi$ at

1246: $\lat^+_{v_{\max}}\times[\phi_o,\phi_1]$, we can complete it to 

1247: $(\lat^+_{v_{\max}}\cup\lat^-_{v_{\max}})\times[\phi_o,\phi_1]$ (where 

1248: $\lat^-_{v_{\max}}:=\{-v:v\in\lat^+_{v_{\max}}\}$) via reflection and

1249: find the expectation values of the observables \eqref{eq:obs}, restricting

1250: the sums (\ref{eq:IP},~\ref{eq:expect}) to a finite domain

1251: $\lat^+_{v_{\max}}\cup\lat^-_{v_{\max}}$. Their dispersions can be in

1252: turn calculated in the standard way

1253: \begin{subequations}\label{eq:disp}\begin{align}

1254:   \expect{\Delta|\hat{v}|_{\phi}}^2\ &=\ \expect{\hat{v}^2_{\phi}}

1255:   - \expect{|\hat{v}|_{\phi}}^2 &

1256:   \expect{\Delta\hat{\phi}_{\phi}}^2\ &=\ \expect{\hat{\phi}^2_{\phi}}

1257:   - \expect{\hat{\phi}_{\phi}}^2 \ .

1258: \tag{\ref{eq:disp}}\end{align}\end{subequations}

1259: where $\expect{\hat{v}^2_{\phi}}$, $\expect{\hat{\phi}^2_{\phi}}$ have

1260: a form analogous to \eqref{eq:expect}.

1261: 

1262: In addition to $|\hat{v}|_{\phi}$, $\hat{\phi}_{\phi}$, it is useful to

1263: introduce another family of observables: the regularized energy density

1264: at a given moment of $\phi$

1265: \begin{subequations}\label{eq:rho}\begin{align}

1266:   \hat{\rho}_{\phi}\ 

1267:   &:=\ \frac{1}{2\lPl^6}\left(\frac{6}{8\pi\gamma}\right)^3

1268:   \hat{p}_{\phi}\,\hat{B}_{\phi}\, 

1269:   \hat{p}_{\phi}\,\hat{B}_{\phi}

1270:   \ , & %\dquad

1271:   \hat{B}_{\phi}\Psi\ 

1272:   &:=\ e^{i\sqrt{\Theta}(\phi-\phi')}B(v)\Psi(v,\phi') \ .

1273: \tag{\ref{eq:rho}}\end{align}\end{subequations}

1274: We calculate their expectation values via

1275: \begin{equation}

1276:   \sbra{\Psi}\hat{\rho}_{\phi}\sket{\Psi}\ =\ -

1277:   \frac{K^2}{2\lPl^6}\left(\frac{6}{8\pi\gamma}\right)^3

1278:   \sum_{\lat^+{v_{\max}}\cup\lat^-{v_{\max}}} B(v)

1279:   |\Phi(v,\phi)|^2 \ ,\quad \Phi\ =\ 

1280:   \partial_{\phi}(\widehat{|v|^{-1}}_{\phi}\Psi) \ ,

1281: \end{equation}

1282: whereas the dispersions can be derived analogously to \eqref{eq:disp}. 

1283: 

1284: The above methods for calculating the expectation values were applied to

1285: the wave functions calculated earlier through the RK4 method. We analyzed

1286: the states evolved (integrated) from both WDW and exact LQC Gaussian

1287: wave packets corresponding to $17$ values of $\Lambda$ ranging

1288: from $-20$ to $-10^{-6}$, for $5$ different superselection sectors

1289: covering the full range of $\varepsilon$. The peak in momentum

1290: $\phi^{\star}_{\phi}$ covered the values from $5\cdot 10^2$ to $10^4$ ($10$

1291: values), while its relative spread ranged from $0.01$ to $0.1$.

1292: 

1293: 

1294: \section{Results and discussion}\label{sec:concl}

1295: 

1296: \begin{figure}[tbh!]\begin{center}

1297:   \includegraphics[width=6.0in,angle=0]{plots/LQC-3dv1.eps}

1298:   \caption{The absolute value of the wave function representing 

1299:     a Gaussian state \eqref{eq:Psi} generated via backward integration

1300:     of an initial profile corresponding to $\Lambda=-1$,

1301:       $p_{\phi}^{\star}=5\cdot 10^3\hbar$, $\Delta 

1302:       p_{\phi}/p_{\phi}^{\star}=0.01$, $v^{\star}=0.6\,v_R(p_{\phi}^{\star})$

1303:     and evaluated at $\phi_o=0$. For presentation clarity, only values

1304:     $>10^{-6}$ were shown on the plot.} 

1305:   \label{fig:Psi-3d}

1306: \end{center}\end{figure}

1307: 

1308: An example of the results of our numerical investigations is presented

1309: in figs. \ref{fig:Psi-3d} -- \ref{fig:rho-zoom}.

1310: The general properties of the considered model are similar to the ones of

1311: the models previously investigated: $\Lambda=0$ and $k=1$, that is:

1312: \begin{itemize}

1313:   \item The states remain sharply peaked for long

1314:     evolution times. On each superselection sector and large $\omega$, the

1315:     spectrum of $\Theta$ quickly approaches uniformity (with approach

1316:     rate $\omega^{-2}$). In consequence, a wave packet sharply peaked

1317:     at large $p_{\phi}$ should be almost periodic in $\phi$. This

1318:     expectation is confirmed by our numerical results, where already for

1319:     $p^{\star}_{\phi}$ of the order of few thousands the departures

1320:     from periodicity were undetectable within given precision

1321:     of integration. 

1322:   \item For large volumes (small energy densities), the trajectory of the

1323:     expectation values $\expect{|v|_{\phi}}$ agrees with the classical

1324:     one given by \eqref{eq:WDWtraj}. In particular, the universe

1325:     recollapses at the volume predicted by the classical theory even

1326:     for large values of $\Lambda$; this was numerically confirmed

1327:     for $|\Lambda|$ up to $20$. 

1328:   \item Once the expectation value of the energy density approaches

1329:     the Planck order, we observe the departures from the classical

1330:     theory due to quantum-geometric corrections. The corrections act

1331:     effectively like an additional repulsive force, which in

1332:     particular causes the bounce at the point where the total energy

1333:     density $\expect{\hat{\rho}_{\phi}} + \Lambda/(8\pi G)$ approaches

1334:     a critical value $\rho_c\approx 0.82\rho_{\Pl}$, identified

1335:     already in \cite{aps-imp}. 

1336:   \item After the bounce, the universe again enters (another) classical

1337:     trajectory repeating the cycle of expansion, recollapse and

1338:     contraction till the energy density grows again to Planck scale. In

1339:     consequence, the evolution is periodic and, similarly to the $k=1$ 

1340:     case, we are dealing with a cyclic model.

1341:   \item The wave packet remains sharply peaked even in the region

1342:     where the quantum corrections are strong. In consequence, the evolution

1343:     can be described by the classical effective dynamics, similarly to the

1344:     $\Lambda=0$ case. Indeed, the comparison of the values of

1345:     $\expect{|v|_{\phi}}$ with the effective trajectories corresponding to

1346:     the holonomy corrections (see Appendix \ref{sec:eff}) has

1347:     shown that they agree up to an error well below $\expect{\Delta v}$.

1348: \end{itemize}

1349: 

1350: % v-trajectory + rho-tralectory

1351: \begin{figure}[tbh!]\begin{center}

1352:   $a)$\hspace{8cm}$b)$

1353:   \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{plots/LQC-v-traj.eps}

1354:   \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{plots/LQC-rho.eps}

1355:   \caption{The expectation values (red bars) of $|\hat{v}|_{\phi}$ $(a)$ and

1356:     $\hat{\rho}_{\phi}$ $(b)$ are compared against

1357:     the classical (red lines) and effective (blue lines) trajectories of

1358:     $v(\phi)$ and $\rho_{\phi}(v)$ respectively. The data corresponds

1359:     to a Gaussian wave packet \eqref{eq:Psi} with $\Lambda=-0.1$, 

1360:     $p^{\star}_{\phi}=10^4\hbar$, $\Delta p_{\phi}/p^{\star}_{\phi}=0.012$, 

1361:     $v^{\star}=0.55\,v_R(p^{\star}_{\phi})$ 

1362:     specified at $\phi_o = 0$ and evolved backwards. Because of the large

1363:     changes in magnitude of $\expect{\rho_{\phi}}$, a logarythmic

1364:     scale was used for the $y$-axis of fig.$b)$.

1365:   }

1366:   \label{fig:vr-traj}

1367: \end{center}\end{figure}

1368: 

1369: % v-zooms: bounce + recollapse

1370: \begin{figure}[tbh!]\begin{center}

1371:   $a)$\hspace{8cm}$b)$

1372:   \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{plots/LQC-v-z1.eps}

1373:   \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{plots/LQC-v-z2.eps}

1374:   \caption{A detailed picture of the comparizon of

1375:     $\expect{|v|_{\phi}}$ against the $v(\phi)$ trajectories presented in

1376:     fig.~\ref{fig:vr-traj}a is shown near the bounce $(a)$ and recollapse

1377:     $(b)$ points respectively.} 

1378:   \label{fig:v-zoom}

1379: \end{center}\end{figure}

1380: 

1381: % rho-zooms: bounce + recollapse

1382: \begin{figure}[tbh!]\begin{center}

1383:   $a)$\hspace{8cm}$b)$

1384:   \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{plots/LQC-rho-z1.eps}

1385:   \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{plots/LQC-rho-z2.eps}

1386:   \caption{A detailed picture of the comparizon of

1387:     $\expect{\rho_{\phi}}$ against the $\rho_{\phi}(\phi)$ trajectories

1388:     presented in fig.~\ref{fig:vr-traj}b is shown near the bounce $(a)$ and

1389:     recollapse $(b)$ points respectively.}

1390:   \label{fig:rho-zoom}

1391: \end{center}\end{figure}

1392: 

1393: % DISCUSSION

1394: 

1395: The results listed above show that the picture based on the analysis of the

1396: previous models is valid here as well. Similarly to that cases, the

1397: correction due to the discreteness of geometry cause gravity to become 

1398: repulsive at large energy densities and, in particular, force the

1399: universe to bounce when the energy density reaches a critical value. This

1400: indicates that $\rho_c$ may be a fundamental quantity, independent on

1401: the matter content at least in isotropic cases. Furthermore, the

1402: states remain sharply peaked even in regions where quantum-geometric

1403: effects dominate the dynamics, where in principle one expects to

1404: loose the semiclassicality. The dynamics itself can be well approximated by 

1405: an effective Friedmann equation (see Appendix \ref{sec:eff})

1406: \begin{equation}

1407:   H^2 = \fracs{8\pi G}{3}\rho(1-\rho/\rho_c) \ ,

1408: \end{equation}

1409: where $H$ is a Hubble rate and $\rho$ is a total energy density.

1410: 

1411: % dispersion

1412: The agreement between the quantum evolution and the effective one brings out

1413: another issue: since the spectrum of $\Theta$ is not exactly uniform, the

1414: states are not exactly periodic and a spread increase can be observed

1415: between cycles. This leads ultimately to the loss of semiclassicality.

1416: This in turn raises the question about the size of time interval in which

1417: the state remains sharply peaked.

1418: 

1419: To answer this question, we analyzed the spread increase within one cycle of

1420: evolution. It can be estimated via the heuristic methods

1421: described in section \ref{sec:heuDisp} and turns out to be much smaller than in

1422: $k=1$ case. For example, when $\Lambda \approx -10^{-120}$, a

1423: universe peaked about $p^{\star}_{\phi}$ large enough for it to grow

1424: to megaparsec size, and with relative dispersions in $p_{\phi}$ and

1425: $v$ of the same order, will need at least $10^{70}$ cycles for the

1426: relative dispersion to double. The number of cycles needed to grow

1427: to a considerably large value (say $10^{-6}$) is correspondingly larger. 

1428: 

1429: For small values of the momentum (that is $p_{\phi}^{\star}

1430: \leq 10^3\hbar$), we were able to confirm the heuristics numerically. 

1431: Also, since for larger momenta the states become more and more

1432: semiclassical, we expect the estimate to become more accurate 

1433: there. The result is however far from general, as numerical tests were 

1434: done for a specific family of states only, thus (as it was discussed

1435: in \cite{mb-L}) do not allow us to exclude the situation, where some

1436: specific example of state violates the bound. On the other hand, the

1437: proposed estimate is based on the properties of the spectrum of

1438: $\Theta$, thus we expect that a bound of at least a similar order

1439: should hold in general. Such situation happened for example in the

1440: $\Lambda=0$ case \cite{cs-rec}, where it was possible to find (in the

1441: context of sLQC) an analogous bound satisfied by all the states

1442: which admit semiclassical epoch (see section \ref{sec:intro}) in their

1443: history. A similar bound was next derived in exact LQC

1444: \cite{kp-rec}. More precise statements regarding model considered here

1445: will however require further work.\\  

1446: 

1447: \noindent{{\bf Acknowledgments}} We would like to thank Abhay Ashtekar,

1448: Wojciech Kami\'nski and Parampreet Singh for extensive discussions and

1449: helpful comments. We also profitted from discussions with Martin

1450: Bojowald and Jerzy Lewandowski. This work was supported in part by the

1451: National Science Foundation (NSF) grant PHY-0456913 and the Eberly

1452: research funds. TP acknowledges financial aid provided by the I3P

1453: framework of CSIC and the European Social Fund. EB acknowledges the

1454: support of the Center for Gravitational Wave Physics, funded by the

1455: National Science Foundation under Cooperative Agreement PHY-0114375.

1456: 

1457: \appendix

1458: 

1459: \section{Anti-symmetric sector of LQC}\label{sec:antisymm}

1460: 

1461: Due to the lack of a parity violating interaction in the model considered in

1462: this article, the change in the triad orientation is a large gauge symmetry. 

1463: This allowed us to restrict the physical Hilbert space to the subspace

1464: of states invariant with respect to the reflection in $v$

1465: corresponding to this orientation change -- the symmetric sector. In

1466: principle, however, we could choose instead the space of states which

1467: are antisymmetric under considered transformation. There is no

1468: physical reason to favor one of these two choices over the other. This

1469: raised a concerns on whether the results of LQC are tied to the

1470: selection of symmetric sector and whether they will still hold in the 

1471: antisymmetric one. We address these concerns here by repeating the

1472: constructions of section \ref{sec:LQC}, this time building the

1473: physical Hilbert space out of antisymmetric states. 

1474: 

1475: First, following section \ref{sec:LQC} we divide the kinematical

1476: Hilbert space $\Hilkg$ onto superselection sectors, i.e.~the spaces $\Hilkge$

1477: of functions supported on lattices $\lat_{\varepsilon}$. The results

1478: of \cite{klp-nL} (self-adjointness of $\Theta$ and discreteness of its

1479: spectrum on each of these spaces) were derived without any symmetry

1480: assumption, thus they hold also in our case. Furthermore, as we will show

1481: below, the spectrum is non-degenerate also when we restrict the space

1482: of eigenfunctions to the antisymmetric ones. In consequence, we can

1483: construct the physical Hilbert space as specified in \eqref{eq:Psi},

1484: but by imposing on the relevant eigenfunctions $e_n^a$ the condition

1485: $e^a_{n}(v) = -e^a_{n}(-v)$ instead of the symmetry requirement. 

1486: 

1487: To check the effect of the above modification on the dynamics, we have to

1488: examine how it changes the exact form of $e_n$. That, in turn, depends

1489: on the value of the superselection sector label $\varepsilon$.

1490: \begin{itemize}

1491:   \item For $\epsilon\neq 0,2$ (generic lattices), the symmetric

1492:     eigenfunction on $\lat_{\varepsilon}$ is completely determined (see

1493:     discussion in section \ref{sec:num-eig}) by its restriction to the

1494:     lattice $\lat_{+|\varepsilon|}$, with the remaining part supported

1495:     on $\lat_{-|\varepsilon|}$ determined via a symmetry

1496:     relation. Furthermore, symmetry does not impose any constraint on

1497:     the part supported on $\lat_{+|\varepsilon|}$ itself and we can

1498:     complete it to the antisymmetric eigenfunction by simply acting with

1499:     $-\Pi$ on it. In consequence, there exists a $1-1$ correspondence between

1500:     these two types of eigenfunctions. Namely, each antisymmetric

1501:     eigenfunction $\psi^a$ is related to the symmetric one $\psi$ via: 

1502:     \begin{equation}\label{eq:sa-eg}

1503:       \psi^a(v)\ =\ \begin{cases} \psi(v) & v\in\lat_{+|\varepsilon|} \\

1504:       -\psi(v) & v\in\lat_{-|\varepsilon|} \end{cases} \ ,

1505:     \end{equation}

1506:     This implies that, in the antisymmetric sector, the spectrum of

1507:     $\Theta$ is the same as in the symmetric one. 

1508:   \item When $\epsilon=2$, the situation is similar to the generic case. 

1509:     The solutions to \eqref{eq:eigen} on two sublattices

1510:     $\lat_{\varepsilon}\cap\re^+$ and $\lat_{\varepsilon}\cap\re^-$

1511:     are independent, thus each eigenfunction is again determined by

1512:     its restriction to $\lat_{\varepsilon}\cap\re^+$. In consequence,

1513:     we again have the $1-1$ correspondence between the symmetric and

1514:     antisymmetric eigenfunctions

1515:     \begin{equation}\label{eq:sa-e2}

1516:       \psi^a(v)\ =\ \begin{cases} \psi(v) & v>0 \\

1517:       -\psi(v) & v<0 \end{cases} \ ,

1518:     \end{equation}

1519:     and the spectra of $\Theta$ in both sectors are identical.

1520:   \item The case when $\epsilon=0$ requires a bit more care. In section

1521:     \ref{sec:num-eig}, the symmetry assumption imposed on solutions to

1522:     \eqref{eq:eigen} an additional constraint, allowing to determine

1523:     $\psi(4)$ for known $\psi(0)$. Antisymmetry replaces this

1524:     constraint by a different one: $\psi^a(0)=0$. Therefore the whole

1525:     procedure of identifying the normalizable eigenfunctions has to be

1526:     redone. We can however apply exactly the same procedure as in

1527:     section \ref{sec:num-eig}. The results are as follows:

1528:     \begin{itemize}

1529:       \item The qualitative features of the eigenfunctions remain the

1530:         same. In particular, we can still distinguish the same 5 zones of

1531:         exponential/oscillatory behavior (see fig.\ref{fig:antisymm}a). 

1532:         Their boundaries $v_B$, $v_R$ are exactly the same as in the 

1533:         symmetric case.

1534:       \item The spectrum of $\Theta$ in the antisymmetric sector is

1535:         different than in the symmetric case, however the eigenvalues of

1536:         one sector approach the ones of the other very quickly (see

1537:         fig.\ref{fig:antisymm}b). In consequence, the separation

1538:         between the eigenvalues approaches, as $\omega\to\infty$, the same

1539:         limit shown in fig.~\ref{fig:dw}b. The rate of approach to

1540:         this limit also remains the same.

1541:     \end{itemize}

1542: \end{itemize}

1543: 

1544: The similarity between eigenfunctions of the two considered sectors

1545: implies an analogous similarity between the physical states. In particular,

1546: for $\varepsilon\neq 0$, if the eigenfunctions satisfy equations 

1547: (\ref{eq:sa-eg}-\ref{eq:sa-e2}), so will the wave

1548: functions. Then if we take two physical states, a symmetric and

1549: an antisymmetric one with the same spectral profile $\tilde{\Psi}_n$, the

1550: expectation values of (all the powers of) the observables defined in

1551: section \ref{sec:lqc-obs} will be {\it exactly the same} for both of

1552: them. 

1553: 

1554: For $\varepsilon=0$, due to the slight difference in the spectrum, we have to 

1555: repeat the analysis of \ref{sec:num-state}. But again the numerical

1556: checks reveal no measurable deviations from the results obtained in the symmetric

1557: sector. 

1558: 

1559: In summary the results obtained for both $\varepsilon\neq 0$ and

1560: $\varepsilon=0$ show that working  with the antisymmetric sector instead of

1561: the symmetric one does not produce any qualitative changes or (apart from

1562: a slightly different spectrum of $\Theta$ in $\varepsilon=0$ case)

1563: any measurable modifications to the physics predicted by the model.

1564: 

1565: \begin{figure}[tbh!]\begin{center}

1566:   $a)$\hspace{8cm}$b)$

1567:   \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{plots/eigenval-anti.eps}

1568:   \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{plots/eigenfs-anti.eps}

1569:   \caption{$a)$ A set of lowest ($\omega<44$) spectrum elements

1570:     of $\Theta$ for the symmetric and antisymmetric sector (with

1571:     $\Lambda=-1$) is 

1572:     shown with respect to $\pm|\varepsilon|$. The green x-es 

1573:     represent the eigenvalues corresponding to the cases where the relation

1574:     between symmetric and antisymmetric eigenfunctions is given by

1575:     (\ref{eq:sa-eg}, \ref{eq:sa-e2}) (denoted as {\it generic}). The

1576:     red crosses and blue stars represent the eigenvalues of, respectively,

1577:     the symmetric and antisymmetric eigenfunctions on the lattice

1578:     $\lat_{\varepsilon=0}$. The 

1579:     antisymmetric eigenfunctions $e^a_{0}$ to $e^a_{4}$ corresponding

1580:     to the eigenvalues shown in $a)$ are presented in $b)$. For clarity,

1581:     they are plotted on the $v>0$ semiaxis only.} 

1582:   \label{fig:antisymm}

1583: \end{center}\end{figure}

1584: 

1585: 

1586: \section{Heuristic description}\label{sec:heu}

1587: 

1588: In this sections we discuss some issues related to the heuristic method

1589: for the description of the quantum evolution. We divide its content

1590: into two parts, dedicated respectvely to the effective classical

1591: dynamics and the estimate of the dispersion growth during the

1592: evolution of the semiclassical state. 

1593: 

1594: 

1595: \subsection{Effective dynamics}\label{sec:eff}

1596: 

1597: The numerical tests described in the main body of the paper have shown that

1598: if a state is semiclassical at some epoch, it will remains so for 

1599: a large fraction of the evolution (i.e., a large number of cycles of

1600: bounces and recollapses). 

1601: In particular it remains sharply peaked even in the regions where the quantum

1602: gravity corrections modify the dynamics. This indicates the existence

1603: of a (n effective) classical theory whose predictions well agree with

1604: those of LQC.

1605: 

1606: At the rigorous level, such theory was derived for $\Lambda=0$

1607: \cite{VT} with the use of the geometric formulation of quantum mechanics

1608: \cite{GQM}. Up to the second order quantum corrections (remaining 

1609: always small during the evolution), its results confirm the

1610: predictions of the classical effective dynamics proposed earlier 

1611: \cite{pv,aps-imp}, derived heuristically by replacing the connection $c$ in

1612: classical Hamiltonian by $\sin(\bar{\mu}c)/\bar{\mu}$. Here we apply

1613: this heuristic method to the system with a cosmological constant

1614: considered in the main body of the paper. An analogous derivation of

1615: the effective dynamics (to the level of quadratures) and the analysis of

1616: the resulting trajectories was done in \cite{eff}, however the

1617: trajectory parametrization used there makes the direct comparizon with

1618: the results of quantum evolution difficult.  

1619: 

1620: The classical Hamiltonian of the system is related to the constraint

1621: (\ref{eq:classHgrav}, \ref{eq:classHcompl}) via $\Heff = C/(16\pi G)$. 

1622: Application of the rule $c \to \sin(\bar{\mu}c)/\bar{\mu}$ yields the

1623: result 

1624: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Heff}

1625:   \Heff\ =\ 

1626:   -\frac{3}{8\pi G\gamma^2\bar{\mu}^2}|p|^{\frac{1}{2}}\sin^2(\bar{\mu}c) 

1627:   + \frac{1}{2}\frac{p^{2}_{\phi}}{|p|^{\frac{3}{2}}}

1628:   + \frac{p^{\frac{3}{2}}}{16\pi G} \Lambda \ .

1629: \end{equation}

1630: Hamilton's equations $\dot{v} = \{v,\Heff\}$ and $\dot{\phi} =

1631: \{\phi,\Heff\}$ are identical to the $\Lambda=0$ case. Written in terms

1632: of $v$ they are respectively

1633: \begin{subequations}\label{eq:Ham}\begin{align}

1634:     \label{eq:vdot}

1635:   \dot{v}\ &=\ \frac{3v}{\sqrt{2\sqrt{3}\pi\gamma\lPl^2}} 

1636:     \sin(\bar{\mu}c) \cos(\bar{\mu}c) \ , &

1637:   \dot{\phi}\ &=\ \left(\frac{6}{8\pi\gamma\lPl^2}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}

1638:     \frac{K}{|v|}p_{\phi} \ . 

1639: \tag{\ref{eq:Ham}}\end{align}\end{subequations}  

1640: Taking the square of (\ref{eq:Ham}a) and supplying $\sin(\bar{\mu}c)$

1641: via \eqref{eq:Heff}, we arrive to an analog of Friedmann equation:

1642: \begin{equation}\label{eq:FriedEff}

1643:   H^2\ :=\ \left(\frac{\dot{v}}{3v}\right)^2\ =\

1644:   \frac{8\pi G}{3} \rho \left( 1-\frac{\rho}{\rho_c} \right) \ , 

1645: \end{equation}

1646: where $\rho$ and $\rho_c$ are the total matter energy density and the critical

1647: energy density found in \cite{aps-imp}

1648: \begin{subequations}\label{eq:RhoRho}\begin{align}

1649:   \rho\ &:=\ \rho_{\phi}+\frac{\Lambda}{8\pi G} \ , &

1650:   \rho_{\phi}\ &:=\ \frac{p^2_{\phi}}{2p^3} \ , &

1651:   \rho_c\ &:=\ \frac{\sqrt{3}}{16\pi^2\gamma^3 G^2\hbar} \ .

1652: \tag{\ref{eq:RhoRho}}\end{align}\end{subequations}

1653: Applying (\ref{eq:Ham}b), we can rewrite the resulting Friedmann

1654: equation in the form involving $v$ and $\phi$ only

1655: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Fried1}

1656:   v_{\phi}\ =\ \pm\, v\,\sqrt{12\pi G} \left[ \frac{\rho}{\rho_{\phi}}

1657:   \left(1-\frac{\rho}{\rho_c}\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}} \ .

1658: \end{equation}

1659: The sign in front of the right hand side of the above equation depends on

1660: the evolution epoch, and in particular changes during

1661: recollapse. Therefore, it is convenient to rewrite \eqref{eq:Fried1} in

1662: the second order form (obtained by differentiating it):

1663: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Fried2}

1664:   v_{\phi\phi}\ =\ 12\pi G\, v 

1665:   \left[ \left(\frac{2\rho}{\rho_{\phi}}-1\right)

1666:          \left(1-\frac{\rho}{\rho_c}\right) 

1667:          + \frac{\rho}{\rho_c} \right] \ .

1668: \end{equation}

1669: 

1670: % numerical solutions

1671: To compare the results of the numerical evolution, we integrated

1672: equation \eqref{eq:Fried2} numerically using a fifth-order adaptive

1673: Runge-Kutta method (known as {\it RK45}). The initial value $\dot{v}$,

1674: needed to complete the initial data specification, was calculated via

1675: \eqref{eq:Fried1}. 

1676: 

1677: An example of the comparison results is shown in

1678: figs.~\ref{fig:vr-traj},~\ref{fig:v-zoom},~\ref{fig:rho-zoom}. The 

1679: trajectories agree with the results of the quantum evolution everywhere. 

1680: The differences between them are much smaller than the spreads of the wave

1681: packets even near the bounce.  

1682: 

1683: 

1684: \subsection{Bound on the dispersion growth}\label{sec:heuDisp}

1685: 

1686: The analysis of section \ref{sec:num} has shown that the states that are

1687: semiclassical at a given initial time $\phi_o$ remain so for many cycles

1688: of bounces and recollapses. However, due to non-uniformity of the

1689: spectrum of the $\Theta$ operator, the initially coherent wave packet slowly

1690: spreads out. Here we derive an upper bound on this spread growth using

1691: some heuristic estimates and applying the knowledge about the spectrum

1692: of $\Theta$ presented in section \ref{sec:num-eig}.

1693: 

1694: To start with, let us note that for large $p_{\phi}=\hbar\omega$ the

1695: distance between neighboring eigenvalues is almost constant

1696: $\omega_{n+1}-\omega_n \approx \Delta\omega$ (see \eqref{eq:dw}). In

1697: consequence, the wave function is almost periodic in $\phi$, with an

1698: approximate period equal to

1699: \begin{equation}\label{eq:tw}

1700:   T\ \approx\ \frac{2\pi}{\Delta\omega} \ .

1701: \end{equation}

1702: Now, if we consider two classical (effective) trajectories

1703: corresponding to $p_{\phi}$ equal respectively to $\hbar\omega$ and

1704: $\hbar\omega+\delta\omega$, the difference between periods is

1705: determined by the corrections to the uniformity of

1706: $\Delta\omega_n$. They are in turn bounded by the function

1707: $A\,(\Delta\omega)^2\,\omega^{-2}$ (see \eqref{eq:A-bound}). Applying

1708: this bound to \eqref{eq:tw} (i.e. taking $\Delta\omega_n =

1709: \Delta\omega(1+A\omega^{-2})$) and neglecting terms of higher order in

1710: $\delta\omega$, we obtain the following difference in $T$:  

1711: \begin{equation}

1712:   \delta T\ \approx\ \frac{4\pi A}{\omega^3}\delta\omega \ ,

1713: \end{equation}

1714: which can be now used to estimate the growth of $\Delta v/v$ within one

1715: cycle. To do so, we note that, since the cosmological constant term acts

1716: like a positive $v^2$ potential, the speed $v_{\phi}$ is bounded from

1717: above by the speed $v^o_{\phi}$ of a classical universe with $\Lambda=0$

1718: \begin{equation}

1719:   |v_{\phi}|\ \leq\ |v^o_{\phi}|\ :=\ \sqrt{12\pi G}|v| \ .

1720: \end{equation} 

1721: In consequence:  

1722: \begin{equation}\label{eq:ddv-bound}

1723:   \frac{\delta v}{v}\ \leq\ 8\sqrt{3}\pi^{\frac{3}{2}}A\,

1724:              \frac{1}{\omega^2}\,

1725:              \frac{\delta\omega}{\omega} \ .

1726: \end{equation}

1727:   

1728: In order to arrive to this bound, we used some heuristic methods that need to

1729: be confirmed using numerics. Unfortunately, due to the extremely small

1730: values of $\delta v/v$, we were able to check \eqref{eq:ddv-bound} only

1731: for small values of the frequency, $\omega\leq 10^3$. To do so, we

1732: calculated the semiclassical states in two intervals of $\phi$

1733: separated by a large ($>100$) distance in $\phi$ and compared the

1734: difference between the maximal relative dispersion in $v$ observed 

1735: within one cycle in both of the chosen intervals. To compute the wave

1736: functions, we used a direct summation method specified in section

1737: \ref{sec:num-state}. Within the checked range $500\leq\omega\leq 1000$, the

1738: bound was satisfied.  

1739: 

1740: 

1741: 

1742: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1743:   \bibitem{lqc} M.~Bojowald, {Loop Quantum Cosmology}, Living

1744:     Rev.Rel. \textbf{8}, 11 (2005), \texttt{arXiv: gr-qc/0601085};\\

1745:     A.~Ashtekar, {An Introduction to Loop Quantum Gravity Through

1746:     Cosmology}, Nuovo Cim. \textbf{122B}, 135-155 (2007),

1747:     \texttt{arXiv:gr-qc/0702030}.

1748:   \bibitem{lqg} 

1749:     C.~Rovelli, {\em Quantum Gravity} (CUP, Cambridge, 2004);\\

1750:     A.~Ashtekar and J.~Lewandowski, {Background Independent Quantum

1751:     Gravity: A Status Report}, Class.Quant.Grav. \textbf{21}, R53 

1752:     (2004), \texttt{arXiv:gr-qc/0404018};\\

1753:     T.~Thiemann, {\em Introduction to Modern Canonical

1754:     Quantum General Relativity} (CUP, Cambridge, 2007).

1755:   \bibitem{aps} A.~Ashtekar, T.~Pawlowski and P.~Singh, {Quantum nature

1756:     of the big bang}, Phys.Rev.Lett. \textbf{96}, 141301 (2006),

1757:     \texttt{arXiv:gr-qc/0602086}.

1758:   \bibitem{aps-old} A.~Ashtekar, T.~Pawlowski and P.~Singh, {Quantum nature

1759:     of the big bang: An analytical and numerical investigation},

1760:     Phys.Rev. {\bf D73}, 124038 (2006), \texttt{arXiv:gr-qc/0604013}.

1761:   \bibitem{aps-imp} A.~Ashtekar, T.~Pawlowski and P.~Singh, {Quantum nature

1762:     of the big bang: Improved dynamics}, Phys.Rev. {\bf D74}, 084003

1763:     (2006), \texttt{arXiv:gr-qc/0607039}.

1764:   \bibitem{pv} P.~Singh and K.~Vandersloot,  {Non-Singular Bouncing

1765:     Universes in Loop Quantum Cosmology}, Phys.Rev. \textbf{D72}

1766:     084004, (2005), \texttt{arXiv:gr-qc/0606032}. 

1767:   \bibitem{apsv} A.~Ashtekar, T.~Pawlowski, P.~Singh and

1768:     K.~Vandersloot, {Loop quantum cosmology of k=1 FRW models},

1769:     Phys.Rev. {\bf D75}, 024035 (2007), \texttt{arXiv:gr-qc/0612104}.

1770:   \bibitem{klp} L.~Szulc, W.~Kaminski and J.~Lewandowski, 

1771:     {Closed FRW model in Loop Quantum Cosmology}, Class.Quant.Grav. 

1772:     \textbf{24}, 2621-2635 (2007), \texttt{arXiv:gr-qc/0612101}.

1773:   \bibitem{klp-nL} W.~Kaminski and J.~Lewandowski, 

1774:     {The flat FRW model in LQC: the self-adjointness}, (2007),

1775:     \texttt{arXiv:0709.3120}.

1776:   \bibitem{acs} A.~Ashtekar, A.~Corichi and P.~Singh, {Robustness of

1777:     key features of loop quantum cosmology}, (2007),

1778:     \texttt{arXiv:0710.3565}. 

1779:   \bibitem{cs-rec} A.~Corichi, P.~Singh, {Quantum bounce and cosmic

1780:     recall}, (2007), \texttt{arXiv:0710.4543}.

1781:   \bibitem{chv} D.~W.~Chiou, {Loop Quantum Cosmology in Bianchi Type I

1782:     Models: Analytical Investigation}, Phys.Rev. \textbf{D75}, 024029

1783:     (2007), \texttt{arXiv:gr-qc/0609029};\\

1784:     D.~W.~Chiou, {Effective Dynamics for the Cosmological Bounces in

1785:       Bianchi Type I Loop Quantum Cosmology}, (2007),

1786:     \texttt{arXiv:gr-qc/0703010};\\

1787:     D.~W.~Chiou and K.~Vandersloot, {The behavior of non-linear

1788:       anisotropies in bouncing Bianchi I models of loop quantum

1789:       cosmology}, Phys.Rev. \textbf{D76}, 084015 (2007),

1790:     \texttt{arXiv:0707.2548};\\

1791:     D.~W.~Chiou, {Effective Dynamics, Big Bounces and Scaling Symmetry

1792:       in Bianchi Type I Loop Quantum Cosmology},

1793:     Phys.Rev. \textbf{D76}, 

1794:     124037 (2007), \texttt{arXiv:0710.0416};\\

1795:     L.~Szulc, {Loop Quantum Cosmology of Diagonal Bianchi Type I

1796:       model: simplified theory}, (2008), \texttt{arXiv:0803.3559}.

1797:   \bibitem{gp} M.~Campiglia, R.~Gambini and J.~Pullin, {Loop

1798:     quantization of spherically symmetric midi-superspaces},

1799:     Class.Quant.Grav. \textbf{24}, 3649-3672 (2007),

1800:     \texttt{arXiv:gr-qc/0703135}. 

1801:   \bibitem{gm-letter} M.~Mart\'in-Benito, L.~J.~Garay and G.~A.~Mena 

1802:     Marug\'an, {Hybrid Quantum Gowdy Cosmology: Combining Loop and Fock

1803:     Quantization}, (2008), \texttt{arXiv:0804.1098}.

1804:   \bibitem{eff} J.~Mielczarek, T.~Stachowiak, M.~Szyd{\l}owski, {Exact

1805:     solutions for Big Bounce in loop quantum cosmology}, (2008),

1806:     \texttt{arXiv:0801.0502}.

1807:   \bibitem{abl} A.~Ashtekar, M.~Bojowald, J.~Lewandowski,

1808:     {Mathematical structure of loop quantum cosmology}, Adv.Theo.%

1809:     Math.Phys. \textbf{7}, 233-268 (2003), \texttt{arXiv:gr-qc/0304074}. 

1810:   \bibitem{lqc-MB}

1811:     M.~Bojowald, {Absence of singularity in loop quantum cosmology},

1812:     Phys.Rev.Lett. \textbf{86}, 5227-5230 (2001),

1813:     \texttt{arXiv:gr-qc/0102069};\\ 

1814:     M.~Bojowald, {Isotropic loop quantum cosmology},

1815:     Class.Quant.Grav. \textbf{19}, 2717-2741 (2002), 

1816:     \texttt{arXiv:gr-qc/0202077}.

1817:   \bibitem{ThTrick} T.~Thiemann, Anomaly-free formulation of

1818:     non-perturbative, four-dimensional Lorentzian quantum gravity,

1819:     {Phys.Lett.} \textbf{B380}, 257-264 (1998),

1820:     \texttt{gr-qc/9606088};\\

1821:     T.~Thiemann, Quantum spin dynamics (QSD), 

1822:     {Class.Quant.Grav.} \textbf{15}, 839-873 (1998),

1823:     \texttt{gr-qc/9606089};\\ 

1824:     T.~Thiemann, QSD V : Quantum gravity as the natural regulator of

1825:     matter quantum field theories, {Class.Quant.Grav.} \textbf{15}, 

1826:     1281-1314 (1998), \texttt{gr-qc/9705019}.

1827:   \bibitem{gave} 

1828:     D.~Marolf, Refined algebraic quantization: Systems with a single

1829:     constraint, (1995), \texttt{arXiv:gr-qc/9508015};\\

1830:     D.~Marolf, {Quantum observables and recollapsing dynamics}, 

1831:     Class.Quant.Grav. {\bf 12}, 1199-1220 (1995), 

1832:     \texttt{arXiv:gr-qc/9404053};\\

1833:     D.~Marolf, {Observables and a Hilbert space for Bianchi IX}, 

1834:     Class.Quant.Grav. {\bf 12}, 1441-1454 (1995),

1835:     \texttt{arXiv:gr-qc/9409049};\\

1836:     D.~Marolf, {Almost ideal clocks in quantum cosmology: A brief

1837:       derivation of time}, Class.Quant.Grav. {\bf 12}, 2469-2486 (1995),

1838:     \texttt{arXiv:gr-qc/9412016};\\

1839:     A.~Ashtekar, J.~Lewandowski, D.~Marolf,

1840:     J.~Mour\~ao and T.~Thiemann, Quantization of diffeomorphism

1841:     invariant theories of connections with local degrees of freedom,

1842:     {J.Math.Phys.} \textbf{36}, 6456-6493 (1995), 

1843:     \texttt{arXiv:gr-qc/9504018}.

1844:   \bibitem{BesK} A.~Gil, J.~Segura and N.~M.~Temme, Evaluation of the

1845:     modified Bessel function of the third kind of imaginary orders, {

1846:       J.Comput.Phys.} {\bf 175}, 398-411 (2002);\\

1847:     A.~Gil, J.~Segura and N.~M.~Temme, Computation of the modified Bessel

1848:     function of the third kind of imaginary orders: uniform Airy-type

1849:     asymptotic expansion, {J.Comput.App.Math.} {\bf 153}, 225-234

1850:     (2003);\\

1851:     A.~Gil, J.~Segura and N.~M.~Temme, 

1852:     Computing solutions of the modified Bessel differential equation for

1853:     imaginary orders and positive arguments,

1854:     {ACM Trans.Math.Soft.} {\bf 30}, 145-158 (2004),

1855:     \texttt{arXiv:math/0401128};\\

1856:     A.~Gil, J.~Segura and N.~M.~Temme, 

1857:     Algorithm 831: Modified Bessel functions of imaginary order and

1858:     positive argument, {ACM Trans.Math.Soft.} {\bf 30}, 159-164

1859:     (2004), \texttt{arXiv:cs/0401008}.

1860:   \bibitem{mb-L} M.~Bojowald, {Harmonic cosmology: How much can we

1861:     know about a universe before the big bang?}, (2007),

1862:     \texttt{arXiv:0710.4919v1};\\

1863:     M.~Bojowald, {Quantum nature of cosmological

1864:     bounces}, (2008), \texttt{arXiv:0801.4001}.

1865:   \bibitem{kp-rec} W.~Kami\'nski and T.~Pawlowski, (2008), 

1866:     {\it in preparation}

1867:   \bibitem{VT} V.~Taveras, IGPG preprint, (2006).

1868:   \bibitem{GQM} A.~Ashtekar and T.~Schilling, Geometrical formulation of

1869:     quantum mechanics, In: \textit{On Einstein's path}, A.~Harvery, ed

1870:     (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998), \texttt{arXiv:gr-qc/9706069}.

1871:     T.~Schilling, Geometry of quantum mechanics, Ph.D. Dissertation,

1872:     Penn State (1996), \texttt{%

1873:     http://cgpg.gravity.psu.edu/archives/thesis/index.shtml}

1874: \end{thebibliography}

1875: 

1876: \end{document}

1877: