1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: \input epsf

3: \usepackage{epsfig%,showkeys

4: }

5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6: \def\ie{{\it i.e.}}

7: \def\IZ{\relax\ifmmode\mathchoice

8: {\hbox{\cmss Z\kern-.4em Z}}{\hbox{\cmss Z\kern-.4em Z}}

9: {\lower.9pt\hbox{\cmsss Z\kern-.4em Z}} {\lower1.2pt\hbox{\cmsss

10: Z\kern-.4em Z}}\else{\cmss Z\kern-.4em Z}\fi}

11: \def\IR{\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}}

12: \def\eg{{\it e.g.}}

13: \def\one{{\hbox{ 1\kern-.8mm l}}}

14: \def\gh{{\rm gh}}

15: \def\sgh{{\rm sgh}}

16: \def\NS{{\rm NS}}

17: \def\R{{\rm R}}

18: \def\ii{{\rm i}}

19: \def\bz{{\bar z}}

20: \def\comm#1#2{\left[ #1, #2\right]}

21: \def\acomm#1#2{\left\{ #1, #2\right\}}

22: \def\tr{{\rm tr\,}}

23: \newcommand{\N}{{\cal N}}

24: \newlength{\bredde}

25: \def\slash#1{\settowidth{\bredde}{$#1$}\ifmmode\,\raisebox{.15ex}{/}

26: \hspace*{-\bredde} #1\else$\,\raisebox{.15ex}{/}\hspace*{-\bredde}

27: #1$\fi}

28: \newcommand{\ft}[2]{{\textstyle\frac{#1}{#2}}}

29: \newcommand  {\Rbar} {{\mbox{\rm$\mbox{I}\!\mbox{R}$}}}

30: \newcommand  {\Hbar} {{\mbox{\rm$\mbox{I}\!\mbox{H}$}}}

31: \newcommand {\Cbar}

32:     {\mathord{\setlength{\unitlength}{1em}

33:      \begin{picture}(0.6,0.7)(-0.1,0)

34:         \put(-0.1,0){\rm C}

35:         \thicklines

36:         \put(0.2,0.05){\line(0,1){0.55}}

37:      \end {picture}}}

38: \newsavebox{\zzzbar}

39: \sbox{\zzzbar}

40:   {\setlength{\unitlength}{0.9em}

41:   \begin{picture}(0.6,0.7)

42:   \thinlines

43:   \put(0,0){\line(1,0){0.6}}

44:   \put(0,0.75){\line(1,0){0.575}}

45:   \multiput(0,0)(0.0125,0.025){30}{\rule{0.3pt}{0.3pt}}

46:   \multiput(0.2,0)(0.0125,0.025){30}{\rule{0.3pt}{0.3pt}}

47:   \put(0,0.75){\line(0,-1){0.15}}

48:   \put(0.015,0.75){\line(0,-1){0.1}}

49:   \put(0.03,0.75){\line(0,-1){0.075}}

50:   \put(0.045,0.75){\line(0,-1){0.05}}

51:   \put(0.05,0.75){\line(0,-1){0.025}}

52:   \put(0.6,0){\line(0,1){0.15}}

53:   \put(0.585,0){\line(0,1){0.1}}

54:   \put(0.57,0){\line(0,1){0.075}}

55:   \put(0.555,0){\line(0,1){0.05}}

56:   \put(0.55,0){\line(0,1){0.025}}

57:   \end{picture}}

58: \newcommand{\Zbar}{\mathord{\!{\usebox{\zzzbar}}}}

59: \def\Im{{\rm Im ~}}

60: \def\Re{{\rm Re ~}}

61: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle{#1}|}

62: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{|{#1}\rangle}

63: \newcommand{\braket}[2]{\langle{#1}|{#2}\rangle}

64: \newcommand{\ena}{\end{eqnarray}}

65: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}

66: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}

67: \newcommand{\sect}[1]{Section~\ref{#1}}

68: \newcommand{\shalf}{\frac{1}{2}}

69: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

70: \newcommand{\fig}[1]{Fig.~\ref{#1}}

71: \newcommand{\chap}[1]{Chapter~\ref{#1}}

72: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

73: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

74: \def\G{\Gamma}

75: \def\K{{\cal K}}

76: \def\N{{\cal N}}

77: \def\H{{\cal H}}

78: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

79: \begin{document}

80: 

81: \begin{titlepage}

82: \begin{flushright}

83: EFI-03-30 \\

84: %UP \\

85: hep-th/0308057

86: \end{flushright}

87: %\vfill

88: \begin{center}

89: {\LARGE\bf Global Fluctuation Spectra \\ \vskip 3mm in Big Crunch/Big Bang String Vacua}    \\

90: \vskip 10.mm

91: {  Ben Craps $^{1}$ and Burt A.~Ovrut $^2$ } \\

92: \vskip 7mm

93: {\em $^1$ Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, 5640 S.~Ellis Av., Chicago, IL 60637, USA}\\

94: \vskip 0.5cm

95: {\em $^2$ Department of Physics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104--6396}

96: \end{center}

97: \vfill

98: 

99: \begin{center}

100: {\bf ABSTRACT}

101: \end{center}

102: %\begin{quote}

103: We study Big Crunch/Big Bang cosmologies that correspond to exact world-sheet

104: superconformal field theories of type II strings. The string

105: theory spacetime contains a Big Crunch and a Big Bang cosmology,

106: as well as additional ``whisker'' asymptotic and intermediate regions.

107: Within the context of free string theory, we compute,

108: unambiguously, the scalar fluctuation spectrum in all regions of spacetime. Generically,

109: the Big Crunch fluctuation spectrum is altered

110: while passing through the bounce singularity. The change in the spectrum is

111: characterized by a function $\Delta$, which is momentum and time-dependent.

112: We compute $\Delta$ explicitly and

113: demonstrate that it arises from the whisker regions.

114: The whiskers are also shown to lead to ``entanglement'' entropy in

115: the Big Bang region.

116: Finally, in the Milne orbifold limit of our superconformal vacua, we show that

117: $\Delta\rightarrow 1$ and, hence, the fluctuation spectrum is unaltered by the

118: Big Crunch/Big Bang singularity. We comment on, but do not attempt

119: to resolve, subtleties related to gravitational backreaction and

120: light winding modes when interactions are taken into account.

121: %\vskip 7mm

122: \vfill

123: \hrule width 5.cm

124: \vskip 2.mm

125: {\small

126: \noindent  {\tt craps@theory.uchicago.edu,  ovrut@ovrut.hep.upenn.edu}}

127: %\end{quote}

128: %\begin{flushleft}

129: %PACS 11.25.-w, 04.65.+e

130: %\end{flushleft}

131: \end{titlepage}

132: 

133: 

134: 

135: \section{Introduction}

136: 

137: The theory of Ekpyrotic cosmology~\cite{cosmoA,cosmoB,cosmoC}, as well as

138: pre Big Bang scenarios~\cite{Gasperini:2002bn}, has emphasized the idea that the Universe

139: did not begin at the Big Bang but, rather, had a long prior history. Although the

140: details of this theory are far from understood, it is not

141: unreasonable to assume, since the Universe had to pass through the Big Bang

142: where densities and temperatures are set by the Planck scale, that

143: superstrings play a fundamental role. If this is the case, then one expects

144: the natural setting for cosmology to be, not four dimensions, but

145: the higher-dimensional spacetime of string theory. Ekpyrotic cosmology

146: introduced the idea that the Big Bang perhaps resulted from the

147: catastrophic collision of two brane solitons in this higher dimensional

148: space. Colliding branes and the associated bulk space geometry correspond to

149: vacuum solutions of the string theory equations of motion. These vacua may

150: solve equations which are valid to some finite order in a string expansion parameter,

151: such as five-brane/nine-brane collisions in heterotic $M$-theory~\cite{cosmoD,cosmoE} which are

152: valid to order $\kappa_{11}^{2}$, or they may be

153: exact conformal field theories, which solve the string equations to

154: all orders in the string parameter $\alpha'$. The second type of vacua were

155: emphasized in the Big Crunch/Big Bang~\cite{Khoury:2001bz} realizations of Ekpyrotic theory. Cyclic

156: models~\cite{cosmoF} are based on Big Crunch/Big Bang theories. All of these vacua

157: have in common the property that, prior to the Big Bang, the relevant region

158: of spacetime, our past, is contracting toward a singular brane collision.

159: In Big Crunch/Big Bang scenarios, the Universe then expands outward from this

160: singularity as the Big Bang. The singular point is called the ``bounce''.

161: 

162: 

163: Of particular importance in all cosmologies, and no less so in Ekpyrotic

164: theories, is the origin and momentum spectra of both scalar field and

165: gravitational quantum fluctuations. These are of the utmost importance since

166: they produce inhomogeneities in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) that have

167: already been observed. These observations are being increasingly refined and

168: offer an experimental window into whatever fundamental physics is responsible

169: for the present Universe. It was shown in~\cite{cosmoA,cosmoC} that nearly scale invariant

170: scalar perturbations are generated in the Big Crunch phase of Ekpyrotic

171: theories prior to the Big Bang. Indeed, a near scale invariant spectrum of

172: perturbations is observed in the CMB, but this is in the post Big Bang phase.

173: To make contact with these observations, one one must conclusively demonstrate

174: that the pre Big Bang fluctuation spectrum in Ekpyrotic theories

175: is propagated, nearly unchanged, through the Big Bang. This, despite the fact that

176: Big Crunch/Big Bang geometries are singular at the bounce. Although motivated

177: by string theory, almost all previous attempts to address this issue have been

178: carried out within the context of four-dimensional toy model geometries,

179: which do not solve the string equations of motion, even to lowest order~\cite{cosmoC,no,maybe}.

180: Recently, this problem was studied in a five-dimensional Milne background~\cite{Tolley:2002cv,

181: Tolley:2003nx}, and it

182: was emphasized that the five-dimensional structure is important near the Crunch.

183: However, in all cases the problem was studied

184: using the techniques of quantum field theory, with no string theory input.

185: With no further information at their disposal, the authors of these papers had

186: to proceed by matching the relevant pre Big Bang and post Big Bang wavefunctions

187: at the bounce, where the geometry is highly singular. The choice of boundary

188: conditions is, by itself, conjectural, being motivated by differing physical

189: arguments. This is made all the harder by the singular nature of the geometry

190: at the bounce. The result is that some authors claimed that the pre Big Bang

191: scale invariant fluctuations are radically altered when they pass through

192: the singularity~\cite{no} while others claim they are unaltered~\cite{cosmoC,Tolley:2003nx}. The ambiguous

193: nature of these attempts was demonstrated in~\cite{maybe}, who showed that, although

194: highly restricted, alternative boundary conditions are possible, leading to

195: the contradictory claims in the literature. How, then, can one resolve this

196: ambiguity?

197: 

198: 

199: It seems clear from the previous discussion that string theory should lead to

200: a unique solution of this problem. The reason for this is that string theory

201: vacua are, in general, globally defined. First of all, their geometric

202: manifolds include both the Big Crunch and Big Bang regions of cosmology, in

203: addition to other regions. Secondly, the wavefunctions of these vacua are

204: defined everywhere on the geometry. That is, knowing a wavefunction in the Big

205: Crunch region, for example, uniquely specifies the wavefunction in the

206: Big Bang regime. Clearly, this exactly specifies the boundary conditions for

207: the wavefunctions at the singularity, completely resolving the ambiguities

208: present in previous work. In this paper, we will show that this is indeed the

209: case, at least in the limit of zero string coupling. Working within the

210: framework of both supercritical \cite{Myers:fv,Antoniadis:1988vi} and critical type~II

211: superstrings\footnote{Note that ``type~II'' refers to a fermionic string with a chiral

212: GSO projection.}, we present a class of Big Crunch/Big Bang

213: cosmological vacua, called ``generalized'' Milne orbifolds \cite{Craps:2002ii}.

214: The geometry of these vacua includes both the past Big

215: Crunch and the future Big Bang regions. There are, in addition, four other

216: regions, often called ``whiskers'': an additional early time region, an additional

217: late time region and two intermediate regions with closed timelike curves. The

218: intermediate regions connect to the Big Crunch/Big Bang

219: regions at the bounce singularity. These vacua are exact superconformal field

220: theories and our results are valid to all

221: orders in the string worldsheet parameter $\alpha'$ \cite{Craps:2002ii}.

222: %\footnote{Or

223: %more precisely, our derivation of the fluctuation spectra is valid

224: %to leading order in $\alpha'$, but $\alpha'$ corrections do not

225: %change the results \cite{Craps:2002ii}.}

226: In this paper, we will present our discussion within the context of supercritical

227: string theory, since the corresponding spacetimes are manifestly homogeneous and

228: isotropic. However, we can show that the results are identical for

229: certain solutions of critical string theory. These ten-dimensional vacua contain, in

230: addition to the generalized Milne directions, two non-compact

231: spatial directions described by the

232: two-dimensional ``cigar'' conformal field theory \cite{Witten:1991yr},

233: which we take to be two of the three large

234: space directions. These vacua are not homogeneous and

235: isotropic, but approach these properties, as closely as one likes,

236: if a parameter is taken to be small. The Milne orbifold can be obtained as a specific limit

237: of these generalized Milne orbifolds. Working within this context, we find

238: that the wavefunctions are, indeed, globally defined. This follows from the

239: fact that the generalized Milne vacua all descend from a ``covering space'' by

240: the process of cosetting out a gauge action and orbifolding. The invariant globally

241: defined wavefunctions on the covering space then descend to globally defined

242: wavefunctions on the generalized Milne orbifolds. Therefore, to all orders in

243: $\alpha'$, the boundary condition ambiguities inherent in previous work have been

244: resolved.

245: 

246: What, then, are the results for the fluctuation spectrum? We find that the

247: fluctuation spectrum in the Big Crunch regime is, in general, altered by its

248: passage through the Big Crunch/Big Bang singularity. The change in the spectrum

249: can be calculated unambiguously at any time after the bounce. In the far future,

250: it can be expressed by an explicit momentum and time-dependent function

251: $\Delta(\vec{k},t)$,

252: which multiplies the early time pre Big Bang fluctuation spectrum. In the

253: Milne orbifold limit, we find that $\Delta\rightarrow 1$ and, hence, the

254: Big Crunch fluctuation spectrum is preserved as it passes through the

255: singularity. This proves the conjecture first introduced in~\cite{cosmoC} and shown

256: within a five-dimensional field theory context in~\cite{Tolley:2003nx}. If this result survives

257: corrections due to gravitational backreaction and stringy effects, which we will

258: comment on at the end of this Introduction, it means that the fluctuation

259: spectrum of Ekpyrotic cosmology may well be consistent with observation.

260: However, for generalized Milne orbifolds $\Delta$ is not unity and the

261: fluctuation spectrum changes as it passes through the bounce singularity. We

262: will show that this change is entirely due to the existence of

263: the whisker regions. Specifically, the quantum mechanics of these stringy

264: regions is inextricably linked to the quantum mechanics of the Big Crunch/Big

265: Bang geometry. The point of linkage is at the bounce singularity, where the

266: whiskers and the Big Crunch/Big Bang regions touch. The result is that

267: there is, in general, particle production in the future Big Bang region, even

268: though the vacuum in the Big Crunch was empty. This particle creation affects

269: all of the correlation functions in the future. In particular, it affects the

270: two-point correlation function from which $\Delta$ is calculated. We find that

271: $\Delta$ is an explicit function of momentum, with both time-independent and

272: time-dependent components. This calculation exposes a subtlety that arises

273: whenever the geometry has whiskers of the type discussed in this paper. That

274: is, that the early time in-vacuum is ambiguous. If we define this vacuum to be

275: such that an observer in the Big Crunch regime sees no particles, then we find

276: the associated in-vacuum in the early time whisker is not completely fixed. This

277: ambiguity in the in-vacuum can be parameterized by two constrained complex functions

278: $\gamma(\vec k)$ and $\tilde\gamma(\vec k)$. The parameter $\gamma(\vec k)$

279: explicitly enters the expression for $\Delta$. One natural choice turns out

280: to correspond to $\gamma(\vec k)=1, \tilde\gamma(\vec k)=0$ and leads to particle

281: creation and a

282: deviation of $\Delta$ from unity. However, as $\gamma\rightarrow 0$, the

283: particle production in the Big Bang region decreases to zero and $\Delta\rightarrow 1$. Therefore,

284: for a large choice of in-vacua, the change in the fluctuation spectrum by the

285: singularity is small. This might open the possibility of measuring string effects,

286: namely the existence of whisker regions connected to the Big

287: Crunch/Big Bang geometry, as small momentum and time-dependent deviations

288: from the scale invariance of the inhomogeneities in the CMB. We

289: hope to discuss this further elsewhere.

290: 

291: 

292: The linkage of the quantum mechanics of the Big

293: Crunch/Big Bang and whisker regions has a second, unanticipated effect.

294: As viewed in the Hilbert space of the complete quantum mechanics, the in-vacuum

295: is a pure state. However, we find that it is ``entangled'', that is, contains

296: correlations between the late time Big Bang and whisker regions. Therefore,

297: tracing its density matrix over the states of the unobserved whisker,

298: one obtains a non-trivial density matrix in the observable Big Bang region.

299: That is, an observer in the Big Bang region, with no access to information

300: about the whiskers, finds himself in a mixed state. This state has

301: ``entanglement''entropy, which manifests itself explicitly in the expression

302: for $\Delta$. If the entropy were zero, then the expression for $\Delta$

303: should be compatible with a Bogolubov transformation linking the ``in'' and

304: ``out'' states of the Big Crunch and Big Bang regions. However, non-vanishing

305: entanglement entropy will ruin this compatibility. We find that our explicit

306: expression for $\Delta$ indicates non-vanishing entanglement entropy, except

307: in the limit $\gamma\rightarrow 0$ where the whisker effects decouple. It

308: follows that, not only are the changes in the spectrum

309: calculable, but they explicitly exhibit entropy induced by the

310: existence of the stringy whisker regions. This is not dissimilar to recent

311: discussions of entangled states within the context of BTZ black holes

312: \cite{Maldacena:2001kr}, see also \cite{BTZ}.

313: 

314: We have presented the results of this paper mostly in the context

315: of Ekpyrotic Big Crunch/Big Bang transitions. Indeed, Ekpyrotic

316: theory has inspired much of the recent interest in Big Crunch/Big Bang

317: singularities in string theory \cite{Khoury:2001bz,Seiberg:2002hr}

318: and presents a context where it is particularly

319: important to know what happens to fluctuations at such a singularity.

320: However, Big Crunch/Big Bang transitions are of more general

321: interest and are especially appealing in string theory, where

322: observables are usually defined using simple asymptotic regions.

323: See, for instance, \cite{Gasperini:2002bn}.

324: Therefore, we believe that the results of this paper, such as

325: information loss due to the existence of  whisker regions, might be of interest in

326: more general cosmological scenarios.

327: 

328: 

329: Specifically, in this paper we do the following. Section 2 is devoted to a

330: discussion of a specific four-dimensional quantum field theory involving

331: gravity and three scalar fields. In subsection 2.1, we present a cosmological

332: background solution of this theory and explore various physical properties.

333: It is shown that there are two independent branches to

334: this solution, one representing a Big Crunch universe, evolving from the past

335: and ending in a singularity, and the other a Big Bang universe, beginning in a

336: singularity and evolving into the future. Scalar field quantum fluctuations, in

337: each of the Big Crunch and Big Bang regions, are discussed in subsection 2.2.

338: Both the in-vacuum and the out-vacuum are defined, and we explicitly compute

339: the scalar two-point correlation function with respect to each of

340: these vacua. In subsection 2.3, we relate both the classical and quantum

341: theories of the Big Crunch and Big Bang regions by connecting them at the

342: singularity. Within this context, we compute the two-point correlation

343: function with respect to the in-vacuum in both regions and compare them. We

344: find that the scalar fluctuation spectrum is potentially altered when it

345: passes from the past Big Crunch region through the bounce singularity. In the

346: far future, the change in the spectrum can be expressed by a momentum and

347: time-dependent function. We compute this function explicitly and show that it

348: depends on the Bogolubov coefficients relating the ``in'' and the ``out''

349: states of the Hilbert space. The meaning of these coefficients, and how one

350: should compute them, is discussed. Finally, in subsection 2.4, we show that

351: our four-dimensional quantum field theory is the low energy effective theory

352: for supercritical type II strings.

353: 

354: 

355: Section 3 is devoted to superstring cosmology within the context of type II

356: supercritical string theories. In subsection 3.1, we review the

357: ``generalized'' Milne orbifold solutions of these theories first presented in

358: \cite{Craps:2002ii}.

359: These solutions are exact superconformal field theories. The various

360: regions of the associated spacetimes are discussed in detail, including the

361: additional whisker regions. It is shown that, at low energy,

362: these string vacua give rise to the Big Crunch/Big Bang theories introduced in

363: section 2. We study the scalar fluctuation spectrum in subsection 3.2. The

364: structure of generalized Milne orbifolds as the coset and orbifold of a

365: $PSL(2,\Rbar)$ covering space is reviewed and the relationship of these vacua

366: to the Milne orbifold is discussed. In subsection 3.2.1, a basis of

367: wavefunctions, each defined on every region of the spacetime, is presented and

368: studied. We quantize the scalar fluctuations in subsection 3.2.2. This is

369: accomplished by expanding the scalar fluctuations in this basis and

370: canonically quantizing the coefficients. We define two natural vacua,

371: the in-vacuum and the out-vacuum, and compute the Bogolubov coefficients

372: relating them \cite{Craps:2002ii}. Using these results, we compute the particle production in the

373: future regions and the scalar two-point correlation function with respect to

374: the in-vacuum. This result is valid in any region, allowing us to compare the

375: spectrum in the future Big Bang region with the early time spectrum

376: during the Big Crunch. We find that, generically, the spectrum is altered. In

377: the far future, we can express the change in the spectrum in terms of a

378: function $\Delta$, which is momentum and time-dependent. We compute this

379: function explicitly. In subsection 3.2.3, we show that there is, in fact, a

380: family of in-vacua, which we specify with two constrained complex functions

381: $\gamma(\vec k)$ and $\tilde\gamma(\vec k)$. We repeat the calculation of the Bogolubov coefficients, particle

382: production, scalar two-point correlation function and $\Delta$ in this context.

383: Again, in general, the fluctuation spectrum is changed as it passes through

384: the bounce singularity. However, in the limit that $\gamma \rightarrow 0$,

385: $\Delta$ approaches unity and the spectrum is conserved. In this limit,

386: $\Delta$ can be expressed in terms of the pure Big Crunch/Big Bang Bogolubov

387: coefficients. However, for any finite $\gamma$, this is no longer the case.

388: This is explained in subsection~3.3, where it is shown that the generalized

389: in-vacuum is an entangled state in the future. This implies that, from the point

390: of view of an observer in the Big Bang region, this vacuum has entanglement

391: entropy. This is equivalent to quantum mechanical ``information loss'' into

392: the whisker regions. It is this information loss that obstructs writing

393: $\Delta$ in terms of the pure Big Crunch/Big Bang Bogolubov coefficients. In

394: subsection 3.4, we discuss the limit of our superconformal vacua to the Milne

395: orbifold. It is shown that, in this limit, the factor $\Delta$ goes to unity

396: for any $\gamma$ in-vacuum. This proves that, in the Milne orbifold

397: cosmology, the fluctuation spectrum is unaltered by the bounce

398: singularity. In subsection~3.5, we include some comments on backreaction.

399: Finally, in Appendices A, B, and C, we outline the theory of

400: global wavefunctions, present the expressions for a basis of these

401: wavefunctions in all regions of the spacetime and discuss the Milne limit of

402: these wavefunctions respectively.

403: 

404: 

405: Before proceeding, we would like to make several important comments. First,

406: note that the generalized Milne orbifolds

407: have a smooth circle in the spatial Milne-direction.

408: However, it is not hard to show that all of the results of this paper will be

409: unchanged if we allow a further $\Zbar_{2}$ orbifolding in this direction. In

410: this case, this smooth circle becomes a finite interval, with new twisted

411: sector states appearing on each of the two boundaries. This new $\Zbar_{2}$

412: orbifolded vacuum is again an exact superconformal field theory, which is

413: closer in spirit to the notion of colliding branes.

414: 

415: As we have stated previously, our results are computed with respect to  exact

416: superconformal field theories, so $\alpha'$ corrections are under control.

417: However, it is well-known that these theories suffer from severe backreaction

418: problems, which could conceivably modify our results.

419: Indeed, string perturbation theory gives rise not only

420: to an expansion in $\alpha'$ (higher derivative corrections to the classical action),

421: but also to an expansion in the string coupling $g_s$

422: (quantum corrections). The results of \cite{Craps:2002ii, Elitzur:2002rt} on

423: global wavefunctions refer only to the first term in the $g_s$ expansion. It has,

424: in fact, been shown in \cite{Berkooz:2002je}, following \cite{Liu:2002ft}, that classical

425: string scattering amplitudes exhibit divergences associated with a large backreaction of

426: the spacetime geometry to small perturbations. For a non-perturbative manifestation of

427: gravitational instability, see \cite{Horowitz:2002mw}.

428: Large gravitational backreaction

429: (or the absence thereof) in this and related models \cite{Elitzur:2002rt, Cornalba:2002fi,

430: related}

431: was also studied in \cite{backreaction}.

432: The tree-level divergences of \cite{Berkooz:2002je, Liu:2002ft} indicate a breakdown of

433: string perturbation theory. That is, it is not consistent to

434: ignore $g_s$ corrections if $g_s$ is small but non-zero. For a non-technical discussion

435: of this, see \cite{Liu:2002yd}.

436: Therefore, there is at present no fully controlled computational framework, and it is

437: conceivable that our detailed results will receive significant corrections when

438: backreaction is taken into account. One may hope that at least certain important

439: qualitative features, such as the peculiar causal structure of the string solutions

440: and its effect on four-dimensional cosmology, will survive $g_s$ corrections. However, it

441: will take significant advances in string theory to either establish or refute this.

442: 

443: It has been suggested, see for instance \cite{Bachas:2002qt}, that string winding

444: modes that become light

445: near the bounce might play a role in resolving the singularity in

446: string theory. In the case of the Milne orbifold, the description

447: of these winding modes is somewhat complicated, because the size of the

448: Milne circle grows without bound away from the singularity.

449: See \cite{Berkooz:2003bs} for a very recent discussion and

450: \cite{Nekrasov:2002kf} for earlier work. However, in the generalized Milne

451: orbifold the radius of the Milne circle approaches a constant

452: asymptotically, and the vertex operators for the winding modes are

453: explicitly known \cite{Craps:2002ii}. In the present paper, we

454: will ignore winding modes, except to note that they become light

455: near the Big Crunch/Big Bang singularity and invalidate a four-dimensional description

456: there. They are heavy away from the bounce and, thus, do not appear in the

457: effective action describing our four-dimensional cosmology. However, we

458: should stress that the computations we do for the generalized Milne orbifold

459: can easily be extended to include winding modes

460: \cite{Craps:2002ii}. Of course, the most interesting effects of winding modes

461: should involve string interactions, and these have not yet been

462: computed for the generalized Milne orbifold.

463: 

464: 

465: In string theory, the observables are S-matrix elements. At zero string coupling, the

466: regime

467: in which we will be working, they are determined by a Bogolubov

468: matrix. Our strategy is to compute this matrix using the globally defined vertex operators

469: \cite{Craps:2002ii, Elitzur:2002rt}. More specifically, we calculate the Bogolubov

470: matrix to leading order in $\alpha'$ from the associated globally defined

471: wavefunctions. However, as was mentioned in \cite{Craps:2002ii},

472: the higher $\alpha'$ corrections modify this matrix in a very

473: trivial way, simply multiplying some of the entries by a phase.

474: Therefore, the particle creation rates we compute are exact to all

475: orders in $\alpha'$. In this paper, we will go a step beyond computing

476: S-matrix elements and compute correlation functions at a fixed finite time,

477: using the global wavefunctions we obtained from string theory.

478: 

479: %On the other hand, finite-time correlation functions, the objects of

480: %interest from an experimental point of view, are hard to define, let alone compute,

481: %in string theory: they are believed to be derived concepts, encoded in a very

482: %complicated way in the fundamental observables of the theory (S-matrix-type quantities).

483: %Therefore, when we compute fluctuation spectra at some finite time, we strictly speaking

484: %leave the rigorous framework of string theory, and use the

485: %string theory results we derived, the global wavefunctions, as an ingredient in

486: %field theory computations. This, however, is a complication that

487: %is not associated to the Big Crunch/Big Bang singularity: it would

488: %also be there for computations in Minkowski space.

489: 

490: For additional recent string theory work related to Big Crunch/Big Bang singularities,

491: see \cite{recent}.

492: 

493: 

494: 

495: 

496: \section{Four-Dimensional Cosmology}\label{sec:fourd}

497: 

498: 

499: In this section, we will explore the cosmological properties of a specific

500: four-dimensional quantum field theory coupled to gravity.

501: This theory consists of three scalar

502: fields, denoted by $\sigma_{T}$, $\sigma_{R}$ and $\phi$ respectively, coupled to

503: the usual Einstein gravity. The action for this theory is given by

504: \begin{equation}

505: S=\frac{1}{2\kappa_{4}^{2}}\int d^{4}x\sqrt{-g}{\cal{L}},

506: \label{eq:1}

507: \end{equation}

508: where

509: \begin{equation}

510: {\cal{L}}=R-\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial_{\nu}\phi

511: -\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\sigma_{T}\partial_{\nu}\sigma_{T}

512: -\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\sigma_{R}\partial_{\nu}\sigma_{R}

513: -4Q^2e^{\phi}.

514: \label{eq:2}

515: \end{equation}

516: There are two dimensionful parameters in this action, Newton's constant

517: $\kappa_{4}^{2}/8\pi$ ($\kappa_4$ having the dimension of a length)

518: and a mass scale $Q$, which we will think of as small compared to the

519: momenta of interest.

520: 

521: 

522: \subsection{The Background Spacetime}\label{sub:background}

523: 

524: We will be interested in cosmological solutions of the equations of motion

525: of this theory that are spatially homogeneous and isotropic, that is, of the

526: Friedman-Robinson-Walker (FRW) type. We find the following general class of such

527: solutions. The scalar fields are independent of all spatial coordinates and

528: evolve as follows. The field $\sigma_{T}$ simply vanishes,

529: \begin{equation}

530: \sigma_{T}=0,

531: \label{eq:3}

532: \end{equation}

533: whereas

534: \begin{equation}

535: \sigma_{R}=\sqrt2\log|\tanh(Qt)|

536: \label{eq:4}

537: \end{equation}

538: and

539: \begin{equation}

540: \phi=2\phi_{0}-\log|\sinh(2Qt)|.

541: \label{eq:5}

542: \end{equation}

543: Here

544: %\begin{equation}

545: %Q=\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{2}}

546: %\label{eq:6}

547: %\end{equation}

548: %and

549: $\phi_{0}$ is an arbitrary integration constant. These fields drive a

550: time-varying metric which is independent of all spatial coordinates and given

551: by

552: \begin{equation}

553: g_{\mu\nu}=a(t)^{2}\eta_{\mu\nu},

554: \label{eq:7}

555: \end{equation}

556: where

557: \begin{equation}

558: a^{2}=e^{-2\phi_{0}}|\sinh(2Qt)|

559: \label{eq:8}

560: \end{equation}

561: and $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ is the metric of flat Minkowski space. It follows from the

562: form of the metric that $t$ is conformal time.

563: 

564: 

565: What are the cosmological properties of this class of solutions? Perhaps the

566: most salient feature is that the conformal factor of the metric, $a(t)^{2}$,

567: is monotonically decreasing in the time interval $-\infty < t < 0$ and

568: monotonically increasing for $0<t< +\infty$. We will refer to the spacetime in the

569: negative time interval as Region I and the spacetime for the positive time

570: interval as Region II. Let us be more specific about the geometry of these

571: regions. To make contact with the conventional analysis of FRW cosmologies, we

572: will first compute the equation of state

573: \begin{equation}

574: w=\frac{P}{\rho},

575: \label{eq:9}

576: \end{equation}

577: where $P$ is the pressure and $\rho$ the energy density. These quantities are

578: defined by the Einstein equations

579: \begin{equation}

580: {\cal{H}}^{2}=\frac{\kappa_{4}^{2}}{3}a^{2}\rho

581: \label{eq:10}

582: \end{equation}

583: and

584: \begin{equation}

585: {\cal{H}}'=-\frac{\kappa_{4}^{2}}{6}a^{2}(\rho+3P),

586: \label{eq:11}

587: \end{equation}

588: where

589: \begin{equation}

590: {\cal{H}}=\frac{a'}{a}

591: \label{eq:12}

592: \end{equation}

593: and the prime denotes differentiation with respect to conformal time $t$.

594: Using~\eq{eq:8}, we find from~\eq{eq:10} and~\eq{eq:11} that

595: \begin{equation}

596: \rho= \frac{3Q^{2}}{\kappa_{4}^{2}}e^{2\phi_{0}}\frac{\cosh^{2}(2Qt)}{|\sinh^{3}

597: (2Qt)|}

598: \label{eq:13}

599: \end{equation}

600: and

601: \begin{equation}

602: P=\frac{Q^{2}}{\kappa_{4}^{2}}e^{2\phi_{0}}\left(\frac{4-\cosh^{2}(2Qt)}{|\sinh^{3}

603: (2Qt)|}\right)

604: \label{eq:14}

605: \end{equation}

606: respectively. It follows that

607: \begin{equation}

608: w=\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{4-\cosh^{2}(2Qt)}{\cosh^{2}(2Qt)}\right).

609: \label{eq:15}

610: \end{equation}

611: The first thing to notice is that $w$ is not constant in time. In the far past

612: and future

613: \begin{equation}

614: w\longrightarrow -\frac{1}{3}, \qquad t\longrightarrow \pm\infty.

615: \label{eq:16}

616: \end{equation}

617: As the cosmology evolves, one finds that

618: \begin{equation}

619: w=0, \qquad t_{0}=\pm\frac{1}{2Q}\log(2+\sqrt{3})\Leftrightarrow \cosh(2Qt_{0})=2

620: \label{eq:17}

621: \end{equation}

622: and

623: \begin{equation}

624: w=\frac{1}{3}, \qquad

625: t_{1/3}=\pm\frac{1}{2Q}\log(1+\sqrt{2})\Leftrightarrow

626: |\sinh(2Qt_{1/3})|=1.

627: \label{eq:18}

628: \end{equation}

629: Finally, as one approaches the origin, either from negative time or positive

630: time,

631: \begin{equation}

632: w\longrightarrow 1-\frac{16Q^{2}}{3}t^{2}+\cdots, \qquad t\longrightarrow \pm 0.

633: \label{eq:19}

634: \end{equation}

635: It follows that

636: \begin{equation}

637: w\cong 1, \qquad |t|\ll \frac{\sqrt{3}}{4Q}.

638: \label{eq:20}

639: \end{equation}

640: What is the interpretation of this somewhat unusual FRW cosmology? To

641: elucidate this, note that in a scalar dominated phase the energy density and

642: pressure are given by

643: \begin{equation}

644: \rho={1\over2\kappa_4^2}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{3}\frac{{\psi'_{i}}^{2}}{2a^2}+V\right),

645: \qquad

646: P={1\over2\kappa_4^2}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{3}\frac{{\psi'_{i}}^{2}}{2a^2}-V\right),

647: \label{eq:21}

648: \end{equation}

649: where $\psi_{i}, i=1,2,3$ are the fields $\sigma_{T}$, $\sigma_{R}$ and $\phi$

650: respectively and $V$ is the total potential energy.

651: Using~\eq{eq:2},~\eq{eq:3},~\eq{eq:4} and~\eq{eq:5},

652: it is easy to show that $\rho$ and $P$ in~\eq{eq:21} are identical to

653: expressions~\eq{eq:13} and~\eq{eq:14}. It follows that in both Regions I and

654: II our cosmology is

655: scalar dominated with the equation of state $w$ changing as the scalar fields

656: evolve. In the conformal time coordinate $t$, only in the regions described

657: by~\eq{eq:16} and~\eq{eq:20} does $w$ behave approximately as a constant, $w=-1/3$

658: and $w=1$ respectively.

659: Note that, in the latter time region, the conformal factor $a(t)$

660: in~\eq{eq:8} becomes

661: \begin{equation}

662: a\cong |\frac{t}{e^{2\phi_{0}}/2Q}|^{q}, \qquad q=\frac{1}{2},

663: \label{eq:22}

664: \end{equation}

665: which is consistent with constant $w=1$.

666: 

667: 

668: A second important feature of FRW cosmologies is the Hubble parameter

669: \begin{equation}

670: H=\frac{a'}{a^{2}}

671: \label{eq:23}

672: \end{equation}

673: and its inverse, $R_{H}=|H|^{-1}$, the Hubble radius. Using~\eq{eq:8}, one

674: finds that

675: \begin{equation}

676: H=Qe^{\phi_{0}}\frac{\cosh(2Qt)}{\sinh(2Qt)|\sinh(2Qt)|^{\frac{1}{2}}}.

677: \label{eq:24}

678: \end{equation}

679: Again, note that $H$ and, hence, $R_{H}$ are not constants but, rather,

680: evolve with conformal time $t$. Let us focus on the behaviour of the Hubble

681: radius. In the far past and future

682: \begin{equation}

683: R_{H}\longrightarrow \infty, \qquad t\longrightarrow \pm \infty.

684: \label{eq:25}

685: \end{equation}

686: The Hubble radius then changes monotonically, taking the value, for example,

687: \begin{equation}

688: R_{H}=\frac{e^{-\phi_{0}}}{\sqrt2Q}, \qquad t_{1/3}=\pm\frac{1}{2Q}

689: \log(1+\sqrt{2})

690: \label{eq:26}

691: \end{equation}

692: before behaving as

693: \begin{equation}

694: R_{H}\longrightarrow {|2Qt|^{3/2}e^{-\phi_0}\over Q}(1-Q^{2}t^{2}+\cdots),

695: \qquad t\longrightarrow \pm0

696: \label{eq:27}

697: \end{equation}

698: as the time approaches the origin. Hence,

699: \begin{equation}

700: R_{H}\cong {|2Qt|^{3/2}e^{-\phi_0}\over Q}, \qquad |t|\ll\frac{1}{Q},

701: \label{eq:28}

702: \end{equation}

703: which vanishes at $t=0$. Note that this behaviour is consistent with the

704: monotonic evolution of the conformal factor $a^{2}$ and is valid in both Region

705: I and II. From \eq{eq:8} and \eq{eq:28} it is clear that the Hubble radius goes to zero

706: more quickly than the physical wavelength of an excitation, which is proportional to $a$.

707: Therefore, all modes are ``frozen'' outside of the horizon at the Big Crunch/Big Bang transition.

708: Similarly, we conclude from \eq{eq:8} and \eq{eq:24} that at very early and very late times, modes

709: are inside or outside the horizon depending on whether their comoving momentum $\vec k$ satisfies

710: $\vec k^2>Q^2$ or $\vec k^2<Q^2$, respectively. In the following, we will focus on fluctuations with

711: $\vec k^2\gg Q^2$. Thus, these modes start out inside the horizon at very early times and freeze as they

712: approach the Big Crunch. Similarly, in the Big Bang region of spacetime they start out frozen

713: near the Big Bang and enter the horizon at some later time.

714: 

715: 

716: 

717: A third important quantity to consider is the scalar curvature, $R$.

718: In conformal time, the scalar curvature in FRW spacetimes

719: is given by

720: \begin{equation}

721: R=\frac{6a''}{a^{3}}.

722: \label{eq:29}

723: \end{equation}

724: It then follows from~\eq{eq:8} that

725: \begin{equation}

726: R=3Q^{2}e^{2\phi_{0}}\frac{\sinh^{2}(2Qt)-1}{|\sinh^{3}(2Qt)|},

727: \label{eq:30}

728: \end{equation}

729: an expression that is valid in both Regions I and II. Key values of the scalar

730: curvature occur at precisely the same times, namely  $\pm\infty$, $t_{0}$,

731: $t_{1/3}$ and $\pm0$ defined in~\eq{eq:17} and~\eq{eq:18} respectively,

732: that indicated the behaviour of the equation of state

733: $w$. In the far past and future

734: \begin{equation}

735: R \longrightarrow 0, \qquad t\longrightarrow \pm\infty.

736: \label{eq:31}

737: \end{equation}

738: As $|t|$ decreases from infinity toward zero, $R$ has the following

739: properties. To begin with, $R$ is positive

740: and increasing until

741: $|t_{0}|=\frac{1}{2Q}\log(2+\sqrt{3})$, after which $R$ monotonically decreases.

742: The scalar curvature vanishes at

743: \begin{equation}

744: R=0, \qquad  t_{1/3}=\pm\frac{1}{2Q}\log(1+\sqrt{2}).

745: \label{eq:32}

746: \end{equation}

747: For smaller values of $|t|$, $R$ is negative. As one approaches the origin,

748: \begin{equation}

749: R\longrightarrow

750: -\frac{3}{4}e^{2\phi_{0}}\frac{1}{|t|^{3}}(1-6Q^{2}t^{2}+\cdots), \qquad

751: t\longrightarrow \pm0

752: \label{eq:33}

753: \end{equation}

754: which diverges as

755: \begin{equation}

756: R\cong -\frac{3}{4}e^{2\phi_{0}}\frac{1}{|t|^{3}}, \qquad |t|\ll

757: \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}Q}.

758: \label{eq:34}

759: \end{equation}

760: 

761: 

762: 

763: The above results allow us to give a concise description of our

764: cosmological solution. First consider Region I, corresponding to the negative

765: time interval $-\infty<t<0$. The associated geometry is that of a spatially

766: homogeneous and isotropic FRW spacetime. In the distant past, the manifold has

767: vanishing scalar curvature and a divergent Hubble radius. As time progresses,

768: the scalar curvature first grows positively, reaches a maximum and then begins to

769: decrease, vanishing at a finite time $t_{1/3}$. Henceforth,

770: the curvature is negative, diverging as $t^{-3}$ as $t$ approaches the origin

771: $t=0$. Throughout the entire time interval $-\infty<t<0$, the Hubble radius is

772: monotonically shrinking from infinity to zero. Both the vanishing of the

773: Hubble radius and, particularly, the divergence of the scalar curvature as

774: $t \rightarrow 0$, tells us that Region I terminates abruptly at $t=0$.

775: Region I, therefore, is a classic example of what is called a ``Big Crunch''

776: cosmology. Region II, on the other hand, corresponding to the positive time

777: interval $0<t<+\infty$, is the exact mirror image of Region I

778: in the time direction. That is, Region II is a spatially homogeneous and

779: isotropic FRW spacetime that starts abruptly at $t=0$ with vanishing Hubble

780: radius and negatively infinite scalar curvature and then expands outward. The

781: scalar curvature increases from negative to zero to positive, reaches a

782: maximum and then decreases to zero as $t \rightarrow +\infty$. During the

783: entire time interval $0<t<+\infty$, the Hubble radius monotonically increases

784: from zero to infinity. Region II, therefore, is a classic example of a ``Big

785: Bang'' cosmology. It is essential to note that in general relativity,

786: because of the curvature singularity at $t=0$, there is no relationship between

787: Region I and Region II, each representing an independent cosmology.

788: 

789: 

790: 

791: \subsection{Fluctuations}\label{sub:fluctuations}

792: 

793: We now turn to a discussion of quantum fluctuations of the scalar fields

794: on the Big Bang/Big Crunch geometries presented above. To do this, we must first

795: expand $\sigma_{T}$, $\sigma_{R}$ and $\phi$ around their classical values,

796: which we now denote as $\langle  \sigma_{T}\rangle $,

797: $\langle  \sigma_{R}\rangle $ and $\langle  \phi\rangle $, given

798: in~\eq{eq:3},~\eq{eq:4} and~\eq{eq:5} respectively. That is,

799: \begin{equation}

800: \sigma_{T}=\langle  \sigma_{T}\rangle +\delta\sigma_{T}, \qquad

801: \sigma_{R}=\langle  \sigma_{R}\rangle +\delta\sigma_{R}, \qquad

802: \phi=\langle  \phi\rangle +\delta\phi.

803: \label{eq:35}

804: \end{equation}

805: Inserting each of these fields into its equation of motion, using

806: expressions~\eq{eq:7} and~\eq{eq:8} for the background metric and assuming

807: the fluctuations are of the form

808: \begin{equation}

809: \delta\sigma_{T}=\delta T(t) e^{i{\vec{k}}\cdot{\vec{x}}}, \qquad

810: \delta\sigma_{R}=\delta R(t) e^{ i{\vec{k}}\cdot{\vec{x}}}, \qquad

811: \delta\phi=\delta \Phi(t) e^{ i{\vec{k}}\cdot{\vec{x}}},

812: \label{eq:36}

813: \end{equation}

814: we find that

815: the fluctuation $\delta T$ is a solution of

816: \begin{equation}

817: \delta T''+2Q\coth(2Qt)\delta T'+{\vec{k}}^{2}\delta T=0,

818: \label{eq:37}

819: \end{equation}

820: $\delta R$ solves the same equation

821: \begin{equation}

822: \delta R''+2Q\coth(2Qt)\delta R'+{\vec{k}}^{2}\delta R=0

823: \label{eq:38}

824: \end{equation}

825: whereas

826: \begin{equation}

827: \delta\Phi''+2Q\coth(2Qt)\delta\Phi'+({\vec{k}}^{2}+4Q^2)\delta\Phi, \qquad

828: \delta\Phi\ll 1.

829: \label{eq:39}

830: \end{equation}

831: Note that the $\delta \Phi$ fluctuations will satisfy the same equation as

832: $\delta T$ and $\delta R$ for momenta

833: \begin{equation}

834: {\vec{k}}^{2}\gg 4Q^2.

835: \label{eq:40}

836: \end{equation}

837: Henceforth, we will restrict our discussion to this momentum regime. Since, in

838: this case, all three fluctuations are specified by the same equation, we will

839: simply focus on one of them, which we choose to be $\delta T$.

840: 

841: 

842: 

843: Let us search for solutions of the $\delta T$ fluctuation

844: equation~\eq{eq:37}. To do this, we must first specify the region of spacetime

845: in which we want to work. Begin by considering Region I, with negative conformal

846: time in the interval $-\infty<t<0$. For very early times, \eq{eq:37}

847: simplifies to

848: \begin{equation}

849: \delta T''-2Q\delta T'+{\vec{k}}^{2}\delta T=0.

850: \label{eq:41}

851: \end{equation}

852: It is easy to see that this has plane wave solutions of the form

853: \begin{equation}

854: \delta T_{\vec{k}}^{\pm}= C_{\vec{k}}e^{Qt}e^{\mp iE_{\vec{k}}t},

855: \label{eq:42}

856: \end{equation}

857: where

858: \begin{equation}

859: E_{\vec{k}}=\sqrt{{\vec{k}}^{2}-Q^{2}}

860: \label{eq:43}

861: \end{equation}

862: is the energy associated with momentum $\vec{k}$ and $C_{\vec{k}}$ is

863: a normalization constant. Note that $E_{\vec{k}}$ is a positive real

864: number in the momentum regime~\eq{eq:40} in which we are working. The

865: normalization constant can be determined using the scalar product

866: \begin{equation}

867: (\phi_{1},\phi_{2})=-i\int_{\Sigma}{\phi_{1}{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}

868: {\partial}}_\mu\phi_{2}^{*} \sqrt{g_{\Sigma}}d\Sigma^{\mu}}

869: \label{eq:44}

870: \end{equation}

871: where $\Sigma$ is a space-like three-surface, $\sqrt{g_{\Sigma}}$ is the

872: volume element on that surface,

873: \begin{equation}

874: d\Sigma^{\mu}={\delta^{\mu}}_{0}\sqrt{-g^{00}}d{\vec{x}}

875: \label{eq:45}

876: \end{equation}

877: and $\phi_{i}$, $i=1,2$ are any two scalar functions. Using the metric given

878: in~\eq{eq:7} and~\eq{eq:8}, expression~\eq{eq:42} for $\delta T$

879: and~\eq{eq:44}, we find that

880: \begin{equation}

881: (\delta T_ {\vec{k}}^{\pm}e^{i\vec k\cdot x}, \delta

882: T_{\vec{k'}}^{\pm}e^{i\vec k'\cdot \vec x} )=\pm(2\pi)^3\delta(\vec k-\vec k')

883: |C_{\vec{k}}|^{2}

884: e^{-2\phi_{0}}E_{\vec{k}}. \label{eq:46}

885: \end{equation}

886: %where $V_{\Sigma}$ is the volume of the three-surface $\Sigma$.

887: Note that the Klein-Gordon norm obtained from~\eq{eq:44} can be either positive or negative

888: depending on the frequency of the scalar function.

889: Setting the right hand side of~\eq{eq:46} equal to $\pm(2\pi)^3\delta(\vec k-\vec k')$,

890: it follows that the normalization constant, up to a phase, is given by

891: \begin{equation}

892: C_{\vec{k}}=\frac{e^{\phi_{0}}}{\sqrt{E_{\vec{k}}}}.

893: \label{eq:47}

894: \end{equation}

895: Therefore, the normalized asymptotic plane wave solutions of~\eq{eq:41}

896: are given by

897: \begin{equation}

898: \delta

899: T_{\vec{k}}^{\pm}=\frac{e^{\phi_{0}}}{\sqrt{E_{\vec{k}}}}e^{Qt}

900: e^{\mp iE_{\vec{k}}t}, \qquad t\longrightarrow -\infty.

901: \label{eq:48}

902: \end{equation}

903: One can, in fact, solve the $\delta T$ fluctuation

904: equation~\eq{eq:37} for any value of $t$ in Region I. The result is found to

905: be

906: \begin{equation}

907: \delta

908: T_{\vec{k}}^{+}= \frac{4^je^{\phi_{0}}}{\sqrt{E_{\vec{k}}}}

909: (-z)^{j}F(-j,-j;-2j;\frac{1}{z}),

910: \label{eq:49}

911: \end{equation}

912: where

913: \begin{equation}

914: j=-\frac{1}{2} + i\frac{E_{\vec{k}}}{2Q}, \qquad z=-\sinh^{2}(Qt)

915: \label{eq:50}

916: \end{equation}

917: and $F(a,b;c;x)$ is the hypergeometric function $_{2}F_{1}$ (see Appendix~B for

918: its definition and some properties). In addition,

919: the hermitian conjugate

920: \begin{equation}

921: \delta T_{\vec{k}}^{-}=\delta T_{\vec{k}}^{+*}

922: \label{eq:51}

923: \end{equation}

924: is an independent solution of~\eq{eq:37}.

925: Using the facts that

926: \begin{equation}

927: z \longrightarrow -\frac{e^{-2Qt}}{ 4}, \qquad

928: F(-j,-j;-2j;\frac{1}{z})\longrightarrow 1\ \ {\rm as}\ \  t\longrightarrow -\infty,

929: \label{eq:52}

930: \end{equation}

931: we see that~\eq{eq:49} and~\eq{eq:51} approach the plane waves solutions

932: \eq{eq:48} in the far past. One can show that~\eq{eq:49} and~\eq{eq:51}

933: diverge logarithmically at $t=0$.

934: 

935: 

936: 

937: Combining these results with the first

938: expression in~\eq{eq:36}, we see that any fluctuation $\delta\sigma_{T}$ in

939: Region I can be written as

940: \begin{equation}

941: {\delta\sigma_{T}}^{I}=\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}

942: ({a_{\vec{k}}}^{I}\delta T_{\vec{k}}^{+}(t)

943: e^{i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}}+{a_{\vec{k}}}^{I*}\delta

944: T_{\vec{k}}^{-}(t)e^{-i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}}),

945: \label{eq:53}

946: \end{equation}

947: where ${a_{\vec{k}}}^{I}$ are arbitrary complex coefficients.

948: %In writing this expansion, we have used the fact that

949: %\begin{equation}

950: %\frac{1}{V_{\Sigma}}\sum_{\vec{k}}=\int{\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3}}}.

951: %\label{eq:54}

952: %\end{equation}

953: %It follows that, henceforth, one should drop the $1/V_{\Sigma}$ factor in $\delta

954: %{T_{\vec{k}}}^{\pm}$ when using expansion~\eq{eq:53}.

955: Note that the first function in this expansion, $\delta

956: T_{\vec{k}}^{+}(t)e^{i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}}$, corresponds to a pure positive

957: frequency plane wave in the far past. Similarly, in this limit, $\delta

958: T_{\vec{k}}^{-}(t)e^{-i \vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}}$ becomes a negative frequency plane

959: wave.

960: 

961: 

962: Thus far, our discussion of the fluctuations ${\delta \sigma_{T}}^{I}$ has been

963: strictly classical. However, the theory can be easily quantized by demanding

964: that ${\delta \sigma_{T}}^{I}$ and, hence, the coefficients

965: ${a_{\vec{k}}}^{I}$ be operators in a Hilbert space. For simplicity,

966: we will continue to denote these operators by ${\delta

967: \sigma_{T}}^{I}$ and ${a_{\vec{k}}}^{I}$, suppressing the usual ``hat''

968: notation. The quantization will be

969: canonical if we assume that

970: \begin{equation}

971: [{a_{\vec{k}}}^{I}, {a_{\vec{k'}}}^{\dagger I}]=\delta^{3}(\vec{k}-\vec{k'}),

972: \qquad [{a_{\vec{k}}}^{I}, {a_{\vec{k'}}}^{I}]=[{a_{\vec{k}}}^{\dagger I},

973: {a_{\vec{k'}}}^{\dagger I}]=0.

974: \label{eq:55}

975: \end{equation}

976: The vacuum state of the quantum theory is then defined as the normalized state

977: $|0\rangle _{in}$ satisfying

978: \begin{equation}

979: {a_{\vec{k}}}^{I}|0\rangle _{in}=0

980: \label{eq:56}

981: \end{equation}

982: for all momenta $\vec{k}$. There are many objects that can now be discussed in

983: this context. In this paper, we will focus primarily on the two-point

984: correlation function

985: \be\label{eq:56bis}

986: _{in}\langle 0|{\delta \sigma_{T}}^{I}(t,\vec{x})

987: {\delta \sigma_{T}}^{I}(t,\vec{x}+\vec r)|0\rangle _{in}.

988: \ee

989: Using~\eq{eq:53},~\eq{eq:55} and~\eq{eq:56}, we find that this function is

990: independent of $\vec{x}$ and given by

991: \beqa

992: _{in}\langle 0|{\delta \sigma_{T}}^{I}(t,\vec{x})

993: {\delta \sigma_{T}}^{I}(t,\vec{x}+\vec r)|0\rangle _{in}&=&\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3}}

994: |\delta T_{\vec{k}}^{+}|^{2}e^{-i\vec k\cdot \vec r}\cr

995: &=&{1\over 2\pi^2}\int dk |{\vec{k}}|^2 |\delta T_{\vec{k}}^{+}|^{2} {\sin(|{\vec{k}}||{\vec{r}}|)\over

996: |{\vec{k}}||{\vec{r}}|}.

997: \label{eq:57}

998: \eeqa

999: In the following, we will always set $\vec r=0$ and consider

1000: \begin{equation}

1001: _{in}\langle 0|\delta{\sigma_{T}}^{I}(t,\vec{x})^{2}|0\rangle_{in}=\int{\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}|

1002: \delta{T_{\vec{k}}}^{+}|^{2}},

1003: \label{eq:57A}

1004: \end{equation}

1005: since this is sufficient for determining the fluctuation spectrum.

1006: The result for general $\vec r$ can be obtained

1007: by multiplying the integrand by $\sin(|\vec k||\vec r|)/|\vec k||\vec r|$.

1008: 

1009: Equation~\eq{eq:57A} can be computed for any time $t$ in Region I using the

1010: expression given in~\eq{eq:49}. However, for our purposes, it is most

1011: illuminating to evaluate it in the distant past. Inserting expression~\eq{eq:48},

1012: we find that the correlation function~\eq{eq:57A} becomes

1013: \begin{equation}

1014: _{in}\langle 0|{\delta\sigma_{T}}^{I}(t,\vec x)^{2}|0\rangle _{in}=f(t)\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3}}

1015: \frac{1}{2E_{\vec{k}}}

1016: \label{eq:58}

1017: \end{equation}

1018: where

1019: \begin{equation}

1020: f(t)=2e^{2\phi_{0}}e^{2Qt}.

1021: \label{eq:59}

1022: \end{equation}

1023: For ${\vec{k}}^{2}\gg Q^{2}$, the momentum regime~\eq{eq:40} in which we

1024: are working, expression~\eq{eq:58} becomes, to next to leading order,

1025: \begin{equation}

1026: _{in}\langle 0|{\delta\sigma_{T}}^{I}(t,\vec x)^{2}|0\rangle _{in}=f(t)\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3}}

1027: \frac{1}{|\vec{k}|}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{Q^{2}/2}{2|\vec{k}|^{2}}\right).

1028: \label{eq:60}

1029: \end{equation}

1030: The momentum dependence of the first term of the integrand is simply that of zero-point fluctuations in Minkowski space. On the other hand,

1031: the second term corresponds precisely to a scale invariant fluctuation

1032: spectrum. Note, however, that since $\vec{k}^{2} \gg Q^{2}$, the second term is subdominant to the Minkowski fluctuations. The

1033: time-dependent factor $f(t)$ is not canonical. To

1034: understand its origin, we note that the kinetic energy term for $\sigma_{T}$

1035: in the Lagrangian~\eq{eq:2} is not canonically normalized in the

1036: gravitational background given in~\eq{eq:7} and~\eq{eq:8}. This kinetic

1037: energy term can be canonically normalized by defining a new scalar field

1038: ${\Sigma_{T}}^{I}$ as

1039: \begin{equation}

1040: {\Sigma_{T}}^{I}=e^{-\phi_{0}} |\sinh(2Qt)|^{1/2}\sigma_{T}.

1041: \label{eq:61}

1042: \end{equation}

1043: Note that in the far past this expression becomes

1044: \begin{equation}

1045: {\Sigma_{T}}^{I}=f(t)^{-1/2}\sigma_{T}, \qquad t\longrightarrow -\infty,

1046: \label{eq:62}

1047: \end{equation}

1048: where $f(t)$ is given in~\eq{eq:59}. It follows from this and~\eq{eq:60} that

1049: at early times

1050: \begin{equation}

1051: _{in}\langle 0|{\delta

1052: \Sigma_{T}}^{I}(t,\vec x)^{2}|0\rangle _{in}=\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\frac{1}

1053: {|\vec{k}|}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{Q^{2}/2}{|\vec{k}|^{2}}\right).

1054: \label{eq:63}

1055: \end{equation}

1056: We conclude that the factor $f(t)$

1057: in the correlation function~\eq{eq:60} is simply a scale factor that can be

1058: absorbed by a field redefinition or not, depending on taste. This concludes

1059: our analysis of quantum fluctuations in Region I.

1060: 

1061: 

1062: 

1063: We now want to discuss the quantum fluctuations of $\delta \sigma_{T}$ in

1064: Region II, that is, for conformal time in the positive interval $0<t<+\infty$.

1065: Note that the fluctuation equation~\eq{eq:37} is independent of which region

1066: is being considered. It follows that the analysis of quantum fluctuations in

1067: Region II is essentially identical to that in Region I. For this reason, we

1068: will simply present our results. To begin with, the fluctuations $\delta

1069: T_{\vec{k}}^{+}$ and $\delta T_{\vec{k}}^{-}$ given in~\eq{eq:49}

1070: and~\eq{eq:51} respectively remain a complete set of solutions of

1071: equation~\eq{eq:37}. It follows that any quantum fluctuation in Region II can

1072: be written as

1073: \begin{equation}

1074: {\delta \sigma_{T}}^{II}=\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}({a_{\vec{k}}}^{II}

1075: \delta T_{\vec{k}}^{+}(t)e^{i \vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}}+{a_{\vec{k}}}^{II

1076: \dagger} \delta T_{\vec{k}}^{-}(t)e^{-i \vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}}),

1077: \label{eq:64}

1078: \end{equation}

1079: where ${a_{\vec{k}}}^{II}$ and ${a_{\vec{k}}}^{II \dagger}$ satisfy the

1080: canonical commutation relations

1081: \begin{equation}

1082: [{a_{\vec{k}}}^{II},{a_{\vec{k'}}}^{II \dagger}]=\delta^{3}(\vec{k}-\vec{k'}),

1083: \qquad [{a_{\vec{k}}}^{II}, {a_{\vec{k'}}}^{II}]=[{a_{\vec{k}}}^{II \dagger},

1084: {a_{\vec{k'}}}^{II \dagger}]=0.

1085: \label{eq:65}

1086: \end{equation}

1087: The vacuum state is then defined as the normalized state $|0\rangle _{out}$

1088: satisfying

1089: \begin{equation}

1090: {a_{\vec{k}}}^{II}|0\rangle _{out}=0

1091: \label{eq:66}

1092: \end{equation}

1093: for all momenta $\vec{k}$. Again, there are many objects that one may wish to

1094: compute at this point. For example, in analogy with Region I, we find that in

1095: the distant future

1096: \begin{equation}

1097: _{out}\langle 0|{\delta

1098: \sigma_{T}}^{II}(t,\vec x)^{2}|0\rangle _{out}=g(t)\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\frac{1}

1099: {|\vec{k}|}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{Q^{2}/2}{|\vec{k}|^{2}}\right),

1100: \label{eq:67}

1101: \end{equation}

1102: where

1103: \begin{equation}

1104: g(t)=2e^{2\phi_{0}}e^{-2Qt}.

1105: \label{eq:68}

1106: \end{equation}

1107: As discussed previously, the factor of g(t) arises from the

1108: non-canonical normalization

1109: of the $\sigma_{T}$ kinetic energy term in~\eq{eq:2} with respect to the geometric

1110: background~\eq{eq:7} and~\eq{eq:8}. Proper normalization of this term can be

1111: achieved by defining

1112: \begin{equation}

1113: {\Sigma_{T}}^{II}=e^{-\phi_{0}}|\sinh(2Qt)|^{1/2}{\sigma_{T}}^{II}

1114: \label{eq:69}

1115: \end{equation}

1116: for any positive conformal time $t$. Note that in the far future this relation

1117: becomes

1118: \begin{equation}

1119: {\Sigma_{T}}^{II}=g(t)^{-1/2}{\sigma_{T}}^{II}, \qquad t\longrightarrow +\infty,

1120: \label{eq:70}

1121: \end{equation}

1122: where $g(t)$ is given in~\eq{eq:68}. In terms of this canonically normalized scalar

1123: field, the fluctuation spectrum~\eq{eq:67} becomes

1124: \begin{equation}

1125: _{out}\langle 0|{\delta

1126: \Sigma_{T}}^{II}(t,\vec x)^{2}|0\rangle _{out}=\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\frac{1}{|\vec{k}|}

1127: \left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{Q^{2}/2}{|\vec{k}|^{2}}\right).

1128: \label{eq:71}

1129: \end{equation}

1130: Therefore, the $g(t)$ factor in the

1131: two-point correlation function~\eq{eq:67} is simply a scale factor. It

1132: can be absorbed or not, depending on taste. This concludes our analysis of

1133: quantum fluctuations in Region II.

1134: 

1135: 

1136: As stated earlier, because of the curvature singularity at $t=0$, there is no

1137: classical relationship between Region I and Region II. Each represents an

1138: independent cosmology. The same is true for the quantum fluctuations that we

1139: have just discussed. The creation operators

1140: ${a_{\vec{k}}}^{I \dagger}$ acting on the vacuum $|0\rangle _{in}$ create a

1141: Hilbert space of states ${\cal{H}}^{I}$ representing the quantum theory in the

1142: Big Crunch geometry of Region I. Similarly, the operators ${a_{\vec{k}}}^{II \dagger}$

1143: acting on $|0\rangle _{out}$ create a Hilbert space

1144: ${\cal{H}}^{II}$ representing the quantum theory of the Big Bang geometry of

1145: Region II. A priori, there is absolutely no relation between ${\cal{H}}^{I}$

1146: and ${\cal{H}}^{II}$.

1147: 

1148: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1149: \subsection{Relating the Big Bang to the Big Crunch}\label{sub:BBBC}

1150: 

1151: It is the thesis of Ekpyrotic cosmology that the Universe did not begin at the

1152: Big Bang. Rather, it  had a prior history, connected to our present geometry

1153: via some catastrophic event. In the Big Crunch/Big Bang versions of Ekpyrotic

1154: theory, this catastrophic event is a spacetime singularity at $t=0$. This

1155: singularity is of the type found in the curvature scalar in Region I and Region II

1156: as $t\rightarrow -0$ and $t\rightarrow +0$ respectively. We will, therefore,

1157: within the context of the theory described by~\eq{eq:2}, construct a Big

1158: Crunch/Big Bang scenario by connecting Region I and Region II classically at

1159: the singular point $t=0$. Having done this, one must also specify a relation

1160: between the quantum theories on these two regions. The most naive approach,

1161: and the one we will adopt in this section, is to identify the two Hilbert

1162: spaces. That is, assume that

1163: \begin{equation}

1164: {\cal{H}}^{I}={\cal{H}}^{II} \equiv {\cal{H}}.

1165: \label{eq:72}

1166: \end{equation}

1167: One consequence of this is that the creation/annihilation operators

1168: ${a_{\vec{k}}}^{I}$,${a_{\vec{k}}}^{I

1169: \dagger}$ and ${a_{\vec{k}}}^{II}$,${a_{\vec{k}}}^{II \dagger}$ all act on the

1170: same Hilbert space ${\cal{H}}$. In ``normal'' quantum field theory, that is,

1171: when there is no geometric singularity or event horizon separating the past

1172: from the future, the ``out'' creation/annihilation operators are linearly

1173: related to the ``in'' creation/annihilation operators via a so-called

1174: Bogolubov transformation. We will assume that the same is true in our theory,

1175: despite the existence of a curvature singularity at $t=0$. That is, we

1176: postulate that

1177: \begin{equation}

1178: \left(\begin{array}{c} {a_{\vec{k}}}^{II \dagger} \\ {a_{-\vec{k}}}^{II} \end{array}

1179: \right)

1180: =\left(\begin{array}{cc} X^{*}(\vec k) & Y^{*}(\vec k) \\ Y(-\vec k) & X(-\vec k) \end{array}\right)

1181: \left(\begin{array}{c} {a_{\vec{k}}}^{I \dagger} \\ {a_{-\vec{k}}}^{I} \end{array}

1182: \right).

1183: \label{eq:73}

1184: \end{equation}

1185: The complex Bogolubov coefficients $X$ and $Y$ are not completely

1186: independent. They are constrained by the requirement that the

1187: Region I and Region II creation/annihilation operators continue to

1188: satisfy the canonical commutation relations~\eq{eq:55} and~\eq{eq:65}

1189: respectively. It follows that

1190: \begin{equation}

1191: |X|^{2}-|Y|^{2}=1.

1192: \label{eq:74}

1193: \end{equation}

1194: This is the only constraint on these coefficients. However, for simplicity, we

1195: will further assume that

1196: \be\label{assume}

1197: X(\vec k)=X(-\vec k),\ \ Y(\vec k)=Y(-\vec k).

1198: \ee

1199: Relaxing these assumptions will not change any of our conclusions.

1200: 

1201: Having postulated the relations~\eq{eq:72} and~\eq{eq:73}, one can now

1202: compute correlation functions that were not defined separately in Region I and

1203: Region II. Specifically, we want to calculate the two-point function

1204: \begin{equation}

1205: _{in}\langle 0|{\delta \sigma_{T}}^{II}(t,\vec x)^{2}|0\rangle _{in},

1206: \label{eq:75}

1207: \end{equation}

1208: where ${\delta \sigma_{T}}^{II}$ is the Region II field operator given in~\eq{eq:64},

1209: whereas $|0\rangle _{in}$ is the Region I vacuum defined in~\eq{eq:56}. This is

1210: easily accomplished using~\eq{eq:55},~\eq{eq:56},~\eq{eq:64},~\eq{eq:73}

1211: and~\eq{eq:74}. The result is

1212: $$

1213: _{in}\langle 0|{\delta

1214: \sigma_{T}}^{II}(t,\vec x)^{2}|0\rangle _{in}=

1215: $$

1216: \be\label{eq:76}

1217: =\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3}}

1218: \left((1+2|Y|^{2})|\delta T_{\vec{k}}^{+}|^{2}+

1219: XY\delta

1220: T_{\vec{k}}^{+2}+

1221: X^{*}Y^{*}\delta T_{\vec{k}}^{-2}\right),

1222: \ee

1223: with the fluctuations $\delta T_{\vec{k}}^{+}$ and $\delta

1224: T_{\vec{k}}^{-}$ given by~\eq{eq:49} and~\eq{eq:51} respectively.

1225: Of particular physical importance is the

1226: form of this correlation function in the distant future.

1227: As $t\rightarrow +\infty$, expression~\eq{eq:76} becomes

1228: \begin{equation}

1229: _{in}\langle 0|{\delta

1230: \sigma_{T}}^{II}(t,\vec x)^{2}|0\rangle _{in}=g(t)\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\frac{1}

1231: {|\vec{k}|}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{Q^{2}/2}{2|\vec{k}|^{2}}\right)\Delta(\vec{k},t),

1232: \label{eq:77}

1233: \end{equation}

1234: where the scale factor $g(t)$ is given in~\eq{eq:68} and

1235: \begin{equation}

1236: \Delta(\vec{k},t)=1+2|Y|^{2}+XYe^{-2iE_{\vec{k}}t}+X^{*}Y^{*}e^{2iE_{\vec{k}}t}.

1237: \label{eq:78}

1238: \end{equation}

1239: Written in terms of the scalar field ${\Sigma_{T}}^{II}$ defined

1240: in~\eq{eq:69}, and using~\eq{eq:70}, this simplifies to

1241: \begin{equation}

1242: _{in}\langle 0|{\delta\Sigma_{T}}^{II}(t,\vec x)^{2}|0\rangle _{in}=\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3}}

1243: \frac{1}{|\vec{k}|}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{Q^{2}/2}{2|\vec{k}|^{2}}\right)\Delta(\vec{k},t).

1244: \label{eq:79}

1245: \end{equation}

1246: 

1247: 

1248: 

1249: 

1250: 

1251: We want to compare these results to another correlation function, namely

1252: \begin{equation}

1253: _{in}\langle 0|{\delta \sigma_{T}}^{I}(t,\vec x)^{2}|0\rangle _{in}.

1254: \label{eq:80}

1255: \end{equation}

1256: Note that, in this case, both the field operator ${\delta \sigma_{T}}^{I}$ and the

1257: vacuum $|0\rangle _{in}$ are the Region I quantities defined in~\eq{eq:53}

1258: and~\eq{eq:56} respectively. For arbitrary time $t$, this two-point function

1259: was evaluated in~\eq{eq:57} and its functional form in the limit

1260: $t\rightarrow -\infty$ presented in~\eq{eq:60}. Finally, in terms of the

1261: scalar field ${\Sigma_{T}}^{I}$ defined in~\eq{eq:61}, and

1262: using~\eq{eq:62}, the $t\rightarrow -\infty$ limit of this

1263: correlation function becomes

1264: \begin{equation}

1265: _{in}\langle 0|{\delta \Sigma_{T}}^{I}(t,\vec x)^{2}|0\rangle _{in}=\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3}}

1266: \frac{1}{|\vec{k}|}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{Q^{2}/2}{2|\vec{k}|^{2}}\right).

1267: \label{eq:81}

1268: \end{equation}

1269: Although these expressions were first derived strictly within the context of

1270: Region I, they remain valid for the complete Hilbert space ${\cal{H}}$. First

1271: note that, for arbitrary conformal time $t$, correlation functions~\eq{eq:76}

1272: and~\eq{eq:57} are identical only if the complex Bogolubov coefficient $Y=0$.

1273: This remains true when comparing the $t\rightarrow +\infty$ limit of

1274: $_{in}\langle 0|{\delta \sigma_{T}}^{II}(t,\vec x)^{2}|0\rangle _{in}$ given in~\eq{eq:77} to the

1275: $t\rightarrow -\infty$ limit of $_{in}\langle 0|{\delta

1276: \sigma_{T}}^{I}(t,\vec x)^{2}|0\rangle _{in}$ presented in~\eq{eq:56}. The simplest

1277: comparison can be made between the future correlation function~\eq{eq:79} and

1278: the past correlation function~\eq{eq:81}, since the irrelevant scale factors

1279: have been removed. As stated earlier, the form of the argument of

1280: the momentum integral in~\eq{eq:81} is that of Minkowski fluctuations plus a subdominant scale invariant contribution in the far past.

1281: However, the

1282: $\Delta(\vec{k},t)$ factor in~\eq{eq:79} potentially modifies the

1283: fluctuation spectrum in the far future. If coefficient $Y=0$, then it follows

1284: from~\eq{eq:78} that $\Delta=1$ and one again obtains the spectrum \eq{eq:81}.

1285: However, if $Y\neq0$, then $\Delta\neq1$ and the fluctuation

1286: spectrum is modified. What are the physical consequences of this?

1287: 

1288: 

1289: 

1290: A central assertion of Ekpyrotic Big Crunch/Big Bang theories is that a

1291: scale invariant fluctuation spectrum is generated in the Big Crunch

1292: geometry prior to the singularity which is then transmitted, without

1293: modification, to the Big Bang geometry after the singularity. It is these scale

1294: invariant fluctuations that are assumed to account for the observed

1295: fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. But is this true? Or is the

1296: fluctuation spectrum modified by the presence of the singularity? There has

1297: been considerable controversy regarding this, with some authors concluding

1298: that the spectrum is transmitted unchanged, some authors claiming it is

1299: greatly modified and further literature showing that this question is

1300: ambiguous as posed, requiring more physics input to uniquely resolve it. All

1301: of this literature has attempted to confront this issue by imposing explicit boundary

1302: conditions to match the incoming and outgoing wavefunctions at, or near,

1303: the singularity.

1304: However, attempting to study the vicinity of a singularity is difficult since

1305: one expects short distance effects to greatly modify the geometry and the

1306: physics. This is the source of the ambiguities. Our point of view is

1307: different. We see that the question of the persistence of the

1308: spectrum through the singularity is precisely expressed by whether or not the

1309: Bogolubov coefficient $Y$ vanishes. If it vanishes, the

1310: spectrum is transmitted through the singularity into the future. If it does

1311: not vanish, the spectrum is modified after the Big Bang. We

1312: conclude that to study this problem, one must, unambiguously, compute the

1313: Bogolubov coefficient $Y$. But how? One could, of course, attempt to compute

1314: $Y$ by matching the wavefunctions at the singularity. But, as we have said,

1315: this process would be ambiguous. A far more concrete way would be to compute

1316: $Y$ directly from string theory, where at least for certain types of singularities

1317: global wavefunctions can be unambiguously defined.

1318: Given such globally defined wavefunctions, one can perform calculations

1319: in the asymptotic past and future, far away from the singularity at $t=0$.

1320: This is the approach we will follow in the remainder of this paper.

1321: However, to compute the Bogolubov coefficient $Y$ in this manner, it is necessary

1322: to demonstrate that the field theory defined by~\eq{eq:2} is, in fact, the low

1323: energy four-dimensional effective theory of some specific string theory. This

1324: is indeed the case, as we will now show.

1325: 

1326: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1327: \subsection{Four-Dimensional Cosmology from String

1328: Theory}\label{sub:four}

1329: 

1330: In ($d+1$)-dimensional spacetime, string theory gives rise to a classical

1331: effective action of the form

1332: \begin{equation}

1333: S_{d+1}=\frac{1}{2\kappa_{d+1}^2}\int d^{d+1}x\sqrt{-g}e^{-2\Phi}(R_{d+1}+4g^{IJ}

1334: \partial_{I}\Phi\partial_{J}\Phi-2\Lambda),

1335: \label{eq:82}

1336: \end{equation}

1337: where $I,J=0,1,\dots,d$, $g_{IJ}$ and $\Phi$ are the ($d+1$)-dimensional string frame metric

1338: and dilaton respectively and all other massless and massive string modes have

1339: been set to zero. A positive tree level cosmological constant $\Lambda>0$

1340: will arise, for example, in supercritical type II string theories in

1341: \begin{equation}

1342: d+1=26,42,58,\dots

1343: \label{eq:83}

1344: \end{equation}

1345: dimensions \cite{Antoniadis:1988vi}.

1346: 

1347: Let us now assume the existence of solutions of the string

1348: equations of motion with metrics of the form

1349: \begin{equation}

1350: g_{IJ}dx^{I}dx^{J}=g'_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}+e^{2\sigma_{T}'}\delta_{ab}

1351: dx^{a}dx^{b}+e^{2\sigma_{R}'}(dx^{d})^{2},

1352: \label{eq:84}

1353: \end{equation}

1354: where $\mu,\nu=0,1,2,3$, indices $a,b=4,\dots,d-1$ and $g_{\mu\nu}'$, $\sigma_{T}'$

1355: and $\sigma_{R}'$ are all functions of the four-dimensional coordinates

1356: $x^{\mu}$, $\mu=0,1,2,3$ only. In addition, we will take the dilaton $\Phi$ to

1357: be a function only of these four-dimensional coordinates. The coordinates

1358: $x^{a}$

1359: parameterize a ($d-4$)-torus with a reference radius $r_{0}$. This radius will typically be chosen to be the string scale, $\sqrt{\alpha'}$, or perhaps a few orders of magnitude larger.

1360: Similarly, the $d$-direction is compactified

1361: on a circle or an interval, either having a reference radius which, for simplicity, we also choose to be $r_{0}$.  For length scales much larger than this radius,  all heavy modes

1362: will decouple and we will arrive at a four-dimensional effective theory

1363: describing the light modes. These light modes will necessarily include $g_{\mu\nu}'$, $\sigma_{T}'$, $\sigma_{R}'$ and $\Phi$. However, one should also make sure that there are no additional ``stringy'' light modes, such as winding modes around one of the internal circles.

1364: For the moment, let us ignore this important subtlety, returning to it at the end of this section.

1365: The associated action is most easily computed

1366: from~\eq{eq:82} by Weyl rescaling the four-dimensional metric as

1367: \begin{equation}

1368: g_{\mu\nu}'=\Omega^{2} g_{\mu\nu},

1369: \label{eq:85}

1370: \end{equation}

1371: where

1372: \begin{equation}

1373: \Omega^{2}=e^{2\Phi_{4}'}

1374: \label{eq:86}

1375: \end{equation}

1376: and

1377: \begin{equation}

1378: \Phi_{4}'=\Phi-\frac{1}{2}(\sigma_{R}'+(d-4)\sigma_{T}').

1379: \label{eq:87}

1380: \end{equation}

1381: Then, making the field redefinitions

1382: \begin{equation}

1383: \phi=2\Phi_{4}', \qquad \sigma_{T}=\sqrt{2(d-4)}\sigma_{T}', \qquad

1384: \sigma_{R}=\sqrt{2}\sigma_{R}',

1385: \label{eq:88}

1386: \end{equation}

1387: defining

1388: \begin{equation}

1389: \frac{1}{{\kappa_{4}}^{2}}=\frac{V_{T}V_{R}}{{\kappa_{d+1}}^{2}}

1390: \label{eq:89}

1391: \end{equation}

1392: where $V_{T}$ and $V_{R}$ are the volumes of the $(d-4)$-torus and the

1393: $d$-direction circle/interval respectively and dropping all higher derivative

1394: terms, we find that the low energy action is given by

1395: \begin{equation}

1396: S=\frac{1}{2{\kappa_{4}}^{2}}\int d^{4}x\sqrt{-g}{\cal{L}},

1397: \label{eq:90}

1398: \end{equation}

1399: with

1400: \begin{equation}

1401: {\cal{L}}=R-\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial_{\nu}\phi

1402: -\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\sigma_{T}\partial_{\nu}\sigma_{T}

1403: -\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\sigma_{R}\partial_{\nu}\sigma_{R}

1404: -2e^{\phi}\Lambda.

1405: \label{eq:91}

1406: \end{equation}

1407: Note that this is exactly the four-dimensional theory introduced in~\eq{eq:1}

1408: and~\eq{eq:2} if we set\footnote{In the simple supercritical

1409: string models we are considering, the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ is of order the

1410: string scale, which is at odds with our assumption \eq{eq:40} that

1411: $Q$ is small compared to the momenta of interest. However, in the critical ``cigar geometry'' mentioned in the Introduction,

1412: it is possible to choose $Q$ to be arbitrarily small. For this reason, we will simply ignore this issue in our analysis.}

1413: \begin{equation}

1414: Q=\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda}{2}}.

1415: \label{eq:6}

1416: \end{equation}

1417: Recall, however, that this result is predicated on the assumption that there are no additional

1418: stringy light modes. We must now check to see under what conditions this will be the case.

1419: 

1420: 

1421: To analyze this, we must be more careful in our discussion of decoupling. It is clear

1422: from~\eq{eq:84} that, in the string frame \eq{eq:82}, the physical radii of the $(d-4)$-torus

1423: and the $d$-direction circle are

1424: \begin{equation}

1425: e^{\sigma_{T}'}r_{0}, \qquad e^{\sigma_{R}'}r_{0}

1426: \label{eq:A}

1427: \end{equation}

1428: respectively. From~\eq{eq:3} and~\eq{eq:88} we see that, for the background geometries of

1429: interest in this paper, $\sigma_{T}'$ vanishes and, hence, the physical $(d-4)$-torus

1430: radius is time-independent and fixed at $r_{0}$. On the other hand, it follows from~\eq{eq:4}

1431: and~\eq{eq:88} that the physical radius of the $d$-direction circle is time-dependent and given by

1432: \begin{equation}

1433: r_{R}(t)=|\tanh(Qt)|r_{0}.

1434: \label{eq:B}

1435: \end{equation}

1436: For very early and late times, $r_{R}(t)$ approaches $r_{0}$. Note, however, that

1437: \begin{equation}

1438: r_{R}(t)\longrightarrow 0, \qquad t\longrightarrow \pm0.

1439: \label{eq:C}

1440: \end{equation}

1441: Therefore, we must be concerned that stringy modes winding around the $d$-direction circle

1442: will become very light as $t\rightarrow \pm0$, thus substantially changing the low energy

1443: theory given in~\eq{eq:90} and~\eq{eq:91}. Can we estimate the time regime for which this

1444: effective theory is no longer valid? To do this, note that the winding modes around the

1445: $d$-direction circle typically have a mass

1446: \begin{equation}

1447: m_{winding}\cong \frac{r_{R}(t)}{\alpha'}.

1448: \label{eqD}

1449: \end{equation}

1450: It then follows from~\eq{eq:B}, and the fact that $r_{0}$ is of the order of the string

1451: scale or a few orders of magnitude larger, that the effective field theory~\eq{eq:90}

1452: and~\eq{eq:91} will be valid for momenta $\vec k$ satisfying

1453: \be\label{valid}

1454: \vec k^2\ll{r_0^2\tanh^2(Qt)\over(\alpha')^2}.

1455: \ee

1456: Since we are interested in momenta satisfying%

1457: \footnote{Massless modes with momenta below this scale

1458: correspond to growing modes and were discussed in section~5 of

1459: \cite{Craps:2002ii}. They lead to infrared divergences in string perturbation

1460: theory which will be ignored in this paper but would be interesting

1461: to understand better. We are not aware of any direct relation to the

1462: divergences in string perturbation theory mentioned at the beginning of

1463: section~\ref{sec:string}.}

1464: \be\label{momQ}

1465: Q^2< \vec k^2,

1466: \ee

1467: we have to make sure that there is a window of momenta satisfying both \eq{valid} and

1468: \eq{momQ}. Since we imagine $Q$ to be much below the string scale, $\alpha'Q^2\ll1$,

1469: and for $r_0^2\cong \alpha'$, such a window exists as long as

1470: \begin{equation}

1471: t^2\gg\alpha',

1472: \label{eq:E}

1473: \end{equation}

1474: that is, as long as we stay more than a few string times away from the singularity.

1475: Note that this  does not alter the discussion and

1476: conclusions associated with the theory given in~\eq{eq:1} and~\eq{eq:2}. To begin with,

1477: that theory is singular at the origin , so we could not really discuss the

1478: $t\rightarrow \pm0$ regime, nor did we. Indeed, the stringy effects that descend

1479: from~\eq{eq:82} in the time region~\eq{eq:E} could conceivably ``regulate'' this

1480: singularity, making the theory well-defined at the origin. We will not explore

1481: this possibility in this paper. Henceforth, we will simply recall that the low

1482: energy theory~\eq{eq:1},~\eq{eq:2} or, equivalently, ~\eq{eq:90},~\eq{eq:91} is

1483: not valid too close to the singularity.

1484: 

1485: 

1486: Subject to this caveat, we conclude that the four-dimensional cosmology described in this

1487: section descends from a class of string theories in $d+1$

1488: dimensions. We will now examine these string theories and their cosmology in detail,

1489: with the aim of eventually using them to compute the Bogolubov coefficients discussed above.

1490: 

1491: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1492: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1493: 

1494: \section{String Theory Cosmology}\label{sec:string}

1495: 

1496: As we have just shown, the four-dimensional action \eq{eq:1},~\eq{eq:2} is

1497: the low energy limit of the supercritical string theory \eq{eq:82}

1498: dimensionally reduced to four dimensions on a $(d-4)$-torus times a circle.

1499: The $(d+1)$-dimensional action~\eq{eq:82} is itself an effective theory, all

1500: higher $\alpha'$, string loop and non-perturbative effects being ignored. These

1501:  effects are important, and we will comment on them in the appropriate places

1502: later in this paper. However, we will begin by studying the classical  string

1503: action~\eq{eq:82} and, specifically, the $(d+1)$-dimensional cosmological

1504: solutions of its equations of motion. One such solution, the ``periodically

1505: identified generalized Milne solution'', or the ``generalized Milne orbifold''

1506: for short, was first presented in \cite{Craps:2002ii}.

1507: This turns out to be an exact solution of classical string theory, that is, it

1508: does not receive $\alpha'$ corrections \cite{TseytlinJackJonesPanvel}. We will see that, upon dimensional

1509: reduction to four dimensions, this solution includes the background spacetime

1510: studied in subsection~\ref{sub:background}

1511: This makes the generalized Milne orbifold an excellent context to try and answer the questions

1512: raised in the previous section.

1513: 

1514: 

1515: 

1516: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1517: \subsection{The Background Spacetime}\label{sub:string:background}

1518: 

1519: Our starting point is the following solution to the

1520: equations of motion associated with the classical string action \eq{eq:82}. The metric and dilaton are found to be

1521: \beqa\label{backgroundIIA}

1522: ds^2_{d+1}&=&{1\over Q^2}{du dv\over 1-uv}+

1523: \sum_{I=1}^{d-1}(dx^I)^2,\cr

1524: \Phi&=&-{1\over4}\log(1-uv)^2+\Phi_0.

1525: \eeqa

1526: Here

1527: \begin{equation}

1528: -\infty<u,v<\infty

1529: \label{eq:F}

1530: \end{equation}

1531: are global two-dimensional coordinates with the identification

1532: \be\label{uvid}

1533: (u,v)\sim (u e^{-2\pi Q r_{0}}, v e^{2\pi Qr_{0}}).

1534: \ee

1535: The parameter $Q$ is related to the cosmological constant $\Lambda$

1536: by expression \eq{eq:6}. The first term in the metric describes the

1537: generalized Milne orbifold \cite{Craps:2002ii}. The remaining terms

1538: describe  flat/torus-compactified $(d-1)$-dimensional space. The two-dimensional

1539: generalized Milne directions exhibit an intricate causal structure that is schematically represented in \fig{fig:CKR}.

1540: \begin{figure}

1541: \begin{center}

1542: \epsfig{file=cigar.eps, width=12.5cm}

1543: \end{center}

1544: \caption{The generalized Milne orbifold \cite{Craps:2002ii}.}\label{fig:CKR}

1545: \end{figure}

1546: 

1547: 

1548: In Regions I and II of \fig{fig:CKR},

1549: \begin{equation}

1550: uv<0

1551: \label{eq:G}

1552: \end{equation}

1553: and the identification \eq{uvid} is spacelike. These regions can also

1554: be described by the coordinates $t,x$ defined by

1555: \beqa\label{uvtx}

1556: u=\sinh (Qt) e^{-Qx}, \qquad v=-\sinh (Qt)\, e^{Qx}

1557: \eeqa

1558: where

1559: \be\label{xid}

1560: x\sim x+2\pi r_{0}.

1561: \ee

1562: In these coordinates, the metric and dilaton solutions become

1563: \beqa\label{backgroundIIAtx}

1564: ds^2_{d+1}&=&-dt^2+\tanh^2(Qt)dx^2+\sum_{I=1}^{d-1}(dx^I)^2,\cr

1565: \Phi&=&-\log\cosh(Qt)+\Phi_0.

1566: \eeqa

1567: For regions III and IV in \fig{fig:CKR},

1568: \begin{equation}

1569: 0<uv<1.

1570: \label{eq:H}

1571: \end{equation}

1572: The identification \eq{uvid} is now timelike. Thus, these regions contain closed timelike

1573: curves. In regions V and VI, one has

1574: \begin{equation}

1575: 1<uv

1576: \label{eq:I}

1577: \end{equation}

1578: and the identification again becomes spacelike.

1579: 

1580: 

1581: Region I describes a circle that starts out at some fixed radius

1582: $r_{0}$, collapses to zero size and then, in Region II, expands again to radius $r_{0}$.

1583: The Big Crunch/Big Bang singularity occurs when

1584: \begin{equation}

1585: uv=0.

1586: \label{eq:J}

1587: \end{equation}

1588: At this singularity, regions I and II touch the

1589: ``whisker'' \cite{Elitzur:2002rt} regions IV and III which, in turn,

1590: are connected to a second pair of asymptotic early and late time regions, VI and V respectively.

1591: In addition, the separation boundary between regions VI and IV and between regions V and III, defined by

1592: \begin{equation}

1593: uv=1,

1594: \label{eq:K}

1595: \end{equation}

1596: is singular. \fig{fig:CKR} is intended to give

1597: a rough idea of the structure of the asymptotic regions, but

1598: is less precise about the structure near the singularities.

1599: For example, the metric in Region VI is actually

1600: such that the radius of the circle is increasing

1601: as one moves in towards the singularity. The string

1602: coupling $g_s=\exp(\Phi)$ grows as well. In drawing  \fig{fig:CKR}, we have

1603: implicitly performed a T-duality locally on that region,

1604: to bring it to a form more like that of Region I.

1605: Close to the singularity at $uv=0$, where regions I, II, III and IV meet,

1606: the $u,v$ piece of \eq{backgroundIIA} reduces

1607: to the Milne orbifold, a two-dimensional Minkowski space with the points

1608: related by \eq{uvid} identified. See, for example, \cite{Cornalba:2002fi,

1609: Nekrasov:2002kf, Berkooz:2002je,Berkooz:2003bs}

1610: for recent discussions.

1611: Deep into regions I and II, that is, as $uv\rightarrow -\infty$, the dilaton becomes

1612: linear in time with the string coupling approaching zero.

1613: At $uv=1$, the separation

1614: between regions VI and IV and between regions V and III,

1615: both the curvature and

1616: the string coupling diverge.

1617: 

1618: 

1619: A priori, one would

1620: expect stringy, higher derivative corrections to \eq{eq:82}

1621: to become important near the singularities at $uv=0$ and $uv=1$.

1622: However, it was shown in  \cite{Craps:2002ii} that the background \eq{backgroundIIA}

1623: defines an exact superconformal field theory with the correct central charge, $\hat c=10$ \footnote{The central charge deficit

1624: of the $(u,v)$ directions is compensated by considering supercritical

1625: string theory with a positive cosmological constant.}. That is, background~\eq{backgroundIIA} is an exact solution of the string equations of motion to all orders in $\alpha'$.

1626: 

1627: 

1628: The coordinates $x^1,x^2,x^3$ range from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$.

1629: The coordinates $x^a, i=4,\ldots,d-1$ are taken to be periodic, $x^a\sim

1630: x^a+2\pi r_{0}$, so they describe a ($d-4$)-torus with constant radii $r_{0}$. These radii are chosen to be of the order of the string length or a few orders of magnitude larger.

1631: As mentioned previously, the coordinate $x$ defined in~\eq{uvtx} is also compact although, in string frame, the

1632: corresponding circle has a time-dependent radius $|\tanh(Qt)|r_{0}$.

1633: The coordinate $t$ will be the time coordinate of an observer living in regions I and II.

1634: 

1635: 

1636: We close this subsection by showing that in regions I and II of the $(d+1)$-dimensional cosmological solution given in~\eq{backgroundIIA}, there exists an effective

1637: four-dimensional description of this background . This effective solution is valid everywhere except very close to the Big Crunch/Big Bang singularity, where

1638: it is expected to break down due to additional

1639: light stringy modes. It turns out that  the dangerous modes are

1640: winding modes around the $x$ direction, which, as we have previously discussed,

1641: indeed become light near $t=0$. With this caveat in mind, we proceed

1642: to dimensionally reduce the metric and dilaton solutions in regions I and II

1643: from $(d+1)$-dimensions to four dimensions by compactifying them on the $(d-4)$-torus times a circle. Recall that in regions I and II the metric and dilaton can be written as in~\eq{backgroundIIAtx}. Using the definitions in subsection~\ref{sub:four}, we find that, at low energy, \eq{backgroundIIAtx} corresponds to

1644: \beqa\label{fourdeff}

1645: \sigma_T&=&0,\cr

1646: \sigma_R&=&\sqrt2\log|\tanh(Qt)|,\cr

1647: \phi&=&2\Phi_0+\log 2-\log|\sinh(2Qt)|,\cr

1648: g_{\mu\nu}&=&e^{-\phi}\eta_{\mu\nu},

1649: \eeqa

1650: which is exactly the four-dimensional background given in~\eq{eq:3},~\eq{eq:4},~\eq{eq:5} and~\eq{eq:7} of

1651: subsection~\ref{sub:background} if we identify

1652: \be\label{phizero}

1653: \phi_0=\Phi_0+{1\over2}\log2.

1654: \ee

1655: 

1656: It is crucial to note that \eq{backgroundIIAtx} only

1657: describes regions I and II of the $(d+1)$-dimensional

1658: spacetime \eq{backgroundIIA}. The full $(d+1)$-dimensional

1659: string background contains two additional asymptotic regions

1660: V and VI, as well as the intermediate regions III and IV.

1661: The four-dimensional spacetime \eq{fourdeff} is a low energy description of

1662: regions I and II only. However, as we have pointed out before, this

1663: four-dimensional effective description breaks down near the Big

1664: Crunch/Big Bang singularity, which is exactly where regions I

1665: and II are connected to the other regions. To understand what

1666: happens near the Big Crunch/Big Bang singularity, as well as in regions III, IV, V and VI, it is clearly necessary to use the full $(d+1)$-dimensional string theory background

1667: \eq{backgroundIIA}. This is precisely what we will do throughout the remainder of this paper.

1668: 

1669: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1670: \subsection{Fluctuations}\label{sub:string:fluctuations}

1671: 

1672: In this subsection, we study fluctuations around the background

1673: \eq{backgroundIIA}. The key ingredient in our discussion is that

1674: string theory allows one to determine globally defined

1675: wavefunctions, despite the singularities that prevent doing so in

1676: general relativity \cite{Craps:2002ii,Elitzur:2002rt}.

1677: The underlying reason is that the spacetime \eq{backgroundIIA}

1678: corresponds to an orbifold of a coset conformal field theory.%

1679: \footnote{For early work on applications of coset conformal field theories

1680: to cosmology, see for example \cite{coset,Kounnas:1992wc}.}

1681: There is a well-defined procedure to determine at least the

1682: ``untwisted'' globally defined vertex operators in such theories.

1683: The zero mode parts of these vertex operators are the globally

1684: defined wavefunctions we are interested in.

1685: 

1686: This procedure consists of two steps. In the first step, one

1687: determines the vertex operators of the coset conformal field theory,

1688: which in our case is $PSL(2,\Rbar)/U(1)$ at negative level.%

1689: \footnote{$PSL(2,\Rbar)/U(1)$ at positive level corresponds to a

1690: two-dimensional black hole geometry \cite{Witten:1991yr,Dijkgraaf:1991ba}.

1691: $PSL(2,\Rbar)/U(1)$ at negative level can be

1692: obtained from the black hole geometry by double Wick rotation \cite{Kounnas:1992wc}.

1693: It is described by the $u,v$ piece of \eq{backgroundIIA}, without the

1694: identification \eq{uvid}. In this spacetime, $u=v=0$ is a smooth

1695: point (the Big Crunch/Big Bang singularity only arises after

1696: the discrete identification \eq{uvid}), while there are

1697: singularities at $uv=1$.}

1698: One describes the coset conformal field theory as a gauged

1699: Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW) model. The vertex operators of the

1700: ungauged $PSL(2,\Rbar)$ WZW model correspond to wavefunctions on

1701: the smooth $PSL(2,\Rbar)$ group manifold. These can be found in

1702: \cite{Vilenkin}.

1703: The vertex operators of the $SL(2,\Rbar)/U(1)$ WZW model can then

1704: be viewed as those vertex operators of the ungauged model that are

1705: invariant under the $U(1)$ gauge group. See for example

1706: \cite{Craps:2002ii, Elitzur:2002rt, Dijkgraaf:1991ba}.

1707: 

1708: The second step is the standard string theory orbifold procedure

1709: \cite{orb}.

1710: Roughly speaking, an orbifold is obtained from a

1711: covering space, in our case the $PSL(2,\Rbar)/U(1)$ coset spacetime at negative

1712: level,

1713: by identifying points related by the action

1714: of a discrete group. Here, the group is $\Zbar$ with the action

1715: \eq{uvid}, which turns a line into a circle (the circles visible in

1716: Fig.~\ref{fig:CKR}) and causes the Big Crunch/Big Bang singularity at

1717: $uv=0$. The untwisted vertex operators%

1718: \footnote{There are also twisted vertex operators, corresponding

1719: to strings winding around the circles, see \cite{Craps:2002ii}.}

1720: are those

1721: vertex operators on the covering space that are invariant under

1722: \eq{uvid}. From \eq{xid}, we see that this amounts to momentum

1723: quantization in the $x$

1724: direction. In this paper, we will only be

1725: interested in zero momentum in the $x$ direction since the $x$

1726: circle is part of the internal space. For the same reason, we will

1727: not be interested in winding modes except to note that they cause

1728: the effective four-dimensional description to break down near the

1729: Big Crunch/Big Bang.

1730: 

1731: We would like to comment on the relationship of our theory to another model,

1732: which has the same Big Crunch/Big Bang singularity. This is the Milne

1733: orbifold $(\Rbar^{(1,1)}/\Zbar) \times \Rbar^8$, where $\Zbar$ is generated by

1734: the boost transformation \eq{uvid} on two-dimensional Minkowski

1735: space and $\Rbar^8$ denotes eight additional flat directions, some

1736: of which may be compactified. The associated metric is

1737: \be\label{Milne}

1738: ds^2={1\over Q^2}dudv+\sum_{I=1}^8(dx^I)^2.

1739: \ee

1740: This spacetime is very similar to \eq{backgroundIIA} near the Big

1741: Crunch/Big Bang singularity $u=v=0$, but differs significantly

1742: from it away from this point, in particular in the structure of the

1743: additional regions. The Milne orbifold consists of four cones

1744: touching at $u=v=0$, that is, regions I, II, III and IV, but the

1745: radius of the circle of the cones grows to infinite size as one

1746: goes infinitely far away from the singularity. There are no

1747: regions V and VI. They can be thought of as having been pushed

1748: to infinity by focussing in on the manifold around $u=v=0$.

1749: 

1750: Wavefunctions on the Milne orbifold have been discussed from a

1751: string theory point of view in \cite{Nekrasov:2002kf} and have

1752: been used to compute string scattering amplitudes in

1753: \cite{Berkooz:2002je}. There is no coset CFT involved in this

1754: spacetime and the untwisted wavefunctions can be easily obtained from the

1755: string orbifold procedure. That is, consider wavefunctions on Minkowski space

1756: and demand that they be invariant under the action

1757: \eq{uvid} of the orbifold group. Actually, such invariant

1758: Minkowski space wavefunctions either grow or decay

1759: in regions III and IV. Because these regions are non-compact

1760: in the Milne orbifold, one, often implicitly, further restricts to

1761: wavefunctions that decay in those regions. There

1762: will be no such additional restriction in the spacetime

1763: \eq{backgroundIIA}, since regions III and IV do not extend

1764: to infinity there. As a consequence, more wavefunctions

1765: are necessary in our theory than one finds in the Milne orbifold.

1766: 

1767: Global wavefunctions for the Milne orbifold with regions III and

1768: IV omitted were presented in \cite{Tolley:2002cv} based on a

1769: construction that does not refer to string theory, and applied in

1770: \cite{Tolley:2003nx} to cosmology. The global wavefunctions agree

1771: with the restriction to regions I and II of the stringy

1772: wavefunctions discussed in the previous paragraph.

1773: Also, the vacuum state implicitly defined by the wavefunctions of

1774: \cite{Nekrasov:2002kf} and more explicitly used in \cite{Berkooz:2002je}

1775: corresponds to the vacuum state defined

1776: in \cite{Tolley:2002cv} upon deleting regions III and IV of

1777: the string theory spacetime (or from the point of view of \cite{Tolley:2002cv},

1778: upon adding those regions). It is of interest to see what happens to

1779: the wavefunctions of the generalized Milne orbifold upon taking the limit

1780: to the Milne orbifold. We analyze this in detail in subsection 2.4 and

1781: Appendix~C.

1782: 

1783: The fact that the wavefunctions that descend from a covering conformal field

1784: theory solution of string theory are globally defined on the associated

1785: orbifold is of fundamental importance for the results of this paper. For that

1786: reason, we outline in Appendix A, in more detail than discussed here, the procedure for

1787: constructing these global wavefuntions.

1788: In the remainder of this subsection, we will review and extend the

1789: results of \cite{Craps:2002ii} on global wavefunctions and quantum

1790: vacuum states in the spacetime \eq{backgroundIIA}.

1791: The global

1792: structure of the spacetime, in particular the presence of the

1793: additional asymptotic regions, will be shown to have important

1794: implications for the physics of the Big Crunch/Big Bang

1795: transition.

1796: 

1797: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1798: \subsubsection{Global Wavefunctions on the Generalized Milne Orbifold}

1799: \label{subsub:global}

1800: We restrict our discussion to those fluctuations that are relevant for the

1801: four-dimensional cosmology introduced in section~\ref{sec:fourd}. That is, the only

1802: non-zero momentum components are in the three non-compact

1803: space dimensions, and we ignore all winding and excited string

1804: modes. In particular, momentum and winding in the $x$ direction

1805: are set to zero,

1806: \be\label{pw}

1807: p=w=0

1808: \ee

1809: in the notation of \cite{Craps:2002ii}.

1810: The justification for this is that all the modes we ignore have masses

1811: on the order of the string scale, except very close to the Big Bang/Big Crunch singularity

1812: where winding modes around the $x$ direction become light, as we

1813: have previously mentioned.

1814: %By staying sufficiently far from this singularity and considering energies

1815: %and momenta much smaller than the string scale,

1816: %\be\label{momstringscale}

1817: %\vec k^2\ll{1\over \alpha'},

1818: %\ee

1819: %all heavy momentum and winding modes can safely be ignored.

1820: %Recall, however, that we must restrict our discussion to momenta satisfying

1821: %\be\label{momQ}

1822: %\vec k^2\gg Q^2,

1823: %\ee

1824: %where $Q$ is defined in~\eq{eq:6}, in order to be consistent with the

1825: %condition \eq{eq:40} imposed in section~\ref{sec:fourd}.

1826: 

1827: In subsection~\ref{sub:fluctuations}, we solved  the wave equation

1828: \eq{eq:37} for the fluctuations $\delta T$ defined in~\eq{eq:36}. Recall that from the point of view of the four-dimensional quantum field theory~\eq{eq:1} and~\eq{eq:2}, there were two classically independent regions, Region I and Region II.

1829: In each of these regions, we found the same two independent solutions of~\eq{eq:37}

1830: for a given momentum

1831: $\vec k$. These solutions are ${\delta T_{\vec{k}}}^{+}$ in~\eq{eq:49} and

1832: ${\delta T_{\vec{k}}}^{-}(= {\delta T_{\vec{k}}}^{+*}) $.

1833: Far from $t=0$, one solution, ${\delta T_{\vec{k}}}^{+}$, reduces to a positive

1834: frequency wave, while its conjugate has negative frequency. However, as we have

1835: shown in

1836: subsection~\ref{sub:string:background}, this four-dimensional theory arises as

1837: the low energy limit of the generalized Milne orbifold solution of the

1838: $(d+1)$-dimensional classical string action~\eq{eq:82}. The full string theory

1839: background \eq{backgroundIIA} has, in addition to regions I and II, the regions III,

1840: IV,  V and VI discussed in detail above. Therefore, in string theory, one must solve the

1841: $\delta T$ fluctuation equation in each of these six regions. Recall that

1842: the generalized Milne orbifold arises from a covering $PSL(2,\Rbar)$ manifold by

1843: constructing  the coset $PSL(2,\Rbar)/U(1)$ and then identifying points related by a

1844:  $\Zbar$ group action. It follows from this structure that one can find solutions of

1845: the $\delta T$ fluctuation equation on the generalized Milne orbifold by first finding

1846: solutions of the fluctuation equation on $PSL(2,\Rbar)$ and then restricting to those

1847: solutions that are invariant under the action of both $U(1)$ and $\Zbar$. Such

1848: solutions, since they are globally defined on $PSL(2,\Rbar)$, remain globally

1849: defined on the generalized Milne orbifold. That is, each such solution is defined

1850: in each of the six regions I, II, III, IV, V and VI. As explained in

1851: \cite{Craps:2002ii,Elitzur:2002rt}, there are

1852: four independent wavefunctions of this type for each momentum $\vec k$,

1853:  which we denote by

1854: \begin{equation}

1855: \label{Kuv}

1856: \K_{++,\vec{k}}(uv),\ \K_{+-,\vec{k}}(uv),\ \K_{-+,\vec{k}}(uv)\ {\rm and}\

1857: \K_{--,\vec{k}}(uv).

1858: \ee

1859: Note that, in addition to their $\vec{k}$ dependence, the argument of these

1860: functions is the coordinate $uv$. More precisely, they depend not only on $uv$

1861: but, also, on the region I, II, III, IV, V or VI. This latter dependence is suppressed

1862: in \eq{Kuv}. In regions I and II,

1863: it follows from~\eq{uvtx} that

1864: \begin{equation}

1865: uv=-\sinh^{2}(Qt).

1866: \label{eq:n1}

1867: \end{equation}

1868: Similarly, in regions V and VI we can write

1869: \begin{equation}

1870: 1-uv=-\sinh^{2}(Qt).

1871: \label{eq:n1bis}

1872: \end{equation}

1873: Hence, in these regions the wavefunctions are dependent on $t$,

1874: as we would expect them to be.

1875: The four independent wavefunctions in~\eq{Kuv} can be written as

1876: \begin{equation}

1877: \K_{\pm\pm,\vec{k}}=\N K_{\pm\pm,\vec{k}},

1878: \label{eq:n2}

1879: \end{equation}

1880: where $\N$ is a $\vec{k}$-dependent normalization constant given in~\eq{calN} and

1881: the expressions for each of the four functions $K_{\pm\pm, \vec{k}}$ in the

1882: six regions are given in Appendix B. That is, the independent wavefunctions

1883: in~\eq{Kuv} are explicitly known.

1884: %cite{Vilenkin, Elitzur:2002rt, Craps:2002ii}. Restricted

1885: %to region~$I$, for instance, $\K_{++}$ coincides with $\delta

1886: %T_{\vec k}^+$ (see \eq{eq:49}), $\K_{+-}$ vanishes, $\K_{-+}$ is a

1887: %linear combination of $\delta T_{\vec k}^+$ and $\delta T_{\vec k}^-$

1888: %(see \eq{eq:51}), and $\K_{--}$ coincides with $\delta T_{\vec k}^-$

1889: %(up to a phase).

1890: The $\K_{\pm\pm, \vec{k}}$ are defined such

1891: that they are orthonormal, with norm squared $\pm 1$, with respect

1892: to the appropriate generalization of the Klein-Gordon inner product

1893: \eq{eq:44}. The

1894: generalization is that $\Sigma$ should be a global ``Cauchy''

1895: surface, intersecting regions I and VI or II and V, which

1896: turn out to be equivalent. The $K_{\pm\pm,\vec{k}}$ given in Appendix A have the same norm

1897: up to a sign, so, by dividing out a common factor, we can obtain

1898: the normalized $\K_{\pm\pm,\vec{k}}$. For example, $\K_{++,\vec{k}}$ coincides

1899: with $\delta T_{\vec k}^+$ in Region I and vanishes in Region

1900: VI, so it indeed has unit Klein-Gordon norm.

1901: 

1902: 

1903: A key point of this paper is that the wavefunctions $\K_{\pm\pm,\vec{k}}$

1904: are globally

1905: defined on the generalized Milne orbifold. This follows from the fact that

1906: they descend from globally defined functions on the $PSL(2,\Rbar)$ covering

1907: space. The expressions for each of the four independent wavefunctions, in each

1908: of the six regions, are presented in Appendix B. It is, however, useful at

1909: this point to discuss several of these wavefunctions in more detail. First

1910: consider $\K_{++, \vec{k}}$. In Region I, it is found to be

1911: \begin{equation}

1912: \K_{++, \vec{k}}=\delta {T_{\vec{k}}}^{+},

1913: \label{eq:c1}

1914: \end{equation}

1915: where $ \delta {T_{\vec{k}}}^{+}$ is given in~\eq{eq:49}.

1916: This function is purely positive

1917: frequency in the asymptotic region $t\ll -1/Q$, while it diverges

1918: logarithmically near the Big Crunch singularity, $t\to -0$. In Region II,

1919: one has

1920: \begin{equation}

1921: \K_{++, \vec{k}}\propto (-z)^{-j-1}F(-j,-j;-2j;\frac{1}{z}),

1922: \label{eq:c2}

1923: \end{equation}

1924: where $j$ and $z$ are defined in~\eq{eq:50}.

1925: In this region, $\K_{++, \vec{k}}$ is

1926: purely positive frequency asymptotically and diverges logarithmically

1927: near the Big Bang as $t\to +0$. In the intermediate

1928: Region III,

1929: \begin{equation}

1930: \K_{++, \vec{k}}\propto (uv)^{j}F(-j,-j;1;1-\frac{1}{uv}),

1931: \label{eq:c3}

1932: \end{equation}

1933: which diverges logarithmically near the Big Crunch/Big Bang singularity at

1934: $uv=0$, while it approaches a constant near the $uv=1$ singularity that separates

1935: regions III and V. Similarly, in Region IV

1936: \begin{equation}

1937: \K_{++, \vec{k}}\propto (uv)^{-j-1}F(j+1,j+1;1;1-\frac{1}{uv}).

1938: \label{eq:c4}

1939: \end{equation}

1940: This diverges logarithmically

1941: near $uv=0$ and approaches a constant near $uv=1$. In

1942: Region V, $\K_{++, \vec{k}}$ is

1943: a mixture of positive and negative frequency components with equal amplitude in the

1944: asymptotic region $uv\gg 1/Q^2$, while it approaches a constant near $uv=1$.

1945: The exact expression in Region V is

1946: \begin{equation}

1947: \K_{++, \vec{k}}\propto F(-j,j+1;1;1-uv).

1948: \label{eq:c5}

1949: \end{equation}

1950: Finally, and importantly, in Region VI

1951: \begin{equation}

1952: \K_{++, \vec{k}}=0.

1953: \label{eq:c6}

1954: \end{equation}

1955: 

1956: The global behavior of $\K_{+-, \vec{k}}$ can be obtained by replacing

1957: $I\leftrightarrow VI$,

1958: $II\leftrightarrow V$ and $uv\leftrightarrow 1-uv$ in the above expressions for

1959: $\K_{++, \vec{k}}$. Of particular importance for us is the form of $\K_{+-,

1960: \vec{k}}$ in regions I and VI. We find that

1961: \begin{equation}

1962: \K_{+-, \vec{k}}=0

1963: \label{eq:c7}

1964: \end{equation}

1965: and

1966: \begin{equation}

1967: \K_{+-, \vec{k}}=\delta {T_{\vec{k}}}^{+},

1968: \label{eq:c8}

1969: \end{equation}

1970: in regions I and VI respectively. Similarly, the

1971: global structure of $\K_{--, \vec{k}}$ is obtained from that of $\K_{++,

1972: \vec{k}}$ by replacing $I

1973: \leftrightarrow II$, $V\leftrightarrow VI$ and ``positive frequency''

1974: $\leftrightarrow$ ``negative frequency''. Specifically, we will use the fact

1975: that

1976: \begin{equation}

1977: \K_{--, \vec{k}}=\delta {T_{\vec{k}}}^{+*}

1978: \label{eq:c9}

1979: \end{equation}

1980: and

1981: \begin{equation}

1982: \K_{--, \vec{k}}=0

1983: \label{eq:c10}

1984: \end{equation}

1985: in regions II and V respectively.

1986: Finally, the behavior of $\K_{-+, \vec{k}}$ is

1987: obtained from that of $\K_{--, \vec{k}}$ by replacing $I\leftrightarrow VI$,

1988: $II\leftrightarrow V$ and $uv\leftrightarrow 1-uv$. In particular,

1989: we find that

1990: \begin{equation}

1991: \K_{-+, \vec{k}}=0

1992: \label{eq:c11}

1993: \end{equation}

1994: in Region II, whereas

1995: \begin{equation}

1996: \K_{-+, \vec{k}}=\delta {T_{\vec{k}}}^{+*}

1997: \label{eq:c12}

1998: \end{equation}

1999: in Region V.

2000: 

2001: 

2002: 

2003: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2004: 

2005: \subsubsection{Quantization}\label{subsub:quantization}

2006: 

2007: We would now like to quantize the scalar fluctuations

2008: $\delta \sigma_{T}$ on the

2009: generalized Milne orbifold. Generically, this can be done by

2010: expanding

2011: \beqa\label{expand}

2012: &&\delta\sigma_T=\int{d^3k\over(2\pi)^{3/2}}\left(a_{1,\vec k}\K_{1,\vec k}(uv)

2013: e^{i\vec k

2014: \cdot\vec x}+a_{2,\vec k}\K_{2,\vec k}(uv)e^{i\vec k\cdot\vec x}\right.\cr

2015: &&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \  \ \ \ \ \ \  \left.

2016: +a_{1,\vec k}^{\dagger}\K_{1,\vec k}^*(uv)e^{-i\vec k\cdot\vec x}

2017: +a_{2,\vec k}^{\dagger}\K_{2,\vec k}^*(uv)e^{-i\vec k\cdot\vec x}\right),

2018: \eeqa

2019: where $\{\K_{1,\vec k}, \K_{2,\vec k}\}$ is some appropriate pair of

2020: orthonormal wavefunctions.

2021: As compared to \eq{eq:53}, we have twice as

2022: many functions in the expansion \eq{expand}. The reason is that there are twice

2023: as many independent global wavefunctions on the generalized Milne orbifold

2024: as there are independent wavefunctions in the effective four-dimensional

2025: theory.

2026: We now impose the canonical commutation relations

2027: \be\label{cancomm}

2028:  [a_{i,\vec k},a_{j,\vec k'}^{\dagger}]=

2029: \delta_{ij}\delta^3(\vec k-\vec k'), \qquad [a_{i,\vec k},a_{j,\vec k'}]=

2030: [a_{i,\vec k}^{\dagger},a_{j,\vec k'}^{\dagger}]=0.

2031: \ee

2032: and define the vacuum state $|0\rangle$ by

2033: \be\label{vacuumstate}

2034: a_1|0\rangle=a_2|0\rangle=0.

2035: \ee

2036: 

2037: 

2038: To proceed, we now must ask the question: what is a natural vacuum state to choose, or equivalently,

2039: what is a natural set of wavefunctions $\{\K_{1,\vec k}, \K_{2,\vec k}\}$? In

2040: \cite{Craps:2002ii}, two natural vacua were defined and shown to be

2041: inequivalent. The first vacuum state corresponds to the

2042: choice

2043: $\K_{1,\vec{k}}=\K_{++, \vec{k}},\ K_{2, \vec{k}}=\K_{+-, \vec{k}}$. The

2044: associated fluctuation expansion is

2045: \beqa\label{expandin}

2046: &&\delta\sigma_T=\int{d^3k\over(2\pi)^{3/2}}\left(a^{I}_{\vec{k}}\K_{++,\vec

2047: k}(uv)

2048: e^{i\vec k

2049: \cdot\vec x}+a^{VI}_{\vec k}\K_{+-,\vec k}(uv)e^{i\vec k\cdot\vec x}\right.\cr

2050: &&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \  \ \ \ \ \ \  \left.

2051: +a^{I \dagger}_{\vec{k}}\K_{++,\vec k}^*(uv)e^{-i\vec k\cdot\vec x}

2052: +a^{VI \dagger}_{\vec{k}}\K_{+-,\vec k}^{*}(uv)e^{-i\vec k\cdot\vec x}\right).

2053: \eeqa

2054: Recall that at early times, $\K_{++, \vec{k}}$ is purely positive frequency in

2055: Region I and, from~\eq{eq:c6}, vanishes

2056: in Region VI, and vice versa for the wavefunction

2057: $\K_{+-, \vec{k}}$. It follows that

2058: the vacuum state constructed from $a^{I}_{\vec{k}}$ and $a^{VI}_{\vec{k}}$

2059: would indeed be called empty

2060: by early time observers in regions I and VI. Therefore, we denote this state by

2061: $|0\rangle_{in}$.

2062: The second vacuum state, specified by $|0\rangle_{out}$, corresponds to the

2063: choice

2064: $\K_{1, \vec{k}}=\K^*_{--, \vec{k}}$ and $\K_{2, \vec{k}}=\K^*_{-+, \vec{k}}$

2065: and the associated expansion

2066: \beqa\label{expandout}

2067: &&\delta\sigma_T=\int{d^3k\over(2\pi)^{3/2}}\left(a^{II}_{\vec k}

2068: \K^*_{--,\vec k}(uv)

2069: e^{i\vec k

2070: \cdot\vec x}+a^{V}_{\vec k}\K^*_{-+,\vec k}(uv)e^{i\vec k\cdot\vec x}\right.\cr

2071: &&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \  \ \ \ \ \ \  \left.

2072: +a^{II\dagger}_{\vec k}\K_{--,\vec k}(uv)e^{-i\vec k\cdot\vec x}

2073: +a^{V\dagger}_{\vec k}\K_{+-,\vec k}(uv)e^{-i\vec k\cdot\vec x}\right).

2074: \eeqa

2075: Since, at late times, $\K^*_{--, \vec{k}}$ is purely positive frequency in Region

2076: II and, from~\eq{eq:c10}, vanishes

2077: in Region V, and vice versa for $\K_{-+, \vec{k}}$, this state would similarly be called empty

2078: by late time observers in regions II and V.

2079: 

2080: The relation between $|0\rangle_{in}$ and $|0\rangle_{out}$ can be determined

2081: from

2082: \be\label{bogol}

2083: \pmatrix{\K_{--,\vec{k}}\cr \K_{-+,\vec{k}}\cr \K^*_{--, \vec{k}}\cr

2084: \K^*_{-+,\vec{k}}}=

2085: \pmatrix{A&C&0&B\cr

2086:          C&A&B&0\cr

2087:          0&B^*&A^*&C^*\cr

2088:          B^*&0&C^*&A^*}

2089: \pmatrix{\K^*_{++, \vec{k}}\cr \K^*_{+-, \vec{k}}\cr \K_{++, \vec{k}}\cr

2090: \K_{+-, \vec{k}}},

2091: \ee

2092: where the Klein-Gordon orthonormality of the wavefunctions implies that

2093: $A$, $B$ and $C$ satisfy the conditions

2094: \begin{equation}

2095: |A|^2+|C|^2-|B|^2=1, \qquad AC^*+A^*C=0.

2096: \label{consistency}

2097: \end{equation}

2098: For the special case \eq{pw} we are considering, one finds

2099: \beqa\label{ABC}

2100: A&=&-1,\cr

2101: B=C&=&{1\over i\sinh\left({\pi E_{\vec{k}}\over 2Q}\right)}.

2102: \eeqa

2103: Note that $B$ is a function of $\vec{k}$ and that $B(\vec{k})=B(-\vec{k})$.

2104: Then,~\eq{bogol} simplifies to

2105: \begin{equation}

2106: \pmatrix{\K_{--,\vec{k}}\cr \K_{-+, \vec{k}}\cr \K^*_{--, \vec{k}}\cr

2107: \K^*_{-+, \vec{k}}}=

2108: \pmatrix{-1&B&0&B\cr

2109:          B&-1&B&0\cr

2110:          0&-B&-1&-B\cr

2111:          -B&0&-B&-1}

2112: \pmatrix{\K^*_{++, \vec{k}}\cr \K^*_{+-, \vec{k}}\cr \K_{++, \vec{k}}\cr

2113: \K_{+-, \vec{k}}},

2114: \label{bogolsimp}

2115: \end{equation}

2116: which can be inverted to

2117: \be\label{bogolsimpinv}

2118: \pmatrix{\K^*_{++, \vec{k}}\cr \K^*_{+-, \vec{k}}\cr \K_{++, \vec{k}}\cr \K_{+-,

2119: \vec{k}}}=

2120: \pmatrix{-1&-B&0&-B\cr

2121:          -B&-1&-B&0\cr

2122:          0&B&-1&B\cr

2123:          B&0&B&-1}

2124: \pmatrix{\K_{--, \vec{k}}\cr \K_{-+, \vec{k}}\cr \K^*_{--, \vec{k}}\cr

2125: \K^*_{-+, \vec{k}}}.

2126: \ee

2127: It is straightforward to check these relations using the formulas in

2128: Appendix~B.

2129: Inserting~\eq{bogolsimpinv} into~\eq{expandin}, we find the Bogolubov transformation

2130: \be\label{bogolubov}

2131: \pmatrix{a^{II\dagger}_{\vec k}\cr a^{V\dagger}_{\vec k} \cr a^{II}_{-\vec k}\cr

2132: a^{V}_{-\vec k}}=

2133: \pmatrix{-1&-B&0&B\cr

2134:          -B&-1&B&0\cr

2135:          0&-B&-1&B\cr

2136:          -B&0&B&-1}

2137: \pmatrix{a^{I\dagger}_{\vec k}\cr a^{VI\dagger}_{\vec k} \cr a^{I}_{-\vec k}\cr

2138: a^{VI}_{-\vec k}}.

2139: \ee

2140: 

2141: 

2142: Note that the Bogolubov  transformation \eq{bogolubov}

2143: mixes creation with annihilation operators. This

2144: implies particle creation at late times \cite{Craps:2002ii}.

2145: To see this, note that for each momentum $\vec{k}$

2146: \be\label{particlesII}

2147: _{in}\langle 0|a_{\vec{k}}^{II\dagger}a_{\vec{k}}^{II}|0\rangle_{in}=|B|^2={1\over\sinh^2\left(

2148: {\pi E_{\vec k}\over2Q}\right)}

2149: \ee

2150: and

2151: \be\label{particlesV}

2152: _{in}\langle 0|a_{\vec{k}}^{V\dagger}a_{\vec{k}}^{V}|0\rangle_{in}=

2153: |B|^2={1\over\sinh^2\left(

2154: {\pi E_{\vec k}\over2Q}\right)}.

2155: \ee

2156: The physical interpretation is that, at late times, the vacuum

2157: $|0\rangle_{in}$ has $1/\sinh^{2}(\pi E_{\vec{k}}/2Q)$ particles with momentum

2158: $\vec{k}$ in Region I and the same number of particles with momentum $\vec{k}$

2159: in Region V for each value of $\vec{k}$.

2160: Note that the number of particles created goes to zero%

2161: \footnote{At least for the modes \eq{pw} we are considering.

2162: The generalization of \eq{particlesII} is \cite{Craps:2002ii}

2163: \be |B|^2={\cosh^2(\pi

2164: m)\over\sinh^2\left({\pi E\over 2Q}\right)} \ee

2165: with \be m\equiv{1\over2}\left({n\over Qr_0}-{wr_0\over

2166: Q\alpha'}\right),\ee

2167: $n$ and $w$ being integers labelling momentum and winding in the

2168: $x$ direction and $E$ being the energy.

2169: }

2170: in the limit that

2171: \begin{equation}

2172: E_{\vec{k}}/Q\longrightarrow \infty.

2173: \label{eq:d1}

2174: \end{equation}

2175: We will use this result in subsection~\ref{subsec:milne}.

2176: 

2177: 

2178: 

2179: Let us now, within the context of the generalized Milne orbifold,

2180: compute the analogue of expression \eq{eq:57}, that is, the two-point

2181: correlation function

2182: \begin{equation}

2183: _{in}\langle 0|{\delta \sigma_{T}}(uv,\vec x){\delta \sigma_{T}}(uv,\vec x+\vec

2184: r)

2185: |0\rangle _{in}.

2186: \label{eq:80bis}

2187: \end{equation}

2188: %(Later on, we will put $\vec{r}=0$ as after \eq{eq:57}.)

2189: Since this function is correlated with respect to the in-vacuum, it is

2190: simplest to expand the fluctuations as in~\eq{expandin}.

2191: Using this and \eq{cancomm}, we find that

2192: \beqa

2193: &&_{in}\langle 0|{\delta \sigma_{T}}(uv,\vec x){\delta \sigma_{T}}(uv,\vec x+\vec r)

2194: |0\rangle _{in}\cr

2195: &&={1\over 2\pi^2}\int dk {|\vec{k}|}^2 \left(|\K_{++,\vec k}|^{2}+

2196: |\K_{+-,\vec k}|^{2}\right)

2197: \frac{\sin(|\vec{k}||\vec{r}|)}{|\vec{k}||\vec{r}|}.

2198: \label{eq:80tris}

2199: \eeqa

2200: As in section 1, we will always set $\vec{r}=0$ and consider

2201: \begin{equation}

2202: _{in}\langle 0|{\delta \sigma_{T}}(uv,\vec x)^{2}|0\rangle _{in}

2203: =\int{ \frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}} \left(|\K_{++,\vec k}|^{2}+

2204: |\K_{+-,\vec k}|^{2}\right)}.

2205: \label{eq:d2}

2206: \end{equation}

2207: Since our wavefunctions are globally defined,

2208: \eq{eq:d2} is valid for $(u,v)$ in any of the six regions of the orbifold.

2209: Of course, the explicit form of of $\K_{++,\vec k}$ and $\K_{+-,\vec k}$ change

2210: from region to region and, hence, so will the expression for the correlation

2211: function. Let us begin by calculating~\eq{eq:d2} in Region I. It follows

2212: from~\eq{eq:c1} and~\eq{eq:c7} that

2213: \be\label{eq:80trisone}

2214: _{in}\langle 0|{\delta\sigma_{T}}(t,\vec x)^{2}|0\rangle _{in}=

2215: \int \frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}|\delta T_{\vec{k}}^{+}|^{2}.

2216: \ee

2217: The agreement with \eq{eq:57} illustrates that the in-vacuum

2218: defined by \eq{expandin} is indeed the correct vacuum in Region~I. As

2219: previously, for momenta $\vec{k}^{2}\gg Q^{2}$ in the distant past, the

2220: two-point function in Region I becomes

2221: \begin{equation}

2222: _{in}\langle 0|{\delta\sigma_{T}}(t,\vec x)^{2}|0\rangle _{in}=\int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^{3}}

2223: \frac{1}{|\vec{k}|}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{Q^{2}/2}{2|\vec{k}|^{2}}\right),

2224: \label{eq:d3}

2225: \end{equation}

2226: where we have ignored a momentum-independent factor that can be

2227: removed by a field redefinition. The same

2228: expression for the correlation function and conclusions hold in Region VI.

2229: 

2230: 

2231: Having established this, we now calculate the object of real interest, namely,

2232: the two-point function~\eq{eq:d2} in Region II. Using~\eq{bogolsimpinv} and the

2233: expressions for the wavefunctions given in the previous subsection, we find

2234: that

2235: \beqa\label{eq:80tristwo}

2236: &&_{in}\langle 0|{\delta \sigma_{T}}(uv,\vec x)^{2}|0\rangle _{in} \cr

2237: &&=\int {\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}} \left((1+2|B|^{2})|\delta T_{\vec{k}}^{+}|^{2}

2238: +|B(\vec k)|^{2}\delta T_{\vec{k}}^{+2}+|B(\vec k)|^{2}

2239: \delta T_{\vec{k}}^{- 2} \right)}.

2240: \eeqa

2241: As $t\rightarrow +\infty$, this

2242: expression becomes

2243: \begin{equation}

2244: _{in}\langle0|{\delta \sigma_{T}}(uv,\vec x)^{2}|0\rangle _{in}=

2245: \int{\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\frac{1}{|\vec{k}|}\left(\frac{1}{2}+

2246: \frac{Q^{2}/2}{2|\vec{k}|^{2}}\right)\Delta(\vec{k},t)},

2247: \label{eq:e1}

2248: \end{equation}

2249: where we have ignored a momentum-independent factor and

2250: \begin{equation}

2251: \Delta(\vec{k},t)=1+2|B|^{2}+|B|^{2}e^{-2iE_{\vec{k}}t}+|B|^{2}e^{2iE_{\vec{k}}t}.

2252: \label{eq:e2}

2253: \end{equation}

2254: This should be compared with the field theory result given in~\eq{eq:78}.

2255: Clearly, it is impossible to find

2256: coefficients $X$ and $Y$ such that \eq{eq:78} reproduces \eq{eq:e2}.

2257: This discrepancy has an interesting origin and interpretation, which will be

2258: the subject of subsection~\ref{sub:string:informationloss}.

2259: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2260: 

2261: \subsubsection{A Family of Vacuum States}\label{subsub:family}

2262: 

2263: So far, we have considered the two vacuum states of

2264: \cite{Craps:2002ii}. One of them is empty in each of the early time

2265: regions I and VI, while the other is empty in the late time regions

2266: II and V. Using these vacua, we found that there is

2267: non-trivial particle creation in Region II, described by

2268: \eq{particlesII}. These particles influence the two-point function

2269: of the corresponding field, leading to the non-trivial factor of

2270: $\Delta(\vec{k},t)$ in \eq{eq:e2}.

2271: Upon reflection, however, one is led to wonder whether the choice of vacua of

2272: \cite{Craps:2002ii} is really unique and, in particular, whether

2273: there exists alternative vacuum states for which the early time

2274: two-point function \eq{eq:80trisone} is less drastically altered

2275: upon going through the Big Crunch/Big Bang transition.

2276: 

2277: Since we are interested in an observer who starts out in Region~I and ends

2278: up in Region~II after the Big Crunch/Big Bang transition, we will continue

2279: to impose the condition that any alternative in-vacuum state should be empty in

2280: Region I. That is, the two-point function in Region~I should equal

2281: \eq{eq:80trisone}. However, we will no longer impose a similar condition

2282: in the other in-region, Region~VI, since our observer does not live there.

2283: We now construct a family of such generalized in-vacua and compute, in each

2284: case, the analogues of \eq{particlesII} and \eq{eq:e1}. These correspond

2285: to quantities our observer could, in principle, measure in Region~II.

2286: 

2287: We continue to use the expansion \eq{expand} with

2288: \be\label{K1++}

2289: \K_{1, \vec{k}}=\K_{++,\vec{k}},

2290: \ee

2291: which has positive frequency in Region~I and vanishes in Region~VI. However,

2292: we now allow a more general wavefunction for $\K_{2, \vec{k}}$, which vanishes in

2293: Region~I but does not necessarily have positive frequency in Region VI.

2294: The most general such wavefunction, for a given momentum, is an arbitrary

2295: normalized linear combination of $\K_{+-}$ and $\K_{+-}^*$ specified by

2296: \be\label{K2gen}

2297: \K_{\gamma\tilde\gamma,\vec k}=

2298: \gamma(\vec k)\K_{+-,\vec k}+\tilde\gamma(\vec k)

2299: (\K_{+-,\vec k}+\K_{+-,\vec k}^*),

2300: \ee

2301: where $\gamma(\vec k)$ and $\tilde\gamma(\vec k)$ are complex numbers satisfying

2302: \be\label{gammanorm}

2303: |\gamma(\vec k)+\tilde\gamma(\vec k)|^2-|\tilde\gamma(\vec k)|^2=1.

2304: \ee

2305: For each

2306: \be\label{gammatildegamma}

2307: \gamma(\vec k)\neq0,

2308: \ee

2309: there exists at least one $\tilde\gamma$ such that \eq{gammanorm} is

2310: satisfied. Note that $\gamma(\vec k)=1,\tilde\gamma(\vec k)=0$

2311: corresponds to the natural in-vacuum

2312: $|0\rangle_{in}$ defined using \eq{expandin}.

2313: For simplicity, we will assume that

2314: \be\label{assumegamma}

2315: \gamma(\vec k)=\gamma(-\vec k),\ \ \tilde\gamma(\vec k)=\tilde\gamma(-\vec k),

2316: \ee

2317: although more general choices would not change our conclusions.

2318: Henceforth, we will take

2319: \begin{equation}

2320: \K_{2,\vec{k}}=\K_{\gamma\tilde\gamma, \vec{k}}

2321: \label{eq:e3}

2322: \end{equation}

2323: and use the expansion

2324: \beqa

2325: &&\delta\sigma_T=\int{d^3k\over(2\pi)^{3/2}}\left(a^{I}_{\vec{k}}\K_{++,\vec

2326: k}(uv)

2327: e^{i\vec k

2328: \cdot\vec x}+a^{VI}_{\vec k}\K_{\gamma \tilde\gamma,\vec k}(uv)

2329: e^{i\vec k\cdot\vec x}\right.\cr

2330: &&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \  \ \ \ \ \ \  \left.

2331: +a^{I \dagger}_{\vec{k}}\K_{++,\vec k}^*(uv)e^{-i\vec k\cdot\vec x}

2332: +a^{VI \dagger}_{\vec{k}}\K_{\gamma \tilde\gamma,\vec k}^{*}(uv)e^{-i\vec k\cdot\vec x}\right).

2333: \label{eq:e4}

2334: \eeqa

2335: 

2336: 

2337: We can now repeat the computations of subsection~\ref{subsub:quantization}

2338: for the new in-vacuum states $|0\rangle_{\gamma\tilde\gamma}$ defined by

2339: \eq{expand}, \eq{vacuumstate}, \eq{K1++},\eq{K2gen} and~\eq{gammanorm}. We continue to

2340: use the natural out-vacuum defined using \eq{expandout}. It follows from the

2341: expressions for the wavefunctions given in Appendix B and~\eq{K2gen} that

2342: \be\label{bogolsimpinvbis}

2343: \pmatrix{\K^*_{++, \vec{k}}\cr \K^*_{\gamma\tilde\gamma, \vec{k}}\cr \K_{++,

2344: \vec{k}}\cr

2345: \K_{\gamma\tilde\gamma, \vec{k}}}=

2346: \pmatrix{-1&-B&0&-B\cr

2347:          -\gamma^* B&-(\gamma^*+\tilde\gamma^*)&-\gamma^* B&-\tilde\gamma^*\cr

2348:          0&B&-1&B\cr

2349:          \gamma B&-\tilde\gamma&\gamma B&-(\gamma+\tilde\gamma)}

2350: \pmatrix{\K_{--, \vec{k}}\cr \K_{-+, \vec{k}}\cr \K^*_{--, \vec{k}}\cr

2351: \K^*_{-+, \vec{k}}},

2352: \ee

2353: where $B$ is given in~\eq{ABC}. Inserting this into~\eq{eq:e4} and comparing

2354: to~\eq{expandout}, we find the Bogolubov transformation

2355: \be\label{bogolubovbis}

2356: \pmatrix{a^{II\dagger}_{\vec k}\cr a^{V\dagger}_{\vec k} \cr a^{II}_{-\vec k}\cr

2357: a^{V}_{-\vec k}}=

2358: \pmatrix{-1&-\gamma^*B&0&\gamma B\cr

2359:          -B&-(\gamma^*+\tilde\gamma^*)&B&-\tilde\gamma\cr

2360:          0&-\gamma^*B&-1&\gamma B\cr

2361:          -B&-\tilde\gamma^*&B&-(\gamma+\tilde\gamma)}

2362: \pmatrix{a^{I\dagger}_{\vec k}\cr a^{VI\dagger}_{\vec k} \cr a^{I}_{-\vec k}\cr

2363: a^{VI}_{-\vec k}}.

2364: \ee

2365: This can be inverted to give

2366: \be\label{bogolubovtris}

2367: \pmatrix{a^{I\dagger}_{\vec k}\cr a^{VI\dagger}_{\vec k} \cr a^{I}_{-\vec k}\cr

2368: a^{VI}_{-\vec k}}=

2369: \pmatrix{-1&B&0&- B\cr

2370:         \gamma B&-(\gamma+\tilde\gamma)&-\gamma B&\tilde\gamma\cr

2371:          0&B&-1&-B\cr

2372:          \gamma^*B&\tilde\gamma^*&-\gamma^*B&-(\gamma^*+\tilde\gamma^*)}

2373: \pmatrix{a^{II\dagger}_{\vec k}\cr a^{V\dagger}_{\vec k} \cr a^{II}_{-\vec k}\cr

2374: a^{V}_{-\vec k}}.

2375: \ee

2376: Using~\eq{bogolubovbis}, we can now compute the occupation numbers

2377: \be\label{particlesIIgen}

2378: {}_{\gamma\tilde\gamma}\langle 0|a_{\vec{k}}^{II\dagger}a_{\vec{k}}^{II}|0\rangle_{\gamma\tilde\gamma}=

2379: |\gamma B|^2=

2380: {|\gamma(\vec k)|^2\over\sinh^2\left({\pi E_{\vec k}\over2Q}\right)}

2381: \ee

2382: in Region~II and

2383: \be\label{particlesVgen}

2384: {}_{\gamma\tilde\gamma}\langle 0|a_{\vec k}^{V\dagger}a_{\vec k}^V|0\rangle_{\gamma\tilde\gamma}=

2385: |B|^2+|\tilde \gamma|^2

2386: \ee

2387: in Region~V.

2388: For the reasons given at the beginning of this subsection, we are principally interested

2389: in the number of particles in Region~II. We see from \eq{particlesIIgen} that

2390: this number can be made arbitrarily small by choosing $\gamma(\vec k)$ to be close

2391: to zero. Note, however, that we cannot set $\gamma(\vec{k})=0$, since this

2392: would be inconsistent with the constraint~\eq{gammanorm}.

2393: 

2394: Next we compute

2395: \beqa\label{eq:80tristwogen}

2396: &&_{\gamma\tilde\gamma}\langle 0|{\delta \sigma_{T}}(uv,\vec x)^{2}

2397: |0\rangle _{\gamma\tilde\gamma}\cr

2398: &&=\int \frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}} \left(|\K_{++,\vec k}|^{2}+ |

2399: \K_{\gamma,\tilde\gamma,\vec k}|^{2}\right).

2400: \eeqa

2401: In Region~I, $\K_{+-, \vec{k}}$ vanishes. It follows that $\K_{\gamma

2402: \tilde\gamma, \vec{k}}$ also vanishes and, hence,

2403: \eq{eq:80tristwogen} reduces to the familiar

2404: result \eq{eq:80trisone}.

2405: From \eq{KII} in Appendix~B, we see that $\K_{+-, \vec{k}}$ is purely imaginary

2406: in Region~II.

2407: In fact, this is also the case in the other regions that touch $uv=0$. Therefore,

2408: $\K_{\gamma\tilde\gamma, \vec{k}}$ reduces to $\gamma\K_{+-, \vec{k}}$

2409: in those regions. Using this,

2410: \eq{eq:80tristwogen} takes the following form in Region~II,

2411: \beqa\label{eq:80tristwogenbis}

2412: &&_{\gamma\tilde\gamma}\langle 0|{\delta \sigma_{T}}(uv,\vec x)^{2}

2413: |0\rangle _{\gamma\tilde\gamma}\cr

2414: &&=\int \frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}} \left((1+2|\gamma B|^{2})\,

2415: |\delta T_{\vec{k}}^{+}|^{2}

2416: +|\gamma(\vec k)B(\vec k)|^2\,

2417: \delta T_{\vec{k}}^{+2}+ |\gamma(\vec k)B(\vec k)|^2\,\delta

2418: T_{\vec{k}}^{-2} \right).\cr &&

2419: \eeqa

2420: In the far future where $t\rightarrow+\infty$, and for $\vec k^2\gg Q^2$,

2421: this expression becomes

2422: \begin{equation}

2423: _{\gamma\tilde\gamma}\langle 0|{\delta \sigma_{T}}(uv,\vec x)^{2}

2424: |0\rangle _{\gamma\tilde\gamma}=\int

2425: \frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\frac{1}{|\vec{k}|}

2426: \left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{Q^{2}/2}{2|\vec{k}|^{2}}\right)\Delta(\vec{k},t),

2427: \label{eq:e5}

2428: \end{equation}

2429: where we have dropped a momentum-independent scale factor and

2430: \begin{equation}

2431: \Delta(\vec{k},t)=1+2|\gamma B|^{2}+|\gamma B|^{2}e^{-2iE_{\vec{k}}t}+

2432: |\gamma B|^{2}e^{2iE_{\vec{k}}t}.

2433: \label{eq:e6}

2434: \end{equation}

2435: In the limit $\gamma (\vec k)\to 0$, this approaches the early time result

2436: \eq{eq:d3}. Therefore, for this limiting choice of in-vacuum, an observer in

2437: Region~II

2438: would say that the fluctuations in Region~I went through the Big Crunch/Big

2439: Bang unchanged.

2440: For this special limiting case, the result \eq{eq:e6} can be reformulated

2441: in the framework of subsection~\ref{sub:BBBC}. It corresponds to the Bogolubov

2442: coefficients $X$ and $Y$ with the properties

2443: \be\label{XY}

2444: |X|=1,\ \ Y=0\ \ \ \ \ {\rm in\ the\ limit}\ \gamma(\vec k)\to0.

2445: \ee

2446: However, this limiting case is the only one for which the framework of

2447: subsection~\ref{sub:BBBC} can be made to reproduce \eq{eq:e6}. This

2448: apparent discrepancy is the subject of the next subsection.

2449: 

2450: 

2451: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2452: 

2453: \subsection{Information Loss}\label{sub:string:informationloss}

2454: 

2455: It is useful to use the Bogolubov transformation~\eq{bogolubovtris} to

2456: explicitly write the relation between the in-vacua

2457: $|0\rangle_{\gamma\tilde\gamma}$ and the natural out-vacuum $|0\rangle_{out}$.

2458: We find that (remember \eq{assumegamma})

2459: \be\label{zerogammaout}

2460: |0\rangle_{\gamma\tilde\gamma}=N_{\gamma\tilde\gamma}

2461: \exp\left\{\int d^3k\left(\theta a^{II^\dagger}_{\vec{k}}a^{II^\dagger}_{-\vec{k}}

2462: +\lambda a^{V\dagger}_{\vec{k}}a^{V\dagger}_{-\vec{k}}

2463: +\mu a^{II\dagger}_{\vec{k}}a^{V\dagger}_{-\vec{k}}\right)\right\}\,

2464: |0\rangle_{out},

2465: \ee

2466: where

2467: \beqa\label{thetalambda}

2468: \theta&=&-{\gamma^* B^2\over2(\gamma^*(1-B^2)+\tilde\gamma^*)},\cr

2469: \lambda&=&{\tilde\gamma^*-\gamma^*B^2\over2(\gamma^*(1-B^2)+\tilde\gamma^*)},\cr

2470: \mu&=&{\gamma^*B\over\gamma^*(1-B^2)+\tilde\gamma^*}.

2471: \eeqa

2472: To check this, use \eq{bogolubovtris} to verify that $|0\rangle_{\gamma\tilde\gamma}$

2473: defined by \eq{zerogammaout} is indeed annihilated by $a^{I}_{\vec{k}}$ and

2474: $a^{VI}_{\vec{k}}$ given that

2475: $|0\rangle_{out}$ is annihilated by $a^{II}_{\vec{k}}$ and $a^{V}_{\vec{k}}$.

2476: $N_{\gamma\tilde\gamma}$

2477: is a normalization constant, which we will determine for a special case. It is useful

2478: to keep in mind that $B$ given in~\eq{ABC} is purely imaginary.

2479: 

2480: For the natural in-vacuum $|0\rangle_{in}$ defined in \eq{expandin}, which corresponds to

2481: choosing $\gamma(\vec k)=1,\tilde\gamma(\vec k)=0$, the coefficients

2482: in~\eq{thetalambda} become

2483: \beqa\label{thetaone}

2484: \theta&=&-{B^2\over2(1-B^2)},\cr

2485: \lambda&=&-{B^2\over2(1-B^2)},\cr

2486: \mu&=&{B\over1-B^2}.

2487: \eeqa

2488: In this case, we find

2489: \be\label{None}

2490: N_{10}=\prod_{\vec k}\left(1-B^2(\vec k)\right)^{-1/2}\equiv

2491: \exp\left\{ V\int{d^3k\over(2\pi)^3}\log\left(1-B^2(\vec k)\right)^{-1/2}\right\},

2492: \ee

2493: with $V$ the volume of space. For strictly infinity $V$, $N_{10}$ vanishes, so we will

2494: assume $V$ to be large but finite instead.

2495: Then \eq{None} can be derived as follows. Define the unitary matrix

2496: \be\label{S}

2497: S=\exp\left\{\int d^3k\left(B(a^{II}_{\vec{k}}a^{V}_{-\vec{k}}

2498: +a^{II\dagger}_{\vec{k}}

2499: a^{V\dagger}_{-\vec{k}}-a^{II}_{\vec{k}}a^{V\dagger}_{\vec{k}}

2500: -a^{II\dagger}_{\vec{k}} a^{V}_{\vec{k}})\right)\right\}.

2501: \ee

2502: Using the formula

2503: \be

2504: e^{-A}Be^A=B+[B,A]+{1\over2!}[[B,A],A]+\cdots,

2505: \ee

2506: it is straightforward to verify that

2507: \beqa\label{SS}

2508: a^{I}_{\vec{k}}=-Sa^{II}_{\vec{k}}S^{-1}, \qquad

2509: a^{VI}_{\vec{k}}=-Sa^{V}_{\vec{k}}S^{-1}.

2510: \eeqa

2511: This implies that, up to a phase

2512: \be\label{Sinout}

2513: |0\rangle_{in}=S|0\rangle_{out}.

2514: \ee

2515: The normalization factor \eq{None} can then be obtained by

2516: determining the coefficient of $|0\rangle_{out}$ upon expanding the right

2517: hand side of \eq{Sinout}.\footnote{In doing this, it is convenient to work with

2518: rescaled oscillators $\alpha_{\vec k}\equiv\left((2\pi)^3/V\right)^{1/2}a_{\vec k}$,

2519: which satisfy the canonical commutation relation $[\alpha_{\vec k},\alpha^\dagger_{\vec k}]=1$.}

2520: 

2521: As another special case, consider the limiting values $\gamma(\vec k)\to0$,

2522: $\tilde\gamma(\vec k)\to\infty$. This was the limit that turned off particle creation

2523: in Region~II, as we discussed at the end of subsection~\ref{subsub:family}.

2524: This corresponds to

2525: \beqa\label{thetazero}

2526: \theta&\to&0,\cr

2527: \lambda&\to&{1\over2},\cr

2528: \mu&\to&0,

2529: \eeqa

2530: and

2531: \be\label{zerogammaoutbis}

2532: |0\rangle_{0\infty}\to N_{0\infty}

2533: \exp\left\{\int d^3k\left({1\over2}(a^{V\dagger}_{\vec{k}}a^{V\dagger}_{-\vec{k}})\right)\right\}\,

2534: |0\rangle_{\rm out}.

2535: \ee

2536: However, it turns out that in the limit \eq{thetazero} the normalization factor

2537: $N_{0,\infty}$ vanishes, even for finite $V$.

2538: 

2539: We have not computed the normalization factor for generic values of $\gamma$ and

2540: $\tilde\gamma$, although it could, in principle, be done in the same way. For instance,

2541: if $\gamma$ and $\tilde\gamma$ are both real and positive, the generalization of \eq{S} is

2542: \beqa\label{Sbis}

2543: S&=&\exp\left\{\int d^3k\left(-\rho(a^{II}_{\vec{k}}a^{V}_{-\vec{k}}+

2544: a^{II\dagger}_{\vec{k}}

2545: a^{V\dagger}_{-\vec{k}}-a^{II}_{\vec{k}}a^{V\dagger}_{\vec{k}}

2546: -a^{II\dagger}_{\vec{k}} a^{V}_{\vec{k}})\right.\right.\cr

2547: &&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \left.\left.+\mu(a^{V}_{\vec{k}}a^{V}_{-\vec{k}}

2548: -a^{V\dagger}_{\vec{k}}a^{V\dagger}_{-\vec{k}})\right)\right\},

2549: \eeqa

2550: with

2551: \beqa\label{sigmatau}

2552: \cosh(2\mu)&=&\gamma+\tilde\gamma, \cr

2553: \sinh(2\mu)&=&-\tilde\gamma, \cr

2554: \rho {e^{2\mu}-1\over2\mu}&=&-\gamma B.

2555: \eeqa

2556: If $\gamma$ and $\tilde \gamma$ do not have the same phase, the exponent of $S$

2557: also involves $a^{II}_{\vec{k}}a^{II}_{-\vec{k}}$ and

2558: $a^{II\dagger}_{\vec k}a^{II\dagger}_{-\vec k}$.

2559: 

2560: The Hilbert space of states ${\cal H}$ we have been using can be viewed as

2561: the tensor product

2562: \be\label{tensor}

2563: {\cal H}=\H^{II}\otimes\H^V

2564: \ee

2565: of a Hilbert space $\H^{II}$ associated with $a^{II}_{\vec{k}}$ and

2566: $a^{II\dagger}_{\vec{k}}$ and a Hilbert space $\H^V$ associated with

2567: $a^{V}_{\vec{k}}$

2568: and $a^{V\dagger}_{\vec{k}}$. These two Hilbert spaces can be thought of as

2569: associated with the out-regions~II and~V respectively. Note that $\H$ could equally well be

2570: written as a tensor product

2571: of Hilbert spaces associated with in-regions~I and~VI.

2572: The out-vacuum can, accordingly, be expressed as

2573: \be\label{outvac}

2574: |0\rangle_{out}=|0\rangle_{II}\otimes|0\rangle_V.

2575: \ee

2576: It is clear

2577: that each in-vacuum defined by \eq{zerogammaout} is a pure state in this

2578: tensor product Hilbert space. With a pure state, one can

2579: associate a trivial density matrix

2580: \be\label{density}

2581: \rho_{\gamma\tilde\gamma}=

2582: |0\rangle_{\gamma\tilde\gamma}\,{}_{\gamma\tilde\gamma}\langle0|.

2583: \ee

2584: When one is only interested in computing correlation functions in

2585: Region~II, which would be the case for a physicist living in

2586: that region and trying to predict the result of experiments done

2587: there, it is convenient (and equivalent) to use the density matrix obtained by

2588: tracing \eq{density} over $\H^V$. This is given by

2589: \be\label{densitytwo}

2590: \rho^{II}_{\gamma\tilde\gamma}=\sum_i{}_V\langle i|\rho_{\gamma\tilde\gamma}

2591: |i\rangle_V,

2592: \ee

2593: where $\{|i\rangle_{V}\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $\H^V$. Note that

2594: $|0\rangle_{\gamma\tilde\gamma}\in{\cal

2595: H}=\H^{II}\otimes\H^V$, whereas $|i\rangle_V\in\H^V$. Therefore,

2596: \eq{densitytwo} is indeed a density matrix in Region~II, that is,

2597: an element of $\H^{II*}\otimes\H^{II}$. Now, if $\mu$ in

2598: \eq{zerogammaout} is nonzero (as it is, except in the limit

2599: $\gamma\to0$), $|0\rangle_{\gamma\tilde\gamma}$ is an entangled state in

2600: ${\cal H}=\H^{II}\otimes\H^V$. When one traces the density matrix

2601: of an entangled pure state over $\H^V$, one obtains a non-trivial

2602: density matrix \eq{densitytwo} in Region~II. Therefore, an observer in

2603: Region~II with no access to information about Region~V finds

2604: himself in a mixed state, that is, a state with entropy. This entropy

2605: is called ``entanglement entropy'' and reflects the ignorance

2606: about the correlated Region~V. In the limit $\gamma\to0$, one again obtains a

2607: trivial density matrix

2608: \be\label{densityzero}

2609: \rho^{II}_{0\infty}=|0\rangle_{II}\,{}_{II}\langle0|,

2610: \ee

2611: which is consistent with \eq{XY}.

2612: 

2613: This explains the discrepancy noted at the end of

2614: subsection~\ref{subsub:family}. In subsection~\ref{sub:BBBC}, we

2615: assumed unitary evolution from Region~I to Region~II, that is, a

2616: pure state in Region~I evolving into a pure (squeezed) state in

2617: Region~II. This assumption generically turns out to be

2618: inconsistent with what we find in the full string theory

2619: background, which includes additional regions. We find that a pure

2620: in-vacuum state evolves to a pure state in the tensor product

2621: Hilbert space $\H$, but that this state generically contains

2622: correlations between regions~II and~V. As a consequence, in a

2623: description where Region~V is ignored, such as the one

2624: appropriate for an observer in Region~II, this state is a mixed

2625: state. Only in the limit $\gamma\to0$ does the in-vacuum evolve to

2626: a pure state in Region~II. As explained in

2627: subsection~\ref{subsub:family}, the limit $\gamma\to0$ can,

2628: strictly speaking, not be reached. The more accurate statement is that

2629: the entropy of the state as described in Region~II can be made

2630: arbitrarily small by taking $\gamma$ to be arbitrarily close to zero.

2631: 

2632: The above discussion is a generalization of thermofield dynamics as

2633: recently applied to the eternal BTZ black hole, where the thermal

2634: state of a scalar field outside the black hole is obtained from an entangled

2635: state in a tensor product of two Hilbert spaces, the second Hilbert space

2636: being associated with an additional asymptotic region behind the horizon

2637: of the black hole \cite{Maldacena:2001kr}. Also see

2638: \cite{BTZ} and references therein.

2639: 

2640: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2641: 

2642: \subsection{The Milne Orbifold Limit}\label{subsec:milne}

2643: In the limit that

2644: \be\label{Milnelim}

2645: uv\to0,

2646: \ee

2647: the metric in~\eq{backgroundIIA} reduces to the Milne orbifold metric \eq{Milne}

2648: \be\label{Milnemetric}

2649: ds^2={1\over Q^2}dudv+\sum^{8}_{I=1}(dx^I)^2

2650: \ee

2651: subject to the identification \eq{uvid},

2652: \be\label{identorb}

2653: (u,v)\sim(ue^{-2\pi QR},ve^{2\pi QR}).

2654: \ee

2655: In addition, it follows from~\eq{backgroundIIA} that, in this limit,

2656: \begin{equation}

2657: \Phi\longrightarrow \Phi_{0}.

2658: \label{eq:h1}

2659: \end{equation}

2660: Note that the theory we are explicitly discussing in this

2661: paper, \eq{backgroundIIA}, differs in the number of

2662: compactified dimensions from the Milne orbifold

2663: \eq{Milne}. Specifically, the generalized Milne orbifold has $(d+1)$-dimensions,

2664: whereas the Milne space has ten dimensions. How, then, can we claim that

2665: metric \eq{backgroundIIA} reduces near the singularity to \eq{Milne}? The

2666: naive answer is that this limit does not involve the internal spatial

2667: dimensions which, therefore, are irrelevant. A more precise way of

2668: understanding the Milne limit is to recognize, as we mention in the

2669: Introduction, that two flat spatial directions of the generalized Milne

2670: orbifold can be replaced by a ``cigar'' geometry \cite{Witten:1991yr}

2671: without changing any of the

2672: conclusion of this paper. In this case, we have a critical, ten-dimensional

2673: string theory where $Q$ is a free parameter. This cigar geometry has a

2674: well-defined smooth limit to the Milne orbifold. Keeping this in mind, we will

2675: ignore the number of compact dimensions in this subsection.

2676: 

2677: If in the limit \eq{Milnelim} we keep the ratio

2678: \be\label{fixed}

2679: \frac{{\vec{k}}^{2}uv}{Q^2} \quad {\rm fixed},

2680: \ee

2681: then the fluctuation equation \eq{eq:37} on the generalized Milne

2682: orbifold reduces to

2683: \be\label{eommilne}

2684: \delta T''+{1\over t}\delta T'+\vec k^2\delta T=0.

2685: \ee

2686: Were we to consider fields with non-vanishing momentum along the $x$

2687: circle as well, we would also be required to keep the product

2688: \begin{equation}

2689: Qr_{0} \quad {\rm fixed}.

2690: \label{eq:g1}

2691: \end{equation}

2692: Expression~\eq{eommilne} is precisely the fluctuation equation for a

2693: scalar mode in the Milne orbifold. The limit defined

2694: by~\eq{Milnelim},~\eq{fixed} and~\eq{eq:g1}

2695: takes the generalized Milne orbifold to the Milne orbifold.

2696: 

2697: 

2698: It is instructive to see what our

2699: global wavefunctions $\K_{\pm\pm, \vec{k}}$ reduce to in this limit. In

2700: Appendix~C, we show that $\K_{++, \vec{k}}$ reduces to the standard

2701: wavefunctions defining the adiabatic vacuum of the Milne orbifold,

2702: that is, superpositions of positive frequency plane waves in Minkowski

2703: space. They are Hankel functions in regions~I and~II and

2704: modified Bessel functions that decay asymptotically in regions~III

2705: and~IV, the expressions in

2706: the four regions being related by analytic continuation. Near the Big

2707: Crunch/Big Bang singularity, these wavefunctions diverge

2708: logarithmically. On the other

2709: hand, we find that

2710: \begin{equation}

2711: \K_{+-, \vec{k}}\longrightarrow 0

2712: \label{eq:g2}

2713: \end{equation}

2714: everywhere in the Milne limit. More precisely, it

2715: is always zero in Region I, is proportional to a finite Bessel function in

2716: Region II and corresponds to an asymptotically growing modified Bessel function in

2717: regions~III and~IV. Near the

2718: Big Crunch/Big Bang singularity, $\K_{+-, \vec{k}}$ approachs constants in

2719: all regions. However, its overall normalization factor vanishes, suppressing

2720: the wavefunction completely. It then follows from~\eq{K2gen} that, in this limit,

2721: \begin{equation}

2722: \K_{\gamma\tilde \gamma, \vec{k}}\longrightarrow 0.

2723: \label{eq:g3}

2724: \end{equation}

2725: Inserting these results into expression~\eq{eq:80tristwogen} for the scalar

2726: two-point function, we find that, in the Milne limit, for any choice of

2727: in-vacuum

2728: \beqa\label{eq:f1}

2729: _{\gamma\tilde\gamma}\langle 0|{\delta \sigma_{T}}(uv,\vec x)^{2}

2730: |0\rangle _{\gamma\tilde\gamma}

2731: =\int \frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}} |\K_{++,\vec k}|^{2},

2732: \eeqa

2733: which is valid in all regions. This is the standard result for

2734: the two-point function in the adiabatic

2735: vacuum of the Milne orbifold. It is useful to evaluate this correlation

2736: function in regions I and II. It is straightforward to do this in Region I

2737: using~\eq{eq:c1}. To evaluate~\eq{eq:f1} in Region II, first note

2738: from~\eq{Milnelim}

2739: and~\eq{fixed} that, in the Milne limit,

2740: \begin{equation}

2741: E_{\vec k}/Q=

2742: \sqrt{\vec k^2-Q^2}/Q\to\infty

2743: \label{eq:f2}

2744: \end{equation}

2745: and, hence, that the Bogolubov coefficient given in~\eq{ABC} satisfies

2746: \begin{equation}

2747: B\longrightarrow 0.

2748: \label{eq:f3}

2749: \end{equation}

2750: One can then compute the correlation function in Region II using~\eq{eq:c9}

2751: and the Bogolubov transformation~\eq{bogolsimpinvbis}. The result is that

2752: in both regions I and II of the Milne orbifold,

2753: \be\label{eq:f4}

2754: _{in}\langle 0|{\delta\sigma_{T}}(t,\vec x)^{2}|0\rangle _{in}=

2755: \int \frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}|\delta T_{\vec{k}}^{+}|^{2}.

2756: \end{equation}

2757: It follows from our previous discussions that, in the distant past and distant

2758: future, the spectrum is of the form of Minkowski fluctuations plus a subdominant scale invariant contribution and, therefore,

2759: \begin{equation}

2760: \Delta(\vec{k},t)=1.

2761: \label{eq:g5}

2762: \end{equation}

2763: That is, in the Milne orbifold, the spectrum is unchanged by

2764: passing through the Big Bang/Big Crunch singularity. Note that this quantum

2765: process can be described by the pure Region I and Region II four-dimensional

2766: effective theory with the Bogolubov coefficients

2767: \begin{equation}

2768: |X|=1, \qquad Y=0.

2769: \label{eq:g6}

2770: \end{equation}

2771: 

2772: Finally, we see that from~\eq{particlesII} and~\eq{eq:f3} that, in the Milne

2773: limit,

2774: \begin{equation}

2775: _{in}\langle 0|a_{\vec{k}}^{II\dagger}a_{\vec{k}}^{II}|0\rangle_{in}

2776: \longrightarrow 0.

2777: \label{eq:g7}

2778: \end{equation}

2779: That is, particle creation is turned off.  We should mention that we have

2780: assumed that $\gamma$ is kept fixed during the limiting proceedure.

2781: It is clear that there would

2782: be particle creation if, instead, one kept $|\gamma B|$ fixed during this limit.

2783: 

2784: 

2785: 

2786: 

2787: 

2788: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2789: 

2790: \subsection{A Note on Backreaction}\label{sub:string:backreaction}

2791: 

2792: As we have emphasized at the end of the Introduction, the

2793: string theory background \eq{backgroundIIA} has been argued to be

2794: unstable to gravitational backreaction. Hence, reliable computations

2795: should take this backreaction into

2796: account. This seems to be out of reach at present and we will not attempt to resolve

2797: the associated deep puzzles in string theory here. However, we would like to

2798: offer a few remarks from the point of view taken in this paper.

2799: 

2800: First, it is worth translating the issue into the

2801: four-dimensional language of section~\ref{sec:fourd}.

2802: Looking at the energy density \eq{eq:13} of the

2803: four-dimensional matter fields, one might be tempted to conclude

2804: that quantum mechanical particles should not lead to large

2805: backreaction. The reason is that the energy density of the classical matter

2806: fields, since it is dominated by scalar kinetic energy,

2807: scales like $|t|^{-3}$ near the Big Bang/Big Crunch singularity at $t=0$.

2808: The wavefunction of a particle diverges at

2809: most logarithmically near $t=0$, so, according to

2810: \eq{eq:21}, its energy density cannot diverge more quickly than

2811: that of the background matter fields. It would seem, therefore, that a

2812: small fluctuation remains small compared to the background. So

2813: where is the large backreaction?

2814: 

2815: The point is that the framework of section~\ref{sec:fourd} is

2816: hard to use for computations near the bounce, since the geometry

2817: is singular there. The right framework to use is

2818: the one of section~\ref{sec:string}.

2819: In these variables, there is not much energy in the classical

2820: matter fields near the bounce, where spacetime is locally flat with

2821: a slowly varying dilaton. The reflection of this in

2822: section~\ref{sec:fourd} is that the sum of the energy densities in

2823: the matter and gravitational fields diverges only like $1/|t|$, as

2824: one can see from \eq{eq:13} and \eq{eq:30} (divided by $\kappa_4^2$).

2825: This sum is dominated by the potential energy of the

2826: four-dimensional dilaton $\phi$ which, in the string theory

2827: framework, arises from the cosmological constant. Therefore, the criterion

2828: for our computations to be unstable to backreaction is that

2829: the energy density of small fluctuations grows faster than $1/|t|$

2830: near the singularity. Unfortunately, this is the case for generic fluctuations, whose

2831: wavefunctions diverge logarithmically at the bounce. Hence, we

2832: recover the familiar large backreaction problem.

2833: 

2834: It is interesting to note that there is an important class of

2835: fluctuations that do not give rise to large backreaction

2836: \cite{Berkooz:2002je}. Of the modes considered in this paper, those

2837: described by $\K_{+-, \vec{k}}$ are of this type, as can be seen using

2838: Appendix~B. Their energy density actually vanishes at the Big Bang/Big

2839: Crunch singularity.%

2840: \footnote{This is not true for the $\K_{+-, \vec{k}}$ of the more generic

2841: string modes considered in \cite{Craps:2002ii}. For example,

2842: $\K_{+-, \vec{k}}$ does not

2843: correspond to a chiral wavefunction near the singularity if it has

2844: non-zero momentum along the $x$ circle.}

2845: 

2846: 

2847: The issue of backreaction is crucial from various points of view,

2848: string theoretic as well as cosmological. A source of criticism of the

2849: simple orbifold-like cosmological singularities studied in the string

2850: theory literature is that they are unstable against even a single particle

2851: being added to the system before the singularity \cite{Horowitz:2002mw}. Such a

2852: particle would change the conical singularity into a genuine curvature

2853: singularity. In our model, this is indeed the case for particles with generic

2854: wavefunctions, as we have just discussed. Now suppose that, however remote the

2855: possibility, no such small fluctuation appeared and the Universe made

2856: it through the Crunch singularity. Then, we have shown that the Big Crunch/Big Bang creates

2857: a collection of particles with occupation numbers \eq{particlesIIgen} in

2858: Region~II.

2859: One can wonder how these particles backreact on the geometry. First, will the

2860: energy density of these particles overwhelm the classical energy density very close

2861: to the Big Crunch/Big Bang singularity? The answer is no, as can be seen from

2862: \eq{eq:80tristwogen}. The

2863: wavefunctions of the created particles are precisely proportional to $\K_{+-,

2864: \vec{k}}$ near

2865: the singularity, so their energy density vanishes there.%

2866: \footnote{Again, this would be different for the modes we ignored in this paper. In order

2867: to turn off their backreaction in Region~II, one would have to work in a $\gamma\to0$

2868: limit.}

2869: Second, it is tempting to speculate that, in some more realistic version of our model,

2870: this particle creation might play a role as a reheating mechanism. In fact, reheating by

2871: gravitational particle creation has been discussed before. See, for instance,

2872: \cite{grav}.

2873: \medskip

2874: 

2875: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2876: \section*{Acknowledgments}

2877: We would like to thank C.~Armendariz-Picon, J.~Khoury and especially D.~Kutasov

2878: for very useful discussions. We are also grateful to the organizers and participants of

2879: the workshop ``Cosmological Perturbations on the Brane'', Cambridge, UK, for many

2880: stimulating conversations. In addition, B.~C.\ would like to thank the High Energy

2881: Theory Group at Penn for hospitality.

2882: The work of B.~C.\ is supported in part

2883: by DOE grant DE-FG02-90ER40560 and by NSF grant PHY-9901194. B.~A.~O.\ is

2884: supported in part by DOE under contract No.\ DE-AC02-76-ER-03071.

2885: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2886: 

2887: \section*{Appendix A: Global Wavefunctions from String Theory}

2888: 

2889: In this Appendix, we will outline the procedure for constructing the globally

2890: defined wavefunctions on both the Milne orbifold and the generalized Milne

2891: orbifold discussed in this paper.

2892: 

2893: \paragraph{Milne Orbifold:}

2894: We first review how globally defined wavefunctions are constructed on the

2895: Milne orbifold $\Rbar^{1,1}/\Zbar\times\Rbar^8$, an orbifold of

2896: Minkowski space.

2897: \begin{enumerate}

2898: \item

2899: Solve the wave equation

2900: \be\label{waveeq}

2901: (\nabla^2+m^2)\phi=0

2902: \ee

2903: on the covering space $\Rbar^{1,9}$. A smooth basis of solutions is

2904: given by the plane waves

2905: \be\label{planewave}

2906: \{e^{i\vec p\cdot\vec X}e^{i(p^+X^-+p^-X^+)}|2p^+p^--\vec p^2=m^2\}.

2907: \ee

2908: \item

2909: Choose an alternative basis of solutions to \eq{waveeq}, consisting of

2910: continuous

2911: superpositions of the smooth solutions \eq{planewave}, such that the

2912: orbifold generator $X^{\pm}\mapsto e^{\pm 2\pi}X^\pm$ is diagonal. Such a

2913: basis is given by \cite{Nekrasov:2002kf} (see also \cite{Berkooz:2002je})

2914: \be\label{Nekrwavef}

2915: \phi_{l,\vec p}=e^{i\vec p\cdot\vec X}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dw

2916: e^{i(p^+X^-e^{-w}+p^-X^+e^w)}e^{ilw}

2917: \ee

2918: with $l\in

2919: \Rbar$. The orbifold generator acts by multiplication by

2920: $e^{-2\pi il}$. The wavefunctions \eq{Nekrwavef} are generically not

2921: smooth near the light-cone $X^+X^-=0$, which divides the covering

2922: space in four regions. When studying string theory on Minkowski space,

2923: one could in principle use these singular wavefunctions but, since

2924: there exist smooth wavefunctions \eq{planewave} which can be written

2925: as continuous superpositions of \eq{Nekrwavef}, it is preferable to

2926: work with the latter.

2927: \item

2928: Restrict the wavefunctions \eq{Nekrwavef} to the orbifold invariant

2929: ones, that is, to those with $l\in\Zbar$. Using coordinates $t,x$ defined by

2930: $X^\pm=te^{\pm x}/\sqrt2$, in terms of which the orbifold generator

2931: acts as $x\mapsto x+2\pi$, it is clear that $l$ is the momentum in the

2932: $x$ direction. Therefore, the condition $l\in\Zbar$ is the usual momentum

2933: quantization. Hence, we end up with wavefunctions \eq{Nekrwavef} on the

2934: orbifold space. They are not smooth at the singularity $X^+X^-=0$, yet

2935: they are globally defined. Note that, because of the quantization of

2936: $l$, it is not possible to use a basis of smooth wavefunctions on the

2937: orbifold space.

2938: \item

2939: Introduce twisted sectors (winding modes). We will not discuss those

2940: in this paper; see \cite{Berkooz:2003bs} for a very recent discussion.

2941: \end{enumerate}

2942: \paragraph{Generalized Milne Orbifold:}

2943: We now review the prescription of \cite{Elitzur:2002rt,Craps:2002ii} for

2944: constructing global wavefunctions on the generalized Milne

2945: orbifold, which in string theory corresponds to a $\Zbar$ orbifold of a

2946: coset conformal field theory at negative level \cite{Craps:2002ii},

2947: \be\label{genmil}

2948: {PSL(2,\Rbar)_{k<0}\over U(1)}/\Zbar\  \times\Rbar^{d-1}.

2949: \ee

2950: \begin{enumerate}

2951: \item

2952: Start with wavefunctions on $AdS_3$, that is, the well-known

2953: eigenfunctions of the Laplacian on $AdS_3$

2954: which coincides with the $SL(2,\Rbar)$ group manifold. $SL(2,\Rbar)$ is the

2955: group of $2\times2$ matrices $g$ with unit determinant,

2956: \be

2957: g=\pmatrix{a&b\cr c&d},\ \ \ ad-bc=1.

2958: \ee

2959: $PSL(2,\Rbar)$ is obtained from this by identifying $g$ with $-g$.

2960: Wavefunctions on $PSL(2,\Rbar)$ should be consistent with this

2961: identification. The wavefunctions on a group manifold coincide with

2962: the matrix elements in the different representations in the group. Therefore,

2963: we can write

2964: \be\label{statesSL}

2965: \phi_{j,\alpha,\beta}(g)=\langle j,\alpha|g|j,\beta\rangle,

2966: \ee

2967: where $j$ labels a $PSL(2,\Rbar)$ representation and $\alpha,\beta$

2968: label states in the representation. In this paper, we will only

2969: consider the principal continuous representations, with $j=-1/2+is$

2970: and $s$ real. They correspond to taking $\vec k^2>Q^2$. A choice of basis of

2971: wavefunctions now corresponds to a choice of states $\alpha,\beta$ in

2972: the representation $j$. By choosing an appropriate basis, one can

2973: choose a smooth basis of wavefunctions on $PSL(2,\Rbar)$. Note that

2974: the group manifold $PSL(2,\Rbar)$ admits a $PSL(2,\Rbar)_L\times

2975: PSL(2,\Rbar)_R$ symmetry, the two factors acting on $g$ by left and

2976: right multiplication respectively. It is clear from \eq{statesSL}

2977: that the action of $PSL(2,\Rbar)_L$ is determined by the state

2978: $\langle j,\alpha|$, while the action of $PSL(2,\Rbar)_R$ is

2979: determined by $|j,\beta\rangle$. The Laplacian on the $PSL(2,\Rbar)$

2980: group manifold is the Casimir operator of $PSL(2,\Rbar)$ (acting either from

2981: the left or from the right). Its eigenvalue is $j(j+1)$.

2982: \item

2983: Choose a basis of wavefunctions on $PSL(2,\Rbar)$ such that the

2984: $U(1)_L\times U(1)_R$ subgroup, with both factors generated by

2985: $\sigma_3$, is diagonalized. This amounts to choosing the basis

2986: vectors of the representation $j$ such that $\sigma_3$ is diagonal. It

2987: turns out \cite{Vilenkin} that, for the representations we are

2988: considering, there are two states for each $\sigma_3$ eigenvalue

2989: $m$.%

2990: \footnote{To be precise,

2991: $e^{\alpha\sigma_3}|j,m,\pm\rangle=e^{2im\alpha}|j,m,\pm\rangle$.}

2992: Thus, we find four independent wavefunctions for each $j,m,\bar

2993: m$

2994: \be\label{KSL}

2995: K_{\pm\pm}(j,m,\bar m;g)=\langle j,m,\pm|g|j,\bar m,\pm\rangle.

2996: \ee

2997: One finds that the $PSL(2,\Rbar)$ group manifold splits into six

2998: regions where these wavefunctions are smooth. Generically, the

2999: wavefunctions are not smooth at the boundaries separating these

3000: regions. However, they are still globally defined.

3001: When studying $PSL(2,\Rbar)$ by itself, one would usually prefer to

3002: work with a basis of smooth wavefunctions.

3003: \item

3004: The coset conformal field theory $PSL(2,\Rbar)_{k<0}/U(1)$, where $k$

3005: is the level of the $PSL(2,\Rbar)$ affine Lie algebra and $U(1)$ acts

3006: as $g\mapsto e^{\alpha\sigma}ge^{\alpha\sigma}$, describes the

3007: generalized Milne spacetime \eq{backgroundIIA} without the identification

3008: \eq{uvid} \cite{Kounnas:1992wc,Craps:2002ii}.

3009: Its globally defined wavefunctions are obtained by

3010: restricting to those wavefunctions \eq{KSL} that are invariant under

3011: $U(1)$, that is, to those satisfying $m=-\bar m$

3012: \cite{Dijkgraaf:1991ba,Craps:2002ii}.

3013: \item

3014: The $\Zbar$ orbifold group is another (discrete) subgroup of

3015: $U(1)_L\times U(1)_R$. The globally defined

3016: orbifold wavefunctions are obtained by

3017: imposing a quantization condition on $m$ (momentum quantization) and

3018: by introducing twisted sectors (winding modes). We refer to

3019: \cite{Craps:2002ii} for details. In the present paper, we are

3020: interested in modes with no momentum or winding along the Milne circle.

3021: \end{enumerate}

3022: 

3023: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3024: 

3025: \section*{Appendix B: More on Global Wavefunctions}

3026: 

3027: In this Appendix, we provide some technical details on the global wavefunctions

3028: $K_{\pm\pm,\vec{k}}$ used in Section~\ref{sec:string}.

3029: For simplicity of notation, we will suppress the subscript $\vec{k}$.

3030: As compared to \cite{Craps:2002ii,

3031: Elitzur:2002rt}, we restrict the discussion to the case of interest in this

3032: paper, as explained at the beginning of subsection~\ref{subsub:global}. In the

3033: notation of \cite{Craps:2002ii}, this means that

3034: \be\label{restr}

3035: \lambda=\mu=-j~,

3036: \ee

3037: with $j$ defined in \eq{eq:43} and \eq{eq:50} as

3038: \be\label{eq:50bis}

3039: j=-{1\over 2}+i{E_{\vec{k}}\over2Q}, \ \ \  E_{\vec k}=\sqrt{\vec k^2-Q^2}.

3040: \ee

3041: 

3042: We start by recalling some properties of the hypergeometric function

3043: $F(a,b;c;z)\equiv _2F_1(a,b;c;z)$ \cite{Abramowitz}. Using the notation

3044: \be\label{an}

3045: (a)_n={\G(a+n)\over\G(a)},

3046: \ee

3047: this function has the power series expansion

3048: \be\label{powerseries}

3049: F(a,b;c;z)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty{(a)_n(b)_n\over(c)_n}{z^n\over n!}

3050: %={\Gamma(c)

3051: %\over\Gamma(a)\Gamma(b)}\sum_{n=0}^\infty{\Gamma(a+n)\Gamma(b+n)\over\Gamma(c+n)}

3052: %{z^n\over n!}

3053: ,

3054: \ee

3055: which converges at least for $|z|<1$. It is useful to note that as $z\rightarrow 0$,

3056: \begin{equation}

3057: F(a,b;c;z)\longrightarrow 1

3058: \label{eq:AA}

3059: \end{equation}

3060: for all values of the parameters $a$, $b$ and $c$.

3061: The behavior for large $|z|$ can be obtained, for $b-a$ not integer, using the transformation formula

3062: \beqa\label{transfform}

3063: F(a,b;c;z)&=&{\G(c)\G(b-a)\over\G(b)\G(c-a)}(-z)^{-a}F(a,1-c+a;1-b+a;{1\over z})\cr

3064: &&+{\G(c)\G(a-b)\over\G(a)\G(c-b)}(-z)^{-b}F(b,1-c+b;1-a+b;{1\over z}), \ \ \

3065: \eeqa

3066: which is valid for $|\arg(-z)|<\pi$.

3067: Equation \eq{transfform} is singular for integer $b-a$. For $a=b$, it is replaced by

3068: \beqa\label{transfformaa}

3069: &&F(a,a;c;z)={\G(c)\over\G(a)\G(c-a)}(-z)^{-a}\sum_{n=0}^\infty

3070: {(a)_n(1-c+a)_n \over (n!)^2}z^{-n}\cr

3071: &&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \  \times\left(\log(-z)+2\Psi(n+1)-\Psi(a+n)-\Psi(c-a-n)\right),\ \

3072: \eeqa

3073: where

3074: \be\label{Psi}

3075: \Psi(z)={\G'(z)\over\G(z)}.

3076: \ee

3077: Expression~\eq{transfformaa} is valid for $|\arg(-z)|<\pi$, $|z|>1$ and $c-a$ not integer.

3078: Other transformation formulas we will use are

3079: \be\label{transfformbis}

3080: F(a,b;c;z)=(1-z)^{-a}F\left(a,c-b;c;{z\over z-1}\right)

3081: \ee

3082: and

3083: \beqa\label{transfformtris}

3084: &&F(a,b;a+b;z)={\G(a+b)\over\G(a)\G(b)}\sum_{n=0}^\infty{(a)_n(b)_n\over(n!)^2}(1-z)^n\cr

3085: &&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \times \left(-\log(1-z)+2\Psi(n+1)-\Psi(a+n)-\Psi(b+n)\right),\ \

3086: \eeqa

3087: the latter of which is valid for $|\arg(1-z)|<\pi$ and $|1-z|<1$. Also, recall that the Euler Beta function $B(a,b)$ is defined by

3088: \begin{equation}

3089: B(a,b)=\frac{\Gamma(a)\Gamma(b)}{\Gamma(a+b)}.

3090: \label{eq:new1}

3091: \end{equation}

3092: 

3093: 

3094: In terms of these functions, the global wavefunctions $K_{\pm\pm}$ are defined as follows.\\

3095: 

3096: \noindent Region I:

3097: \beqa\label{KI}

3098: K_{++}(uv)&=&{1\over2\pi i}B(-j,-j)(-uv)^j F\left(-j,-j;-2j;{1\over uv}\right)\cr

3099: K_{--}(uv)&=&{1\over2\pi i}B(j+1,j+1)(-uv)^{-j-1}F\left(j+1,j+1;2j+2;{1\over uv}\right)\cr

3100: K_{+-}(uv)&=&0\cr

3101: K_{-+}(uv)&=&{1\over\pi i}B(-j,j+1)F(-j,j+1;1;uv)

3102: \eeqa

3103: Region II:

3104: \beqa\label{KII}

3105: K_{++}(uv)&=&{1\over2\pi i}B(j+1,j+1)(-uv)^{-j-1}F\left(j+1,j+1;2j+2;{1\over uv}\right)\cr

3106: K_{--}(uv)&=&{1\over2\pi i}B(-j,-j)(-uv)^j F\left(-j,-j;-2j;{1\over uv}\right)\cr

3107: K_{+-}(uv)&=&{1\over\pi i}B(-j,j+1)F(-j,j+1;1;uv)\cr

3108: K_{-+}(uv)&=&0

3109: \eeqa

3110: Region III:

3111: \beqa\label{KIII}

3112: K_{++}(uv)&=&{1\over2\pi i}B(-j,j+1)(uv)^j F\left(-j,-j;1;1-{1\over uv}\right)\cr

3113: K_{--}(uv)&=&{1\over2\pi i}B(-j,j+1)(uv)^{-j-1}F\left(j+1,j+1;1;1-{1\over uv}\right)\cr

3114: K_{+-}(uv)&=&{1\over2\pi i}B(-j,j+1)(1-uv)^j F\left(-j,-j;1;{uv\over uv-1}\right)\cr

3115: K_{-+}(uv)&=&{1\over2\pi i}B(-j,j+1)(1-uv)^{-j-1}F\left(j+1,j+1;1;{uv\over uv-1}\right)\ \ \ \ \ \ \

3116: \eeqa

3117: Region IV:

3118: \beqa\label{KIV}

3119: K_{++}(uv)&=&{1\over2\pi i}B(-j,j+1)(uv)^{-j-1}F\left(j+1,j+1;1;1-{1\over uv}\right)\cr

3120: K_{--}(uv)&=&{1\over2\pi i}B(-j,j+1)(uv)^j F\left(-j,-j;1;1-{1\over uv}\right)\cr

3121: K_{+-}(uv)&=&{1\over2\pi i}B(-j,j+1)(1-uv)^{-j-1}F\left(j+1,j+1;1;{uv\over

3122: uv-1}\right)\cr

3123: K_{-+}(uv)&=&{1\over2\pi i}B(-j,j+1)(1-uv)^j F\left(-j,-j;1;1;{uv\over

3124: uv-1}\right)

3125: \eeqa

3126: Region V:

3127: \beqa\label{KV}

3128: K_{++}(uv)&=&{1\over\pi i}B(-j,j+1)F(-j,j+1;1;1-uv)\cr

3129: K_{--}(uv)&=&0\cr

3130: K_{+-}(uv)&=&{1\over2\pi i}B(j+1,j+1)(uv-1)^{-j-1}F\left(j+1,j+1;2j+2;{1\over 1-uv}\right)\cr

3131: K_{-+}(uv)&=&{1\over2\pi i}B(-j,-j)(uv-1)^j F\left(-j,-j;-2j;{1\over 1-uv}\right)

3132: \eeqa

3133: Region VI:

3134: \beqa\label{KVI}

3135: K_{++}(uv)&=&0\cr

3136: K_{--}(uv)&=&{1\over\pi i}B(-j,j+1)F(-j,j+1;1;1-uv)\cr

3137: K_{+-}(uv)&=&{1\over2\pi i}B(-j,-j)(uv-1)^j F\left(-j,-j;-2j;{1\over 1-uv}\right)\cr

3138: K_{-+}(uv)&=&{1\over2\pi i}B(j+1,j+1)(uv-1)^{-j-1}F\left(j+1,j+1;2j+2;

3139: {1\over 1-uv}\right)\cr &&

3140: \eeqa

3141: 

3142: First, we use these explicit formulas to determine the behavior of some of these

3143: wavefunctions in the asymptotic early and late time regimes. In

3144: regions I and II, we can use \eq{uvtx} to write

3145: \be\label{uvt}

3146: uv=-\sinh^2(Qt),

3147: \ee

3148: while in regions V and VI

3149: \be\label{uvtbis}

3150: 1-uv=-\sinh^2(Qt).

3151: \ee

3152: Let us concentrate on the early time part of Region I ($t\ll-1/Q$). It follows from

3153: \eq{KI}, \eq{uvt} and \eq{powerseries} that as $t\to-\infty$

3154: \be\label{K++early}

3155: K_{++}\rightarrow {1\over2\pi i}B(-j,-j)2^{-2j}e^{-2jQt}=

3156: {1\over2\pi i}B(-j,-j)4^{-j}e^{Qt}e^{-iE_{\vec{k}}t}.

3157: \ee

3158: This shows that $K_{++}$ reduces to a positive frequency wave for early times in

3159: Region

3160: I. Moreover, expression~\eq{K++early} allows us to determine the factor

3161:  $\N$ such that

3162: \be\label{calKnorm}

3163: \K_{++}=\N K_{++}

3164: \ee

3165: is normalized (see subsection~\ref{subsub:global}). The factor $\N$ is actually

3166: the same for all $K_{\pm\pm}$. Comparing \eq{K++early} with \eq{eq:48} or \eq{eq:49},

3167: we find

3168: \be\label{calN}

3169: \N={4^je^{\phi_0}2\pi i\over \sqrt {E_{\vec{k}}} B(-j,-j)}.

3170: \ee

3171: Using \eq{transfform}, we can rewrite $K_{-+}$ in Region I as

3172: \beqa\label{K-+I}

3173: K_{-+}&=&{1\over \pi i}B(-j,2j+1)(-uv)^jF\left(-j,-j;-2j;{1\over uv}\right)\cr

3174:       &&+{1\over \pi i}B(j+1,-2j-1)(-uv)^{-j-1}F\left(j+1,j+1;2j+2;{1\over uv}\right).\ \ \ \ \ \ \

3175: \eeqa

3176: This shows that asymptotically in Region~I, $K_{-+}$ is a superposition of positive

3177: and negative frequency waves with equal amplitudes.

3178: 

3179: Equivalently to \eq{K-+I}, we can rewrite $K_{+-}$ in Region II as

3180: \beqa\label{K+-II}

3181: K_{+-}&=&{1\over \pi i}B(-j,2j+1)(-uv)^jF\left(-j,-j;-2j;{1\over uv}\right)\cr

3182:       &&+{1\over \pi i}B(j+1,-2j-1)(-uv)^{-j-1}F\left(j+1,j+1;2j+2;{1\over uv}\right),\ \ \ \ \ \ \

3183: \eeqa

3184: which shows that asymptotically in Region~II, $K_{+-}$ is a superposition of positive

3185: and negative frequency waves with equal amplitudes.

3186: 

3187: Next, we discuss the behavior near the Big Crunch/Big Bang singularity $uv=0$. First

3188: consider $K_{++}$. In Region~I,

3189: we can use \eq{transfformaa} and \eq{KI} to write

3190: \be\label{K++Izero}

3191: K_{++}(uv)={1\over 2\pi i}\sum_{n=0}^\infty{(-j)_n(j+1)_n\over(n!)^2}(uv)^n(-\log(-uv)

3192: +2\Psi(n+1)-2\Psi(-j+n)).

3193: \ee

3194: We see that in Region I, $K_{++}$ diverges logarithmically near $uv=0$.

3195: Similarly, we find in Region~II

3196: \be\label{K++IIzero}

3197: K_{++}(uv)={1\over 2\pi i}\sum_{n=0}^\infty{(-j)_n(j+1)_n\over(n!)^2}(uv)^n(-\log(-uv)

3198: +2\Psi(n+1)-2\Psi(j+1+n)).

3199: \ee

3200: Applying \eq{transfformbis} and \eq{transfformtris} to \eq{KIII}, we find that

3201: in Region~III

3202: \beqa\label{K++IIIzero}

3203: &&K_{++}(uv)={1\over 2\pi i}\sum_{n=0}^\infty{(-j)_n(j+1)_n\over(n!)^2}(uv)^n\cr

3204: &&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \  \ \times(-\log(uv)

3205: +2\Psi(n+1)-\Psi(-j+n)-\Psi(j+1+n)).\ \ \ \ \ \ \

3206: \eeqa

3207: The same equation, \eq{K++IIIzero}, holds in Region~IV as well.

3208: Now consider $K_{+-}$

3209: near $uv=0$. In Region~I, it vanishes. The small $uv$ behavior in Region~II is manifest

3210: from \eq{powerseries} and \eq{KII}. In Region~III, we can use \eq{transfformbis} to

3211: rewrite \eq{KIII} as

3212: \be\label{K+-IIIzero}

3213: K_{+-}(uv)={1\over2\pi i}B(-j,j+1)F(-j,j+1;1;uv).

3214: \ee

3215: The same formula, \eq{K+-IIIzero}, also holds in Region~IV.

3216: Therefore, as $uv$ approaches zero, $K_{+-}$ approaches a constant in regions

3217: III and IV, and twice that constant in

3218: Region~II.

3219: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3220: 

3221: \section*{Appendix C: Comparison with the Milne Orbifold}

3222: 

3223: In subsection~\ref{sub:string:fluctuations} we gave a qualitative discussion of some

3224: differences and similarities between the pure and generalized Milne orbifolds. This

3225: comparison can be made very concrete at the level of global wavefunctions, which we will do

3226: in this Appendix. Some of these observations were first made by the authors of

3227: \cite{Berkooz:2002je}. As in the previous Appendix, we will suppress the

3228: subscript $\vec{k}$ for notational simplicity.

3229: 

3230: In the limit that

3231: \be\label{limit}

3232: uv\to0 \ \ {\rm with} \quad {\vec k^2uv\over Q^2}\ \ {\rm and} \quad Q r_{0} \quad {\rm fixed},

3233: \ee

3234: where $r_{0}$ is defined in \eq{uvid}, the equation of motion \eq{eq:37}

3235: reduces to that of a massless scalar in the Milne orbifold \eq{eommilne}. We now

3236: take this limit of the solutions $\K_{++}$ and

3237: $\K_{+-}$ and see what they correspond to in the pure Milne case.

3238: First, note that in the limit \eq{limit},

3239: \be\label{limitEQ}

3240: {E_{\vec{k}}\over Q}\to+\infty.

3241: \ee

3242: It then follows from \eq{eq:50bis} that

3243: \be\label{limitj}

3244: j\to-{1\over 2}+i\infty.

3245: \ee

3246: In this limit, the normalization factor \eq{calN} becomes

3247: \be\label{Nlimit}

3248: |\N|\to{e^{\phi_0}\sqrt\pi\over\sqrt{8Q}}.

3249: \ee

3250: Using the fact that

3251: \be\label{Psiinfty}

3252: \Psi(z)\simeq\log(z)\ \ \ \ {\rm for}\ z\to\infty \ {\rm with}\

3253: |\arg(z)|<\pi,

3254: \ee

3255: we find from \eq{K++Izero} that in regions I and II

3256: \be\label{K++milne}

3257: K_{++}\to{1\over 2\pi

3258: i}\sum_{n=0}^\infty{1\over(n!)^2}\left({E_{\vec{k}}^2uv\over 4Q^2}\right)^n

3259: \left(-\log\left(-{E_{\vec{k}}^2uv\over4Q^2}\right)+\pi i+2\Psi(n+1)\right)

3260: \ee

3261: and

3262: \be\label{K++milneII}

3263: K_{++}\to{1\over 2\pi

3264: i}\sum_{n=0}^\infty{1\over(n!)^2}\left({E_{\vec{k}}^2uv\over 4Q^2}\right)^n

3265: \left(-\log\left(-{E_{\vec{k}}^2uv\over4Q^2}\right)-\pi i+2\Psi(n+1)\right)

3266: \ee

3267: respectively.

3268: Since in Region II $uv=-Q^2t^2$ in the limit \eq{limit},

3269: the right hand side of \eq{K++milneII} is precisely proportional to the

3270: Hankel function $H^{(2)}_0(Et)$, that is,

3271: \be\label{K++milneHankel}

3272: K_{++}\to-{1\over 2}H^{(2)}_0(E_{\vec{k}}t),

3273: \ee

3274: while \eq{K++milne} is its analytic continuation to Region I with

3275: negative $t$ via the lower half $t$ plane~\cite{Tolley:2002cv}.

3276: Therefore, the limit \eq{limit} of $\K_{++}$ in regions I and II is the

3277: wavefunction used in~\cite{Berkooz:2002je,  Tolley:2002cv} and~\cite{Nekrasov:2002kf} to define the adiabatic

3278: vacuum inherited from Minkowski space.

3279: In Region III, using \eq{K++IIIzero} and \eq{limitj}, we find that

3280: \be\label{K++milneIII}

3281: K_{++}\to{1\over 2\pi

3282: i}\sum_{n=0}^\infty{1\over(n!)^2}\left({E_{\vec{k}}^2uv\over 4Q^2}\right)^n

3283: \left(-\log\left({E_{\vec{k}}^2uv\over4Q^2}\right)+2\Psi(n+1)\right),

3284: \ee

3285: which is the expansion of the modified Bessel function $K_0$:

3286: \be\label{K++milnemodHankel}

3287: K_{++}\to{1\over \pi i}K_0\left(\sqrt{uvE_{\vec{k}}^2\over Q^2}\right).

3288: \ee

3289: The function $K_0$ decays asymptotically (that is, for large values of its argument).

3290: This is exactly the analytic continuation of \eq{K++milneHankel} to

3291: Region III and, additionally, to Region IV, via the lower half $t$ plane.

3292: We conclude that in all four regions of pure Milne space I, II, III and IV, the limit \eq{limit}

3293: of $\K_{++}$ exactly coincides with the wavefunctions used in

3294: \cite{Berkooz:2002je} to define the vacuum inherited from Minkowski space.

3295: These wavefunctions coincide with those of \cite{Tolley:2002cv} when

3296: restricted to regions I and II.

3297: 

3298: To determine the behavior of $\K_{+-}$ , note that in the limit~\eq{limit}

3299: \be\label{limithyper}

3300: F(-j,j+1;1;uv)\to\sum_{n=0}^\infty{1\over (n!)^2}\left({uvE_{\vec{k}}^2\over4Q^2}\right)^n.

3301: \ee

3302: It follows that in Region II

3303: \be\label{limithypertwo}

3304: F(-j,j+1;1;uv)\to J_0(E_{\vec{k}}t),

3305: \ee

3306: with $J_0$ a Bessel function,

3307: whereas in regions III and IV

3308: \be\label{limithyperthree}

3309: F(-j,j+1;1;uv)\to I_0\left(\sqrt{uvE_{\vec{k}}^2\over Q^2}\right),

3310: \ee

3311: with $I_0$ a modified Bessel function which has the property that it

3312: grows asymptotically. For this reason, $I_0$ it is usually not considered in

3313: discussions of the Milne orbifold, as we mentioned in

3314: subsection~\ref{sub:string:fluctuations}. In the generalized Milne orbifold, there is

3315: nothing wrong with growing behavior near $uv=0$ since regions III and IV do

3316: not extend to infinity. In the limit \eq{limit}, where regions III and IV are

3317: blown up to infinite size, the prefactor $B(-j,j+1)$ in \eq{KII} and \eq{K+-IIIzero}

3318: actually goes to zero. Therefore, although in regions III and IV $K_{+-}$ is proportional

3319: to \eq{limithyperthree} in the limit \eq{limit}, the proportionality factor is zero

3320: and $K_{+-}$ vanishes, as it does in regions I and II.

3321: 

3322: 

3323: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3324: \begin{thebibliography}{mm}

3325: 

3326: \bibitem{cosmoA}

3327: J.~Khoury, B.~A.~Ovrut, P.~J.~Steinhardt and N.~Turok,

3328: ``The ekpyrotic universe: Colliding branes and the origin of the hot big  bang,''

3329: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 123522 (2001)

3330: [hep-th/0103239].

3331: 

3332: \bibitem{cosmoB}

3333: R.~Y.~Donagi, J.~Khoury, B.~A.~Ovrut, P.~J.~Steinhardt and N.~Turok,

3334: ``Visible branes with negative tension in heterotic M-theory,''

3335: JHEP {\bf 0111}, 041 (2001)

3336: [hep-th/0105199].

3337: 

3338: \bibitem{cosmoC}

3339: J.~Khoury, B.~A.~Ovrut, P.~J.~Steinhardt and N.~Turok,

3340: ``Density perturbations in the ekpyrotic scenario,''

3341: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 046005 (2002)

3342: [hep-th/0109050].

3343: 

3344: %\cite{Gasperini:2002bn}

3345: \bibitem{Gasperini:2002bn}

3346: M.~Gasperini and G.~Veneziano,

3347: ``The pre-big bang scenario in string cosmology,''

3348: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 373}, 1 (2003)

3349: [hep-th/0207130].

3350: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0207130;%%

3351: 

3352: \bibitem{cosmoD}

3353: P.~Horava and E.~Witten,

3354: ``Heterotic and type I string dynamics from eleven dimensions,''

3355: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 460}, 506 (1996)

3356: [hep-th/9510209];

3357: ``Eleven-Dimensional Supergravity on a Manifold with Boundary,''

3358: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 475}, 94 (1996)

3359: [hep-th/9603142].

3360: 

3361: \bibitem{cosmoE}

3362: A.~Lukas, B.~A.~Ovrut and D.~Waldram,

3363: ``On the four-dimensional effective action of strongly coupled heterotic  string theory,''

3364: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 532}, 43 (1998)

3365: [hep-th/9710208];

3366: ``The universe as a domain wall,''

3367: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 086001 (1999)

3368: [hep-th/9803235];

3369: ``Heterotic M-theory in five dimensions,''

3370: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 552}, 246 (1999)

3371: [hep-th/9806051].

3372: 

3373: %\cite{Khoury:2001bz}

3374: \bibitem{Khoury:2001bz}

3375: J.~Khoury, B.~A.~Ovrut, N.~Seiberg, P.~J.~Steinhardt and N.~Turok,

3376: ``From Big Crunch to Big Bang,''

3377: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 086007 (2002)

3378: [hep-th/0108187].

3379: 

3380: \bibitem{cosmoF}

3381: P.~J.~Steinhardt and N.~Turok,

3382: ``Cosmic evolution in a cyclic universe,''

3383: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 126003 (2002)

3384: [hep-th/0111098];

3385: ``Is vacuum decay significant in ekpyrotic and cyclic models?,''

3386: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 101302 (2002)

3387: [astro-ph/0112537];

3388: S.~Gratton, J.~Khoury, P.~J.~Steinhardt and N.~Turok,

3389: ``Conditions for generating scale-invariant density perturbations,''

3390: astro-ph/0301395;

3391: J.~Khoury, P.~J.~Steinhardt and N.~Turok,

3392: ``Great expectations: Inflation versus cyclic predictions for spectral  tilt,''

3393: astro-ph/0302012;

3394: ``Designing cyclic universe models,''

3395: hep-th/0307132.

3396: 

3397: \bibitem{no}

3398: D.~H.~Lyth,

3399: ``The primordial curvature perturbation in the ekpyrotic universe,''

3400: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 524}, 1 (2002)

3401: [hep-ph/0106153];

3402: R.~Brandenberger and F.~Finelli,

3403: ``On the spectrum of fluctuations in an effective field theory of the  ekpyrotic universe,''

3404: JHEP {\bf 0111}, 056 (2001)

3405: [hep-th/0109004];

3406: ``On the generation of a scale-invariant spectrum of adiabatic  fluctuations in cosmological models with a contracting phase,''

3407: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 103522 (2002)

3408: [hep-th/0112249];

3409: J.~c.~Hwang,

3410: ``Cosmological structure problem in the ekpyrotic scenario,''

3411: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 063514 (2002)

3412: [astro-ph/0109045].

3413: 

3414: \bibitem{maybe}

3415: C.~Cartier, R.~Durrer and E.~J.~Copeland,

3416: ``Cosmological perturbations and the transition from contraction to  expansion,''

3417: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 103517 (2003)

3418: [hep-th/0301198].

3419: 

3420: \bibitem{Tolley:2002cv}

3421: A.~J.~Tolley and N.~Turok,

3422: ``Quantum fields in a big crunch / big bang spacetime,''

3423: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 106005 (2002)

3424: [hep-th/0204091].

3425: 

3426: \bibitem{Tolley:2003nx}

3427: A.~J.~Tolley, N.~Turok and P.~J.~Steinhardt,

3428: ``Cosmological perturbations in a big crunch / big bang space-time,''

3429: hep-th/0306109.

3430: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0306109;%%

3431: 

3432: %\cite{Myers:fv}

3433: \bibitem{Myers:fv}

3434: R.~C.~Myers,

3435: ``New Dimensions For Old Strings,''

3436: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 199}, 371 (1987).

3437: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B199,371;%%

3438: 

3439: %\cite{Antoniadis:1988vi}

3440: \bibitem{Antoniadis:1988vi}

3441: I.~Antoniadis, C.~Bachas, J.~R.~Ellis and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

3442: ``An Expanding Universe In String Theory,''

3443: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 328}, 117 (1989).

3444: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B328,117;%%

3445: 

3446: %\cite{Craps:2002ii}

3447: \bibitem{Craps:2002ii}

3448: B.~Craps, D.~Kutasov and G.~Rajesh,

3449: ``String propagation in the presence of cosmological singularities,''

3450: JHEP {\bf 0206}, 053 (2002)

3451: [hep-th/0205101].

3452: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205101;%%

3453: 

3454: %\cite{Witten:1991yr}

3455: \bibitem{Witten:1991yr}

3456: E.~Witten,

3457: ``On string theory and black holes,''

3458: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 44}, 314 (1991).

3459: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D44,314;%%

3460: 

3461: %\cite{Maldacena:2001kr}

3462: \bibitem{Maldacena:2001kr}

3463: J.~M.~Maldacena,

3464: ``Eternal black holes in Anti-de-Sitter,''

3465: JHEP {\bf 0304}, 021 (2003)

3466: [hep-th/0106112].

3467: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0106112;%%

3468: 

3469: \bibitem{BTZ}

3470: S.~Hemming, E.~Keski-Vakkuri and P.~Kraus,

3471: ``Strings in the extended BTZ spacetime,''

3472: JHEP {\bf 0210}, 006 (2002)

3473: [hep-th/0208003];

3474: P.~Kraus, H.~Ooguri and S.~Shenker,

3475: ``Inside the horizon with AdS/CFT,''

3476: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 124022 (2003)

3477: [hep-th/0212277];

3478: T.~S.~Levi and S.~F.~Ross,

3479: ``Holography beyond the horizon and cosmic censorship,''

3480: hep-th/0304150;

3481: L.~Fidkowski, V.~Hubeny, M.~Kleban and S.~Shenker,

3482: ``The black hole singularity in AdS/CFT,''

3483: hep-th/0306170.

3484: 

3485: %\cite{Seiberg:2002hr}

3486: \bibitem{Seiberg:2002hr}

3487: N.~Seiberg,

3488: ``From big crunch to big bang - is it possible?,''

3489: hep-th/0201039.

3490: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0201039;%%

3491: 

3492: 

3493: %\cite{Elitzur:2002rt}

3494: \bibitem{Elitzur:2002rt}

3495: S.~Elitzur, A.~Giveon, D.~Kutasov and E.~Rabinovici,

3496: ``From big bang to big crunch and beyond,''

3497: JHEP {\bf 0206}, 017 (2002)

3498: [hep-th/0204189].

3499: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204189;%%

3500: 

3501: %\cite{Berkooz:2002je}

3502: \bibitem{Berkooz:2002je}

3503: M.~Berkooz, B.~Craps, D.~Kutasov and G.~Rajesh,

3504: ``Comments on cosmological singularities in string theory,''

3505: JHEP {\bf 0303}, 031 (2003)

3506: [hep-th/0212215].

3507: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0212215;%%

3508: 

3509: %\cite{Liu:2002ft}

3510: \bibitem{Liu:2002ft}

3511: H.~Liu, G.~Moore and N.~Seiberg,

3512: ``Strings in a time-dependent orbifold,''

3513: JHEP {\bf 0206}, 045 (2002)

3514: [hep-th/0204168].

3515: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204168;%%

3516: 

3517: %\cite{Horowitz:2002mw}

3518: \bibitem{Horowitz:2002mw}

3519: G.~T.~Horowitz and J.~Polchinski,

3520: ``Instability of spacelike and null orbifold singularities,''

3521: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 103512 (2002)

3522: [hep-th/0206228].

3523: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0206228;%%

3524: 

3525: \bibitem{Cornalba:2002fi}

3526: L.~Cornalba and M.~S.~Costa,

3527: ``A New Cosmological Scenario in String Theory,''

3528: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 066001 (2002)

3529: [hep-th/0203031].

3530: 

3531: \bibitem{related}

3532: J.~Simon,

3533: ``The geometry of null rotation identifications,''

3534: JHEP {\bf 0206}, 001 (2002)

3535: [hep-th/0203201];

3536: L.~Cornalba, M.~S.~Costa and C.~Kounnas,

3537: ``A resolution of the cosmological singularity with orientifolds,''

3538: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 637}, 378 (2002)

3539: [hep-th/0204261].

3540: 

3541: 

3542: \bibitem{backreaction}

3543: G.~T.~Horowitz and A.~R.~Steif,

3544: ``Singular String Solutions With Nonsingular Initial Data,''

3545: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 258}, 91 (1991);

3546: S.~W.~Hawking,

3547: ``The Chronology protection conjecture,''

3548: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}, 603 (1992);

3549: A.~Lawrence,

3550: ``On the instability of 3D null singularities,''

3551: JHEP {\bf 0211}, 019 (2002)

3552: [hep-th/0205288];

3553: E.~J.~Martinec and W.~McElgin,

3554: ``Exciting AdS orbifolds,''

3555: JHEP {\bf 0210}, 050 (2002)

3556: [hep-th/0206175];

3557: H.~Liu, G.~Moore and N.~Seiberg,

3558: ``Strings in time-dependent orbifolds,''

3559: JHEP {\bf 0210}, 031 (2002)

3560: [hep-th/0206182];

3561: M.~Fabinger and J.~McGreevy,

3562: ``On smooth time-dependent orbifolds and null singularities,''

3563: JHEP {\bf 0306}, 042 (2003)

3564: [hep-th/0206196];

3565: M.~Fabinger and S.~Hellerman,

3566: ``Stringy resolutions of null singularities,''

3567: hep-th/0212223;

3568: S.~Elitzur, A.~Giveon and E.~Rabinovici,

3569: ``Removing singularities,''

3570: JHEP {\bf 0301}, 017 (2003)

3571: [hep-th/0212242];

3572: L.~Cornalba and M.~S.~Costa,

3573: ``On the classical stability of orientifold cosmologies,''

3574: hep-th/0302137;

3575: A.~Giveon, E.~Rabinovici and A.~Sever,

3576: ``Strings in singular time-dependent backgrounds,''

3577: Fortsch.\ Phys.\  {\bf 51}, 805 (2003)

3578: [hep-th/0305137].

3579: 

3580: %\cite{Liu:2002yd}

3581: \bibitem{Liu:2002yd}

3582: H.~Liu, G.~Moore and N.~Seiberg,

3583: ``The challenging cosmic singularity,''

3584: gr-qc/0301001.

3585: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0301001;%%

3586: 

3587: 

3588: %\cite{Bachas:2002qt}

3589: \bibitem{Bachas:2002qt}

3590: C.~Bachas and C.~Hull,

3591: ``Null brane intersections,''

3592: JHEP {\bf 0212}, 035 (2002)

3593: [hep-th/0210269].

3594: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0210269;%%

3595: 

3596: %\cite{Berkooz:2003bs}

3597: \bibitem{Berkooz:2003bs}

3598: M.~Berkooz and B.~Pioline,

3599: ``Strings in an electric field, and the Milne universe,''

3600: hep-th/0307280.

3601: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0307280;%%

3602: 

3603: 

3604: %\cite{Nekrasov:2002kf}

3605: \bibitem{Nekrasov:2002kf}

3606: N.~A.~Nekrasov,

3607: ``Milne universe, tachyons, and quantum group,''

3608: hep-th/0203112.

3609: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0203112;%%

3610: 

3611: 

3612: \bibitem{recent}

3613: V.~Balasubramanian, S.~F.~Hassan, E.~Keski-Vakkuri and A.~Naqvi,

3614: ``A space-time orbifold: A toy model for a cosmological singularity,''

3615: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 026003 (2003)

3616: [hep-th/0202187];

3617: S.~Kachru and L.~McAllister,

3618: ``Bouncing brane cosmologies from warped string compactifications,''

3619: JHEP {\bf 0303}, 018 (2003)

3620: [hep-th/0205209];

3621: A.~Buchel, P.~Langfelder and J.~Walcher,

3622: ``On time-dependent backgrounds in supergravity and string theory,''

3623: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 024011 (2003)

3624: [hep-th/0207214];

3625: A.~Hashimoto and S.~Sethi,

3626: ``Holography and string dynamics in time-dependent backgrounds,''

3627: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 89}, 261601 (2002)

3628: [hep-th/0208126];

3629: J.~Simon,

3630: ``Null orbifolds in AdS, time dependence and holography,''

3631: JHEP {\bf 0210}, 036 (2002)

3632: [hep-th/0208165];

3633: M.~Alishahiha and S.~Parvizi,

3634: ``Branes in time-dependent backgrounds and AdS/CFT correspondence,''

3635: JHEP {\bf 0210}, 047 (2002)

3636: [hep-th/0208187];

3637: Y.~Satoh and J.~Troost,

3638: ``Massless BTZ black holes in minisuperspace,''

3639: JHEP {\bf 0211}, 042 (2002)

3640: [hep-th/0209195].

3641: R.~G.~Cai, J.~X.~Lu and N.~Ohta,

3642: ``NCOS and D-branes in time-dependent backgrounds,''

3643: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 551}, 178 (2003)

3644: [hep-th/0210206];

3645: K.~Okuyama,

3646: ``D-branes on the null-brane,''

3647: JHEP {\bf 0302}, 043 (2003)

3648: [hep-th/0211218];

3649: G.~Papadopoulos, J.~G.~Russo and A.~A.~Tseytlin,

3650: ``Solvable model of strings in a time-dependent plane-wave background,''

3651: Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.\  {\bf 20}, 969 (2003)

3652: [hep-th/0211289];

3653: B.~Durin and B.~Pioline,

3654: ``Open strings in relativistic ion traps,''

3655: JHEP {\bf 0305}, 035 (2003)

3656: [hep-th/0302159];

3657: J.~R.~David,

3658: ``Plane waves with weak singularities,''

3659: hep-th/0303013;

3660: R.~Biswas, E.~Keski-Vakkuri, R.~G.~Leigh, S.~Nowling and E.~Sharpe,

3661: ``The taming of closed time-like curves,''

3662: hep-th/0304241;

3663: J.~G.~Russo,

3664: ``Cosmological string models from Milne spaces and SL(2,Z) orbifold,''

3665: hep-th/0305032.

3666: 

3667: \bibitem{TseytlinJackJonesPanvel}

3668: A.~A.~Tseytlin,

3669: ``On the form of the black hole solution in D = 2 theory,''

3670: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 268}, 175 (1991);

3671: I.~Jack, D.~R.~Jones and J.~Panvel,

3672: ``Exact bosonic and supersymmetric string black hole solutions,''

3673: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 393}, 95 (1993)

3674: [hep-th/9201039].

3675: 

3676: \bibitem{coset}

3677: A.~A.~Tseytlin and C.~Vafa,

3678: ``Elements of string cosmology,''

3679: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 372}, 443 (1992)

3680: [hep-th/9109048];

3681: I.~Bars and K.~Sfetsos,

3682: ``Global analysis of new gravitational singularities in string and particle theories,''

3683: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}, 4495 (1992)

3684: [hep-th/9205037];

3685: ``Conformally exact metric and dilaton in string theory on curved space-time,''

3686: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}, 4510 (1992)

3687: [hep-th/9206006];

3688: D.~Lust,

3689: ``Cosmological string backgrounds,''

3690: hep-th/9303175.

3691: 

3692: %\cite{Kounnas:1992wc}

3693: \bibitem{Kounnas:1992wc}

3694: C.~Kounnas and D.~Lust,

3695: ``Cosmological string backgrounds from gauged WZW models,''

3696: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 289}, 56 (1992)

3697: [hep-th/9205046].

3698: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9205046;%%

3699: 

3700: %\cite{Dijkgraaf:1991ba}

3701: \bibitem{Dijkgraaf:1991ba}

3702: R.~Dijkgraaf, H.~Verlinde and E.~Verlinde,

3703: ``String propagation in a black hole geometry,''

3704: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 371}, 269 (1992).

3705: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B371,269;%%

3706: 

3707: \bibitem{Vilenkin}

3708: N.~J.~Vilenkin,

3709: ``Special Functions and the Theory of Group Representations,''

3710: AMS, 1968.

3711: 

3712: \bibitem{orb}

3713: L.~J.~Dixon, J.~A.~Harvey, C.~Vafa and E.~Witten,

3714: ``Strings On Orbifolds,''

3715: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 261}, 678 (1985);

3716: ``Strings On Orbifolds. 2,''

3717: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 274}, 285 (1986);

3718: L.~J.~Dixon, D.~Friedan, E.~J.~Martinec and S.~H.~Shenker,

3719: ``The Conformal Field Theory Of Orbifolds,''

3720: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 282}, 13 (1987).

3721: 

3722: \bibitem{grav}

3723: L.~H.~Ford,

3724: ``Gravitational Particle Creation And Inflation,''

3725: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 35}, 2955 (1987);

3726: B.~Spokoiny,

3727: ``Deflationary universe scenario,''

3728: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 315}, 40 (1993)

3729: [gr-qc/9306008];

3730: P.~J.~Peebles and A.~Vilenkin,

3731: ``Quintessential inflation,''

3732: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 063505 (1999)

3733: [astro-ph/9810509].

3734: 

3735: \bibitem{Abramowitz}

3736: M.~Abramowitz and I.~A.~Stegun,

3737: ``Handbook of Mathematical Functions,''

3738: Dover Publications.

3739: 

3740: 

3741: 

3742: \end{thebibliography}

3743: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3744: 

3745: 

3746: 

3747: 

3748: 

3749: 

3750: 

3751: 

3752: 

3753: 

3754: 

3755: 

3756: 

3757: 

3758: 

3759: 

3760: 

3761: \end{document}

3762: