1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %  03.00

3: %   IOP Style

4: %  LATEX FILE OF THE PAPER:

5: %   "String cosmology versus standard and inflationary cosmology"

6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

7: 

8: \documentclass[12pt]{iopart}

9:  \input{epsf.sty}

10:  \input{epsf.tex}

11:  \eqnobysec

12: 

13: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

14: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

15: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

16: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

17: 

18: \def\square{\hbox to1pt{\hfill}\mathchoice\sqr84\sqr84

19: \sqr84\sqr84\hbox

20:        to1pt{\hfill}}

21: \def\sqr#1#2{{\vcenter{\hrule height.#2pt \hbox{\vrule width.#2pt

22:        height#1pt\kern#1pt \vrule width.#2pt} \hrule height.#2pt}}}

23: 

24: %minore o circa uguale

25: \def\laq{\raise 0.4ex\hbox{$<$}\kern -0.8em\lower 0.62

26: ex\hbox{$\sim$}}

27: %maggiore o circa uguale

28: \def\gaq{\raise 0.4ex\hbox{$>$}\kern -0.7em\lower 0.62

29: ex\hbox{$\sim$}}

30: 

31: \def \pa {\partial}

32: \def \ti {\tilde}

33: \def \se {{\prime\prime}}

34: \def \ra {\rightarrow}

35: \def \la {\lambda}

36: \def \La {\Lambda}

37: \def \Da {\Delta}

38: \def \b {\beta}

39: \def \a {\alpha}

40: \def \ap {\alpha^{\prime}}

41: \def \Ga {\Gamma}

42: \def \ga {\gamma}

43: \def \sg {\sigma}

44: \def \da {\delta}

45: \def \ep {\epsilon}

46: \def \r {\rho}

47: \def \om {\omega}

48: \def \Om {\Omega}

49: \def \noi {\noindent}

50: 

51: \def \bp {\dot{\beta}}

52: \def \bpp {\ddot{\beta}}

53: \def \fpu {\dot{\phi}}

54: \def \fpp {\ddot{\phi}}

55: \def \hp {\dot{h}}

56: \def \hpp {\ddot{h}}

57: 

58: \def \fb {\overline \phi}

59: \def \rb {\overline \rho}

60: \def \pb {\overline p}

61: \def \fbp {\dot{\fb}}

62: 

63: % Uncomment next line if AMS fonts required

64: %\usepackage{iopams}  

65: \begin{document}

66: % Journal identifier can be put here if required, e.g.

67: %\jl{14}

68: 

69: %%%%%%%start PREPRINT page %%%%%%%%%%%%%%

70: 

71: \begin{flushright}

72: BA-TH/99-367\\

73: hep-th/0004149

74: \end{flushright}

75: 

76: \vspace*{0.8truein}

77: 

78: {\Large\bf\centering\ignorespaces

79: String Cosmology\\ 

80: \bigskip

81: versus Standard and Inflationary Cosmology

82: \vskip2.5pt}

83: {\dimen0=-\prevdepth \advance\dimen0 by23pt

84: \nointerlineskip \rm\centering

85: \vrule height\dimen0 width0pt\relax\ignorespaces

86: 

87: \vspace{0.8 cm}

88: M. Gasperini

89: \par}

90: \vspace{0.5 cm}

91: {\small\it\centering\ignorespaces

92: Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a di Bari,\\

93: Via G.  Amendola 173, 70126 Bari, Italy \\

94: \vspace{0.2 cm}

95: and\\

96: \vspace{0.2 cm}

97: Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare,  Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy\\

98: \par}

99: 

100: \par

101: \bgroup

102: \leftskip=0.10753\textwidth \rightskip\leftskip

103: \dimen0=-\prevdepth \advance\dimen0 by17.5pt \nointerlineskip

104: \small\vrule width 0pt height\dimen0 \relax

105: 

106: \vspace*{0.6truein}

107: 

108: \centerline{\bf Abstract}

109: 

110: \noi

111: This paper presents a review of the basic, model-independent 

112: differences between the pre-big bang scenario, arising naturally in a  

113: string cosmology context,  and the standard inflationary scenario. 

114: We use an unconventional approach in which the introduction of 

115: technical details is avoided as much as possible, trying to focus the 

116: reader's attention on the main conceptual aspects of both scenarios. 

117: The aim of the paper is not to conclude in favour either of one or  

118: of the  other scenario, but to raise questions that are left to  

119: the reader's meditation. Warnings: the paper does not contain 

120: equations, and is not intended as a complete review of all aspects of 

121: string cosmology. 

122: 

123: \vspace{0.8cm}

124: \begin{center}

125: ------------------------------  

126: 

127: \vspace{0.8cm}

128: To appear  in {\bf  Classical and Quantum Gravity}\\ 

129: (Topical Review Section)

130: \end{center}

131: 

132: 

133: \thispagestyle{plain}

134: \par\egroup

135: 

136: \vfill

137: 

138: \maketitle

139: %%%%%%%%%%end PREPRINT page%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

140: 

141: \setcounter{page}{1}

142: 

143: \title[String cosmology]{String cosmology versus standard and

144: inflationary cosmology }

145: 

146: \author{M. Gasperini\dag\ddag

147: \footnote[3]{E-mail: gasperini@ba.infn.it.}}

148: 

149: \address{\dag Dipartimento di Fisica , Universit\`a di Bari, 

150: Via G. Amendola 173, 70126 Bari, Italy}

151: 

152: \address{\ddag Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare,  Sezione di Bari,

153: Bari, Italy}

154: 

155: \begin{abstract}

156: This paper presents a review of the basic, model-independent 

157: differences between the pre-big bang scenario, arising naturally in a  

158: string cosmology context,  and the standard inflationary scenario. We use 

159: an unconventional approach in which the introduction of technical details 

160: is avoided as much as possible, trying to focus the reader's attention on 

161: the main conceptual aspects of both scenarios. The aim of the paper is 

162: not to conclude in favour either of one or  of the  other scenario, but to 

163: raise questions that are left to  the reader's meditation. Warnings: the

164: paper does not contain equations, and is not intended as a

165: complete review of all aspects of string cosmology. 

166: 

167: \end{abstract}

168: 

169: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Preprint  BA-TH/99-367, 

170: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~E-print Archives: hep-th/0004149

171: %\submitted

172: 

173: % Comment out if separate title page not required

174: %\maketitle

175: 

176: \section{Introduction}

177: \label{I}

178: 

179: The standard cosmological scenario \cite{Wein,0}, rightfully one of the best

180: celebrated conquests of the physics of the XX century, cannot be

181: extrapolated to arbitrarily high energy and curvature scales without

182: clashing with the singularity problem. 

183: 

184: A singularity, on the other hand,  often represents a signal that 

185: the physical laws  we are applying have been extrapolated outside

186: their domain of validity.  As a well known example, we may quote here the

187: case of the spectral energy distribution of radiation in thermal

188: equilibrium. By applying  the laws of classical physics one finds indeed 

189: the Rayleigh-Jeans spectrum, that diverges like $\om^3$ at high

190: frequency. By taking into account instead the appropriate quantum

191: corrections, this classical singularity is regularized by the bell-like

192: Planck distribution, $\om^4\left(e^{\om/T}-1\right)^{-1}$, as

193: illustrated in Fig. 1. 

194: 

195: \begin{figure}

196: \centerline{\epsfxsize=9.0cm

197: \epsffile{f1rev.ps}}

198: \caption{\sl The Planck distribution (full line) regularizes the classical

199: Rayleigh-Jeans prediction (dashed line), for the spectral energy density

200: of radiation in thermal equilibrium. The classical distribution is only 

201: valid at low enough frequency scales.}

202: \label{fig1}

203: \end{figure}

204: 

205: String theory suggests that the initial curvature singularity of the

206: standard cosmological scenario could be similarly regularized by a

207: bell-shaped curve, as qualitatively illustrated in Fig. 2. As we go back 

208: in time the curvature, instead of blowing up, could reach a maximum 

209: controlled by the string scale, and then decrease towards a state of 

210: very low curvature and weak coupling, approaching asymptotically the

211: so-called string perturbative vacuum. This behaviour, indirectly suggested

212: by  duality and thermodynamical  arguments \cite{1}, as well as,

213: independently, by  the motion of strings in rolling   backgrounds \cite{2}, is

214: naturally grounded on the duality symmetry of the cosmological string

215: effective action \cite{3},  and its possible implementation in the context of

216: a realistic model of the early Universe has a lot of dynamical and

217: phenomenological consequences \cite{4}.  

218: 

219: In the string comology scenario of  Fig. 2, the  big bang singularity

220: is replaced  by a phase of high but finite curvature. It comes thus  natural,

221: in  such a context, to call ``pre-big bang" the initial phase in which the 

222: curvature is growing, in contrast to the subsequent ``post-big bang" 

223: phase, with decreasing curvature and standard decelerated evolution. 

224: 

225: \begin{figure}[b]

226: \centerline{\epsfxsize=9.0cm

227: \epsffile{f2rev.ps}}

228: \caption{\sl Curvature scale versus time for standard, inflationary (de 

229: Sitter), and string cosmology models of the Universe. In the pre-big bang 

230: scenario  the classical curvature singularity is regularized, and the

231: standard  cosmological evolution is only valid at late enough time scales.}

232: \label{fig2}

233: \end{figure}

234: 

235: The conventional inflationary scenario \cite{0,4a}, on the other hand, 

236: suggests a picture of the early Universe which is approximately 

237: intermediate between the standard and the string cosmology one.  In that

238: context the  curvature, instead of blowing up, is

239: expected to approach a nearly  constant value, typical of a de Sitter-like

240: geometry (see Fig. 2). However, a de Sitter phase with 

241: exponential expansion at constant  curvature, implemented in the context

242: of the conventional, potential-dominated inflation,  cannot be extended

243: back in time for ever, as first discussed in  \cite{5}. Indeed, quoting Alan

244: Guth's recent survey of inflationary cosmology  \cite{6}:

245: 

246: \bigskip 

247: 

248: {\sl ``... Nevertheless, since inflation appears to be eternal 

249: only into the future, 

250: but not to the past, an important question remains open. How did 

251: all start? Although eternal inflation pushes this question far into the 

252: past, and well beyond the range of observational tests, the question 

253: does not disappear."}

254: 

255: \bigskip 

256: 

257: A possible answer to the above question, suggested by string cosmology 

258: and represented graphically in Fig. 2, is that all started from a state

259: approaching,  asymptotically, the flat, cold and  empty 

260: string perturbative vacuum. Even if this starting point is infinitely 

261: far into the past, however,   the initial state of our

262: Universe  might be non completely beyond the range of present

263: observations,  in contrast to the sentence quoted above, because the

264: starting point may affect the dynamics of the subsequent  inflationary

265: evolution. The initial curvature scale, for instance, is  constant or

266: decreasing according to the conventional inflationary  scenario,

267: while it is growing according to the pre-big bang scenario, and this  may

268: lead to important phenomenological consequences. 

269: 

270: In spite of the existence of a few particular examples \cite{6a}, an

271: unambiguous regularization of the curvature singularity (to all orders in

272: the string effective action), toghether with a complete description of the

273: transition from the pre- to the post-big bang regime, is not an easy

274: achievement (see however \cite{6b} for recent encouraging results). 

275: Also, it is fair to say that the pre-big bang models, at present, are not

276: free from other (more or less important) difficulties, that some aspects of

277: the pre-big bang scenario are still unclear, and that further work is

278: certainly needed for a final answer to all the difficulties. 

279: 

280: Assuming  that all the problems can (and will) be solved in a

281: satisfactory way, string cosmology will provide eventually a model of the

282: early Universe somewhat different, however, from the standard

283: inflationary picture.  The aim of this paper, therefore, is to  present in a

284: compact form a comparison (and a short discussion) of the way in which a

285: phase of inflation could be implemented within a cosmology based on the

286: string effective action, with respect to the standard cosmology based on

287: the Einstein equations. Basically all the differences arise, as we will see,

288: from the  fact that in string cosmology the Universe starts evolving from

289: an  initial state at very low curvature and weak coupling, while in 

290: conventional inflation the initial state is assumed to approach the 

291: Planckian, quantum gravity regime. 

292: 

293: The paper is organized as follows. We will discuss kinematical and 

294: dynamical differences in Sect. \ref{II}, 

295: quantum cosmology  differences in Sect. \ref{III}, 

296: and phenomenological  differences in Sect. \ref{IV}. 

297: Sect. \ref{V} is devoted to some concluding remarks.   We will avoid as

298: much as possible the  introduction of technical details -- all contained in

299: the papers quoted in the bibliography -- trying to emphasize the ideas and

300: the main physical aspects of the different inflationary scenarios. 

301: 

302: As already stressed in the Abstract, it seems appropriate to recall that

303: this paper is {\em not} intended as a complete review of all aspects of

304: string cosmology. Rather, the paper is narrowly focused on those aspects

305: where there is an important overlapping of methods and objectives and,

306: simultaneously, a strong contrast of basic assumptions, for the string

307: cosmology and the standard scenario. For a more exhaustive and

308: systematic approach, the interested reader is referred to the excellent

309: review paper devoted to a presentation and a technical discussion of all

310: presently existing (super)string cosmology models \cite{10a}, as well as

311: to two recent introductory lectures on the pre-big bang scenario

312: \cite{lec}. 

313: 

314: \section {Kinematical and dynamical differences}

315: \label{II}

316: 

317: The idea of inflation hystorically was born \cite{7} to solve the 

318: problem of monopoles that could be largely produced in the early 

319: Universe, at the energy scale  of grand unified theories ($GUT$). More

320: generally, inflation is now  understood as a period of accelerated

321: evolution that can explain why the  present Universe is so flat and smooth

322: over a so large scale of  distances \cite{0,4a}. 

323: 

324: For hystorical reasons, i.e. because inflation was first implemented as  

325: a period of supercooling of the Universe trapped in a ``false" vacuum 

326: state, in the context of $GUT$ phase transitions, inflation was first 

327: associated  \cite{7} to a phase of exponential 

328: expansion (in cosmic time) 

329: of the scale factor $a(t)$, corresponding to a de Sitter (or 

330: ``quasi-de Sitter") geometrical state. But it was soon realized that any 

331: type of accelerated expansion ($\dot a >0$, $\ddot a >0$, where the dots 

332: denote differentiation with respect to cosmic time), can in principle 

333: solve the kinematic problems of the standard scenario \cite{8}. 

334: 

335: Actually, even accelerated contraction ($\dot a <0$, $\ddot a <0$) is 

336: effective to this purpose 

337: \cite{9}, as expected from the fact that accelerated expansion can 

338: be transformed into accelerated contraction through 

339: an appropriate field redefinition, like the one connecting the String and 

340: the Einstein frame. Indeed, physical effects such as the dilution of 

341: inhomogeneities should be independent from the choice of the frame. 

342: So, inflation can be generally identified, in a frame-independent way, 

343: as a period of accelerated evolution of the scale factor (sign $\dot a=$ 

344: sign $\ddot a$). 

345: 

346: There are, however, two  classes of accelerated evolution very 

347: different from a dynamical point of view, and depending on the 

348: behaviour -- growing or decreasing in time -- of the curvature of the

349: space-time manifold. A first  important point to be stressed is thus the

350: fact that the pre-big bang scenario corresponds to a phase of 

351: accelerated  evolution characterized by growing (or non-decreasing)  

352: curvature \cite{3,4}, while the phase that we shall call 

353: ``standard inflation " \cite{0,4a} is characterized by  a  curvature  scale

354: which tends to be constant -- in the limiting  case of a de Sitter metric --  

355: or slightly decreasing in time. 

356: 

357: Before proceeding further, two remarks are in order. The first is that a

358: phase of  accelerated evolution and growing curvature, also called

359: superinflation  (or pole-inflation) \cite{12}, is not a peculiarity of string

360: cosmology,  but  is possible even in general relativity:  in 

361: higher-dimensional  backgrounds, for instance, in the context of dynamical

362: dimensional reduction. The  important difference is that, in string

363: cosmology, superinflation does not  necessarily requires neither the

364: shrinking of the internal dimensions, nor some exotic matter source

365: \cite{11a} or symmetric breaking mechanism \cite{11b}: it can be  simply

366: driven, even in three spatial dimensions, by the kinetic energy  of the

367: rolling dilaton field $\phi$ \cite{3,4}, parametrizing the growth of the 

368: string coupling $g=\exp (\phi/2)$ from zero (the string perturbative 

369: vacuum), to the  strong coupling regime, $g \sim 1$. 

370: 

371: The second remark is that the words ``pre-big bang" should be referred 

372: to the complete cosmological evolution from the initial

373: state approaching the string perturbative vacuum, up to  the beginning of

374: the hot, radiation-dominated phase of the standard 

375: scenario. Altough in most of this paper we shall restrict  our discussion to

376: the low-energy part of the pre-big bang phase, appropriately described in

377: terms of the low-energy string effective action, the  complete pre-big

378: bang history necessarily includes a high-curvature ``stringy" phase 

379: \cite{13}, which may also  be of the inflationary type \cite{17b}, and

380: which has a curvature  expected to be, on the average, non 

381: decreasing. 

382: 

383: For a power-law, accelerated, conformally flat background, the

384: time-behaviour of the curvature scale follows the behaviour of the

385: absolute value of the  Hubble parameter, $|H| =| \dot a /a|$. In such a

386: background, on the other hand, the inverse of the  Hubble parameter (i.e. 

387: the  Hubble horizon $|H|^{-1}$) also controls the (finite) proper

388: distance between the surface of the event horizon and the wordline of a

389: comoving observer.  Such a distance is shrinking for pre-big bang inflation

390: (where  $|H|$ is growing), while it is  non-decreasing in standard inflation. 

391: 

392: As a consequence of the fact that the horizon is shrinking, and the 

393: curvature is growing, it turns out that the initial state of the phase 

394: of inflation, in the pre-big  bang scenario, is characterized by a curvature

395: which is very small in  Planck (or string) units, and by a Hubble horizon very

396: large   in the same units (for the sake of simplicity we may identify, 

397: at the end of inflation,   the present value of the string length $L_s$ and of

398: the Planck lenght  $L_p$; indeed, at tree-level, they are related by

399: \cite{12a} $L_s=\langle g\rangle L_p= \langle \exp \phi/2 \rangle L_p$,

400: with a present dilaton expectation  value $\langle g \rangle \sim

401: 0.3-0.03$).  The initial state is also characterized by another very small 

402: dimensionless number, the initial string coupling $g \ll 1$,

403: corresponding to a  dilaton approaching the perturbative vacuum

404: value, $\phi \ra -\infty$. 

405: 

406: By contrast, the standard inflationary scenario is characterized by a 

407: dilaton already settled  to its present vacuum expectation value; 

408: the coupling is always strong ($g$ is of order one), and the size  of 

409: the initial horizon may be of order one in Planck units, if the initial 

410: curvature approaches the Planck scale. These kinematical and dynamical 

411: differences between standard and pre-big bang inflation are summarized 

412: in Table I. 

413: 

414: As evident from the pre-big bang curve of Fig. 2, the smaller is the 

415: value of the initial curvature, the longer is the duration of the phase 

416: of pre-big bang inflation. The request that the inflation phase be long 

417: enough to solve the horizon and flatness problems \cite{7} thus imposes 

418: bounds on the dimensionless parameters of the initial state, controlled 

419: by the curvature and by the string coupling. Parameters such as the

420: typical size of an initial  homogeneous domain, in Planck units, must be by 

421: far greater than one for inflation to be successful. This  aspect of string

422: cosmology was  pointed out already in the first  papers on the pre-big

423: bang scenario \cite{3,4} and, even before, also in the context of

424: string-driven superinflation \cite{2}. 

425: 

426: 

427: \begin{table}

428: \tabcolsep .07cm

429: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2.0}

430: \begin{center}

431: \begin{tabular}{|c||c||c|}

432: \hline

433:    &  {\bf Standard Inflation}  &  {\bf Pre-big bang Inflation}   \\ \hline

434: %\\[-0.75cm] \hline

435: 

436: Time evolution     &   {\sl accelerated}  & {\sl accelerated}     \\ \hline

437: 

438: Driving energy   & {\sl inflaton potential}   &  

439: {\sl dilaton kinetic energy}   \\ \hline

440: 

441: Curvature    &  {\sl constant or decreasing} & {\sl growing}  \\ \hline 

442: 

443: Event horizon    &  {\sl constant or growing} & {\sl shrinking}  \\ \hline 

444: 

445: Initial curvature scale   &  {\sl model-dependent} & {\sl arbitrarily small}  

446: \\ \hline 

447: 

448: Initial coupling  &  {\sl strong, non-perturbative} & 

449: {\sl arbitrarily weak, perturbative} \\ \hline 

450: 

451: \end{tabular}

452: \bigskip

453: \caption{ Kinematical and dynamical differences 

454: between standard and pre-big bang inflation.}

455: \end{center}

456: \end{table}

457: 

458: 

459: The fact that the initial curvature and coupling are 

460: small, and that the initial state is characterized by very large 

461: dimensionless numbers, may be interpreted  however as a possible

462: fine-tuning of the  pre-big bang models \cite{14}, or even as a serious

463: drawback, preventing  the solution of the flatness and homogeneity

464: problems, and supporting  the conclusion that ``the current version of the

465: pre-big bang scenario  cannot replace usual inflation" \cite{15}. 

466: 

467: Consider, for instance,  the horizon/homogeneity problem. At the onset of

468: pre-big bang  inflation, as usual in an  inflationary context, the 

469: maximal allowed homogeneity scale is bounded by the size of the horizon. 

470: The point is that  the initial horizon size $H^{-1}$ is very large, instead of

471: being of Planckian order. The  basic question thus becomes: is an initial

472: homogeneity scale of the order of the maximal scale $H^{-1}$  necessarily

473: unnatural if the initial curvature  is small and,  consequently, the

474: initial horizon is large in Planck (or string) units?   In other words, which

475: basic length scale has to be used to measure the  naturalness of  the

476: initial homogeneous domain, which subsequently  inflates to reproduce the

477: presently observed Universe? The Planck length  or the radius of the causal

478: horizon? 

479: 

480: The choice of the Planck length, emphasized in \cite{15}, is certainly 

481: appropriate when the initial conditions are imposed in a state approaching 

482: the high-curvature, quantum gravity regime, like  in models of chaotic 

483: inflation  \cite{16}, for instance. In the pre-big bang scenario, on the 

484: contrary, the initial conditions are to be imposed when the Universe is 

485: deeply inside the low-curvature, weak coupling, classical regime. In 

486: that regime the Universe does not know about the Planck length, and the 

487: only available classical scale of distance, the horizon, should not be 

488: discarded ``a priori" as unnatural \cite{21a}. 

489: 

490: This does not mean, of course, 

491: that the horizon should be always {\sl assumed} as the natural scale of 

492: homogeneity. This suggests, however,  that the naturalness of

493: homogeneity over  a large horizon scale should be discussed on the

494: grounds of some  quantitative and objective criterium, as attempted for

495: instance in \cite{17}, taking  into account also the effects of quantum

496: fluctuations \cite{18} that  could destroy the initial, classical homogeneity

497: (see also \cite{17a} for a discussion of ``generic" initial conditions in a

498: string cosmology context). 

499: 

500: Another point concerns the flatness problem. In order to explain the 

501: precise fine-tuning of the present density to the critical one, the 

502: initial state of pre-big bang inflation must be characterized by large 

503: dimensionless parameters, thus reintroducing from the beginning the 

504: large numbers that one would like to explain. 

505: 

506: This may seem to be quite  unsatisfactory, as emphasized in  

507: \cite{15}.  It should be pointed out, however, that if one accepts the point

508: of view  that large numbers are always to be avoided at the onset of

509: inflation,  then should also accept the fact that natural initial 

510: conditions are only possible in the context of models in which inflation 

511: starts at the Planck scale, in order to have, for the curvature, an initial  

512: dimensionless ratio of order one. This rules out, as a satisfactory

513: explanation of our present  cosmological state, not only the pre-big bang

514: scenario, but any model in  which inflation starts at scales smaller than

515: Planckian (unless we imagine a scenario with different stages of inflation,

516: each of them responsible for solving different problems, and occurring at

517: different scales: but, again, is this a  natural cosmological configuration?)

518: 

519: Even for a single stage of inflation, occurring very near to the Planck

520: scale, we are not free from problems, however, as we  are led eventually

521: to the following question: can we trust the naturalness of inflation 

522: models in which classical general relativity is  applied to set up initial

523: conditions at Planckian curvature scales, i.e.  deeply inside the

524: non-perturbative, quantum gravity regime? (in string cosmology, the

525: Planckian regime directly affects the exit from the inflationary phase, and

526: only indirectly set constraints on the initial conditions, through the finite

527: duration of the low energy phase). 

528: 

529: Assuming that the answer be positive, we are led to a situation that can 

530: be graphically summarized, in a qualitative way,  as in Fig. 3. 

531: 

532: \begin{itemize}

533: 

534: \item{} 

535: Case (a) represents a standard inflationary model of the Universe in 

536: which inflation starts at the Planck scale. The time arrow points from 

537: bottom to top, and the shaded area at the time $t_0$ represents a 

538: spatial section of our present homogeneous Universe, of size fixed by 

539: the present Hubble radius $H_0^{-1}$. As we go back in time, according 

540: to the solutions of the standard cosmological model, the horizon shrinks 

541: linearly in cosmic time, while the proper size of the present 

542: homogeneous region, controlled by the scale factor $a(t)$, shrinks 

543: slowly. When we reach the Planck scale, at the time $t_f$, the causal 

544: horizon is smaller than the homogeneous region, roughly by the factor 

545: $10^{-30}$. 

546: 

547: To solve this problem, the phase of standard evolution is

548: preceeded by a phase  of exponential de Sitter inflation, long enough

549: in time from $t_i$ to $t_f$, during which  the curvature and the horizon

550: stay frozen at the Planck scale, and our  present portion of the Universe

551: may ``re-enter" inside the causal horizon. 

552: 

553: It should be stressed that, in a realistic inflationary model,  

554: the horizon has to be slightly increasing from $t_i$ to $t_f$, because 

555: the scale corresponding to our present Hubble radius has to cross the 

556: horizon, during inflation, at a curvature scale $H_1$ smaller than

557: Planckian. We must require, in particular, that   $H_1/M_p~ \laq~ 

558: 10^{-5}$ in order to avoid too much amplification of gravitational 

559: perturbations, that would contradict the present degree of 

560: homogeneity observed by COBE \cite{19} at large angular scales. 

561: However, for the sake of graphical  simplicity,  we shall ignore this

562: complication that is not  essential for our present discussion. 

563: 

564: \item{}

565: Case (b) represents a string cosmology model of the Universe, in which 

566: the inflationary pre-big bang phase, from $t_i$ to $t_f$, is represented 

567: in terms of the contracting metric of the Einstein frame \cite{9}, in 

568: order to emphasize (graphically) 

569: the underlying duality and time-reversal 

570: symmetry of the scenario (there is no need, of course, that in the 

571: Einstein frame the pre-big bang scale factor exactly coincide with the 

572: time-reversal of the post-big bang solution). 

573: 

574: The main difference from 

575: case (a) is that in the pre-big bang epoch the curvature is growing, and 

576: the event horizon shrinks linearly in cosmic time, from $t_i$ to $t_f$, 

577: instead of being constant. Since the scale factor shrinks at a slower 

578: rate, however, it is still possible for the initial homogeneous domain 

579: to be ``pushed out"  of the horizon, and for the Universe to emerge at 

580: the Planck scale, at the time $t_f$, in the same configuration as in 

581: case (a). The subsequent evolution from $t_f$ to $t_0$ is the same as in 

582: the standard scenario. 

583: 

584: \item{}

585: Case (c), finally, represents a string cosmology model in which the period

586: of pre-big  bang inflation corresponds in part to a phase of growing

587: curvature,  growing dilaton and shrinking horizon (from $t_i$ to $t_s$), and

588: in part  to a phase in which the curvature, the horizon, and eventually  the

589: dilaton, are frozen at the  Planck scale (from $t_s$ to $t_f$). The initial

590: horizon is still large  in Planck units, but it is no longer 

591: reflection-symmetric to $t_0$,  depending on the duration of the high

592: curvature phase from $t_s$ to  $t_f$. 

593: 

594: \end{itemize}

595: 

596: \begin{figure}

597: \centerline{\epsfxsize=9.0cm

598: \epsffile{f3rev.ps}}

599: \caption{\sl Qualitative evolution of the horizon scale and of the 

600: proper size of a homogeneous region for (a) standard de Sitter 

601: inflation with constant Hubble horizon, (b) pre-big bang inflation 

602: (in the Einstein frame) with 

603: shrinking horizon, and (c) pre-big bang including a 

604: phase of high curvature inflation at the string scale. 

605: The time  

606: direction coincides with the vertical axis. The three horizontal

607: spatial sections $t_0, t_f$ and $t_i$ 

608: corresponds, from top to bottom, to the present

609: time, to the end, and to the beginning of inflation. The shaded 

610: area represents the horizon,  and the dashed lines its time 

611: evolution. The full curves represent the time evolution of the proper size 

612: of the homogeneous region, controlled by the scale factor.}

613: \label{fig3}

614: \end{figure}

615: 

616: According to \cite{15}, the model (a) represents an acceptable solution 

617: to the horizon and flatness problem because inflation starts at the 

618: Planck scale, and all the dimensionless parameters characterizing the

619: initial  configuration are of order one. When the phase at constant

620: curvature of the model (c) extends in time like in case (a) the two

621: models  pratically coincide for what concerns the naturalness of the

622: initial  conditions, as in both cases our Universe emerges at the Planck 

623: scale from a single domain of Planckian size, and we loose any 

624: observational tracks of what happened before. 

625: 

626: The aim of the pre-big bang scenario, on the other hand, is to attempt a 

627: description of the possible cosmological 

628: evolution {\sl before} the Planck epoch. The main difference between 

629: case (a) and (c) is that, if the duration of the phase of inflation at 

630: constant curvature is shorter than the minimal duration required

631: for a solution of all the standard kinematic problems,  what happened

632: before the  Planck scale may then become visible. In other words,   there

633: are  phenomenological consequences that can be ascribed to the phase of

634: pre-Planckian evolution, and that can be tested (at least in principle)  even

635: today (see Section \ref{IV}). The model of case (b), in particular, is the

636: limiting  case in which the duration of the high curvature phase shrinks to

637: a  point, and the Universe emerges at the Planck curvature scale with a

638: homogeneous  domain large enough to fill our present Hubble radius

639: through the subsequent standard evolution. 

640: 

641: The above discussion 

642: refers to the curvature in Planck units, but the same arguments can also 

643: be applied to the initial value of the string coupling. If the 

644: coupling  is of  

645: order one at the beginning of inflation then it is natural, in the sense 

646: of \cite{15}, if it is much smaller than one, then the inflationary growth of

647: the coupling may have observable consequences. 

648: 

649: To conclude this discussion it seems difficult, in our 

650: opinion, to discard a model of pre-Planckian evolution, like those  

651: illustrated in case (b), (c), only on the grounds of the large parameters 

652: characterizing its initial conditions. Such an  argument could be applied in

653: the impossibility of  observational tests, namely in the absence of any

654: phenomenological  evidence about the cosmological evolution before the

655: Planck era. But, as  pointed out before, the pre-Planckian epoch becomes

656: invisible only in  the limiting case (a), in which the effective models

657: reduces to standard  inflation  starting at the Planck scale, with no

658: unnatural initial  conditions. 

659: 

660: If, on the contrary, the high curvature phase

661: is shorter  than in case (a), then the model requires an initial horizon larger

662: than  Planckian, and a small initial coupling -- which are possibly unnatural

663: according to  standard criteria \cite{15}. In that case, however, such initial 

664: conditions  are in principle accessible to present observations, so why do

665: not try to test  the scenario observationally, and try to analyze the

666: naturalness in  terms of a Bayesan approach, as attempted in \cite{17}? In

667: that case, the  computation of ``a posteriori" probabilities suggests that

668: the observation  of a large initial horizon and a small initial coupling may

669: become ``a  posteriori" natural \cite{17}, because of the duality symmetry

670: intrinsic  to the pre-big bang scenario. 

671: 

672: Finally, even if the initial state should require a certain degree of

673: fine-tuning, this does not necessarily implies  that the pre-big bang

674: cosmology described by string models is to be discarded (after all, the

675: description of our late-time Universe given by the standard cosmological

676: model is rather satisfactory, in spite of the fine-tuning required in such a

677: model if the initial state is extrapolated back in time until the Planck

678: epoch).  

679: 

680: Usually, the need for fine-tuning in the initial conditions means

681: that the model is incomplete, and that a more general dynamical

682: mechanism is required,  to explain the particular initial conditions.

683: Thus, it might well be that the pre-big bang picture provided by  string

684: cosmology  does not represents the whole story of our Universe, and that

685: only an  earlier evolution can explain why, at a certain instant of time, the

686: Universe is lead to a state so similar to the string perturbative vacuum. 

687: 

688: 

689: 

690: \section {Quantum cosmology differences}

691: \label{III}

692: 

693: In the standard inflationary scenario the phase of exponential, 

694: de Sitter-like expansion at constant curvature cannot be infinitely 

695: extended towards the past, for a well known reason  of geodesic

696: completeness. A complete manifold requires an earlier contracting phase:

697: in that case, however, it seems impossible, in models dominated by the

698: inflaton potential, to stop the collapse and to bounce towards the

699: expanding phase \cite{5}. One has thus the problem of explaining how the

700: Universe could   emerge at the Planck scale in the initial state appropriate

701: to exponential expansion. 

702: 

703: At curvature scales of order one in Planck units we are in the full 

704: quantum gravity regime, and the use of the quantum cosmology approach  

705: seems to be appropriate. In this approach the Universe is represented by 

706: a wave function satisfying the Wheeler-De Witt (WDW) equation \cite{20}, 

707: and evolving in the so-called superspace, whose points represent 

708: all possible spatial geometric  configurations. For pratical applications,

709: however, the evolution of the WDW wave  function is usually studied in a

710: ``minisuperspace" context, where only a finite numbers of coordinates

711: is chosen to parametrize the  different geometrical configurations. 

712: 

713: With an appropriate choice of the boundary conditions it is then  possible

714: to  obtain cosmological solutions of the WDW equation describing the

715: ``birth  of the Universe" as an effect of quantum tunnelling \cite{21,22}. 

716: In that case, if the geometric state of the Universe is characterized by a 

717: cosmological constant $\La$ (due, for instance, to the vacuum 

718: energy-density induced by a scalar field potential), the tunnelling

719: probability  is found 

720: to be proportional to $\exp \left(-\La^{-1}\right)$, where $\La$ 

721: is measured in Planck units. The Universe tends thus to emerge in a 

722: state of big vacuum energy, just appropriate to the onset of inflation. 

723: The quantum cosmology approach seems thus to provide a natural

724: mechanism  to explain the formation of ``baby universes",  emerging at

725: the  Planck scale, and ready to inflate according to the standard 

726: inflationary scenario  \cite{23}. 

727: 

728: The minisuperspace approach to quantum cosmology is known  to be

729: affected  by various problems of technical nature: the probabilistic 

730: interpretation, the unambiguous determination of an appropriate time 

731: parameter, the semiclassical limit, the ordering of quantum operators, 

732: and so on. The most unsatisfactory aspect of this approach, in our 

733: opinion, is however the fact that the boundary conditions for the 

734: tunnelling process are to be chosen ``ad-hoc". They are by no means 

735: compelling, and it is possible indeed to impose different boundary 

736: conditions, for instance according to the ``no boundary" criterium 

737: \cite{24}, leading to a completely different result for the probability 

738: of creation of universes -- results that are not always appropriate

739: to inflationary initial  conditions. 

740: 

741: The source of this problem is the fact that, in a quantum description of 

742: the birth of the Universe, the final cosmological state (i.e. the 

743: Universe that we want to obtain) is well known, while the initial 

744: cosmological state (before the quantum transition) is completely 

745: unknown, at least in the context of the standard inflationary scenario. 

746: Indeed, the cosmological tunnelling is usually referred as a proces of 

747: tunnelling ``from nothing" \cite{21}, just to stress the ignorance about 

748: the initial vacuum state. The classical theory of the standard 

749: cosmological scenario cannot help, because the initial 

750: state, in that context,   

751: is the big bang singularity, i.e. just what the quantum approach 

752: would like to avoid. 

753: 

754: In a string cosmology context, the  quantum approach based on 

755: minisuperspace can be implemented in a straightforward way, with the 

756: only difference that the differential WDW equation represents the 

757: Hamiltonian constraint following not from the Einstein action, but from the

758: low-energy string effective  action \cite{25,26,27}. As a  consequence, the

759: ``minimal" minisuperspace is at least two-dimensional,  because the action

760: always contains the dilaton, besides the metric. The  formal problems

761: related to the minisuperspace approach remains, with the possible

762: exception of the operator-ordering problem, as the quantum  ordering  is

763: unambiguosly fixed by the  global, pseudo-orthogonal $O(d,d)$ symmetry of

764: the low-energy string  effective action \cite{25,27}. Another  possible

765: exception is the identification of the time-like  coordinate in

766: minisuperspace \cite{33a}. 

767: 

768: There is, however, a radical difference for what concerns boundary 

769: conditions. In the context of the pre-big bang scenario the initial,  

770: asymptotic state of the Universe is unambiguosly prescribed -- the 

771: string perturbative vacuum -- and cannot be chosen ``ad-hoc". Such 

772: initial state is perfectly appropriate to a low-energy normalization of 

773: the WDW wave function, and the transition probability of string 

774: cosmology only depends on the dynamics, i.e. on the effective potential 

775: appearing in the WDW equation. 

776: 

777: It is now interesting to observe that if we compute, in the context of 

778: the pre-big bang scenario, the transition probability from the 

779: perturbative vacuum to a final, post-big bang configuration 

780: characterized by a non-vanishing cosmological constant, we obtain 

781: \cite{26} a probability distribution $P(\La)$ very similar to the one of the

782: conventional quantum cosmology, computed with tunneling boundary 

783: conditions. The reason is that, by imposing the perturbative vacuum as 

784: the boundary condition to the WDW equation, the WDW solutions contain

785: only  outgoing waves at the singular spacetime boundary, just like in

786: the case of  tunnelling boundary conditions \cite{21}. In this sense, we can

787: say that  the ``ad-hoc" prescription of tunnelling boundary conditions

788: simulates,  in a phenomenological way, the birth of the Universe from the

789: string  perturbative vacuum. This suggests that, instead of ``tunnelling

790: from  nothing", we should speak of ``tunnelling from the string

791: perturbative  vacuum" or, even better, of quantum instability and ``decay"

792: of the  perturbative vacuum \cite{28}. 

793: 

794: A further, important difference should be mentioned. The 

795: transition from the pre- to the post-big bang phase induced by the

796: cosmological  constant (or, more generally, by an appropriate dilaton

797: potential), is  represented, in the minisuperspace of string cosmology,  not 

798: like a  tunnelling effet, but like a quantum reflection of the WDW wave

799: function,  over an effective potential barrier. The correct description that

800: we obtain  in  string cosmology  for the birth of the Universe, therefore, is

801: that of  a  ``quantum scattering" effect \cite{25,26,33a}. 

802: 

803: The various differences between quantum inflationary cosmology and 

804: quantum string cosmology are summarized in Table II. Besides the formal 

805: aspects (such as tunnelling versus reflection), the basic difference is 

806: that in the standard inflationary scenario the Universe, because of 

807: quantum cosmology effects, is expected {\em to enter} in the 

808: inflationary regime, while in the pre-big bang scenario the Universe is 

809: expected {\em to exit} from the inflationary regime (or at least from 

810: the phase of growing curvature).  So, in standard inflation, quantum 

811: effects at the Planck scale are expected to be responsible for 

812: inflationary initial conditions. In string cosmology, on the contrary, 

813: initial conditions are to be imposed in the opposite, low energy quantum 

814: regime, where quantum effects are negligible. 

815: 

816: \begin{table}

817: \tabcolsep .07cm

818: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2.0}

819: \begin{center}

820: \begin{tabular}{|c||c||c|}

821: \hline

822:    &  {\bf Quantum cosmology}  &  {\bf Quantum string cosmology}  

823: \\ \hline  

824: %\\[-0.75cm] \hline

825: 

826: Formal  approach    &   {\sl  WDW, minisuperspace}  & 

827: {\sl  WDW, minisuperspace}     \\ \hline

828: 

829:  Quantum ordering & {\sl arbitrary }   &  

830: {\sl fixed by duality}   \\ \hline

831: 

832: Boundary conditions    &  {\sl arbitrary } & {\sl string perturbative vacuum} 

833: \\ \hline 

834: 

835: Outgoing waves  &  {\sl tunnelling from nothing } & {\sl

836: reflection from pre-big bang}  \\ \hline 

837: 

838: Quantum transition    &  {\sl beginning of inflation} & {\sl

839: exit from inflation}   \\ \hline 

840: 

841: \end{tabular}

842: \bigskip

843: \caption{ Quantum cosmology differences 

844: between standard and pre-big bang inflation.}

845: \end{center}

846: \end{table}

847: 

848: It seems appropriate, at this point, to comment on the fact that the 

849: initial state of pre-big bang inflation seems to be characterized by a 

850: large entropy $S$, if one assumes, as  in \cite{15}, that the de 

851: Sitter relation between entropy and horizon area remains valid also when 

852: the horizon is not constant in time (or, in other words, if one assumes a

853: saturation of the bound provided by the holographic principle \cite{34a},

854: applied however to the Hubble horizon \cite{34b}). If $S$ is large in Planck

855: units,  the probability that such a configuration be obtained through a

856: process  of quantum tunnelling, $\exp (-S)$, is exponentially small, as 

857: emphasized in \cite{15}.  However, as stressed above, in string cosmology

858: quantum effects such as  tunnelling or reflection are expected to be

859: effective  {\em at the end} of inflation, and not  {\em at the

860: beginning},  i.e. {\em not}  to explain the origin of the initial state. A large

861: entropy of  the initial state, in the weakly-coupled, highly-classical regime,

862: can  only correspond to a large probability of such configuration, which is 

863: proportional to $\exp (+S)$, like for every classical and macroscopic 

864: configurations (not arising from quantum tunnelling).

865: 

866: Let us stress, finally, another important difference between

867: conventional  quantum cosmology and quantum string cosmology. In string 

868: cosmology quantum geometrical effects cannot be fully accounted for, 

869: as fas as we limit ourself to a WDW equation obtained from the 

870: low-energy string effective action. Indeed, when approaching the Planck

871: scale, the  string theory action acquires (even at small coupling, i.e. at 

872: tree-level in the quantum loop expansion) higher curvature correction 

873: \cite{29}, weighed by the inverse string tension $\alpha'$. They are to  be

874: included into the Hamiltonian constraint, and lead  in general to a 

875: higher-derivative WDW equation. This problem has been discussed in 

876: \cite{30}, and it has been shown in \cite{31} that when the higher 

877: curvature corrections appear in the form of an Eulero density, then the

878: WDW  approach can only be applied to a dimensionally reduced version of

879: the  theory. 

880: 

881: The quantum cosmology results reported in this section  refer, in 

882: this sense, only to a model of ``low-energy"  quantum string cosmology

883: \cite{28}. In the full quantum gravity regime,  in order to include all the

884: higher-derivative contributions, the correct  WDW equation should follow

885: not from the effective action, but possibly  from a conformal, sigma-model

886: action \cite{43a}, which automatically takes into  account all orders in

887: $\alpha'$.  We note, however, that duality transformations in toroidal

888: moduli space have recently suggested \cite{30a} that the Lorenztian

889: structure of the low-energy minisuperspace may have an exact meaning

890: also in an  $M$-theory context, even if the exact $M$-theory equations are

891: expected to be in general different. 

892: 

893: In fact, when the curvature is large in string units ($\ap H^2 >1$), and also

894: the string coupling is large ($g^2=e^\phi >1$), we necessarily enter the

895: $M$-theory regime where new quantum effects are possible, such as a

896: copious production of higher-dimensional $D$-branes \cite{M1}. If the

897: curvature is small enough, the strong coupling regime of string

898: cosmology is then expected to be described by  $11$-dimensional

899: supergravity theory, and the dilaton to be interpreted as the radius (i.e.,

900: the modulus field) of the $11$-th dimension \cite{M2}. In this context

901: string cosmology becomes $U$-duality covariant \cite{10a, M3,M4},

902: and the presence in the action of Ramond-Ramond fields may be helpful to

903: evade the problem of the curvature singularity \cite{M5,M6,M7}. The

904: singularity, in addition, could also disappear as a result of the embedding

905: of the low-energy solutions of string theory into a higher-dimensional

906: ($d=11$) manifold \cite{M4,M8}. 

907: 

908: These results seem to suggests that an appropriate quantum description

909: of the birth of the Universe will be probably achieved only within a full

910: $M$-theory approach to the strong coupling regime, in which the pre-big

911: bang acceleration is damped, the curvature is regularized, and the Universe

912: bounces back to the phase of standard evolution. 

913: 

914: 

915: \section {Phenomenological differences}

916: \label{IV}

917: 

918: One of the most important (and probably also most spectacular) 

919: phenomenological predictions of inflation is the 

920: parametric amplification of metric (and of other different types of) 

921: perturbations \cite{32}, and the corresponding generation of primordial 

922: inhomogeneity spectra, directly from the quantum fluctuations of the 

923: background fields in their vacuum state (see \cite{33} for a review).  

924: Such fluctuations, when decomposed in Fourier modes, satisfy a 

925: canonical Schrodinger-like equation, whose effective potential is 

926: determined by the  so-called`` pump field", which depends in its

927: turn on the  background geometry. 

928: 

929: It is then evident that different backgrounds lead to different pump 

930: fields, to a different evolution of perturbations, and thus to different 

931: spectra. In string cosmology, in particular, there are two main 

932: properties of the background that can affect the final form of the 

933: perturbation spectra. They are:

934: 

935: \begin{itemize}

936: 

937: \item{} 

938: (A) the growth of the curvature scale;

939: 

940: \item{}

941: (B) the scalar-tensor (i.e. gravi-dilaton) nature of the background. 

942: 

943: \end{itemize}

944: Property (A) has two important consequences. The first, that we will call 

945: (A1), is that the pre-big bang scenario leads to metric perturbation 

946: spectra growing with frequency \cite{34} (instead of being 

947: flat, or decreasing,  

948: like in standard inflation), because the spectral distribution of metric 

949: perturbations tends to follow the behaviour of the curvature scale 

950: at the time of the first horizon crossing. The second, that we will call 

951: (A2), is that the growth of the curvature can also force the comoving 

952: amplitude of perturbations to grow (instead of being frozen) outside the 

953: horizon. This effect, implicitly contained in the  earlier, pioneer studies

954: \cite{41a}, was first explicitly  pointed out in \cite{35}, and only later

955: independently  re-discovered in a string cosmology context  \cite{36}. As

956: a further  consequence of property (A) we should mention, finally, the fact

957: that  perturbations are amplified in a final ``squeezed vacuum" state, and

958: not  in a ``squeezed thermal vacuum" \cite{36a}. 

959: 

960: Let us first discuss the second effect (A2). This effect, on one hand, is

961: interesting because it may lead to an amplification of

962: perturbations more efficient than in the standard  inflationary scenario. On

963: the other hand, however, it is dangerous,  because the perturbation

964: amplitude could grow too much, during the  pre-big bang phase, so as to

965: prevent the application of the standard  linearized approach, which

966: neglects effects of back-reaction \cite{33}. 

967: 

968: Such an ``anomalous" growth of perturbations cannot be eliminated 

969: by a change of frame, because the associated 

970: physical (i.e. observable) energy density spectrum is obviously 

971: frame-independent. However, the breakdown of the linear approximation 

972: {\em is}, in general, {\em gauge-dependent}. For the particular case of 

973: scalar metric perturbations, in three isotropic dimensions, the linear 

974: approximation breaks down in the standard longitudinal gauge, but is 

975: restored in a more appropriate ``off-diagonal" gauge \cite{37}, also 

976: called ``uniform-curvature" gauge \cite{38}. Moreover, as a consequence 

977: of a particolar form of duality invariance that appears explicitly in 

978: the Hamiltonian approach to perturbation theory \cite{39}, the final 

979: energy-density spectrum can  always be correctly estimated  by

980: neglecting  the growing mode, provided one includes in the full Hamiltonian

981: both the  contribution of the amplitude and of its conjugate momentum. 

982: 

983: There are backgrounds, however, in which the growth of perturbations 

984: remains too strong even after the elimination of all unphysical gauge 

985: effects, and we have to limit ourselves to a restricted portion of 

986: parameter space for the linear approximation to be valid. Even in this 

987: case, however, the effect (A1) has two interesting consequences. 

988: 

989: The first is that a  growing spectrum leads to the 

990: formation of relic backgrounds whose amplitude is higher at higher

991: frequency,  where in general the backgrounds are also more easily

992: detectable. A typical example  is the formation of a relic background of

993: cosmic gravitons which, in the frequency range of present resonant-mass

994: and interferometric detectors  ($10^2-10^3$ Hz), could be up to eight

995: orders of magnitude  stronger than expected in the context of standard

996: inflation \cite{34,40}. Thus in principle detectable, in a not-so-far future, 

997: by the  (planned) advanced version of the interferometric gravitational

998: antennas, or by spherical resonant detectors. 

999: 

1000: The second consequence is that the  normalization of the peak of the

1001: spectrum,  at high frequency, is  automatically controlled by the string

1002: scale \cite{41}. The peak  amplitude may be high enough to support a

1003: picture in which all the  radiation, that becomes dominant at the beginning

1004: of the standard era, is  produced through a process of parametric

1005: amplification, directly from  the quantum fluctuations of the vacuum

1006: during the pre-big bang epoch \cite{41,42,50a}.  

1007: Indeed, for  the background fields that interact more strongly 

1008: than gravitationally,  the amplified fluctuations are expected  to

1009: thermalize, and their energy-density is expected to grow in  time with

1010: respect to the dilaton kinetic energy that was driving the  background

1011: during the phase of   pre-big bang inflation. This possibility is absent in 

1012: the standard inflationary scenario, where the spectrum of perturbations 

1013: is decreasing, and the normalization of the spectrum is determined at low 

1014: frequency by the observation of the large scale CMB anisotropy 

1015: \cite{19}:  the resulting energy-density of the fluctuations, in that case, is

1016: by far  too low to dominate, eventually, the post-inflationary background. 

1017: 

1018: Up to now we have reported some phenomenological consequences of the 

1019: property (A). 

1020: For what concerns the property (B), i.e. the gravi-dilaton nature of the 

1021: background, we will quote here a peculiar string cosmology effect, the 

1022: amplification of the quantum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field  

1023: due to their direct coupling to the dilaton, according to the effective 

1024: Lagrangian density $ \sqrt{-g} e^{-\phi} F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}$. 

1025: 

1026: In general relativity the dilaton is absent, the Lagrangian is 

1027: invariant under a conformal rescaling of the metric, and the coupling of 

1028: the electromagnetic field to a conformally flat metric, typical of inflation, 

1029: can  always be eliminated  (unless the coupling is non-minimal and/or

1030: violates $U(1)$ gauge invariance \cite{54a}). As a consequence, the 

1031: inflationary evolution of the metric background is unable to amplify the

1032: electromagnetic fluctuations. In string cosmology, on the contrary, such 

1033: fluctuations are amplified by the accelerated growth of the dilaton   (acting

1034: as the pump field) during the pre-big bang phase. If the  high-curvature

1035: string phase is long enough, it is then possible to produce in  this way the

1036: ``seeds", required for instance by the galactic dynamo,  for the generation

1037: of cosmic magnetic fields on a large scale \cite{43}. String  cosmology thus

1038: provides a possible solution to a longstanding  astrophysical ``puzzle", i.e.

1039: the generation of the primordial seed  fields,  through a mechanism  which

1040: is uneffective in the standard inflationary scenario. 

1041: 

1042: This certainly represents an advantage with respect to the standard 

1043: scenario. The different amplification of perturbations, however, is also 

1044: asssociated to possible drawbacks. In particular, the fact that the 

1045: metric perturbation spectrum, in string cosmology, grows with a very

1046: steep  slope, and it is rigidly normalized at high frequency, makes  

1047: problematic the matching to the anisotropy observed at the present 

1048: horizon scale \cite{19}. The generation of the observed CMB anisotropy, 

1049: with the right spectrum, is instead one of the most celebrated results 

1050: of standard inflation \cite{0,4a,33}. 

1051: 

1052: A possible solution to this problem, in string cosmology, comes from the 

1053: amplification of the fluctuations of the Kalb-Ramond axion, which is one

1054: of  the fundamental fields appearing in the string effective action, already 

1055: at low energy. Indeed, unlike metric perturbations,  the axion 

1056: perturbations can be amplified with a rather flat spectrum \cite{51a} and,

1057: through the (integrated) Sachs-Wolfe effect \cite{44}, they can  induce the

1058: temperature anisotropy observed in the CMB radiation on a large scale,

1059: both  in case of massless \cite{45} and massive \cite{46} axion fluctuations. 

1060: 

1061: It is important to observe, in that case, that the slope 

1062: of the spectrum is no longer arbitrary, but rigidly determined by the

1063: COBE  normalization (imposed at low frequency), 

1064: and by the string normalization 

1065: (imposed at the opposite, high-frequency end of the spectrum). The 

1066: resulting slope turns out to be slightly increasing \cite{45,46}, but still in 

1067: agreement with the observational limits at the horizon scale \cite{47}. At

1068: higher frequency scales, however, important   differences from standard

1069: inflation may appear in the peak structure of the spectrum \cite{55a}.

1070: The possible axionic origin of the fluctuations of the CMB temperature is

1071: thus expected to be confirmed (or disproved) in a very near future, by the

1072: planned satellite observations. 

1073: 

1074: \begin{table}

1075: \tabcolsep .07cm

1076: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2.0}

1077: \begin{center}

1078: \begin{tabular}{|c||c||c|}

1079: \hline

1080:    & {\bf Standard Inflation}   &   {\bf Pre-big bang Inflation} \\ \hline  

1081: %\\[-0.75cm] \hline

1082: 

1083: Pump field   &   {\sl  metric}  & 

1084: {\sl  metric and dilaton}     \\ \hline

1085: 

1086: Spectrum (vs frequency) & {\sl flat or decreasing }   &  

1087: {\sl increasing}   \\ \hline

1088: 

1089: Amplitude outside horizon   &  {\sl frozen } & {\sl increasing}  \\ \hline 

1090: 

1091: Normalization  &  {\sl low frequency (COBE) } & {\sl

1092: high frequency (string scale) }  \\ \hline 

1093: 

1094: Electromagnetic fields   &  {\sl unaffected } & {\sl

1095: amplified by the dilaton}   \\ \hline 

1096: 

1097: CMB anisotropy & {\sl metric fluctuations} & 

1098: {\sl axion fluctations} \\ \hline

1099: 

1100: Dilaton fluctuations & {\sl absent} & 

1101: {\sl dilaton productions} \\ \hline

1102: 

1103: \end{tabular}

1104: \bigskip

1105: \caption{Amplification of vacuum fluctuations in the inflationary and 

1106: pre-big bang scenario.}

1107: \end{center}

1108: \end{table}

1109: 

1110: 

1111: The main differences between standard  and string cosmology inflation,

1112: for what concerns  cosmological perturbations, are  summarized in

1113: Table III. The last entry of the Table refers to the amplification of  the

1114: fluctuations of the dilaton background \cite{48}, another peculiar  effect

1115: of string  cosmology, because the dilaton  is absent in the standard

1116: scenario. This effect, analogous to the  amplification of tensor metric

1117: perturbations, can be interpreted (in a  second quantization approach) as a

1118: process of dilaton production, which  leads to the formation of a relic

1119: background of cosmic dilatons. The background is subject to various

1120: constraints, depending on the slope  of the spectrum and on the mass of

1121: the dilaton, but if dilatons are  light enough  \cite{49} (namely $m ~\laq

1122: ~10$ KeV), they are not yet decayed and could  represent today a

1123: significant fraction of the dark matter, that seems  required to match

1124: various astrophysical observations. 

1125: 

1126: Detecting such a background, through the   gravity-like 

1127: interactions of the dilatons at low-energy scales, is however a challenge 

1128: that seems beyond the possibilities of present technology  \cite{57a},

1129: unless the dilaton couples universally to macroscopic bodies, represents

1130: a significant fraction of dark matter, and its mass lies within the

1131: sensitivity band of gravitational detectors \cite{64a}. 

1132: 

1133: 

1134: \section {Conclusion}

1135: \label{V}

1136: 

1137: The pre-big bang scenario provides a model, suggested and 

1138: supported by string theory, of  the possible cosmological evolution before

1139: our Universe emerged at the  Planck scale. 

1140: 

1141: If the subsequent post-Planckian evolution follows the standard

1142: inflationary scenario,   then  initial conditions can be imposed at the Planck

1143: scale, and  are probably natural in the sense of  \cite{15}, but any track of

1144: what happened before disappears from our observational range. If, on the

1145: contrary, inflation at the Planck scale is not  too long, and  inside our

1146: present  Hubble radius there are comoving length scales that crossed the

1147: horizon  during the low-curvature pre-big bang phase, then pre-Plackian

1148: initial  conditions are in principle accessible to present observations, and

1149: their  naturaleness can be discussed in terms of a Bayesan analysis

1150: \cite{17},   based  on ``a posteriori" probabilities. Quantum cosmology

1151: methods can  also be applied, taking into account however that quantum

1152: effects are  possibly  important at the end, and not

1153: at the beginning,  of inflation. 

1154: 

1155: We believe  that 

1156: the possibility of looking back in the past before the Planck 

1157: era is the most distinctive aspect of string cosmology,  with respect to

1158: the  standard inflationary cosmology. Concerning the possible tracks of 

1159: the pre-Planckian  Universe, we have emphasized ,  in particular, three

1160: effects, referring to  observations to  be performed $1)$ in a

1161: not-so-far future, $2)$ in a near  future, and $3)$ to observations already

1162: (in part) performed. These  effects are, respectively: $1)$ the production of

1163: a cosmic gravity wave  background, $2)$ the axion-induced anisotropy of

1164: the CMB radiation,  and $3)$ the production of seeds for the cosmic

1165: magnetic fields. 

1166: 

1167: These effects are not necessarily compatible among them (at least in the 

1168: ``minimal" version of the pre-big bang models), and it seems thus possible

1169: to test, and  eventually exclude (or confirm) the pre-big bang scenario on

1170: the grounds  of its phenomenological consequences. Even if, as recently

1171: stressed  \cite{50}, the idea itself of inflation ``cannot be falsified", the

1172: particular models can (and must) be tested, and the pre-big bang scenario,

1173: after all, can  be regarded as a particular, unconventional model of

1174: primordial inflation. 

1175: 

1176: It seems thus appropriate to stress, in conclusion, that the pre-big bang

1177: scenario is not alternative to the idea of inflation, but only alternative to

1178: a more conventional realization of inflation which, for hystorical reason,

1179: is still deeply anchored to the standard big bang picture, where  the

1180: initial state must necessarily represent a very small, curve and dense

1181: Universe.  The effort of this paper aims at stimulating the reader's 

1182: meditation on the fact that this standard picture is a possibility, not a

1183: necessity, and that quite different initial conditions are possible, and not

1184: necessarily unlikely. 

1185: 

1186: 

1187: \bigskip

1188: \ack

1189: 

1190: It is a pleasure to thank Gabriele Veneziano, for the long and fruitful

1191: collaboration on many aspects of the string

1192: cosmology scenario discussed in this paper. 

1193: 

1194: \bigskip

1195: 

1196: 

1197: \section*{References}

1198: 

1199: \begin{thebibliography}{999}

1200: 

1201: \newcommand{\bb}{\bibitem}

1202: 

1203: \bb{Wein}S. Weinberg, {\sl Cosmology and gravitation} (Wiley,

1204: New York, 1972).

1205: 

1206: \bb{0}E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, {\sl The Early Universe},

1207: (Addison  Wesley, Redwood City, Ca, 1990).

1208: 

1209: \bb{1}Y. Leblanc, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 38}, 3087 (1988); R. Brandenberger and C.

1210: Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 316}, 391 (1989); E. Alvarez and M. A. R. Osorio, 

1211: Int. J. Theor. Phys.  {\bf 28}, 949 (1989);   A. A. Tseytlin, Class. Quantum

1212: Grav. {\bf 9}, 979 (1992); A. A. Tseytlin and C. Vafa,  Nucl.

1213: Phys. B {\bf 372}, 443 (1992).

1214: 

1215: \bb{2}M. Gasperini, N. Sanchez and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B 

1216: {\bf 364}, 365 (1991).

1217: 

1218: \bb{3}G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 265}, 287 (1991);  K. A. Meissner and

1219: G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 267},  33 (1991); Mod. Phys. Lett. A {\bf 6},

1220: 3397 (1991); M. Gasperini, J. Maharana and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B {\bf

1221: 272},  277 (1991).

1222: 

1223: \bb{4}M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, Astropart. Phys. {\bf 1},

1224: 317 (1993); Mod. Phys. Lett. A {\bf 8}, 3701 (1993); Phys. Rev. D 

1225: {\bf 50}, 2519 (1994). An updated collections of papers on the pre-big 

1226: bag scenario is available at {\tt http://www.to.infn.it/\~{}gasperin}

1227: 

1228: \bb{4a} A. D. Linde, {\sl Particle Physics and

1229: Inflationary Cosmology} (Harwood,  Chur, Switzerland, 1990). 

1230: 

1231: \bb{5}A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 46}, 2355 (1992); A. Borde, A. 

1232: Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72}, 3305 (1994).

1233: 

1234: \bb{6}A. Guth, {\sl The inflationary Universe}, (Vintage, London, 1998), p.

1235: 271. 

1236: 

1237: \bb{6a}Last paper in Ref. \cite{3}; first paper in Ref. \cite{4}; 

1238: R. Brustein and R. Madden, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 712 (1998); 

1239: S. Foffa, M. Maggiore and R. Sturani, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 552}, 395 (1999); 

1240: D. A. Easson and R. Brandenberger, JHEP {\bf 9909}, 003 

1241: (1999). 

1242: G. F. R. Ellis, D. C. Roberts, D. Solomons and P. K. S. Dunsby,

1243: {\sl Using the dilaton potential to obtain string cosmology

1244: solutions}, hep-th/9912005. 

1245: 

1246: \bb{6b}C. Cartier, E. J. Copeland and R. Madden, JHEP {\bf 0001}, 035 

1247: (2000). 

1248: 

1249: \bb{10a}J. E. Lidsey, D. Wands and E. J. Copeland, {\sl Superstring

1250: Cosmology}, hep-th/9909061 (Phys. Rep., in press).

1251: 

1252: \bb{lec}M. Gasperini, {\sl Elementary introduction to pre-big bang

1253: cosmology and to the relic graviton background}, hep-th/9907067, 

1254: in Proc. of the Second SIGRAV School (Center A. Volta, Como, April 1999), 

1255: ed. by V. Gorini et al (IOP Publishing, Bristol, 2000);

1256: G. Veneziano, {\sl String cosmology: the pre-big bang scenario},

1257: hep-th/0002094, in Proc. of the Les Houches School (July 1999), in press. 

1258: 

1259: \bb{7}A. Guth, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 23}, 347 (1981).

1260: 

1261: \bb{8} F. Lucchin and S. Matarrese, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 164}, 282 

1262: (1985).  

1263: 

1264: \bb{9}See, in particular, the second and the third paper of 

1265: Ref. \cite{4}.

1266:  

1267: \bb{12}D. Shadev, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 317}, 155 (1984); R. B. Abbott, S. 

1268: M. Barr and S. D. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 30}, 720 (1984); E. W. Kolb, 

1269: D. Lindley and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 30}, 1205 (1984). 

1270: 

1271: \bb{11a}M. Gasperini, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 56}, 2873 (1986).

1272: 

1273: \bb{11b}M. Gasperini, Phys.  Lett.  B {\bf 163}, 164 (1985); Class. Quantum

1274: Grav. {\bf 4}, 485 (1987). 

1275: 

1276: \bb{13}M. Gasperini, M. Maggiore and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 

1277: 494}, 315 (1997).

1278: 

1279: \bb{17b}M. Maggiore and R. Sturani, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 415}, 335 (1997).

1280: 

1281: \bb{12a}V. Kaplunovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 55}, 1036 (1985). 

1282: 

1283: \bb{14}M. S. Turner and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 4604 

1284: (1997).

1285: 

1286: \bb{15}N. Kaloper, A. Linde and R. Bousso, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59} 043508

1287: (1999).

1288: 

1289: \bb{16}A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 175}, 395 (1986).

1290: 

1291: \bb{21a}M. Gasperini, Phys. Rev. D61, 87301 (2000).

1292: 

1293: \bb{17}A. Buonanno, T. Damour and G. Veneziano,  Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 

1294: 543}, 275 (1999).

1295: 

1296: \bb{18}A. Gosh, G. Pollifrone and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B  {\bf 440}, 20 

1297: (1998).

1298: 

1299: \bibitem{17a}D. Clancy, J. E. Lidsey and R. Tavakol, 

1300: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 063511 (1999);   Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 44017

1301: (1998);  D. Clancy, A. Feinstein, J. E. Lidsey and R. Tavakol, 

1302: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 451}, 303 (1999); 

1303: A. Feinstein, K. E. Kunze and M. A. Vazquez-Mozo, {\sl Initial conditions and

1304: the structure of the singularity in pre-big bang cosmology}, 

1305:  hep-th/0002070. 

1306: 

1307: \bb{19}A. J. Banday et al., Ap. J. {\bf 475}, 393 (1997).

1308: 

1309: \bb{20}B. S. De Witt, Phys. Rev. {\bf 160}, 1113 (1967); J. A. Wheeler, 

1310: in {\sl Battelle Rencontres}, eds. C. De Witt and J. A. Wheeler 

1311: (Benjamin, New York, 1968). 

1312: 

1313: \bb{21}A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 30}, 509 (1984); 

1314:  D {\bf 33}, 5560 (1986);  D {\bf 37}, 888 (1988).

1315: 

1316: \bb{22}A. D. Linde, Sov. Phys. JEPT {\bf 60}, 211 (1984); Lett. Nuovo 

1317: Cimento {\bf 39}, 401 (1984); Y. Zel'dovich and A. A. Starobinski, Sov. 

1318: Astron. Lett. {\bf 10}, 135 (1984); V. A. Rubakov, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 

1319: 148}, 280 (1984).

1320: 

1321: \bb{23}A. Linde, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 351}, 99 (1995).

1322: 

1323: \bb{24}J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 28}, 2960 

1324: (1983); S. W. Hawking, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 239}, 257 (1984); S. W. 

1325: Hawking and D. N. Page, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 264}, 185 (1986).

1326: 

1327: \bb{25}M. Gasperini, J. Maharana and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 

1328: 472}, 394 (1996).

1329: 

1330: \bb{26}M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, Gen. Rel. Grav. {\bf 28}, 1301 

1331: (1996).

1332: 

1333: \bb{27}A. A. Kehagias and A. Lukas, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 472}, 549 (1996). 

1334: 

1335: \bb{33a}M. Cavagli\`a and V. De Alfaro, Gen. Rel. Grav. {\bf 29}, 773 (1997); 

1336: M. Cavagli\`a and C. Ungarelli, Class. Quantum Grav. {\bf 16}, 1401 (1999). 

1337: 

1338: \bb{28}M. Gasperini, {\sl Birth of the Universe in string cosmology}, in 

1339: Proc. of the Euroconference ``Fourth Paris Cosmology Colloquium" 

1340: (Observatoire de Paris, June 1997), eds. H. J. De Vega and N. Sanchez (World

1341: Scientific, Singapore, 1998), p. 85;  M. Gasperini, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf

1342: 13}, 4779 (1998).

1343: 

1344: \bb{34a}G. 't Hooft, in ``Salam Festschrift" , eds. A. Ali et al. (World

1345: Scientific, Singapore, 1993), p. 284; L. Susskind, J. Math. Phys. {\bf 36},

1346: 6377 (1995). 

1347: 

1348: \bb{34b}G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 454}, 22 (1999). 

1349: 

1350: \bb{29}R. R. Metsaev and A. A. Tseytlin, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 293}, 385 

1351: (1987).

1352: 

1353: \bb{30}M. D. Pollock, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 324}, 187 (1989).

1354: 

1355: \bb{31}M. D. Pollock, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 7}, 4149 (1992). 

1356: 

1357: \bb{43a}E. Kiritsis and C. Kounnas, {\sl Dynamical topology change,

1358: compactification and waves in a stringy early Universe}, in  Proc. of the

1359: Euroconference ``Second Paris Cosmology Colloquium"  (Observatoire

1360: de Paris, June 1994), eds. H. J. De Vega and N. Sanchez (World Scientific,

1361: Singapore, 1995), p. 500

1362: 

1363: \bb{30a}T. Banks, W. Fischler and L. Motl, JHEP {\bf 9901}, 019 (1999). 

1364: 

1365: \bb{M1}M. Maggiore and A. Riotto, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 548}, 427 (1999).

1366: 

1367: \bb{M2}E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 471}, 136 (1996); 

1368: P. Horawa and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 475}, 94 (1996). 

1369: 

1370: \bb{M3}A. Lukas and B. A. Ovrut, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 437}, 291 (1998). 

1371: 

1372: \bb{M4}A. Feinstein and M. A. Vazquez-Mozo, {\sl M-theory resolution of

1373: four-dimensional cosmological singularities via U-duality}, 

1374: hep-th/9906006.

1375: 

1376: \bb{M5}A. Lukas, B. A. Ovrut and D. Waldram, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 495}, 365

1377: (1997).

1378: 

1379: \bb{M6}K. Behrndt, S. Forste and S. Schwager, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 508}, 391

1380: (1997);  R. Poppe and S. Schwager, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 393}, 51 (1997);

1381: N. Kaloper, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55}, 3304 (1997).

1382: 

1383: \bb{M7}F. Larsen and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55}, 4591 (1997).

1384: 

1385: \bb{M8}N. Kaloper, I. I. Kogan and K. A. Olive,  Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 7340

1386: (1998).

1387: 

1388: \bb{32}L. P. Grishchuk, Sov. Phys. JEPT {\bf 40}, 409 (1975); A. A. 

1389: Starobinski, HEPT Letters {\bf 30}, 682 (1979).

1390: 

1391: \bb{33}V. F. Mukhanov, H. A. Feldman and R. Brandenberger, Phys. Rep. 

1392: {\bf 215}, 203 (1992).

1393: 

1394: \bb{34}M. Gasperini and M. Giovannini, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 282}, 36 

1395: (1992); Phys. Rev. D {\bf 47}, 1529 (1993).

1396: 

1397: \bb{41a}Second paper of Ref. \cite{32}. 

1398: 

1399: \bb{35}R. B. Abbott, B. Bednarz and S. D. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 33}, 

1400: 2147 (1986).

1401: 

1402: \bb{36}Second paper of Ref. \cite{4}. 

1403: 

1404: \bb{36a}M. Gasperini, M. Giovannini and G. Veneziano, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 

1405: 48}, R439 (1993).

1406: 

1407: \bb{37}R. Brustein, M. Gasperini, M. Giovannini, V. F. Mukhanov and G. 

1408: Veneziano, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 51}, 6744 (1995).

1409: 

1410: \bb{38}J. Hwang, Ap. J {\bf 375}, 442 (1991).

1411: 

1412: \bb{39}R. Brustein, M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 

1413: 431}, 277 (1998).

1414: 

1415: \bb{40}R. Brustein, M. Gasperini, M. Giovannini and G. Veneziano, Phys. 

1416: Lett. B {\bf 361}, 45 (1995).

1417: 

1418: \bb{41}R. Brustein, M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 

1419: 55}, 3882 (1997).

1420: 

1421: \bb{42}See also M. Gasperini, {\sl Status of string cosmology: 

1422: phenomenological aspects}, 

1423: in Proc. of the ``Fourth Course of the 

1424: Int. School of Astrophysics D. Chalonge" (Erice, 1995), eds. N. Sanchez 

1425: and A. Zichichi (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996), p. 305. 

1426: 

1427: \bb{50a}A. Buonanno, K.A. Meissner, C. Ungarelli and G. Veneziano,  JHEP 01,

1428: 004 (1998). 

1429: 

1430: \bb{54a}M. S. Turner and L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 37}, 2743 (1988). 

1431: 

1432: \bb{43}M. Gasperini, M. Giovannini and G. Veneziano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 

1433: {\bf 75}, 3796 (1995). 

1434: 

1435: \bb{51a}E. J. Copeland, R. Easther and D. Wands,  Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56},

1436: 874 (1997); E. J. Copeland, J. Lidsey and D. Wands,  Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 506},

1437: 407 (1997).

1438: 

1439: \bb{44}R. K. Sachs and A. M. Wolfe, Ap. J. {\bf 147}, 73 (1967).

1440: 

1441: \bb{45}R. Durrer, M. Gasperini, M. Sakellariadou and G. Veneziano, Phys.

1442: Lett. B {\bf 436}, 66 (1998); Phys. Rev.  D {\bf 59}, 043511 (1999).

1443: 

1444: \bb{46}M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 043503 (1999).

1445: 

1446: \bb{47}C. Bennet et al, Astrophys. Lett. {\bf 464}, L1 (1996).

1447: 

1448: \bb{55a}A. Melchiorri, F. Vernizzi, R. Durrer and G. Veneziano, 

1449: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83 },  4464 (1999).  

1450: 

1451: \bb{48}M. Gasperini, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 327}, 214 (1994); see also the third

1452: paper of Ref. \cite{4}.

1453: 

1454: \bb{49}M. Gasperini, {\sl Relic dilatons in string cosmology}, 

1455: in Proc. of the ``12th Italian Conference on Gen. 

1456: Rel. and Grav. Phys." (Roma 1996), eds. 

1457: M. Bassan et al. (World Scientific, Singapore, 

1458: 1997), p. 181.

1459: 

1460: \bb{57a}M. Gasperini, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 470}, 67 (1999).

1461: 

1462: \bb{64a}M. Gasperini, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 477}, 242 (2000).  

1463: 

1464: \bb{50}A. Linde, {\sl Present status of inflationary theory}, talk given at

1465: the ``First Cosmology and Particle Physics Workshop" (CERN, TH Division,

1466: June 1998). 

1467: 

1468: 

1469: \end{thebibliography}

1470: 

1471: 

1472: \end{document}

1473: 

1474: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1475: table

1476:  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?

1477: @ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_

1478: