1: %\documentclass[11pt]{article}

2: \documentclass{JHEP3}

3: \usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts,bbm,euscript, amssymb}

4: %\usepackage{epstopdf}

5: %\DeclareGraphicsRule{.tif}{png}{.png}{`convert #1 `dirname #1`/`basename #1 .tif`.png}

6: \usepackage{cite}

7: \usepackage{epsfig}

8: %\usepackage{geometry}

9: \usepackage{graphicx}

10: \usepackage{psfrag}

11: %\tolerance=10000

12: %\documentstyle[preprint,aps,epsfig, multicol]{revtex}

13: %\tighten

14: %\draft

15: %\widetext

16: %\usepackage {epsfig}

17: %\input{epsf.sty}

18: %\preprint{}

19: %\newcommand{\nc}{\newcommand}

20: \def\al{\alpha}

21: \def\om{\omega}

22: \def\R{\sideset{^3}R}

23: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

24: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

25: \def\baray{\begin{eqnarray}}

26: \def\earay{\end{eqnarray}}

27: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}

28: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}

29: \def\V{{\bf V}}

30: \def\lsim{\roughly<}

31: \def\gsim{\roughly>}

32: \def\Dbar{\overline{D}}

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

34: \def\A{\hat A}

35: \def\Z{\hat Z}

36: \def\hf{\frac12}

37: \def\kp{k_\perp}

38: \def\kpl{k_\parallel}

39: \def\I{\boldmath{I}}

40: \def\F{\cal{F}}

41: \newcommand{\rb}{\bar{\rho}}

42: \newcommand{\p}{\phi}

43: \newcommand{\pb}{\bar{\phi}}

44: \newcommand{\cb}{\bar{c}}

45: \newcommand{\s}{\sigma}

46: \newcommand{\Sb}{\bar{S}}

47: \newcommand{\kb}{\bar{\kappa}}

48: \newcommand{\Sp}{S^{\prime}}

49: %\def\Y{\mathcal{Y}}

50: 

51: 

52: 

53: \title{The Boundedness of Euclidean Gravity and the Wavefunction of the Universe

54: %Hartle-Hawking Wavefunction and the Boundedness of Gravity

55: }

56: \author{Sash Sarangi and S.-H. Henry Tye \\

57:  Laboratory for Elementary Particle Physics, Cornell

58: University, Ithaca, NY 14853 \\

59: E-mail:\email{sash@lepp.cornell.edu},

60: \email{tye@lepp.cornell.edu}}

61: 

62: %\date{\today}

63: 

64: \abstract{When the semi-positive cosmological constant is dynamical, the naive Euclidean Einstein 

65: action is unbounded from below and the Hartle-Hawking wavefunction of the universe is not normalizable. With the inclusion of back-reaction (a crucial point), the presence of the metric 

66: perturbative modes (as well as matter fields) as a radiation term is introduced by quantum fluctuation. They act as the environment (that is, to be integrated or traced out), and 

67: introduce a correction term that provides a bound to the Euclidean action. As a result,  the improved wavefunction is normalizable. That is, decoherence plays an essential role in the  consistency of quantum gravity. In the spontaneous creation of the universe, this improved 

68: wavefunction allows one to compare the tunneling probabilities from absolute nothing (i.e., not even 

69: classical spacetime) to various vacua (with different large spatial dimensions and different low 

70: energy spectra) in the stringy cosmic landscape.

71: %instanton with higher multipoles that are perturbations around a pure deSitter instanton with a scalar field. We examine the consequences of such coupling on the tunnelling rate.

72: }

73: 

74: \begin{document}

75: 

76: \tableofcontents

77: 

78: \section{Introduction}

79: 

80: In the probing of the origin of our universe, a particularly attractive idea is the tunneling from 

81: absolute nothing (here, nothing means not even classical spacetime) \cite{Vilenkin:1982de}, or 

82: equivalently, the Hartle-Hawking (HH) no-boundary wave function of the universe \cite{Hartle:1983ai}.

83: The basic idea is illustrated in Figure 1. 

84: \begin{figure}

85: \begin{center}

86: \epsfig{file=s_4.eps, width=9cm}

87: \vspace{0.1in}

88: \caption{Tunneling from absolute nothing to a deSitter or Inflationary Universe.}

89: \label{fig1}

90: \end{center}

91: \end{figure}

92: It is strongly believed that, in superstring theory, there is a vast number of stable and 

93: meta-stable vacua, with up to 9 or 10 large spatial dimensions. This is the cosmic landscape.

94: If we can reliably calculate the tunneling probability from absolute nothing 

95: %(that is, no classical spacetime)

96: to any point in this vast landscape, one may argue that the origin of our universe should be 

97: the point in the landscape with the largest tunneling probability. 

98: This tunneling probability is given by (the absolute square of) the wavefunction of the universe. However, the HH wavefunction is not normalizable. 

99: Furthermore, it gives an answer that contradicts observations. It is well-known that the 

100: problem lies in the infrared/macroscopic limit, so quantum/stringy corrections will not be helpful. 

101: In Ref\cite{Firouzjahi:2004mx}, we conjectured that a normalizable wavefunction results if 

102: decoherence effect is included. One can then apply this improved wavefunction to find the preferred vacuum in the cosmic landscape (the one emerging from tunneling from nothing with the largest tunneling probability), which then evolves to today's universe. We call this proposal the Selection of the Original Universe Principle (SOUP); that is, today's universe must lie along the road that starts with the 

103: original preferred vacuum, arguably the 4-dimensional inflationary universe supported by observations. In this paper, we investigate more carefully the decoherence effect on the 

104: tunneling probability/wavefunction. As expected, the result supports the basic underpinning of SOUP, though the details are somewhat more involved. 

105:  

106: Consider the simple Einstein theory in 4 dimensions with a positive cosmological constant :

107: \ba

108: S_{E} = - \frac{1}{16 \pi G}\int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \left( R - 2\Lambda\right)

109: \ea

110: The tunneling probability from nothing to a closed deSitter (or inflationary) universe with 

111: cosmological constant $\Lambda$ is given by

112: \ba

113: \label{EactionG}

114: \Gamma = |\Psi|^2\simeq e^{-S_E}  \quad \quad S_E=- \frac{3 \pi}{G\Lambda} 

115: \ea

116: where $S_E$ is the Euclidean action of the $S^4$ instanton \cite{Gibbons:1978ac}.

117: Suppose $\Lambda$ is dynamical, as in a model with 4-form field strengths \cite{Brown:1987dd}. 

118: The tunneling probability $\Gamma$ seems to allow us 

119: to pick out the universe with the largest probability. However, the Euclidean action $S_E$ is 

120: unbounded from below as $\Lambda \rightarrow 0$, so $\Gamma \to \infty$.

121: This has at least 2 obvious problems :

122: 

123: (1) The wavefunction $\Psi \simeq e^{3 \pi/2G\Lambda}$ is not normalizable. 

124: %Unitarity can be satisfied if $I_E$ is bounded from below. If the above formula is correct, 

125: %there is no normalization that can satisfy unitarity. 

126: Furthermore, one can easily show that there are other topological instantons with even 

127: more negative Euclidean action and so larger (actually, infinitely larger)  tunneling 

128: probability \cite{Coleman:1988tj}. This implies the presence of an inconsistency.

129: 

130: (2) Phenomenologically, since $\Gamma \rightarrow \infty$ as  $\Lambda \rightarrow 0$, 

131: it will imply the preference of tunneling to a flat universe with zero $\Lambda$, which 

132: contradicts the big bang history of our universe. 

133: Since the size of the universe, the cosmic scale factor $a, \sim 1/\sqrt{\Lambda}$, this will imply 

134: that the tunneling is to a universe of super-macroscopic size, contradicting one's intuition

135: that tunneling is a quantum process and so should be microscopic.

136:  

137: This issue is an outstanding problem since the early 1980s. 

138: The inconsistency has prevented the proper application of the whole idea.  

139: Possible resolution to this problem has been suggested (see 

140: \cite{Linde:1998gs} and references therein):

141: \begin{itemize}

142: \item

143: Instead of the usual $t \rightarrow - i \tau$, 

144: one may choose instead to rotate time to Euclidean time via 

145: $t \rightarrow i \tau$ \cite{Linde:1984mx}. This may work for pure gravity, but the 

146: inclusion of a scalar field (e.g., as required for inflation) 

147: leads to catastrophic consequences, since 

148: the scalar field theory becomes unbounded from below \cite{Rubakov:1984bh}. 

149: \item

150: One may argue that this problem will be corrected by quantum 

151: corrections or string theory corrections. However, it is easy 

152: to see that this is unlikely to be the case. Note that the 

153: problem occurs for small $\Lambda$, or large universe, since 

154: the cosmic scale factor $a \sim 1/\sqrt{\Lambda}$.

155: So this is more like an infrared or macroscopic problem than an ultra-violet problem. 

156: In fact, one can easily see that the loop correction \cite{Hawking:1976ja,Gibbons:1978ji}

157: does not solve the problem. Also, recent work \cite{Ooguri:2005vr}, where the exact HH wavefunction

158: is obtained in topological string theory, it seems that 

159: $\Lambda \to 0$ is again preferred, just like the original HH wavefunction.

160: 

161: \item This last property, namely, that the unboundedness problem 

162: becomes acute when the deSitter universe becomes large, or 

163: macroscopic (actually super-macroscopic), naturally suggests that 

164: the resolution should lie in decoherence \cite{Firouzjahi:2004mx}.

165: \end{itemize}

166: 

167: In Ref.\cite{Firouzjahi:2004mx}, we argue that the mini-superspace formulation is inadequate, 

168: and we propose that the inclusion of decoherence effects due to other modes provides a lower bound to $S_E$. We then speculate how the improved 

169: wavefunction may be used to select the stringy vacuum with the largest tunneling probability

170: from absolute nothing.

171: In this paper, we shall show that decoherence indeed provides a bound to the Euclidean gravity

172: action, though the formula for the tunneling probability may be more involved.  

173: Here, we shall focus on the pure 4-D Einstein gravity case. Generalization to more dimensions is straightforward and will be briefly discussed.

174: 

175: %add this

176: The basic idea of the approach is widely used in physics. Given any complicated problem, we usually

177: follow only a limited set of degrees of freedom, called the system. The remaining degrees 

178: of freedom, called the environment, are either ignored, or, in a better approximation, integrated out. 

179: In decoherence, integrating out the environment can cause the quantum system to behave like

180: a classical system. In effective field theory in particle physics, the massive modes are integrated 

181: out to produce higher 

182: dimensional operators (interaction terms) for the light modes. A famous example is the integrating

183: out of the W and Z bosons in the electroweak theory that yields the 4-Fermi weak interactions. Another example is the integrating out of the hidden sector in supergravity phenomenology. (Note that this has nothing to do with loop corrections.)

184: In the Wilson approach in quantum field theory, where high momentum modes are integrated out, and in the above cases, it is clear that the physics may crucially depend on the effects coming from integrating out the unobserved modes; that is, they cannot be ignored. 

185: %

186: %Integrating out the environment provides an effective bound to the resulting theory can be seen in a simple example. 

187: %

188: %For an example more closely related to the problem at hand, consider a somewhat artificial model of 2 scalar fields $\phi$ and $\eta$, with an effective potential $V= -m^2\phi^2/2 + M^2\eta^2/2 + \lambda \phi^2 \eta$. Here $\phi$ may have a tachyonic mass. Either $\eta$ has a large tachyonic mass (technically, we should treat it as an auxiliary field without a kinetic term) or $\lambda$ is imaginary.  At low energy, if we ignore $\eta$ completely, we find that the effective potential $V(\phi)$ is unbounded from below. However, integrating out the heavy mode $\eta$ introduces an effective interaction term $|\lambda|^2 \phi^4/M^2$, which provides a lower bound to the resulting effective potential $V(\phi)$. 

189: %

190: %The situation in Euclidean gravity is quite similar.

191: Of course, loop corrections can also induce dynamics/interactions that are not present in the tree level, as for example in the Coleman-Weinberg model, in light-light scattering, and in the running of couplings. In QCD, the running of the coupling emerges from the renormalization group improved quantum corrections, not just a normal 1-loop effect.

192: %however, this is not our main concern here.

193: We argue that this is also the situation in the study of the wavefunction of the universe. One may consider our result as a back-reaction improved quantum correction, not just a normal 1-loop effect.

194: 

195: The basic idea applied to tunneling is quite simple. It is well-known that the quantum tunneling of a particle with mass $M$, or the system, is suppressed if it interacts with an environment.

196: Consider a particle at $q=0$ in the potential $V(q)$ as shown in Figure 2.

197: \begin{figure}

198: \begin{center}

199: \epsfig{file=quartic.eps, width=8cm}

200: \vspace{0.1in}

201: \caption{Potential $V(q)$ with a metastable minimum at

202: $q=0$, and a stable minimum at $q = q_{+}$.}

203: \label{fig2}

204: \end{center}

205: \end{figure}

206: %The WKB approximation is good provided that the height of the barrier is larger than 

207: %$\om_0$, where $$M \om_0^2 =  \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial q^2}|_{q=0}$$

208: In the WKB approximation, its tunneling rate is given by 

209: \ba

210: \Gamma &\simeq&  \exp (-S_0) \nonumber \\

211: S_0 &=& \int^{q_0}_0 \sqrt{2MV(q)} dq

212: \ea

213: where $S_0$ is the Euclidean action of the bounce, i.e., the instanton 

214: solution \cite{Coleman:1977py}.

215: Note that, for $V(q)$ bounded from below, $S_0$ is bounded 

216: from below, as required by consistency.

217: 

218: In a more realistic situation, the particle interacts with a set of other particles, or modes, 

219: say $x_{\al}$. However, we are only interested in the quantum status of $q$, so these other modes 

220: are integrated out in the path integral, or traced over in the density matrix formulation. 

221: They provide the environment. Their presence typically introduces a frictional force to 

222: the evolution of $q$.  It was shown by Sethna \cite{Sethna:1981dr} and by Caldeira and Leggett \cite{Caldeira:1982uj}, that the bounce $S_0$ increases to

223: $S \simeq S_0 \left( 1 + {\hat \eta}\right)$

224: where $\hat \eta > 0$ is proportional to the coefficient of friction (see Appendix A for details). 

225: That is, the interaction with the environment suppresses the tunneling rate. (This suppression takes place even if no friction is generated.) One may understand this result in a 

226: number of (equivalent) ways :

227: \begin{itemize}

228: \item 

229: As a quantum system, 

230: \ba

231: S &=& \int  \sqrt{2MV(q,x_{\al})} ds \nonumber \\

232: ds^2 &=& dq^2 + \sum \frac{m_{\al}}{M} d x_{\al}^2

233: \ea

234: That is, the increase in $S$ is due entirely to the longer path 

235: length in the many dimensional $(q, x_{\al})$ space.

236: \item 

237: The interaction of $q$ with the $x_{\al}$ interferes with its 

238: attempt in tunneling. One may view the interaction with $x_{\al}$ 

239: as attempts to observe $q$. Repeated measurements of $q$ or 

240: repeated attempts of measuring $q$ suppresses the tunneling rate.

241: This is analogous to the Zeno or Watch Pot effect.

242: \item

243: The interaction of $q$ with the environment $x_{\al}$ diminishes 

244: the quantum coherence. As a consequence, the system behaves more 

245: like a classical system than like a quantum system. Since tunneling is a 

246: pure quantum phenomenon, it should be suppressed as the system becomes 

247: more macroscopic/classical. We shall refer to this as decoherence, by which we mean

248: the process where a quantum system behaves more classically (i.e., less quantum)

249: via its interactions with the environment \cite{zeh}.

250: 

251: \end{itemize}

252: 

253: Here, we study this effect in quantum gravity, in the tunneling 

254: from nothing scenario. In this case, the cosmic scale factor $a$ 

255: plays the role of the system, while the metric fluctuations around $a$ (and any matter field modes)

256: play the role of $x_{\al}$, i.e., the environment. Figure 3 illustrates this situation. 

257: \begin{figure}

258: \begin{center}

259: \epsfig{file=ptbd_s4.eps, width=9cm}

260: \vspace{0.1in}

261: \caption{Typical tunneling involves metric and matter excitations as well. Loop effects may also be included, though they are not important for our discussions.}

262: \label{fig3}

263: \end{center}

264: \end{figure}

265: Since we measure only $a$, the metric fluctuations are integrated out 

266: in the path integral (or traced out in the density matrix).  

267: As expected, we shall show that their presence suppresses the tunneling

268: from nothing to a deSitter universe.

269: As expected, the decoherence effect is negligible for large cosmological constant 

270: (small size universe), but becomes

271: increasingly important as $\Lambda \to 0$, as 

272: it suppresses the tunneling probability when $a = 1/\sqrt{\Lambda/3}$ becomes macroscopic.

273: In contrast to a normal quantum system, the inclusion of the environment is of 

274: fundamental importance in quantum gravity, since the corrected Euclidean 

275: action is now bounded from below. 

276: 

277: The coupling of the metric fluctuations and scalar fields to $a(\tau)$ are more complicated than that of 

278: the above quantum system. Each metric perturbative mode behaves like a simple harmonic 

279: oscillator but with time-dependent (or $a$-dependent) mass and frequency. However, the real subtlety of the calculation comes in another way. If we treat the metric fluctuation modes as pure perturbations, 

280: we shall get nothing except the loop correction, a known result in Euclidean gravity. 

281: This is not hard to see. The Euclidean action in minisuperspace (that is, keeping only the cosmic scale factor) is given by

282: \ba

283: S_{E} = \frac{1}{2}\int d\tau \left( -a\dot{a}^2 - a + \lambda a^3 \right)

284: \ea

285: where a rescaling has rendered $\tau$, $a(\tau)$, the Hubble constant $H=1/\sqrt{\lambda}$ and $\lambda=2G\Lambda/9 \pi$ dimensionless.

286: For $S^4$, $Ha(\tau)= \sin (H \tau)$, where south pole (north pole) corresponds to $H \tau= 0$ ($\pi$). This path gives the Euclidean action (\ref{EactionG}). For a fluctuation mode $f$ that satisfies the classical equation, the Euclidean classical action can be written as a surface term

287: $S_E \simeq a^3 f {\dot f} {\large |}^{\pi/H}_0=0$, 

288: since $a(\tau)=0$ at the two poles. As a result, no decoherence term is generated. (Including an additional boundary term makes no difference.)

289: However, we find that the back-reaction is crucial for getting the correct answer. Instead of using the unperturbed $a(\tau)$ given above for the $S^4$ geometry, we leave it arbitrary during the tracing 

290: out of the fluctuation modes. 

291: In the path-integral formalism, one starts with the path integral that includes the scale factor $a$  as well as the perturbations around $a$. The following, for example, 

292: shows the inclusion of the metric tensor perturbations $t_n$ 

293: \ba

294: \label{path}

295: Z = \int D[a]\prod_{n}\int_{t_n^i}^{t_n^f}D[t_n]e^{-S_E} \exp\left( 

296:  -\frac{1}{2}\int_{-T/2}^{T/2} d\tau a^3 \sum_{n} [\dot{t_n}^2 + \omega_n(a)^2

297: t_n^2]  \right)

298: \ea

299: Tracing out the perturbations, we have 

300: \ba

301: \label{trace}

302: Tr[Z] = \prod_{n} \int dt_n^i \int dt_n^f \delta(t_n^i - t_n^f)~ Z

303: \ea

304: This results in a new term in the modified action  

305: \ba

306: S_{E,dC} \simeq \frac{1}{2}\int d\tau \left( -a\dot{a}^2 - a + \lambda a^3 + \frac{\nu}{\lambda^2 a}\right)

307: \ea

308: where the last term, coming from integrating out the perturbative modes, behaves like ordinary radiation. $\nu$ is a constant that measures the number of perturbative modes.  We then solve for $a(\tau)$ and obtain the corrected Euclidean action $S_{E,dC}$ in the saddle-point approximation.

309: It turns out that the $\nu$ term modifies the shape of the $S^4$ instanton to barrel-like, as shown in Figure 4. Since the effect is perturbative in nature, we expect the barrel to have the same topology as $S^4$. We see that, due to the back-reaction, $a(\tau)$ does not vanish at the two ends. However, the contribution of the end plates of the barrel to $S_{E,dC}$ happens to be zero.

310:  

311: After tracing over the metric fluctuations in this way, the rate 

312: of tunneling from nothing (i.e., no classical spacetime) to a 

313: deSitter universe (much like the inflationary universe) is now

314: given by $\Gamma \simeq \exp(F)= \exp(-S_{E,dC})$, where

315: \ba

316: \label{FS}

317: - F = S_{E,dC} = S_{E,0}+ D \simeq -\frac{3 \pi}{G\Lambda} + c \left(\frac{3 \pi}{G\Lambda}\right)^2

318: \ea

319: where $D$ is the decoherence term and $c$ depends on the cut-off.

320: In string theory, that cut-off is naturally provided by the string scale.

321: Note that $S_{E,dC}$ is now bounded from below. See Figure 5.

322: Here, $c$ in string theory also depends on the string spectrum, so 

323: $c$ should be calculated for each vacuum. 

324: %We shall call the second term the decoherence term.

325: We find that 

326:  \ba

327:  c = \frac{3}{2} n_{dof} \left( \frac{2 G}{3\pi l_{s}^2} \right)^2

328:  \ea

329: where $l_s$ is the string scale ($\alpha^{\prime} = (l_s/2 \pi)^2$) and 

330: $n_{dof}$ is the number of light degrees of freedom included in the environment.

331: For the pure gravity case, we have $n_{dof}=2$ for the two tensor modes.

332: For small $\Lambda$, below a critical value, the tunneling is actually totally suppressed.

333: \begin{figure}

334: \begin{center}

335: \epsfig{file=def_ball.eps, width=9cm}

336: \vspace{0.1in}

337: \caption{Modification of the $S^4$ instanton due to the presence of decoherence, 

338: i.e., the inclusion of the environment.}

339: \label{fig4}

340: \end{center}

341: \end{figure} 

342: 

343: This is quite understandable. A precise $S^4$ spherical geometry leads to the pure de Sitter space, which by definition excludes any radiation. If we do not allow back-reaction, then the system $a(\tau)$

344: actually cannot feel the presence of the environemnt. Allowing back-reaction, the quantum fluctuation

345: during the spontaneous creation of the universe generates some radiation (even though no 

346: radiation is introduced classically). They act as the environment.

347: The presence of this environment modifies the geometry in a way so that tunneling is to a universe with both a cosmological constant and some radiation, with a suppressed tunneling rate. 

348: The presence of the radiation generates the decoherence term. Note that, in integrating out the perturbative modes, the case with zero amplitude for the perturbative modes is also included.

349: As we see, the amount of radiation is proportional to $1/\Lambda^{2}$, so there is more radiation in a larger universe. 

350: 

351: What we consider fundamental is that the decoherence effect 

352: actually provides the Euclidean action $S_E$ of pure gravity with a lower bound.

353: Since the metric fluctuation contribution to $S_E$ cannot be 

354: turned off, they must be included in the evaluation of the tunneling rate. 

355: For usual quantum system, $S_0$ is bounded from below. So 

356: one may view this friction/environment/decoherence effect as 

357: a correction, albeit it may be very big. In quantum gravity, 

358: this effect resolves the unboundedness problem.

359: That the quantum fluctuation provides a natural source to cure the boundedness problem 

360: implies that quantum gravity is actually self-consistent in the macroscopic regime. 

361: 

362: \begin{figure}

363: \begin{center}

364: \epsfig{file=max_2.eps, width=9cm}

365: \vspace{0.1in}

366: \caption{$S_{E,dC}$ and $S_{E,0}$ as functions of the cosmological constant $\Lambda$.

367: We see that, with the inclusion of the decoherence effect, the Euclidean action for the

368: $S^4$ instanton  is now bounded from below. For large $\Lambda$, the semi-classical approximation breaks down. For small $\Lambda$, tunneling is actually completely suppressed.

369: }

370: \label{fig5}

371: \end{center}

372: \end{figure}

373: This effect renders 

374: the system more macroscopic and so less quantum. That is, as $a$ 

375: becomes large, its interaction with the metric fluctuations and matter fields should 

376: suppress the tunneling rate. Indeed, we show that the inclusion of 

377: the metric fluctuation decreases the tunneling rate, as expected.

378: Note that the decoherence term is not the usual perturbative 

379: quantum correction. For large $\Lambda$, where quantum correction 

380: is expected to be large, the decoherence term actually becomes negligible.

381: One can include the quantum corrections; however, they do not change 

382: the qualitative behavior for moderate values of $\Lambda$, i.e., $G \Lambda <<1$. 

383: 

384: Let us gain some idea of the magnitude of $F$. Following Eq.(\ref{FS}), we find the value of $\Lambda$ with maximum tunneling probability is

385: \ba

386: \Lambda_{max} = \frac{4 n_{dof} G}{\pi l_s^4}  \to F_{max}=\frac{3}{2n_{dof}} (2 \pi M_{Pl} l_s)^4

387: \ea

388: For the string scale a few orders of magnitude smaller than $M_{Pl}$, we can easily have $F \simeq 10^{10}$ or larger. On the other hand, the critical value of $\Lambda$ is $\Lambda_c=\Lambda_{max}/2$. For $\Lambda < \Lambda_c$, the barrel-shaped instanton is destroyed. At $\Lambda_c$,

389: $F(\Lambda_c)=0$, so the tunneling probability at $\Lambda$ close to $\Lambda_c$ is already negligibly small compared to that at $\Lambda_{max}$.

390: 

391: Having resolved the outstanding problem mentioned above, one 

392: may then apply this consistent tunneling approach to select 

393: a preferred vacuum in the cosmic landscape in string theory.

394: It is straightforward to generalize Eq.(\ref{FS}) to arbitrary spatial dimensions. In particular, for ten dimensional spacetime, we have

395: \ba

396: \label{FS10}

397: - F = S_{E,dC} \simeq S_{E,10}  + c \left(\frac{V_{10}}{l_s^{10}}\right)

398: \ea

399: where $S_{E,10}$ is the 10-D Euclidean action determined in mini-superspace and 

400: $V_{10}$ is the 10-dimensional volume of the instanton. 

401: Note that (see Ref\cite{Firouzjahi:2004mx}) $S_{E,10}$ reduces to $-{3 \pi}/{G\Lambda}$

402: for a vacuum where the extra 6 dimensions are compactified.

403: For each vacuum, $c$ depends on 

404: the spectrum. It may also depend on the compactification and dilaton moduli.

405: Knowing these properties of each vacuum allows one to calculate its 

406: tunneling probability from nothing. One may estimate the size of $c$ by comparing to the 4-D case:

407: \ba

408: c \simeq \frac{n_{dof} } {\pi M_{Pl}^2 l_s^2g_s^2}

409: \ea

410: with $8\pi G= 1/M_{Pl}^2$ and $g_s$ is the string coupling. Since the string scale is expected to be a few orders of magnitude below the Planck scale, we expect $c$ to be a small number.

411: In \cite{Firouzjahi:2004mx}, we consider the suppression

412: of tunnelling in the context of the spontaneous creation of the 

413: universe. The suppression happens due to the effect of both

414: the gravitational and matter perturbations on the bounce solution

415: to the Euclidean Einstein equations.  The general idea, loosely

416: speaking,  is to separate the ``universe'' into a ``system'' (the pure

417: gravitational bounce) and the ``environment'' (the perturbations). 

418: One is interested in measuring properties of the system and in order 

419: to do so one simply traces out the environmental degrees of freedom. The effect of 

420: the environment can be significant and such effects have been studied in 

421: various systems. In the previous work \cite{Firouzjahi:2004mx} 

422: we estimated this effect  on the tunnelling probability 

423: of the universe by considering the unperturbed deSitter space as the 

424: ``system'' and the ``environment'' consists of the metric perturbations and matter fields.

425: We see that the qualitative features are robust, though the details are somewhat more 

426: involved. (There we used $V_9$ instead of $V_{10}$ for Eq.(\ref{FS10})). 

427: For large $\Lambda$, the semi-classical approximation 

428: breaks down. For small $\Lambda$, additional decoherence effect may be important. 

429: (Here we have calculated only the leading order.)

430: Fortunately, the range of $\Lambda$ where the tunneling probability is largest seem to lie

431: in the region where the approximation is most reliable; and we are interested in vacua 

432: with large tunneling probabilities. Since the tunneling probability drops off rapidly as 

433: $\Lambda \to 0$ and $\Lambda \to \infty$, their precise values are not 

434: as important to us. With some luck, we may use the above formula to locate the preferred 

435: set of vacua in the cosmic string landscape. Note that $c$ depends on the spectrum at each

436: point in the landscape. 

437: 

438: As one can see in Figure 5, intermediate values of $\Lambda$, much like the inflationary universe that describes the history of our universe \cite{Guth:1981zm} seems to be preferred.

439: As in Ref\cite{Firouzjahi:2004mx}, we find phenomenologically that 10-dimensional deSitter-like 

440: vacua (with $F \simeq 10^9$ for instantons $S^{10}$, $S^5 \times S^5$, $S^4 \times S^3 \times S^3$) are not 

441: preferred while supersymmetric vacua in any dimension have essentially zero tunneling probability. Also, tunneling to vacua very much like our today's universe (with a very small dark energy) seems to be severely suppressed. Tunneling to a universe with quantum foam seems not preferred either. Among the known vacua, the preferred ones are the 4-D brane inflation \cite{Dvali:1998pa} as realized in a realistic string model \cite{Kachru:2003sx}, very much like the inflationary universe that our universe has gone through (with $F \sim 10^{16}$). Although the details of the decoherence term obtained here is somewhat different from that used in Ref\cite{Firouzjahi:2004mx}, we see that the qualitative features summarized there remain true.

442: 

443: Decoherence and related issues in quantum/Euclidean gravity have been studied earlier 

444: \cite{Halliwell:1985eu,Kiefer:1987ft,Kiefer:1989ud,Halliwell:1989vw,Kiefer:1992cn}, where they are

445: mostly concerned with the evolution of the inflationary universe. Here, we study decoherence in the 

446: quantum tunneling in gravity. To be self-contained, we shall review some of the relevant formalisms developed there.

447: 

448: In Sec. 2, we review the tunneling to closed deSitter space and perturbative modes around 

449: the cosmic scale factor $a(\tau)$.

450: In Sec. 3, we evaluate the contribution due to these modes to the effective Euclidean action. Here we find that no decoherence term is generated in the $S^4$ background. To see why back-reaction is important, the effect is calculated in the  background of a ``squashed'' $S^4$ geometry. The reader may choose to skip this section. 

451: In Sec. 4, we study the modified bounce including back reaction. We derive the effective Euclidean action after integrating out the metric perturbation with an arbitrary background $a(\tau)$.

452: In Sec. 5, We find the modified bounce solution from the effective Euclidean action. This allows 

453: us to obtain the improved wavefunction and tunneling probability from nothing. 

454: In Sec. 6, we show that the new term in the improved Euclidean action behaves like ordinary radiation.

455: We see also how the new term appears in the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and how it influences the tunneling amplitude. 

456: In Sec. 7, we discuss the implication of the main result and its connection to the proposal of 

457: Ref\cite{Firouzjahi:2004mx}.

458: Sec. 8 contains some discussions and Sec. 9 contains a summary and further remarks. Some of the details are relegated to appendices.

459: For the sake of completeness, a number of known results are reviewed extensively.

460: 

461: \section{Setup}

462: 

463: \subsection{Notations}

464: 

465: We shall render various quantities dimensionless for the ease of calculation.

466: The conventions we follow are those of \cite{Hartle:1983ai}. The 

467: Euclidean action is defined as

468: \ba

469: S_{E} =-\frac{1}{16 \pi G}\int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \left( R - 2\Lambda\right)

470: \ea

471: The Euclidean metric is given by

472: \ba

473: ds^2 = \sigma^2 \left( d\tau^2 + a(\tau)^2 d\Omega_{3}^2 \right)

474: \ea

475: where is $\sigma^2 = {2G}/{3 \pi}$. With this metric ansatz, the 

476: action becomes

477: \ba

478: S_{E} = \frac{1}{2}\int d\tau \left( -a\dot{a}^2 - a + \lambda a^3 \right)

479: \ea

480: where $\lambda = {\sigma^2 \Lambda}/{3} = {2G \Lambda}/{9 \pi}$. So

481: $\lambda$, $\tau$, and $a$ are all dimensionless.

482: 

483: 

484: %\section{The deSitter Spacetime and its Perturbations}

485: 

486: \subsection{The deSitter Space}

487: 

488: In this section we give a summary of the result of \cite{Halliwell:1985eu}.

489: Consider a compact three-surface $S^3$ which divides the four-manifold M into

490: two parts. One can introduce the coordinates $x^i$ ($i = 1,2,3$) and a coordinate $t$ 

491: such that $S^3$ is the surface at $t = 0$. The metric takes the form

492: \ba

493: ds^2 = -(N^2 - N_i N^i)dt^2 + 2N_idx^idt + h_{ij}dx^idx^j.

494: \ea

495: where $N$ and $N_i$ are the lapse function and the shift vector, respectively.

496: The action is given by

497: \ba

498: S = \int \left( L_g + L_m \right) d^4x

499: \ea

500: where

501: \ba

502: L_g = \frac{M_{P}^{2}}{16\pi}N \left( G^{ijkl}K_{ij}K_{kl}

503: + \sqrt{h} R  \right)

504: \ea

505: where $R$ is the Ricci scalar of the three-surface and $K_{ij}$ is

506: the second fundamental form given by

507: \ba

508: K_{ij} = \frac{1}{2N}\left( -\frac{\partial h_{ij}}{\partial t}

509: + 2N_{(i|j)}  \right)

510: \ea

511: In the above expression ``$|$'' denotes the covariant derivative.

512: $G^{ijkl}$ is called the metric of the ``superspace'' and is given by

513: \ba

514: G^{ijkl} = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{h}\left(h^{ik}h^{jl}+ h^{il}h^{jk}

515: - 2h^{ij}h^{kl} \right)

516: \ea

517: In the case of a massive scalar field, the matter Lagrangian $L_m$

518: is given by

519: \ba

520: L_m = \frac{1}{2}N\sqrt{h}\left( N^{-2}\left(\frac{\partial \Phi}

521: {\partial t} \right)^2 -2\frac{N^i}{N^2}\frac{\partial \Phi}

522: {\partial t} \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x^i} 

523: \right . \\ \nonumber \left. - \left( h^{ij} 

524: -\frac{N^i N^j}{N^2}\right)\frac{\partial \Phi}

525: {\partial x^i}\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x^j} - m^2 

526: \Phi^2  \right)

527: \ea

528: In the Hamiltonian treatment of general relativity one treats $h_{ij}$

529: and $\Phi$ as the canonical coordinates. The canonically conjugate

530: momenta are

531: \ba

532: \pi^{ij} = \frac{\partial L_g}{\partial\dot{h_{ij}}}

533: = -\frac{\sqrt{h}M_P^2}{16\pi}\left(K^{ij} - h^{ij} K \right)\\

534: \nonumber

535: \pi_{\Phi} = \frac{\partial L_m}{\partial \dot{\Phi}}

536: = N^{-1}\sqrt{h}\left(\dot{\Phi}-N^i \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x^i}   

537: \right)

538: \ea

539: The Hamiltonian is

540: \ba

541: H = \int d^3x \left(\pi^{ij}\dot{h_{ij}} + \pi_{\Phi}

542: \dot{\Phi}-L_g -L_m \right) \\ \nonumber

543: = \int d^3x \left(NH_0 + N_i H^i \right)

544: \ea

545: where

546: \ba

547: H_0 = 16 \pi M_P^{-2}G_{ijkl}\pi^{ij}\pi^{kl}  - \frac{M_P^{2}}{16\pi}

548: \sqrt{h}R + & \\ \nonumber\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{h}\left(\frac{\pi_{\Phi}^2}{h}

549: + h^{ij} \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x^i}

550: \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x^j} 

551:  + m^2 \Phi^2 \right) 

552: \ea

553: \ba

554: H^i = -2\pi^{ij}_{|j} + h^{ij}\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x^j}

555: \pi_{\Phi} &&

556: \ea

557: and

558: \ba

559: G_{ijkl} = \frac{1}{2}h^{-1/2}\left(h_{ik}h_{jl}+h_{il}h_{jk}-

560: h_{ij}h_{kl} \right)

561: \ea

562: The quantities $N$ and $N_i$ are regarded as Lagrange multipliers.

563: Thus the solution obeys the momentum constraint

564: \ba

565: H^i = 0

566: \ea

567: and the Hamiltonian constraint

568: \ba

569: H_{0} = 0.

570: \ea

571: 

572: \subsection{The Perturbations}

573: 

574: Now we study the perturbations around the deSitter spacetime. The perturbed

575: deSitter has a three-metric $h_{ij}$ of the form

576: \ba

577: h_{ij} = a^2 \left( \Omega_{ij}+\epsilon_{ij}\right)

578: \ea

579: where $\Omega_{ij}$ is the metric on the unit three-sphere and 

580: $\epsilon_{ij}$ is a perturbation on this metric and can be expanded

581: in harmonics:

582: \ba

583: \label{harmo}

584: \epsilon_{ij} = \sum_{n,l,m} \left[ \sqrt{6}a_{nlm}\frac{1}{3}

585: \Omega_{ij} Q^n_{lm} + \sqrt{6}b_{nlm}(P_{ij})^n_{lm} +\right . &  \nonumber \\

586: \left .

587: \sqrt{2}c^0_{nlm}(S^0_{ij})^n_{lm} + \sqrt{2}c^e_{nlm}(S^e_{ij})

588: ^n_{lm} + 2t^0_{nlm}(G^0_{ij})^n_{lm}

589: + 2t^e_{nlm}(G^e_{ij})^n_{lm}

590: \right]

591: \ea

592: where the coefficients $a_{nlm}$, $b_{nlm}$, $c^0_{nlm}$, $c^e_{nlm}$,

593: $t^0_{nlm}$ and $t^e_{nlm}$ are functions of time but not the three 

594: space coordinates. 

595: The $Q(x^i)$ are the scalar harmonics on the three-sphere. The

596: $P_{ij}(x^i)$ are given by

597: \ba

598: P_{ij} = \frac{1}{n^2 -1}Q_{|ij}+ \frac{1}{3}\Omega_{ij}Q

599: \ea

600: where we have suppressed the $n,l,m$ indices. The $S_{ij}$ are

601: given by

602: \ba

603: S_{ij} = S_{i|j} + S_{j|i}

604: \ea

605: where $S_{i}$ are the transverse vector harmonics. The $G_{ij}$

606: are the transverse traceless tensor harmonics. Further details 

607: can be found in \cite{Halliwell:1985eu,Gerlach:1978gy}.

608: The lapse, shift, and the scalar field $\Phi(x^i,t)$ can be

609: expanded in terms of harmonics as

610: \ba

611: N = N_0 \left[1 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\sum_{n,l,m}g_{nlm}Q^n_{lm} \right]

612: \\ \nonumber

613: N_i = a(t)\sum_{n,l,m}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}k_{nlm}(P_i)^n_{lm}

614: + \sqrt{2}j_{nlm}(S_i)^n_{lm} \right] \\ \nonumber

615: \Phi = \sigma^{-1}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi}\phi(t)+ \sum_{n,l,m}f_{nlm}Q^n_{lm} \right]

616: \ea

617: where $P_i = \frac{1}{n^2 -1}Q_{|i}$. The perturbed action is

618: now given by

619: \ba

620: \label{act}

621: S = S_{0}(a, \phi, N_0)+ \sum_{n} S_n

622: \ea

623:  where we have denoted the labels $n$, $l$, $m$, $o$, and $e$ by the single

624: label $n$. $S_0$ is the action of the unperturbed deSitter,

625: \ba

626: S_{0} = -\frac{1}{2}\int dt N_0 a^3\left(\frac{\dot{a}^2}{N_o^2a^2} 

627: - \frac{1}{a^2}- \frac{\dot{\phi}^2}{N_0^2}+ m^2\phi^2 + \lambda

628:  \right) 

629: \ea

630: $S_n$ is quadratic in perturbations and is given by

631: \ba

632: S_n = \int dt (L^n_g + L^n_m)

633: \ea

634: where $L^n_g$  and $L^n_m$ are the $n$th mode gravitational and

635: the matter Lagrangians, respectively. As we are interested only

636: in the gravitational tensor and the scalar field perturbations

637: in this paper, we only display those terms here. In the absence of sources, the 

638: other modes can be gauged away. For further

639: details and the intricacies of all perturbations we refer the

640: reader to \cite{Halliwell:1985eu}. 

641: 

642: The tensor perturbations $t_n$ have the Euclidean action

643: \ba

644: S_n^E = \frac{1}{2}\int t_n \hat{D} t_n +  ~boundary ~term

645: \ea

646: where

647: \ba

648: \hat{D} = \left(- \frac{d}{d\tau}\left[a^3\frac{d}{d\tau} \right]

649: + a(n^2 - 1)  \right)

650: \ea

651: where the background satisfied the classical equation of motion.

652: The action is extremized when $t_n$ satisfies the equation

653: $\hat{D} t_n = 0$. Setting $N_0=1$, this is just the equation

654: \ba

655: \label{eom_ten}

656: \frac{d}{dt}\left[a^3 {\dot{t_n}} + (n^2 -1)a t_n\right] = 0

657: \ea

658: For $t_n$ that satisfies the equation of motion, the action

659: is just the boundary term

660: \ba

661: \label{E_cl}

662: S_n^{E(cl)} = \frac{1}{2}a^3 \left(t_n\dot{t_n}+4\frac{\dot{a}}{a}

663: t_n^2  \right)

664: \ea 

665: The path integral over $t_n$ will be

666: \ba

667: \label{tensor}

668: \int d[t_n]\exp (-S_n^{E(cl)})= (\det \hat{D})^{-1/2}\exp (-S_n^{E(cl)})

669: \ea

670: 

671: Scalar fields can be treated in a similar fashion. The scalar field perturbation Lagrangian is given by

672: \ba

673: \frac{1}{2}N_0 a^3 \left[\frac{1}{N_0^2}\dot{f_n}^2 -m^2 f_n^2 -\frac{(n^2 -1)}{a^2}f_n^2 \right]

674: \ea

675: where we work in an appropriate gauge choice. 

676: %Also we have assumed that the scalar field kinetic term is negligible. 

677: Setting $N_0=1$, the equation of motion for $f_n$ is

678: \ba

679:  \frac{d}{dt}\left(a^3 {\dot{f_n}}\right) + \left[m^2 a^3 + (n^2 -1 )a \right]f_n = 0

680: \ea

681: One can evaluate the scalar field path integral and the results are 

682: similar to that of the tensor perturbative modes. So in this paper

683: we deal only with the gravitational tensor modes.

684: 

685: 

686: \section{Perturbative Correction to the Bounce : No Back Reaction}

687: 

688: Before doing the calculation that includes the backreaction due to the

689: perturbative modes, we first perform a simple calculation to illustrate the key issues we are facing.

690: The result of this section is meant to be a warm up and indicates the possibility

691: of a correction to the wavefunction. We consider a $S^4$ solution with both its polar regions flattened by a small parameter $\delta$ and show that this squashed geometry allows for extra perturbative modes that can have significant effect on the calculation of the wavefunction. When $\delta = 0$, these extra perturbative modes vanish and what remains is the well known one-loop correction to the $S^4$.  For a proper treatment the reader

692: may go directly to the next section and onward.\\

693: 

694:  The Euclidean equation of motion for the $n$th tensor perturbation mode

695: on a $S^4$ background follows from Eq.(\ref{eom_ten})

696: \ba

697: \label{t_n}

698: \ddot{t_n}+ 3\frac{\dot{a_o}}{a_o}\dot{t_n} - 

699: \left( \frac{(n^2 -1)}{a_o^2} \right)t_n  = 0

700: \ea

701: where dot denotes differentiation with respect to the $\tau$ variable and

702: $a_o(\tau) = \lambda^{-1/2} \sin(\sqrt{\lambda}\tau)$.

703: This can be converted to a more familiar form by the substitution

704: $F_n = \sqrt{\lambda} a_o(\tau) t_n$.

705: In terms of $F_n$ and $x = \cos(\lambda \tau)$ the equation of motion becomes

706: \ba

707: (1 - x^2)\frac{d^2 F_n}{dx^2} - 2x\frac{dF_n}{dx} +

708: \left( 2 - \frac{n^2}{(1 - x^2)} \right) F_n = 0 

709: \ea

710: which is just an associate Legendre equation of degree one

711: and order $n$. This has two linearly

712: independent solutions, $P^{-n}_{1}(x)$ and $Q^{n}_{1}(x)$.

713: However, because $a_o=0$ at $x=\pm 1$, we have

714: \ba

715: S_{E}^{n} & = & \frac{1}{2} \left[a(\tau)^3 t_n \frac{dt_n}{d\tau}  

716: \right]_{x = 1}^{x = -1} =0

717: \ea

718: 

719: We shall see in the following sections that once the perturbative modes

720: are properly accounted for, $S^4$ changes to a ``barrel''. Anticipating

721: this result we consider the $S^4$ instanton that is flattened slightly

722: at the two poles. This ``squashed'' $S^4$

723: is given by $a_o(\tau) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}}\sin(\lambda \tau)$,

724: with the restricted range $ 1 - \delta \geq x \geq -1 + \delta$. There

725: is a good reason for considering the squashed geometry. The perturbative

726: modes can be strong enough to change the geometry of $S^4$ (and as we shall

727: see, they will). So fixing the geometry to $S^4$ before doing the

728: perturbative analysis is too restrictive. The perturbative modes 

729: on $S^4$  have to vanish at the two poles if they are to respect the

730: background geometry. Their effect has been studied in \cite{Barvinsky:1992dz

731: ,Gibbons:1978ji} and apart from contributing to one-loop effect 

732: they do not lead to any tunneling suppression.

733:  However, to get the decoherence effect  one must

734: include modes that have nonvanishing values at the two poles. And

735: we shall see that the squashed geometry allows for modes that

736: can potentially lead to decoherence. This expectation will be confirmed in

737:  the later sections. \\

738: 

739:      As explained in the introduction (Eq.(\ref{path},\ref{trace})), to 

740: trace out a given  perturbative mode

741: (say, $t_n$) one must perform a path integral over that mode with

742: the initial and final amplitudes the same (say, $t_n^i = t_n^f$), and

743: then integrate over all possible values of $t_n^i$. This is just

744: the trace operation in the path integral formalism. To do this we

745: first find the action for $t_n$ (details can be found in the appendix)

746: 

747: \ba

748: S_{E}^{n} & = & \frac{1}{2} \left[a(\tau)^3 t_n \frac{dt_n}{d\tau}  

749: \right]_{x = (1 - \delta)}^{x = (-1 + \delta)} \\ \nonumber

750: & = & \delta(2 -\delta) \left[ (1 - \delta) + \delta(2 -\delta)

751: \frac{\partial_{x}Q^{n}_1(1 -\delta)}{Q^{n}_1(1 -\delta)}\right] (t_n^i)^2

752: \ea

753: Next we must find the prefactor to the path integral for $t_n$.

754: This can be found as explained in the Appendix B. The prefactor 

755: is given by

756: \ba

757: \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi}} \frac{\sqrt{Q^n_1(1 -\delta) P^n_1(1 - \delta) 

758: (2\delta- \delta^2)}}{2^n} \sqrt{\frac{\Gamma\left( \frac{2-n}{2}

759: \right) \Gamma\left( \frac{3-n}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left( 

760: \frac{2+ n}{2}\right) \Gamma\left( \frac{3+n}{2}\right)} }

761: \ea

762: Integrating over all initial states $t_n^i$ (tracing out the $nth$ mode)

763: gives

764: \ba

765: \int dt_n^i K \left( t_n^i, x = -1 + \delta ;t_n^i, x = 1 -\delta \right)  

766: = \alpha (n) f(\delta) 2^{-n}

767: \ea

768: where $\alpha(n)$ contains factors of $n$ and $f(\delta)$ is a function 

769: of $\delta$, with $f(0)=0$. $K \left( t_n^i,-1 + \delta ;t_n^i,1 -

770: \delta \right)$ is the path integral over $t_n$ mode with the boundary 

771: conditions

772: $t_n(x = -1 + \delta) = t_n(x = 1 - \delta) = t_n^i$.

773: Taking care of all the modes by tracing over all of them (within the

774: lower and upper cut-offs), we get

775: \ba

776: \prod_{n}\int dt_n^i  K \left( t_n^i, -1 + \delta ;t_n^i, 1 -\delta \right)

777: = \prod_{n}

778: \alpha (n) f(\delta) 2^{-n} \\ \nonumber

779: = A(n, \delta)e^{-N^4/2 \ln(2)}

780: \ea

781: where $N$ counts the modes. As explained later,

782: %in Eq.(\ref{N}, \ref{nu})

783: \ba

784: N = \left( \frac{H^{-1}}{l_s}\right) = 2^{1/4}\frac{\nu^{1/4}}{\sqrt{\lambda}}

785: \ea

786: where $\nu = \frac{2}{9\pi^2}\frac{G^2}{l_s^4}$. The 

787: wavefunction then corresponds to the path integral over the scale factor

788: $a$ and the perturbative modes $t_n$ with the full action as given

789: in Eq.(\ref{act}). We trace over the perturbative modes and get

790: \ba

791: \Psi \simeq e^{\left(\frac{1}{3\lambda} - D \right)}

792: \ea

793: where $D$ is the decoherence term leading to tunneling suppression

794: \ba

795: D \simeq \frac{\nu}{\lambda^2}

796: \ea

797: so the above result leads 

798: to an order O(${1}/{\lambda^2})$ suppression to the Hartle-Hawking

799: wavefunction. This naive (naive because, as it turns out, the backreaction

800: is important and also leads to an O(${1}/{\lambda^2})$ contribution)

801: expectation is indeed vindicated in our calculation of the modified bounce.

802: The more careful calculation changes the coefficient $\ln(2)$, but maintains

803: the inverse square dependence on $\lambda$.

804: 

805: 

806: \section{The Modified Bounce : Including Backreaction}

807: 

808: The bounce solution $S^4$ is a solution to the Euclidean Einstein

809: equation which is obtained as the Euler-Lagrange equation from

810: the Euclidean action $S^E_{0}[a]$. 

811: \ba

812: \label{euc_eins}

813: -2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a} - \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}+\frac{1}{a^2}

814: = 3 \lambda

815: \ea

816: The solution is given by $a(\tau) = 

817: \sqrt{\frac{1}{\lambda}}\cos(\sqrt{\lambda}\tau)$. This is 

818: the bounce in the absence of any perturbation. Including

819: the perturbations, treating them as the environment, and tracing

820: them out (as explained in Eq.(\ref{path},\ref{trace})) will lead to 

821: a modified equation of motion instead

822: of Eq.(\ref{euc_eins}). In this section we derive this modified

823: bounce equation.

824: 

825: Let us consider the effect of the metric perturbations. To find 

826: the modified bounce equation we have to carry out the

827: path integral over the perturbation modes $t_{n}$ is Eq.

828: (\ref{tensor}). Let us write down the path integral for a single

829: tensor perturbation mode

830: \ba

831: \label{PI}

832: \int D[t_{n}(\tau)]\exp \left( -\frac{1}{2}\int_{-T/2}^{T/2}

833: d\tau a^3 [ \dot{t_{n}}^2 + \frac{(n^2 - 1)}{a^2} 

834: t_{n}^2 ] \right)

835: \ea

836: This is a path integral for an oscillator with a varying

837: mass as well as frequency. We can simplify this to a path

838: integral of an oscillator with constant mass and variable

839: frequency (given by $\omega_n (a(u)) = \sqrt{(n^2 -1)}a(u)^2$) 

840: using a new variable $u$

841: \ba

842: du = \frac{d\tau}{a(\tau)^3}

843: \ea

844: The Euclidean action now becomes

845: \ba

846: \label{action}

847: S_{E} = \frac{1}{2}\int_{u_i}^{u_f}du \left( t_{n}'^2 +

848:  (n^2 - 1)a^4t_{n}^2\right) \\ \nonumber

849: = \frac{1}{2}\int_{u_i}^{u_f} du \left( -tt'' + \omega_n^2 t^2

850: \right) + \frac{1}{2} (t{t}'){\Large\bf{ |}}^{u_f}_{u_i}

851: %\int_{u_i}^{u_f} du \frac{d}{du}\left(tt'\right)

852: \ea

853: To keep notation uncluttered, we drop the subscript $n$ for

854: the time being. Let $t = t_{cl} + \hat{t}$, where

855: $t_{cl}$ is a solution to the classical equation of motion

856: for the above action

857: \ba

858: \label{eom}

859: t_{cl}'' - \omega_{n}(a)^2 t_{cl} = 0

860: \ea

861: with $t_{cl}(u_i)=t(u_i)$ and $t_{cl}(u_f)=t(u_f)$. 

862: Here $\hat{t}$ denotes fluctuations about

863: the classical solution with $\hat{t}(u_i)=\hat{t}(u_f)=0$. That is,

864: $(t {t}'){\Large |}^{u_f}_{u_i}= (t_{cl}\hat{t}'){\Large |}^{u_f}_{u_i} + (t_{cl}{t_{cl}}'){\Large |}^{u_f}_{u_i}$.

865: Apriori, the contributions to the path integral 

866: will come from $t_{cl}$ and $\hat t$.

867: Here, the fluctuations $\hat{t}$ will lead to a prefactor. We shall keep

868: track of this prefactor as it will have important contribution

869: to the modified action. Substituting $t = t_{cl} + \hat{t}$ in 

870:  Eq.(\ref{action}), we obtain

871: \ba

872: \label{actionI}

873: S_E = \frac{1}{2}\int_{u_i}^{u_f} du \left( -\hat{t}\hat{t}''

874: + \omega_n^2 \hat{t}^2 \right) + (t_{cl}{t_{cl}}'){\Large\bf{ |}}^{u_f}_{u_i}

875: %\frac{1}{2}\int_{u_i}^{u_f} du \frac{d}{du}(t_{cl}t_{cl}')

876: \ea

877: The second term in the above equation is simply $S_E(t_{cl})$.

878: The path integral in Eq.(\ref{PI}) is, therefore, given by

879: \ba

880: \label{PII}

881: e^{-S_E(t_{cl})} P[{\hat{t}}]=e^{-S_E(t_{cl})} \int^0_0 D[\hat{t}(u)] \exp \left( -\frac{1}{2}\int_{u_i}^{u_f} 

882: du \left( -\hat{t}\hat{t}''+ \omega_n^2 \hat{t}^2 \right)\right)

883: \ea

884: Notice that the prefactor $P[{\hat{t}}]$ is independent of $t(u_i)$ or $t(u_f)$.

885: So the reduced path integral Eq.(\ref{trace}) becomes

886: \ba

887: \label{trace2}

888: Tr[Z] =  \int D[a] \prod_{n} P[{\hat{t_n}}] \int dt_n^i \int dt_n^f \delta(t_n^i - t_n^f) e^{-S_E(t_{n,cl})}

889: \ea

890: We shall first evaluate the integral over $t_n^i=t_n^f$. In Appenxix C we evaluate the prefactor 

891: $P[{\hat{t_n}}]$. It is straightforward to include a scalar field.

892: 

893: Although finding a general solution to Eq.(\ref{eom}) is

894: in general impossible, we note that it has the

895: same form as the Schrodinger equation for a particle in

896: a potential $\omega_n (a(u))$. So for a slowly varying

897: potential we can use the WKB method for finding the solution

898: to Eq.(\ref{eom}). By slowly varying one means that the

899: following condition is satisfied

900: \ba

901: \frac{d\omega_{n}}{d\tau} << \omega_{n}^2

902: \ea

903: This is satisfed by the higher modes $n >> 1$ and we 

904: shall see that these modes are the ones that contribute  

905: to the suppression of quantum tunneling. 

906: (One may be concerned that $ \omega_{n} \to 0$ as $a \to 0$.

907: As we shall see, in contrast to the unperturbed bounce, $a$ actually stays 

908: finite in the modified bounce. In this sense, the WKB approximation is 

909: reasonable.)

910: The two independent WKB solutions to Eq.(\ref{eom}) are

911: \ba

912: \label{class_soln}

913: t_{cl}^{\pm} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\omega_n}}\exp \left( \pm 

914: \int^u du' \omega_n(u')\right)

915: \ea

916: The general solution will be a linear combination of the

917: independent solutions

918: \ba

919: \label{gensol}

920: t_{cl}(u) = At_{cl}^{+}(u) + Bt_{cl}^{-}(u)

921: \ea

922: The values of $A$ and $B$ will depend on the boundary

923: conditions. If Eq.(\ref{gensol}) is to satisfy the 

924: following boundary conditions

925: \ba

926: t_{cl}(u_i) = t^i &  t_{cl}(u_f) = t^f

927: \ea

928: then we have the following values of $A$ and $B$

929: \ba

930: \label{AB}

931: A = \frac{t^f \sqrt{\omega_n(u_f)} - t^i 

932: \sqrt{\omega_n(u_i)}\exp(- D_n)}{(\exp(D_n) - \exp(-D_n))} 

933: \\ \nonumber

934: B = -\frac{t^f \sqrt{\omega_n(u_f)} - t^i 

935: \sqrt{\omega_n(u_i)}\exp(D_n)}{(\exp(D_n) - \exp(-D_n))}

936: \ea

937: where $D_{n}$ is given by

938: \ba

939: \label{D_neq}

940: D_n = \int_{u_i}^{u_f}du ~ \omega_{n}(a(u)) = 

941: \int_{-T/2}^{T/2}d\tau~ \frac{\omega_{n}(a(\tau))}{a(\tau)^3}

942: \ea

943: Next, substituting the solution Eq.(\ref{gensol}), using 

944: Eq.(\ref{AB}), in Eq.(\ref{actionI}), we get

945: \ba

946: \label{S_E}

947: & S_{E}(t_{cl}) = \frac{1}{2} \left( t_{cl}(u_f)\frac{dt_{cl}(u_f)}{du} - 

948: t_{cl}(u_i)\frac{dt_{cl}(u_i)}{du} \right)   \\ \nonumber

949: & = \frac{1}{2(\exp(D_n) - \exp(-D_n))} \left [\left( (t^f)^2 

950: \omega_n(u_f) +(t^i)^2 \omega_n(u_i) \right) \left( \exp(D_n) 

951: + \exp(-D_n)\right) \right. \\ \nonumber &  \left. - 4t^i t^f 

952: \sqrt{\omega_n(u_i)\omega_n(u_f)}

953: \right]

954: \ea 

955: This gives the classical contribution Eq.(\ref{PII}). Note that

956: in order to perform the trace over this perturbation mode, we

957: will be setting $t^i = t^f$, and $\omega_n(u_i) = \omega_n(u_f)$.

958: The path integral over $\hat{t}$ leads to the prefactor. Its evaluation

959: for a time-dependent frequency is explained in Appendix C (Eq.(\ref{go})).  

960: (Equivalently, one may use the Pauli-van Vleck-Morette formula  

961: studied by Barvinsky \cite{Barvinsky:1993nf}). 

962: The prefactor (path integral over $\hat{t}$) gives

963: \ba

964: \label{pre_fac}

965: \int D[\hat{t}(u)] \exp \left( \frac{1}{2}\int_{u_i}^{u_f} 

966: du \left( -\hat{t}\hat{t}'' + \omega_n^2 \hat{t}^2 \right)\right)

967: =  \frac{\sqrt{\omega_n(u_f)}}{\sqrt{\left(\exp(D_n) - \exp(-D_n)\right)}}

968: %\frac{1}{\sqrt{(\exp(D_n) - \exp(-D_n))}}

969: \ea

970: Now the trace over the perturbative modes can be performed by

971: setting $t^i = t^f$ and integrating over the amplitudes $t^i$

972: \ba

973: & \int dt^f \int dt^i \delta(t^i -t^f)\int_{t^i}^{t^f}D[t(u)] \exp 

974: \left( -S_{E}\right) \\ \nonumber

975: = &  \frac{\sqrt{\omega_n(u_f)}}{\sqrt{(\exp(D_n) - \exp(-D_n))}} 

976: \int dt^f \exp\left( -S_{E} [t_{cl}] \right)

977: \\ \nonumber

978: \simeq  & \frac{1}{\sqrt{\left(\exp(D_n) - \exp(-D_n)\right)}}

979: \ea

980: where we used $\int dt^f \exp\left( -S_{E} [t_{cl}]\right) \simeq 1/\sqrt{

981: \omega_n(u_f)}$. Also, note that $D_n >> 1$ for large values of $n$, and 

982: $\left(\exp(D_n) -  \exp(-D_n)\right)^{-1/2} \simeq \exp (-D_n/2)$ . 

983: Finally, one has to  perform this tracing-over over all $n$ modes. 

984: This leads to the following contribution

985: \ba

986: \prod_{n} \frac{1}{\sqrt{(\exp(D_n) - \exp(-D_n))}}\simeq \exp (- \sum\frac{D_n}{2} )

987: \ea

988:  From the expansion in Eq.(\ref{harmo})

989: it is clear that one has to count the indices $n, l, m$  (corresponding 

990: to the spherical harmonics on $S^3$). For a given $n$, $l$ can take 

991: $n-2$ values ($l = 2, 3, ..., n-1$), and for a given $l$, $m$ can take

992: $2l + 1$ values ($m = -l, -l + 1, ...., l - 1, l$). For a given $n$ this

993: introduces a degeneracy of $f(n) \simeq 2 n^2$. The factor of $2$ comes \

994: due to the two tensor modes

995: $t^0_{nlm}$ and $t^e_{nlm}$ in the expansion in Eq.(\ref{harmo}).

996: To proceed further, we need to define the cut-offs. A natural short wavelength 

997: cut-off is the string scale, $l_{s}$. The long wavelength cut-off

998: is the inverse Hubble length.

999: %The number of modes between these two cutoffs is given by $N$

1000: This gives a cut-off for $n$

1001: \ba

1002: \label{N}

1003: n_{max} = N = \left( \frac{H^{-1}}{l_s}\right)=\frac{1}{l_s}\sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda}}

1004: \ea

1005: \ba

1006: D \equiv \sum \frac{D_n}{2}  = \frac{1}{2} \sum^N_{n,l,m} \int_{-T/2}^{T/2}

1007: d\tau \frac{\omega_n(a)}{a^3} 

1008: \ea 

1009: where we have used Eq.(\ref{D_neq}).

1010: Note that 

1011: $\omega_n(a)^2 = (n^2 - 1)a^4$. For higher modes, therefore,

1012: $\omega_n \simeq na^2$. Thus,

1013: \ba

1014: D = \frac{1}{2}\int_{-T/2}^{T/2}\frac{d\tau}{a} \sum^N_{n,l,m} n \\ \nonumber

1015: = \frac{N^4}{8}\int_{-T/2}^{T/2}\frac{d\tau}{a}=\frac{1}{2}\int_{-T/2}^{T/2}{d\tau}\frac{\nu}{\lambda^2a}

1016: \ea

1017: We can also easily generalize to arbitrary number of degrees of freedom, with

1018: \ba

1019: \frac{\nu}{\lambda^2}= \frac{n_{dof} N^4}{4} = \frac{n_{dof}}{4(Hl_s)^4}

1020: \ea

1021: For pure gravity, we have $n_{dof}=2$.

1022: The modifed Euclidean action is, therefore, given by

1023: \ba

1024: \label{bounce}

1025: S_{E,dC}= S_{E,0} + D[a] = \frac{1}{2}\int d\tau

1026: \left( -a\dot{a}^2 - a + \lambda a^3 + \frac{\nu}{\lambda^2 a} \right)

1027: \ea

1028: To evaluate $S_{E,dC}$ via the saddle-point approximation, we have to find the classical path, or the bounce solution, of this effective action.

1029: 

1030: \section{The Bounce Solution}

1031: 

1032: The equation of motion for the Euclidean action,

1033: Eq.(\ref{bounce}), is

1034: \ba

1035: \label{modbounce}

1036: -2\frac{\ddot{a}}{a} - \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}+\frac{1}{a^2}

1037: = 3\lambda - \frac{\nu}{\lambda^2 a^4} 

1038: \ea

1039: This is just the Euclidean version of the Einstein equation with

1040: both a cosmological constant and radiation. As is well known, this 

1041: equation allows for a variety of solutions (M1, M2, A1, A2, E, O1)

1042: \cite{Harrison:1967ab}. One has to be careful in deciding which one

1043: of these is the correct bounce solution.The bounce solution is the 

1044: real solution to the classical Euclidean equation of motion. The M2 

1045: solution satisfies the bounce criteria and is given by 

1046: (in the Euclidean form)

1047: \ba

1048: \label{bouncesol}

1049: a(\tau) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\lambda}} \sqrt{\left( 1 

1050: + \sqrt{\left( 1 - \frac{4 \nu}{\lambda}\right)} \cos 

1051: (2 \sqrt{\lambda}\tau) \right)}

1052: \ea

1053: This solution is the modified bounce and has some interesting 

1054: features.

1055: 

1056: \begin{figure}

1057: \begin{center}

1058: \epsfig{file=barrel.eps, width=3cm}

1059: \vspace{0.1in}

1060: \caption{The Modified Bounce : It is a squashed version of $S^4$ resulting in a ``barrel''.}

1061: \label{fig6}

1062: \end{center}

1063: \end{figure}

1064: 

1065: \begin{itemize}

1066: \item

1067: It is a deformation of the $S^4$ instanton from spherical to barrel-shaped,

1068: with $ - \pi/2 \sqrt{\lambda} \le \tau \le  \pi/2 \sqrt{\lambda}$.

1069: It reduces to the usual $S^4$ instanton when $\nu = 0$, as expected

1070: \ba

1071: a(\tau) \to \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}} \cos (\sqrt{\lambda} \tau)

1072: \ea

1073: Here $\nu$ is the deformation parameter.

1074: \item

1075: For large values of $\nu$ the bounce is destroyed. Presumably, there 

1076: is no more

1077: quantum tunneling because of excessive decoherence. This critical

1078: value of $\lambda$ is given by $\lambda_c= 4 \nu $. 

1079: For tunneling $\lambda > \lambda_c$.

1080: 

1081: %That the deformed $S^4$ has to do with the lifting of ``nothing''  

1082: %can also be seen by noting that the modified bounce corresponds

1083: %to a modified Wheeler-DeWitt equation or, what is equivalent, a

1084: %modified Hamiltonian constraint. This, and the consequence this has

1085: %for the boundedness of the gravitational potential, we explain in the next section. 

1086: 

1087: \end{itemize}

1088: 

1089: \begin{figure}

1090: \begin{center}

1091: \epsfig{file=graphs.eps, width=9cm}

1092: \vspace{0.1in}

1093: \caption{The solid curve is $F= - S_{E,dC}$, 

1094: using the exact value of $\Im$. The dotted curve shows $F$ using 

1095: $\Im \simeq 8/3$. The light flat curve is the 

1096: integral $\Im$, which asymptotes to $8/3$ for large $\lambda$. 

1097: The plots are given with $M_{Pl}/M_s = 10^3$.

1098: The dotted and the solid curves differ only slightly, 

1099: justifying the approximation made.}

1100: %{The solid curve is the negative modified action, $-F$, 

1101: %(Eq.(\ref{modac})) using the exact value of $\Im$ (Eq.(\ref{im1})). 

1102: %The dotted curve shows $-F$ using approximation in Eq.(\ref{im2}). 

1103: %The light flat curve shows the shape of the integral $\Im$. This 

1104: %justifies the approximation made.}

1105: \label{fig7}

1106: \end{center}

1107: \end{figure}

1108: 

1109: The modified Euclidean action can now be calculated. One has to be

1110: careful though to include the O$({\nu}/{\lambda^2})$ contribution

1111: from the $-a\dot{a}^2 - a + \lambda a^3$ part. This contribution

1112:  will add to the O$({\nu}/{\lambda^2})$ contribution from the

1113: $\frac{\nu}{\lambda^2 a(\tau)}$ term and give the total O$({\nu}/{\lambda^2})$ 

1114: modification. We state the final result

1115: \ba

1116: \label{modac}

1117: -F =S_{E,dC} =\left( -\frac{1}{4\lambda} + 

1118: \frac{\nu}{\lambda^2}\right) \Im

1119: \ea 

1120: where $\Im$ is an integral given by

1121: \ba

1122: \label{im1}

1123: \Im = \int_{\frac{-\pi}{2\sqrt{\lambda}}}^{\frac{\pi}

1124: {2\sqrt{\lambda}}}d\tau \left( \frac{\sin^2(2\sqrt

1125: {\lambda}\tau)}{a(\tau)} \right)

1126: \ea

1127:  where $a(\tau)$ is the bounce solution given by Eq.(\ref{bouncesol}). 

1128:  The exact value of $\Im$ involves

1129: an elliptic integral, but we can make a fairly accurate 

1130: estimate and the result is

1131: \ba

1132: \label{im2}

1133: \Im \simeq \frac{8}{3}

1134: \ea

1135: 

1136: For tunneling from nothing, we should consider the barrel to be a deformed $S^4$ with 

1137: the same topology. That is, we should include the contribution of end plates of the barrel 

1138: in the evaluation of $S_{E,dC}$ in Eq.(\ref{modac}). At the end plates, 

1139: $$ a = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \lambda}} \left(1-\sqrt{1 - \frac{4\nu}{\lambda}}\right)^{1/2} > 0$$

1140: However, their contribution to $S_{E,dC}$ is zero because the weighing factor $\sin^2(2\sqrt

1141: {\lambda}\tau)$ in Eq.(\ref{im1}) vanishes at the end plates.

1142: 

1143: As expected, for $\nu = 0$ we get the usual Hartle-Hawking

1144: wavefunction. Now, including the environment,

1145: %Up to a O$({\nu}/{\lambda^2})$, however, the 

1146: the tunneling probability is given by 

1147: %modified wavefunction is just given by

1148: \ba

1149: \label{modwf}

1150: P \simeq e ^{\left(\frac{2}{3\lambda} - \frac{8\nu}{3\lambda^2}\right)}

1151: \ea

1152: For $\lambda \to 0$, higher order decoherence effects should be included.

1153: These effects can come from a more careful treatment of the leading term

1154: we have obtained, or from higher order interaction of the modes with $a$

1155: and among themselves. Quantum effects may become relevant. This is 

1156: especially so at large $\lambda$. Note that $S_{E,dC}$ peaks around

1157: $\lambda = 8 \nu$. So for regions with non-zero tunneling probability, 

1158: $\lambda > \lambda_{c} = 4\nu$. 

1159: 

1160: 

1161: 

1162: \section{The Modified Hamilton Constraint and the Wheeler-DeWitt Equation}

1163: 

1164: The modified action, as given in Eq.(\ref{bounce}), leads to a modified

1165: Hamiltonian constraint. The modified Lorentzian action is given by

1166: \ba

1167: S = \frac{1}{2}\int d\tau \left( - a\dot{a}^2 + a - \lambda a^3 

1168: - \frac{\nu}{\lambda^2 a} \right)

1169: \ea 

1170: The modified Hamiltonian constraint is

1171: \ba

1172: H = \frac{1}{2a}\left( -\Pi_{a}^2 - a^2 + \lambda a^4  

1173: + \frac{\nu}{\lambda^2} \right) = 0

1174: \ea

1175: where $\Pi_a = -a\dot{a}$ is the conjugate momentum. 

1176: Using the Hamiltonian constraint and the equation of motion following from the modified 

1177: Lorentzian action, we have 

1178: \ba

1179: (\frac{\dot a}{a})^2 + \frac{1}{a^2} = \lambda + \frac{\nu}{\lambda^2 a^4} \\ \nonumber

1180: \frac{\ddot a}{a} = \lambda - \frac{\nu}{\lambda^2 a^4}

1181: \ea

1182: Since ${\ddot a}/a= - \sum (\rho_i +3p_i)/2=-\sum \rho_i (1 +3\omega_i)/2$, this implies that 

1183: the new $\nu$ term has equation of state $\omega=1/3$, precisely that of ordinary radiation. 

1184: 

1185: One can write down a differential equation describing the evolution

1186: of the wavefunction - the Wheeler-DeWitt (WdW) equation -by imposing 

1187: the condition as an operator equation. This is quantum gravitational analog of

1188: the Schrodinger equation in quantum mechanics.

1189: \ba

1190: \label{wdw}

1191: -\hat{H}\Psi =

1192: % 0 \nonumber \\

1193: \left( \frac{\hat{\Pi_{a}}^2}{2} + U(a)\right)\Psi = 0 \nonumber 

1194: \ea

1195: where $\hat{\Pi_a} = -i\partial / \partial a$ and $U(a)$ is 

1196: the gravitational potential given by

1197: \ba

1198: U(a) = U_0(a)  - \frac{\nu}{\lambda^2} = a^{2} - \lambda a^4  - \frac{\nu}{\lambda^2}

1199: \ea

1200: Recall the case without the $\nu$ term. 

1201: In the classically forbidden region, i.e., the under-barrier region ${\lambda}^{-1/2} \ge a \ge 0$, 

1202: the WKB solutions for the tunneling amplitude from $a=0$ to $a=\lambda^{-1/2}$ are

1203: \ba

1204: \label{HKWKB}

1205:  \Psi_{\pm} \simeq e^{\pm \int_0^{1/\sqrt{\lambda}} |\hat \Pi(a')| da'}

1206: \ea

1207: %Because the kinetic term in Hamiltonian $\hat H$ is negative. 

1208: Note the Hartle-Hawking no boundary 

1209: prescription requires us to take the positive sign in the exponent in  Eq.(\ref{HKWKB}),

1210: that is, $\Psi_{+}$. This yields the HH wavefunction. 

1211: Including the $\nu$ term is like solving the wave equation 

1212: with a positive (instead of zero) energy eigenvalue $E=\nu/\lambda^2$

1213: (see Figure (\ref{fig8})), 

1214: \ba

1215: \left( \frac{\hat{\Pi_{a}}^2}{2} + U_{0}(a)\right)\Psi(a) = E \Psi (a)   \nonumber 

1216: \ea

1217: The presence of $E>0$ decreases the tunneling amplitude $\Psi_{+}$.

1218: \begin{figure}

1219: \begin{center}

1220: \epsfig{file=pot.eps, width=9cm}

1221: \vspace{0.1in}

1222: \caption{The solid curve is $U_{0}(a)=a^2 -\lambda a^{4}$.

1223: The effect of the new term is simply to raise the energy eigenvalue from $0$ to $E=\nu/\lambda^2>0$.} 

1224: \label{fig8}

1225: \end{center}

1226: \end{figure}

1227: To see the origin of $E$, consider the presence of a generic field $\chi$, so the WdW equation is

1228: crudely given by

1229: \ba

1230: \label{wd}

1231: \left(-\frac{\hat{\Pi_{a}}^2}{2} - U_{0}(a) + \frac{\Pi_{\chi}^2}{2} + \omega (\chi, a)^{2} \right) \Psi(a, \chi) = 0

1232: \ea

1233: Note that the kinetic terms in Eq.(\ref{wd}) have opposite signs. Let 

1234: \ba

1235: \Psi(a, \chi) = \Sigma_{n} \psi_{n}(a) u_{n}(\chi)

1236: \ea

1237: then the above equation can be separated,

1238: \ba

1239: \label{twoeq}

1240: \left(\frac{\Pi_{\chi}^2}{2} + \omega (\chi, a)^{2} \right) u_{n}(\chi)

1241: = \epsilon_{n}(a)u_{n}(\chi) \\ \nonumber

1242: \left(-\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2\psi_{n}}{da^2} + U_{0}(a)\psi_{n}\right)

1243: = \epsilon_{n}(a)  \psi_{n} 

1244: \ea

1245: Taking the ground state, we obtain the zero point energy  $\epsilon_{0}$, with $\Psi(a)=\psi_{0}(a)$. Including the zero point energy of all $\chi$ fields then yields $E$, which turns out to be

1246:  independent of $a$. 

1247: 

1248: If instead, we take $\Psi_{-}$ in Eq.(\ref{HKWKB}), as suggested by 

1249: Linde and Vilenkin \cite{Linde:1984mx} and which is more familiar in quantum mechanics, 

1250: we see that the inclusion of the $\nu$ term enhances tunneling. 

1251: This means interaction with the environment enhances the tunneling amplitude, which is 

1252: counter-intuitive. Furthermore, the highest tunneling probability will go for large $\Lambda$, 

1253: when the semi-classical approximation used here breaks down. 

1254: %To be consistent with ordinary quantum field theory, 

1255: We believe the Hartle-Hawking no boundary prescription is the correct one for the

1256: spontaneous creation of the universe.

1257: 

1258: As we see clearly now, this $\nu$ term plays the role of radiation.

1259: The deformed $S^4$ has, in a sense, allow the spontaneous creation of a universe

1260: with some radiation in it. In pure gravity, this is simply gravitational radiation.

1261: Due to the presence of such radiation, the cosmic

1262: scale factor $a(\tau)$ does not vanish any more at the poles of $S^4$.

1263: In fact, the decoherence has led to a flattening of the two poles.

1264: 

1265: We note that,

1266: in theories with dynamical $\lambda$, there will be momentum terms

1267: associated with $\lambda$ in the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. For example,

1268: if $\lambda$ is associated with the potential energy of some scalar

1269: field $\phi$, then there will be momentum term $\hat{\Pi_{\phi}}$ in

1270: the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. However, the inclusion of such a momentum

1271: term for $\lambda$ is not expected to change the boundedness of the

1272: gravitational potential.

1273:  

1274: 

1275: For large cosmological constant $\Lambda$, the radiation is suppressed. In this case, one 

1276: may ignore it. However, as $\Lambda$ decreases and the size of the universe grows, radiation 

1277: becomes important. More radiation also means stronger suppression of the tunneling, consistent

1278: with the intuitive picture of tunneling while interacting with the environment. It is this suppression that provides a bound to the Euclidean gravity action.

1279:  

1280: 

1281: %To evaluate the above expression further we need to know the number of modes 

1282: %that contribute to the decoherence. There are two natural cut-offs in the 

1283: %problem. The infrared cut-off comes from the Hubble

1284: %length $H^{-1}$. We do not expect larger wavelenths to play any role 

1285: %in the problem. The ultra-violet cut-off comes from the string length 

1286: %$l_{s}$. Since the substcript ``$n$''  really is a shorthand notation

1287: %for ${n,l,m}$, the number of modes between the cutoff scales 

1288: %$H^{-1}$ and $l_{s}$ are :

1289: 

1290: %\baray

1291: %N = \left ( \frac{H^{-1}}{l_{s}} \right ) ^{3}

1292: %\earay

1293: 

1294: %As $N$ will be a large number and $\omega_{n}(\alpha)$ will 

1295: %quickly become much larger than $T^{-1}$, therefore, 

1296: %we can approximate Eq.(\ref{dec}) as

1297: 

1298: %\baray

1299: %\Psi[\alpha] = \int D[\alpha]  

1300: %e^{-I^{E}_{o}[\alpha]} \prod_{n \geq 1} e^{-\omega_{n}(\alpha)T/2}

1301: %\earay

1302: %Doing a steepest descent calculation, this leads to

1303: %\baray

1304: %\Psi[\alpha] = e^{\frac{3\pi}{G\Lambda} - NT <\omega>/2}

1305: %\earay

1306: %where $<\omega>$ is the average frequency given by

1307: %\baray

1308: %<\omega> = \frac{1}{N} \int_{0}^{N} dn \omega(n,\alpha) = \frac{H N}{2}

1309: %\earay

1310: 

1311: \section{Connection to SOUP}

1312: 

1313: In \cite{Firouzjahi:2004mx} we lay out the motivation for SOUP, short

1314: for ``Selection of the Original Universe Principle''. This is an alternate

1315: to the Anthropic Principle.  Since observational evidence of an 

1316: inflationary epoch is very strong,

1317: we suggest that the selection of our particular vacuum state 

1318: follows from the evolution of the inflationary epoch.

1319: That is, our particular vacuum site in the cosmic landscape

1320: must be at the end of a road that an 

1321: inflationary universe will naturally follow. Any vacuum state that

1322: cannot be reached by (or connected to) an inflationary stage can be 

1323: ignored in the search of candidate vacua. That is, the issue of the

1324: selection of our vacuum state becomes the question of the selection 

1325: of an inflationary universe, or the selection of an original universe 

1326: that eventually evolves to an inflationary universe, which then 

1327: evolves to our universe today.

1328: The landscape of inflationary states/universes should be much better 

1329: under control, since the inflationary scale is rather close to

1330: the string scale.

1331: In \cite{Firouzjahi:2004mx} we proposed that, by analyzing all 

1332: known string vacua and string inflationary scenarios, one may 

1333: be able to pin down SOUP. Here, the rate 

1334: of tunneling from nothing (i.e., no classical spacetime) to a 

1335: deSitter universe (much like the inflationary universe) is now

1336: given by $\Gamma \simeq \exp(F)= \exp(-S_{E,dC})$, where

1337: \ba

1338: \label{FS1}

1339: - F = S_{E,dC} = S_{E,0}+ D \simeq -\frac{3 \pi}{G\Lambda} + 

1340: \frac{n_{dof}}{4 \pi^2} \frac{V_4}{l_s^4}

1341: \ea

1342: where $D$ is the decoherence term, $l_s$ is the cut-off scale and $n_{dof}$ is the number of light degrees of freedom.  Here $V_4$ is the 4-volume of the 

1343: instanton. For $S^4$, $V_4 = 8 \pi^2 r^4/3= 24 \pi^2/{\Lambda^2}$ is its area.

1344: In string theory, that cut-off is naturally provided by the string scale.

1345: Note that $S_{E,dC}$ is now bounded from below. 

1346: 

1347: To gain some idea of the magnitude of $F$, we use Eq.(\ref{FS}) to crudely estimate the value of $\Lambda$ with maximum tunneling probability,

1348: \ba

1349: \Lambda_{max} \simeq \frac{4 n_{dof} G}{\pi l_s^4} \nonumber

1350: \ea

1351: so that

1352: \ba

1353:  F_{max} \simeq \frac{3}{2n_{dof}} (2 \pi M_{Pl}  l_s)^4 \nonumber

1354: \ea

1355: For the string scale a few orders of magnitude smaller than $M_{Pl}$, we see that $\Lambda_{max}$ takes a value quite close to that expected in an inflationary universe,

1356: with $F \sim 10^{12}$. On the other hand, the critical value of $\Lambda$ is $\Lambda_c \simeq \Lambda_{max}/2$. For $\Lambda < \Lambda_c$, the barrel-shaped 

1357: instanton is destroyed. At $\Lambda_c$,

1358: $F(\Lambda_c)\simeq 0$, so the tunneling probability at $\Lambda$ close to $\Lambda_c$ is already negligibly small compared to that at $\Lambda_{max}$.

1359: Tunneling to a supersymmetric vacuum is totally suppressed.

1360: For $l_s$ around the $TeV$ scale \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs}, we find that 

1361: $\Lambda_{max}$ is quite close to today's dark energy value. This is similar in spirit to Ref\cite{Hsu:2004jt}. 

1362: However, this scenario will imply that our universe has not really gone through the 

1363: whole hot big bang and certainly not the standard inflationary epoch.

1364: 

1365: The key tool is the modified bounce. Although we only deal with the 

1366: $S^4$ instanton and its modification 

1367: in this paper, one can easily generalize this analysis to higher dimensions.

1368: We expect the form of the tunneling probability to be 

1369: $P \sim e^F$, with $F = -S_{E,dC}= -S_E -D$. In $10$-D, 

1370: \ba

1371: \label{new10S}

1372: S_{E,dC} \simeq S_{E,10}  + c \left(\frac{V_{10}}{l_s^{10}}\right)

1373: \ea

1374: where $S_{E,10}$ is the 10-D Euclidean action determined in mini-superspace and 

1375: $V_{10}$ is the 10-dimensional volume of the instanton. 

1376: In effective $4$-D theory, $S_{E,10}$ reduces to $-{3 \pi}/{G\Lambda}$,

1377: since 

1378: $$8 \pi G = M_{Pl}^{-2}=\frac{g_s^2 l_s^8}{4 \pi V_6}$$ 

1379: where $V_6$ is the 6-D compactification volume.

1380: (Recall $\alpha^{\prime}=M_s^{-2}=(l_s/2 \pi)^2$.)

1381: The constant $c$ has to be calculated for each vacuum and will

1382: depend on the details of the vacuum.

1383: To get an order of magnitude estimate of $c$ we have, by comparing to the 4-D case,

1384: \ba

1385: c \simeq \frac{n_{dof}}{ \pi} \frac{1}{M_{Pl}^2 l_s^2 g_s^2}

1386: \ea

1387: so we expect $c$ to be small.

1388: In \cite{Firouzjahi:2004mx} we have considered such instantons. We did

1389: not do a careful calculation of $\nu$ then, that has been the main 

1390: content of the present paper, but we phenomenologically guesstimated a 

1391: possible range for its values and calculated the creation probabilities for various

1392: vacua in the cosmic landscape. 

1393:  Among all the known string vacua, we find that the universe 

1394: most likely to be created is a KKLMMT type inflationary vacuum. 

1395: (For details, we refer the reader

1396: to \cite{Firouzjahi:2004mx}.) The probabilities calculated were very

1397: robust and did not depend on the exact value of $c$. 

1398: Changing from $V_9$ to $V_{10}$ does not change the overall qualitative results. 

1399: Therefore, we expect the conclusions to stay the same.

1400: 

1401: There are some minor differences.

1402: There we find that tunneling to a universe with today's dark energy is very much suppressed.

1403: Here we see that the cosmological constant corresponding to today's dark energy is actually 

1404: below the critical value, so tunneling directly to today's universe is simply zero.

1405: A more careful calculation based on Eq.(\ref{new10S}) is clearly needed.

1406: However, the important point

1407: is that one can calculate it, at least in principle, for any

1408: given vacuum and, therefore, compare their probabilities. This would

1409: be a huge improvement over the Anthropic Principle. \\

1410: 

1411:  One can calculate the tunnelling probability to $S^{10}$ using 

1412: Eq.(\ref{new10S}). For $S^{10}$, $S_{E,10} = \frac{\Lambda V_{10}}

1413: {32 \pi G_{10}}$, where $V_{10} = \frac{2^{11} 5! \pi^5}{10!}/

1414: {H^{10}}$, is the volume of $S^{10}$. Note that for $S^{10}$,

1415: $H^2 = \Lambda/ 36$. Without branes, the solution we consider is a 10D supersymmetric vacuum.

1416: Tunneling to this vacuum is suppressed. Next we consider tunneling to a deSitter-like vacuum. 

1417: Let there be $N$ $D9$ brane-antibrane pairs

1418: in the $S^{10}$. So 

1419: \ba

1420: \Lambda = 2N \times 8\pi G_{10} \times \frac{M_s^{10}}{(2\pi)^9 g_s}

1421: = \frac{g_s M_s^2 N}{(2\pi)^4}

1422: \ea

1423: Maximizing $F$ in terms of $N$ gives

1424: \ba

1425: N = \frac{5 n_{dof}(2\pi)^6}{g_s}\left( \frac{M_s}{M_{Pl}}\right)^2

1426: \ea

1427: This means $N = 1$ is a reasonable choice for

1428: %$n_{dof} = 2$, 

1429: $g_s \sim 1$, and $M_s/M_{Pl} = 10^{-3}$. One can then calculate $F$ for $N = 1$ for $S^{10}$. 

1430: In this case, $F$ is dominated by $S_{E,0}$. One gets 

1431: \ba

1432: F(S^{10}) \simeq -S_{E,0}(S^{10}) = \frac{2^{11}~ 5!~ (36 \pi)^5}{10!} \simeq 4 \times 10^{9}

1433: \ea

1434: 

1435: Following Ref\cite{Firouzjahi:2004mx}, we see that other related geometries such as $S^5 \times S^5$, $S^4 \times S^6$, $S^4 \times S^3 \times S^3$ etc. have slightly smaller but similar values of $F$.

1436: 

1437: For a KKLMMT-like inflationary universe, the choice of fluxes fixes the string scale as well as 

1438: the scale of inflation, where $G$ and the density perturbation measured in the cosmic microwave background radiation are used as input parameters. Using Eq.(\ref{FS1}) and $\Lambda = 8\pi G \rho_{vac}$, where the compactified volume has been absorbed into $G$, 

1439: one can rewrite Eq.(\ref{FS1}) so

1440: \ba

1441: F = \frac{3}{8}\left( \frac{\sqrt{8\pi}M_{Pl}}{\rho_{vac}^{1/4}}\right)^4 - \frac{3}{4 (2\pi)^6} \left( \frac{M_{s}}{\sqrt{8\pi}M_{Pl}}\right)^4 \left( \frac{\sqrt{8\pi}M_{Pl}}{\rho_{vac}^{1/4}}\right)^8

1442: \ea

1443: Plugging in the above mentioned values for the mass scales, we get $F$. 

1444: For a typical choice of fluxes that would give $M_s \sim 10^{15}$GeV and an inflationary scale $\rho_{vac}^{1/4} \sim 10^{14}$GeV, with the Planck mass $M_{Pl} \sim 10^{18}$GeV, one gets

1445:  $$F \sim 10^{16}$$

1446:  for a realistic brane inflationary scenario.

1447: This big increase in $F$ from the 10D scenario is a result of the decrease in the effective cosmological constant due to the warping of the geometry. By varying the RR and the NS-NS fluxes, one can maximize $F$ in a way which is not possible in 10D.  Of course, this value is sensitive to the details of the model. A more careful calculation will be important.

1448: 

1449: \section{Discussion}

1450: 

1451: Let us make some comments here.

1452: 

1453: \itemize

1454: 

1455: \item The loop correction to the Euclidean action has been calculated before

1456: \cite{Hawking:1976ja,Gibbons:1978ji}. It has the form

1457: $\log(\Lambda/\mu)$, so $S_E$ becomes 

1458: $$S_E= - \frac{3 \pi}{G\Lambda}  \to  - \frac{3 \pi}{G\Lambda}\left(1 + \beta G\Lambda\log(\Lambda/\mu)\right)$$

1459: where $\beta$ measures the number of fields involved.

1460: Ref\cite{Barvinsky:1992dz} considers the metric perturbation also; however, 

1461: they then relate it to the one-loop contribution, yielding the above result.

1462: Note that this loop correction does not solve the boundedness problem in the

1463: HH wavefunction. Its implications on probability of inflation has also been

1464: discussed (see \cite{Barvinsky:1996ce} and the references therein). 

1465:  

1466: \item Decoherence effects are to be distinguished from the 

1467: particle creation effects that have been discussed in the literature

1468: \cite{Rubakov:1984bh}.

1469: Particle creation effects arise at the one-loop level, while the

1470: decoherence effect discussed here is a back-reaction improved quantum correction. 

1471: 

1472: \item Back reaction is crucial in obtaining the decoherence term. This reminds one of the 

1473: situation in quantum field theory, where

1474: a simple 1-loop correction to the coupling takes on new significance when it is 

1475: renormalization group improved. 

1476: 

1477: \item Integrating out the environment provides a new interaction term for

1478: the cosmic scale factor $a$ in the Einstein equation. This decoherence term 

1479: behaves just like ordinary radiation and generates an effective term in the Euclidean action for the instanton. 

1480: The presence of this term provides the lower bound to the resulting Euclidean gravity.

1481: 

1482: %\item It is interesting to note that in terms of the string coupling $g_s$, an

1483: %O$({\nu}/{\lambda^2})$ correction to the Euclidean

1484: %action corresponds to an order O$({g_s^{2}})$ correction.

1485: %This is a novel feature. ?

1486: 

1487: \item The correction to the Hartle-Hawking wavefunction 

1488: results in a decrease in the Euclidean action. If we are

1489: to interpret the Euclidean action as the entropy, then

1490: there is a decrease in the entropy due to decoherence.

1491: This is in accordance with the Bekenstein bound on entropy.

1492: A pure deSitter space provides the upper bound on entropy.

1493: Decoherence, which is due to the inclusion of extra degrees

1494: of freedom, then leads to a lower entropy respecting the entropy bound.

1495: 

1496: \item Once the inflationary universe is created, inflation simply red-shifts 

1497: the radiation so the radiation term quickly becomes negligible.  

1498: It seems that the initial radiation is present just to suppress the tunneling.

1499: 

1500: \item It is interesting to speculate what happens after inflation.

1501: Towards the end of inflation, the inflaton field (or the associated

1502: tachyon mode) rolls down to the bottom of the inflaton potential. The

1503: universe is expected to be heated up to start the hot big bang epoch.

1504: It is not unreasonable to expect the wavefunction of the universe to be

1505: a linear superposition of many vacua (say, a billion of them) at the

1506: foothill of the inflaton potential. This is like a Bloch wavefunction

1507: as proposed in Ref\cite{Kane:2004ct}. Since tunneling happens only

1508: between vacua with (semi-)positive cosmological constants, this

1509: wavefunction should be a superposition of vacua with only positive

1510: cosmological constants. The ground state energy of this wavefunction is

1511: expected to be much smaller than the average vacuum energy, a property

1512: of Bloch wavefunctions. As the universe evolves, tunneling among the

1513: vacua will become suppressed, due to cooling as well as decoherence.

1514: Eventually, the environment collapses the wavefunction to a single

1515: vacuum. Since the Bloch wavefunction is able to sample many vacua, it

1516: is natural to expect that it will collapse to the vacuum state with the

1517: smallest positive vacuum energy within teh sample. This may partly

1518: explain why the dark energy is so small.

1519: 

1520: \item In terms of recent work on the statistics of the landscape 

1521: \cite{Kachru:2003aw,Douglas:2003um},

1522: one may view our work as providing a measure to the counting

1523: of vacua. Each vacuum is weighted with its probability of tunneling 

1524: from nothing. Since the exponent of the tunneling probability can 

1525: differ by many orders of magnitude, this is likely to be the dominant 

1526: contribution to the measure. We argue that a 4-dimensional inflationary 

1527: universe very much like ours has large probability; this implies that vacua

1528: that cannot be reached after inflation should have vanishing measure.

1529: 

1530: \item The effect of decoherence on other tunneling problems in quantum gravity

1531: should be re-examined. These include tunneling in eternal inflation, the 

1532: Coleman-deLuccia tunneling etc.

1533: 

1534: 

1535: \section{Summary and Remarks}

1536:      

1537: We address a number of questions in this paper.

1538: 

1539: First we ask what happens to the well known

1540: $S^4$ bounce solution to the Euclidean Einstein equations 

1541: when the perturbations to the metric are taken into account. 

1542: How does the bounce change as a result?

1543: In particular, is there a parameter

1544: characterizing the perturbations that describes the modification

1545: of the bounce? Is there a range of this parameter that destroys 

1546: the bounce altogether? 

1547: 

1548: To answer the first question, we apply the path integral

1549: techniques to trace out the perturbations. The result is summarized in the introduction.

1550: Taking back-reaction into account, the Euclidean action now includes an additional term that encapsulates

1551: the effect of the perturbations. Depending on the value of the 

1552: parameter $c$ or equivalently $\nu$, the bounce gets deformed. For a fairly

1553: large range of this parameter, the effect is to just deform the bounce

1554: solution. Since this contribution is always positive, the tunneling

1555: is always suppressed. At a critical value, the bounce is destroyed. One 

1556: may interpret that tunneling is forbidden in this limit. 

1557: 

1558: Next, we ask what these perturbations do to the

1559: boundedness of the Euclidean gravitational action. As is well known,

1560: the Euclidean gravitational action for a closed spacetime is not

1561: bounded from below for theories with a dynamical cosmological constant. 

1562: This manifests, for example, as the infinite peaking of

1563: the wavefunction of the universe at the vanishing value of $\Lambda$.  

1564: Does the inclusion of the perturbations change anything here? 

1565: 

1566: To answer this question, we see that the effect of the perturbations is

1567: to change the wavefunction of the universe from $\exp (3\pi/G\Lambda)$

1568: to $\exp (3\pi/G\Lambda - C/\Lambda^2)$ where $c$ depends on the 

1569: particular perturbations that we are looking at. So, at least for

1570: the problem at hand, the inclusion of the perturbations and their back reaction makes the

1571: Euclidean action bounded from below. This renders the wavefunction 

1572: normalizable. In the study of tunneling, it makes no sense

1573: to talk about gravity without taking into account the perturbations 

1574: to the metric. In this sense, quantum gravity is consistent as long as 

1575: we are careful to include the effects of the perturbative modes which are 

1576: always present.

1577: 

1578: Once we have a sensible wavefunction, we can now go ahead and 

1579: apply it to the cosmic landscape in string theory. Since Euclidean action and 

1580: tunneling probability are both dimensionless, we can compare the tunneling 

1581: from nothing to any point in the landscape and find the sites that have the largest 

1582: probability. This program hopefully will allow us to understand why we are 

1583: where we are, without resorting to the anthropic principle.

1584: 

1585:   

1586: \vspace{0.5cm}

1587: 

1588: {\large{\bf{Acknowledgments}}}\\

1589: 

1590: We thank Faisal Ahmad, Andrei Barvinski, Spencer Chang, Jacques Distler, 

1591: Hassan Firouzjahi, Lerrain Friedel, Jim Hartle, Gordy Kane, Louis Leblond, Andrei Linde, 

1592: Juan Maldacena, Gautam Mandal, Liam McAllister, Lubos Motl, 

1593: Hirosi Ooguri, Koenraad Schalm,  Jan Pieter van der Schaar, Jim Sethna,  Sarah Shandera, Gary Shiu, Ben Shlaer

1594: and  Cumrun Vafa for useful discussions. This work is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-009831.

1595: 

1596: \vspace{0.5cm}

1597: 

1598: \appendix

1599: 

1600: \section{A Quantum Mechanical Example}

1601: 

1602: To see the basic idea, recall the quantum tunneling of the system

1603: \ba

1604: L_0= \frac{M}{2} {\dot q}^2 -V(q)

1605: \ea

1606: with a quartic $V(q)$ as shown in Fig. 2. The tunneling rate 

1607: $\Gamma$ from the local minimum at $q=0$ to the exit point 

1608: $q=q_0$ is well-known,

1609: \ba

1610: \Gamma &=& A \exp (-S_0) \nonumber \\

1611: S_0 &=& \int^{q_0} \sqrt{2MV(q)} dq =\int  \left 

1612: (\frac{M}{2} {\dot q}^2 +V(q) \right) d\tau

1613: \ea

1614: where $\tau$ is the Euclidean time and $S_0$ is the bounce, 

1615: i.e., the instanton solution \cite{Coleman:1977py}.

1616: This WKB approximation is good provided that the height of 

1617: the barrier is larger than $\om_0$, where 

1618: $$M \om_0^2 =  \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial q^2}|_{q=0}$$

1619: Note that, for $V(q)$ bounded from below, $S_0$ is bounded 

1620: from below, as required by consistency.

1621: In a more realistic situation, the particle interacts with 

1622: the environment. Typically, this introduces a frictional force, 

1623: so the corresponding classical equation is given by

1624: \ba

1625: M{\ddot q} + \eta {\dot q} + \frac{\partial V}{\partial q} = 0

1626: \ea

1627: The impact of such a frictional term on the particle is to 

1628: suppress the tunneling rate. Consider the following system

1629: \ba

1630: L= \frac{M}{2} {\dot q}^2 -V(q) + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\al} m_{\al} 

1631: \left({\dot x_{\al}}^2 - \om_{\al}^2 x_{\al}^2\right)

1632: -q \sum_{\al} C_{\al}x_{\al} -\frac{1}{2}M (\delta \om)^2 q^2

1633: \ea

1634: where one may consider $q$ to be the system and the $x_{\al}$ to 

1635: be the environment. The last term is a counter term introduced to 

1636: correct the shift in frequency,

1637: \ba 

1638: M (\delta \om)^2 &=&  \sum_{\al} \frac{C^2_{\al}}{m_{\al} \om^2_{\al}} 

1639: \ea

1640: The interactions of $q$ with the $x_{\al}$ introduces the friction term

1641: \ba

1642: \eta = \frac{\pi}{2} \sum_{\al} \frac{C_{\al}^2}{m_{\al} \om_{\al}^2} 

1643: \delta(\om_{\al }-\om) 

1644: \ea

1645: for $\om$ smaller than some critical $\om_c$.

1646: 

1647: The tunneling rate of this sytem can be easily found \cite{Sethna:1981dr,Caldeira:1982uj} 

1648: that the bounce $S_0$ increases to

1649: \ba

1650: S \simeq S_0 \left( 1 + \frac{\eta}{2M \om_0}\right)

1651: \ea

1652: That is, the interaction with the environment, or the friction, 

1653: suppresses the tunneling rate. This qualitative feature remains 

1654: true when the environment and its interaction with the

1655: system is more complicated.

1656: 

1657: 

1658: 

1659: \section{Calculations on the Squashed $S^4$}

1660: 

1661: This appendix gives details for Section $3$. We show how

1662: we perform the path integral over the $t_n$ mode.

1663: The solution to Eq.(\ref{t_n}) satisfying the initial condition 

1664: $t_n (x = 1 - \delta) = t_n^i$, and the final condition 

1665: $t_n (x = -1 + \delta) = t_n^f$,  is given by

1666: \ba

1667: \label{tnx}

1668: t_n(x) = \frac{F_n(x)}{\sqrt{1 - x^2}} 

1669: = \frac{A P^{-n}_{1}(x) + B Q^{n}_{1}(x)}{\sqrt{1 - x^2}}

1670: \ea 

1671: where $A$ and $B$ are given by

1672: \ba

1673: \label{AB}

1674: A = \sqrt{2\delta - \delta^2}\frac{t_n^i Q^n_{1}(-1 + \delta) - t_n^f 

1675: Q^n_{1}(1 - \delta)}{ P^{-n}_1(1 - \delta) Q^n_{1}(-1 + \delta) - 

1676:  P^{-n}_1(-1 + \delta) Q^n_{1}(1 - \delta)} \\ \nonumber

1677: B = - \sqrt{2\delta - \delta^2}\frac{t_n^i P^{-n}_{1}(-1 + \delta) - t_n^f 

1678: P^{-n}_{1}(1 - \delta)}{ P^{-n}_1(1 - \delta) Q^n_{1}(-1 + \delta) - 

1679:  P^{-n}_1(-1 + \delta) Q^n_{1}(1 - \delta)}

1680: \ea

1681: 

1682: The trace operation is defined as doing the following

1683: \ba

1684: \int dt_n^i \int dt_n^f \delta (t_n^i - t_n^f)\int^{(t_n^{initial} 

1685: = t_n^i)}_ {(t_n^{final} = t_n^f)}

1686: D[t_n] \exp \left( S^n_E [t_n(x)]\right)

1687: \ea

1688: 

1689: Since our purpose finally is to take to trace over the $t_n$ mode, we can

1690: set $t_n^i = t_n^f$ at this stage. The Euclidean action due to the $n$th 

1691: mode is then

1692: \ba

1693: S_{E}^{n} & = & \frac{1}{2} \left[a(\tau)^3 t_n \frac{dt_n}{d\tau}  

1694: \right]_{x = (1 - \delta)}^{x = (-1 + \delta)} \\ \nonumber

1695: & = & \frac{1}{2} \left[xF_n^2 + (1 -x^2)F_n\frac{dF_n}{dx}  

1696: \right]_{x = (1 - \delta)}^{x = (-1 + \delta)}

1697: \ea

1698: 

1699: Using Eq.(\ref{tnx}, \ref{AB}) and the symmetry properties of

1700: the associate Legendre functions

1701: \ba

1702: P^{-n}_1(-x) = - P^{-n}_1(x), &  \quad & Q^{n}_1(-x) = Q^{n}_1(x) \\ \nonumber

1703: \partial_{x}P^{-n}_1(-x) = \partial_{x}P^{-n}_1(-x), & \quad &

1704: \partial_{x}Q^{n}_1(-x) = - \partial_{x}Q^{n}_1(x)

1705: \ea

1706: one gets the following action

1707: \ba

1708: S_{E}^{n} = \delta(2 -\delta) \left[ (1 - \delta) + \delta(2 -\delta)

1709: \frac{\partial_{x}Q^{n}_1(1 -\delta)}{Q^{n}_1(1 -\delta)}\right] (t_n^i)^2

1710: \ea

1711: Next we must find the prefactor to the path integral for $t_n$.

1712: This can be found as explained in the Appendix C. The prefactor 

1713: is given by $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi g_n(-1 + \delta)}}$, where $g_n(x)$

1714: is a solution to Eq.(\ref{t_n}), i.e.

1715: $ g_n(x)= \frac{C P^{-n}_{1}(x) + D Q^{n}_{1}(x)}{\sqrt{1 - x^2}}$, 

1716: and it satisfies the following conditions

1717: \ba

1718: g_n(1 -\delta) = 0, \quad \partial_x g_n(1 -\delta) = 1

1719: \ea

1720: It is easy to check that such a solution to Eq.(\ref{t_n}) 

1721: has the following values

1722: of $C$ and $D$

1723: \ba

1724: C = \sqrt{2\delta - \delta^2} \frac{Q^n_1(1-\delta)}{ Q^n_{1}(1 - \delta)

1725: \partial_x P^{-n}_1(1 - \delta) 

1726:  - P^{-n}_1(1 - \delta) \partial_x Q^n_{1}(1 - \delta)} \\ \nonumber

1727: D = - \sqrt{2\delta - \delta^2} \frac{P^{-n}_1(1-\delta)}{ Q^n_{1}(1 - \delta)

1728: \partial_x P^{-n}_1(1 - \delta) 

1729:  - P^{-n}_1(1 - \delta) \partial_x Q^n_{1}(1 - \delta)}

1730: \ea

1731: The prefactor is then given by

1732: \ba

1733: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi g_n(-1 + \delta)}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi}}

1734: \sqrt{\left( \frac{\partial_xQ^n_1(1-\delta)}{Q^n_1(1-\delta)} 

1735: - \frac{\partial_xP^{-n}_1(1-\delta)}{P^{-n}_1(1-\delta)} \right)}

1736: \\ \nonumber

1737: = \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi}} \frac{\sqrt{Q^n_1(1 -\delta) P^n_1(1 - \delta) (2\delta- \delta^2)}}{2^n} \sqrt{\frac{\Gamma\left( \frac{2-n}{2}\right) \Gamma\left( \frac{3-n}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left( \frac{2+ n}{2}\right) \Gamma\left( \frac{3+n}{2}\right)} }

1738: \ea

1739: 

1740: 

1741: \section{Path Integral of an Oscillator with variable 

1742: mass and variable frequency}

1743: 

1744: Here we review some basic properties of path integral and apply them to the evaluation of the 

1745: prefactor in Eq.(\ref{PII}). To be concrete, we shall follow Ref\cite{Felsager:1981iy}.

1746: Consider an oscillator with mass $m(t)$ and frequency $\omega(t)$. What

1747: we have in mind, in particular, is a case like Eq.(\ref{PI}) which

1748: describes the path integral for a tensor mode (in Euclidean spacetime).

1749: Comparing Eq.(\ref{PI}) with this appendix, the time dependent mass

1750: would be $a(t)^3$ and the time dependent frequency would be

1751: ${(n^2 -1)}/{a^2}$ .  

1752: We would like to evaluate the propagator $K(x_f,T | x_i, 0)$. The action

1753: is given by

1754: \baray

1755: & S = \int_{o}^{T} dt \left( \frac{1}{2} m \left( \frac{dX}{dt}\right)^2 

1756: - \frac{1}{2} m \omega(t)^2 X^2 \right) 

1757: \earay

1758: The problem can be simplified by introducing a new "time" variable $u$ so as to map the 

1759: present problem to that of an oscillator with unit mass and variable frequency: 

1760: \baray

1761: \label{defnu}

1762: du = \frac{dt}{m(t)}

1763: \earay

1764: In terms of $u$ the action becomes

1765: \baray

1766: & S = \frac{1}{2} \int_{u_i}^{u_f} du \left( \left( \frac{dX}{du}\right)^2 

1767: - \Omega(u)^2 X^2 \right)

1768: \earay

1769: that is, the action for an oscillator with unit mass and variable 

1770: frequency $\Omega(u)$. As this is quadratic in $X(u)$, we can 

1771: expand around a classical solution, $X = x_{cl} + x$, where the classical 

1772: solution $x_{cl}(u)$ satisfies the equation of motion

1773: \ba

1774: \label{class_eqn}

1775: \frac{d^2 x_{cl}(u)}{du^2} + \Omega(u)^2 x_{cl}(u) = 0

1776: \ea

1777: where $\Omega(u)$ depends on $n$. For example,

1778: for the $n$th tensor field perturbation, $\Omega(u) = (n^2 -1)a(u)^4$. 

1779: One can use the above solution for $x_{cl}$, where $x_{cl}(u_i)=X(u_i)$ and 

1780: $x_{cl}(u_f)=X(u_f)$, to calculate the classical action $S[x_{cl}]$. This gives the

1781: saddle point value of the path integral. Following the discussion in Sec. 5, 

1782: the prefactor of the propagator is given by:

1783: \baray

1784: \label{prefactor}

1785: & \int_{x(u_i)=0}^{x(u_f)=0}D[x(t)] \exp \left[ \frac{i}{2} \int_{u_i}^{u_f}du

1786: \left(\left( \frac{dx}{du}\right)^2 - \Omega(u)^2 x^2  \right) \right] 

1787: \earay

1788: 

1789: By a further change of variables, we can change the action to a free

1790: particle action. To do so, let $g(u)$ be a solution of the 

1791: equation of motion (\ref{class_eqn})

1792: %\baray

1793: %\label{defng}

1794: %\frac{d^2 g(u)}{dt^2} + \Omega(u)^2 g(u) = 0

1795: %\earay

1796: such that $g(u)$ does not vanish at the initial end point

1797: \baray

1798: g(u_i) \neq 0

1799: \earay

1800: implying that $g(u)$ is not a path in Eq.(\ref{prefactor}).

1801: Define the following transformation of variables

1802: \baray

1803: \label{defny}

1804:  x(u) = g(u) \int_{u_i}^{u}\frac{y'(s)}{g(s)}ds=g(u)F(u)

1805: \earay

1806: where the function $y(u)$ obeys $y(u_i) = 0$. 

1807: Differentiating Eq.(\ref{defny}), one finds the inverse transformation

1808: \baray

1809: & y(u) = x(u) - \int_{u_i}^{u}\frac{g'(s)}{g(s)}x(s)ds

1810: \earay 

1811: In terms of the $y$ variable, we have:

1812: \baray

1813: & \left( \frac{d^2}{du^2} + \Omega(u)^2 \right)x(u) = \left(g''(u) 

1814: + \Omega(u)^2 g(u) \right) \int_{u_i}^{u}\left[ \frac{y'(s)}

1815: {g(s)}\right]ds \\ \nonumber

1816: & + \frac{g'(u)y'(u)}{g(u)} + y''(u) = \frac{g'(u)y'(u)}{g(u)} +   y''(u)

1817: \earay

1818: %But here the first term on the right vanishes due to Eq.(\ref{defng}). So,

1819: so the action becomes

1820: \baray

1821: & S[x(u)] = -\frac{1}{2} \int_{u_i}^{u_f}du \left[ F(u)g'(u)y'(u)+ 

1822: F(u)g(u)y''(u)\right]

1823: \earay

1824: %with $F(u) = \int_{u_i}^{u}ds\frac{y'(s)}{g(s)}$. 

1825: Keeping in mind that $x(u)$ vanishes at the boundaries (see Eq.(\ref{prefactor})), 

1826: a further partial integration then leads to

1827: \baray

1828: & S[x(t)] = \frac{1}{2}\int_{u_i}^{u_f}du \left[ \frac{dy}{du} \right]^2

1829: \earay

1830: This is just a free particle action, with boundary conditions

1831: %However the boundary condition for this free particle at $u = u_f$ is nonlocal

1832: \baray

1833: & y(u_i) = 0 ~~ ; \quad & y(u_f) = \int_{u_i}^{u_f}ds \frac{y'(s)}{g(s)} = 0

1834: \earay

1835: To impose the (non-local) boundary condition $x(u_f) = y(u_f)=0$, we introduce

1836: \baray

1837: & \delta(x(u_f)) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int d\alpha ~ e^{-i \alpha x(u_f)}

1838: \earay

1839: The path integral can now be written as

1840: \baray

1841: &\int_{x(u_i)=0}^{x(u_f)=0} D[x(u)]\exp \left(iS[x(u)] \right)   

1842: = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{x(u_i)=0}^{x(u_f)~arbitrary} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}

1843: d\alpha  D[y(u)] \nonumber \\  & \det \left[ \frac{\delta x}{\delta y}\right].

1844: \exp \left[-i \alpha g(u_f)\int_{u_i}^{u_f}ds 

1845: \frac{y'(s)}{g(s)} \right]. \exp \left[  \frac{i}{2}\int_{u_i}^{u_f}du

1846: \left( \frac{dy}{du}\right)^2\right]  

1847: \earay

1848: 

1849: As the transformation between $x(u)$ and $y(u)$ is linear, the Jacobian

1850: $\det \left[ \frac{\delta x}{\delta y}\right]$ is independent of $y(u)$.

1851: To carry out the above path integral, we just have to complete the 

1852: square by the use of the new variable

1853: \baray

1854: & \gamma(u) = y(u) - \alpha ug(u_f) \int_{u_i}^{u}\frac{ds}{g(s)}

1855: \earay

1856: The above path integral thus becomes

1857: \baray

1858:  ... &= \frac{1}{2\pi} \det \left[ \frac{\delta x}{\delta y}\right] 

1859: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\alpha \exp \left[ -\frac{i}{2}\alpha^2 

1860: g(u_f)^2 \int_{u_i}^{u_f}\frac{du}{g(u)^2} \right] \\ \nonumber 

1861: & \int_{\gamma(u_i)=0}^

1862: {\gamma(u_f)arbitrary} D[\gamma(u)] \exp \left[ \frac{i}{2}

1863: \int_{u_i}^{u_f} \left( \frac{d\gamma}{du}\right)^2 \right]

1864: \earay

1865: 

1866: It is easy to carry out the $\alpha$ integral. To do the remaining 

1867: path integral, one just has to notice that it represents the 

1868: probability amplitude for finding the particle

1869: {\it anywhere} at the  time $u_f$. This probability is obviously $1$.

1870: \baray

1871: & \int_{\gamma(u_i)=0}^

1872: {\gamma(u_f)} D[\gamma(u)] \exp \left[ \frac{i}{2}

1873: \int_{u_i}^{u_f} \left( \frac{d\gamma}{du}\right)^2 \right]

1874: \\ \nonumber & = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dx K(x, u_f | 0, u_i) = 1 

1875: \earay

1876: where $\gamma(u_f)$ is arbitrary. Therefore, we have 

1877: \baray

1878: & \int_{x(u_i)=0}^{x(u_f)=0}D[x(t)] \exp \left[ \frac{i}{2} \int_{u_i}^{u_f}du

1879: \left(\left( \frac{dx}{du}\right)^2 - \Omega(u)^2 x^2  \right) \right] \\ \nonumber

1880: & = \det \left[ \frac{\delta x}{\delta y}\right] \sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi 

1881: i g(u_f)^2 \int_{u_i}^{u_f}\frac{ds}{g(s)^2}}}

1882: \earay

1883: 

1884: It remains to find the value of the Jacobian. It can be found by a discretization

1885: process. The paths $x(u)$ and $g(u)$ can be replaced by the multidimensional points

1886: $(x_0, x_1, ..., x_N)$ and $(y_0, y_1,..., y_N)$ with $x_k = x(u_k)$ and

1887: $y_k = y(u_k)$. The linear transformation can then be approximated as

1888: \baray

1889: y_n & = & x_n - \frac{T}{N}\sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{g'(u_k)}{g(u_k)} 

1890: \frac{x_k + x_{k-1}}{2} 

1891: \earay

1892: Then,

1893: \baray

1894:  J_N = \det \left[ \frac{\partial y_i}{\partial x_j} \right] 

1895:  = \prod_{k=1}^{N}\left( 1 - \frac{1}{2} \frac{g'(u_k)}{g(u_k) \frac{T}{N}} \right)

1896: \earay

1897: Taking the $N \to \infty$ limit, one gets

1898: \baray

1899:  \det \left[\frac{\delta y}{\delta x}\right] =  \exp \left[ -\frac{1}{2}

1900: \int_{u_i}^{u_f}du \frac{g'(u)}{g(u)} \right]  = 

1901: \sqrt{\frac{g(u_i)}{g(u_f)}} 

1902: \earay

1903: So the path integral prefactor becomes

1904: \baray

1905: \label{pref1}

1906: & \int_{x(u_i)=0}^{x(u_f)=0}D[x(t)] \exp \left[ \frac{i}{2} \int_{u_i}^{u_f}du

1907: \left(\left( \frac{dx}{du}\right)^2 - \Omega(u)^2 x^2  \right) \right] \\ \nonumber

1908: &=\Delta \left[\det \left( - \frac{d^2}{du^2} - \Omega(u)^2  \right) 

1909: \right]^{-1/2}  = \left({2\pi i g(u_i) g(u_f) \int_{u_i}^{u_f}\frac{ds}{g(s)^2}} \right)^{-1/2} 

1910: \earay

1911: where $\Delta$ is a normalization factor.

1912: One can check the validity of this result for simple cases like free particle

1913: and simple harmonic oscillator. 

1914: %We can simplify this result further. We can rewrite the path integral as:

1915: %\baray

1916: %& \int_{x(u_i)=0}^{x(u_f)=0}D[x(t)] \exp \left[ \frac{i}{2} \int_{u_i}^{u_f}du

1917: %x(u)\left(- \frac{d^2}{du^2} - \Omega(u)^2 \right)x(u) \right] \\ \nonumber

1918: %& = \Delta \left[\det \left( - \frac{d^2}{du^2} - \Omega(u)^2  \right) 

1919: %\right]^{-1/2} 

1920: %\earay

1921: Using the result from Eq.(\ref{pref1}), we can write

1922: \baray

1923: \label{ratio}

1924: \frac{\left[\det \left( - \frac{d^2}{du^2} - \Omega(u)^2  \right) 

1925: \right]}{\left[\det \left( - \frac{d^2}{du^2} - U(u)  \right) 

1926: \right]} = \frac{g(u_i) g(u_f) \int_{u_i}^{u_f}\frac{ds}

1927: {g(s)^2}}{G(u_i) G(u_f) \int_{u_i}^{u_f}\frac{ds}

1928: {G(s)^2}}

1929: \earay

1930: where $G(u)$, analogous to $g(u)$, is a solution of the equation

1931: of motion with an arbitrary $U(u)$. And, like $g(u)$, 

1932: $G(u)$ also does not vanish at $u_i$. Now, let $g^0$ denote the

1933: unique solution to $ { \partial_{u}^2 + \Omega(u)^2}g(u) = 0 $

1934: which satisfies the boundary conditions:

1935: \baray

1936: \label{go}

1937: & g^0(u_i) = 0; \quad  & \frac{d}{du}g^0(u_i) = 1

1938: \earay

1939: Let $g^1$ represent the solution that satisfies

1940: \baray

1941: & g^1(u_i)= 1 ;\quad  & \frac{d}{du}g^1(u_i) = 0

1942: \earay

1943: In Eq.(\ref{ratio}), let

1944: \baray

1945: & g(u) = g^0(u) + \epsilon g^1(u) ; \quad  &   G(u) = G^0(u) + \epsilon G^1(u)

1946: \earay

1947: The integral $\int_{u_i}^{u_f}\frac{du}{[g(t)]^2}$ diverges due to

1948: the vanishing of $g^0$ at $u_i$. However, since almost all the contribution

1949: comes from an infinitely small neighborhood of $u_i$ (in the limit

1950: when $\epsilon \to 0$), it follows that it diverges like

1951: \baray

1952: \int_{u_i}^{u_f}\frac{du}{[u - u_i]^2}

1953: \earay

1954: Consequently,

1955: \baray

1956: & {\stackrel{\lim}{\epsilon \to 0}} \quad

1957: {\int_{u_i}^{u_f}\frac{du}{g(u)^2}}=

1958: { \int_{u_i}^{u_f}\frac{du}{G(u)^2}} 

1959: \earay

1960: So Eq.(\ref{ratio}) becomes

1961: \baray

1962: \frac{\left[\det \left( - \frac{d^2}{du^2} - \Omega(u)^2  \right) 

1963: \right]}{\left[\det \left( - \frac{d^2}{du^2} - U(u)  \right) 

1964: \right]} = \frac{g^0(u_f)}{G^0(u_f)}

1965: \earay

1966: Taking $U(u) = 0$ (for a free particle), we get

1967: \baray

1968: \frac{\left[\det \left( - \frac{d^2}{du^2} - \Omega(u)^2  \right) 

1969: \right]}{\left[\det \left( - \frac{d^2}{du^2}\right) 

1970: \right]} = \frac{g^0(u_f)}{u_f - u_i}

1971: \earay

1972: 

1973: Now we can calculate the propagator,

1974: \baray

1975: \label{final}

1976: & K(x_f, T| x_i, 0)  \equiv K(x_f, u_f | x_i, u_i)  = K(0, u_f| 0, u_i)

1977: \exp \left( i S[x_{cl}] \right)  \nonumber \\

1978: & = \left(\frac{\det \left( - \frac{d^2}{du^2} - \Omega(u)^2  \right)} 

1979: {\det \left( - \frac{d^2}{du^2}\right)}\right)^{-1/2} 

1980: K_{0}(0, u_f| 0, u_i) \exp \left( i S[x_{cl}] \right)

1981:  \nonumber \\

1982: & = \sqrt{\frac{1}{2 \pi i g^0(u_f)}} \exp \left( i S[x_{cl}] \right) 

1983: \earay

1984: 

1985: One can switch back to the $t$ variable now using Eq.(\ref{defnu}). 

1986: $S[x_{cl}]$ is the action for the solution $x_{cl}$ of the classical

1987: equation of motion satisfying the boundary conditions $x(u_i) = x_i$

1988: and $x(u_f) = x_f$.

1989: 

1990: Now we specialize this calculation of the path integral for an oscillator

1991: with varying mass and frequency to our case. Eq.(\ref{class_eqn}) generally

1992: does not lend itself to simple analysis. However, since we expect the 

1993: higher modes (with large values of $n$) to be the major contributors

1994: to the suppression of the tunnelling, one can use the WKB analysis

1995: to find approximate solutions. This is because, firstly, Eq.(\ref{class_eqn}) 

1996: has the form of a Schrodinger equation for an

1997: arbitrary potential $\Omega(u)^2 $, and, secondly, the variation

1998: in $\Omega(u)^2 x_{cl}(u)$ for higher modes is slow enough. Typically, for

1999: the $n$th mode, $\Omega^2 \sim n^2$ and $\dot{\Omega} \sim n$. 

2000: So $\dot{\Omega} << \Omega^2$.

2001: Using the WKB approximation, we get:

2002: \baray

2003: x_{cl}(u) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\Omega}} \exp \left(\pm i

2004: \int_{u_i}^{u_f}du \Omega(u)  \right)

2005: \earay

2006: 

2007: Note that in the Euclidean case, $u \to -i u$ (or, equivalently,

2008: $t \to -i \tau$). This is what we have done in Eq.(\ref{class_soln}, 

2009: \ref{gensol}) to get the solution for the tensor mode $t_{cl}(\tau)$. Using these

2010: classical solutions we have calculated the classical action in

2011: Eq.(\ref{S_E}). 

2012: %In Eq.(\ref{pre_fac}) we have calculated the prefactor. 

2013: As explained in Eq.(\ref{final}), the prefactor is

2014: proportional to $({2 \pi i g^0(u_f)})^{-1/2}$  where

2015: $g^0(u)$ satisfies the boundary conditions given in Eq.(\ref{go}).

2016: Following Eq.(\ref{gensol}) it is clear that for tensor modes,

2017: the two linearly independent solutions to the classical equation of motion 

2018: are $\frac{1}{\sqrt{\omega_n}} \exp \left(\pm \int^u du' \omega_n(u') \right)$

2019: . And the following linear combination satisfies the required boundary 

2020: conditions

2021: \ba

2022: g^0(u_f) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega_n(u_i)\omega_n(u_f)}}\left( \exp(D_n) 

2023: - \exp(-D_n) \right).

2024: \ea

2025: as this choice of $g^0(u)$ vanishes at $u = u_i$ where $D_n = 0$.

2026: $\frac{dg^0(u)}{du} = 1$ at $u = u_i$.

2027: This yields the result in Eq.(\ref{pre_fac}).

2028: 

2029: 

2030: 

2031: 

2032: \vspace{0.5cm}

2033: 

2034: 

2035: 

2036: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

2037: 

2038: \bibitem{Vilenkin:1982de}

2039: A.~Vilenkin, {\it Creation of universes from nothing},  {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf

2040:   B117} (1982) 25; 

2041: %\bibitem{Vilenkin:1983xq}

2042: %A.~Vilenkin, 

2043: {\it The birth of inflationary universes},  {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf

2044:   D27} (1983) 2848.

2045:   

2046: \bibitem{Hartle:1983ai}

2047: J.~B. Hartle and S.~W. Hawking, {\it Wave function of the universe},  {\em

2048:   Phys. Rev.} {\bf D28} (1983) 2960; \\

2049:  S.~W. Hawking, {\it The Quantum State of the Universe}, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B239} (1984) 257.

2050:  

2051: %\cite{Firouzjahi:2004mx}

2052: \bibitem{Firouzjahi:2004mx}

2053: H.~Firouzjahi, S.~Sarangi and S.-H.~H.~Tye,

2054: {\it Spontaneous creation of inflationary universes and the cosmic landscape},

2055: JHEP {\bf 0409}, 060 (2004), hep-th/0406107.

2056: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0406107;%%

2057: 

2058: 

2059: %\cite{Linde:1998gs}

2060: \bibitem{Linde:1998gs}

2061: A.~D.~Linde,

2062: {\it Quantum creation of an open inflationary universe},

2063: {\em Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 58}, 083514 (1998),

2064: gr-qc/9802038; \\

2065: %\cite{Vilenkin:1998rp}

2066: A.~Vilenkin,

2067: {\it The quantum cosmology debate},

2068: gr-qc/9812027.

2069: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9812027;%%

2070: 

2071: 

2072: \bibitem{Gibbons:1978ac}

2073: G.~W. Gibbons, S.~W. Hawking, and M.~J. Perry, {\it Path integrals and the

2074:   indefiniteness of the gravitational action},  {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B138}

2075:   (1978) 141; \\

2076: %\cite{Gibbons:1978ji}

2077: %\bibitem{Gibbons:1978ji}

2078: G.~W.~Gibbons and M.~J.~Perry,

2079: {\it Quantizing Gravitational Instantons},

2080: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 146}, 90 (1978).

2081: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B146,90;%%

2082: 

2083: %\cite{Brown:1987dd}

2084: \bibitem{Brown:1987dd}

2085: J.~D.~Brown and C.~Teitelboim,

2086: {\it Dynamical Neutralization Of The Cosmological Constant},

2087: {\em Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 195},(1987) 177; \\

2088: %\cite{Bousso:2000xa}

2089: %\bibitem{Bousso:2000xa}

2090:   R.~Bousso and J.~Polchinski,

2091:   {\it Quantization of four-form fluxes and dynamical neutralization of the

2092:   cosmological constant},

2093:   JHEP {\bf 0006}, 006 (2000), hep-th/0004134.

2094: 

2095: %\cite{Coleman:1988tj}

2096: \bibitem{Coleman:1988tj}

2097:  S.~W. Hawking, {\it The Cosmological Constant is Probably Zero},

2098:   {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B134} (1984) 403; \\ 

2099:   S.~R.~Coleman,

2100:   {\it Why There Is Nothing Rather Than Something: A Theory Of The Cosmological

2101:   Constant},

2102:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 310}, 643 (1988); \\

2103: %\cite{Weinberg:1988cp}

2104: %\bibitem{Weinberg:1988cp}

2105: S.~Weinberg,

2106: {\it The Cosmological Constant Problem},

2107: {\em Rev. Mod. Phys.}  {\bf 61}, (1989) 1; \\

2108: %\cite{Strominger:1988yt}

2109: %\cite{Giddings:1987cg}

2110: %\bibitem{Giddings:1987cg}

2111:   S.~B.~Giddings and A.~Strominger,

2112:   {\it Axion Induced Topology Change In Quantum Gravity And String Theory},

2113:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 306}, 890 (1988); \\

2114:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B306,890;%%

2115: %\bibitem{Strominger:1988yt}

2116: %A.~Strominger,

2117: %{\it A Lorentzian Analysis Of The Cosmological Constant Problem},

2118: %{\em Nucl. Phys. B} {\bf 319},(1989) 722; \\

2119: %\cite{Klebanov:1988eh}

2120: %\bibitem{Klebanov:1988eh}

2121: I.~R.~Klebanov, L.~Susskind and T.~Banks,

2122: {\it Wormholes And The Cosmological Constant},

2123: {\em Nucl. Phys. B} {\bf 317}, (1989) 665; \\

2124: %\bibitem{Fischler:1990se}

2125: W.~Fischler, D.~Morgan, and J.~Polchinski, {\it Quantum nucleation of false

2126:   vacuum bubbles},  {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D41} (1990) 2638. 

2127:   %where earlier references on the topic can be found.

2128: 

2129: \bibitem{Linde:1984mx}

2130: A.~D. Linde, {\it Quantum creation of the inflationary universe},  {\em Nuovo

2131:   Cim. Lett.} {\bf 39} (1984) 401; \\

2132: %\bibitem{Vilenkin:1984wp}

2133: A.~Vilenkin, {\it Quantum Creation Of Universes}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 30}, 509 (1984).

2134:  

2135: %\cite{Rubakov:1984bh}\cite{Lavrelashvili:1985vn}

2136: \bibitem{Rubakov:1984bh}

2137: V.~A.~Rubakov,

2138: {\it Quantum Mechanics In The Tunneling Universe},

2139: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 148}, 280 (1984); \\

2140: %\cite{Lavrelashvili:1985vn}

2141: %\bibitem{Lavrelashvili:1985vn}

2142: G.~V.~Lavrelashvili, V.~A.~Rubakov and P.~G.~Tinyakov,

2143: {\it Tunneling Transitions With Gravitation: Breaking Of The Quasiclassical

2144: Approximation},

2145: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 161}, 280 (1985).

2146: 

2147: %\cite{Hawking:1976ja}

2148: \bibitem{Hawking:1976ja}

2149:   S.~W.~Hawking,

2150:   %``Zeta Function Regularization Of Path Integrals In Curved Space-Time,''

2151:   Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 55}, 133 (1977).

2152:   %%CITATION = CMPHA,55,133;%%

2153: 

2154: %\cite{Gibbons:1978ji}

2155: \bibitem{Gibbons:1978ji}

2156:   G.~W.~Gibbons and M.~J.~Perry,

2157:   %``Quantizing Gravitational Instantons,''

2158:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 146}, 90 (1978).

2159:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B146,90;%%

2160:   

2161: %\cite{Ooguri:2005vr}

2162: \bibitem{Ooguri:2005vr}

2163: H.~Ooguri, C.~Vafa and E.~Verlinde,

2164: {\it Hartle-Hawking wave-function for flux compactifications},

2165: hep-th/0502211.

2166: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0502211;%%

2167: 

2168: %\cite{Coleman:1977py}

2169: \bibitem{Coleman:1977py}

2170: S.~R.~Coleman,

2171: {\it The Fate Of The False Vacuum. 1. Semiclassical Theory},

2172: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 15}, 2929 (1977)

2173: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 16}, 1248 (1977)].

2174: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D15,2929;%%

2175: 

2176: \bibitem{Sethna:1981dr}

2177: J.~P.~Sethna, {\it Decay rates of tunneling centers 

2178: coupled to phonons : An instanton approach},

2179: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf B25} (1981) 5050; \\

2180: %\bibitem{sethna:1981ds}

2181: {\it Phonon coupling in tunneling systems 

2182: at zero temperature : An instanton approach},

2183: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf B24} (1981) 698.

2184: 

2185: %\cite{Caldeira:1982uj}

2186: \bibitem{Caldeira:1982uj}

2187: A.~O.~Caldeira and A.~J.~Leggett,

2188: {\it Quantum Tunneling In A Dissipative System},

2189: Annals Phys.\  {\bf 149}, 374 (1983).

2190: %%CITATION = APNYA,149,374;%%

2191: 

2192: %\bibitem{Dewitt:1967yk}

2193: %B.~S.~Dewitt, {\it Quantum Theory Of Gravity. 1. The Canonical Theory},

2194: %{\em Phys. Rev.}  {\bf 160} (1967) 1113.

2195: 

2196: \bibitem{zeh}

2197: D.~Giulini, E.~Joos, C.~Kiefer, J.~Kupsch, I.-O.~Stamatescu and H.~D.~Zeh,

2198: {\it Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory}

2199: {Berlin; New York: Springer, 1996};

2200: W.~H.~Zurek, {\it Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical},

2201:  Physics Today,  {\bf 44}, {\it 10}, 36 (1991);

2202:  M.~Gell-mann and J.B.~Hartle, {\it Classical Equations for Quantum Systems},

2203:  Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47}, 3345 (1993).

2204: 

2205: \bibitem{Guth:1981zm}

2206: A.~H.~Guth, {\it The inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon

2207:   and flatness problems},  {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D23} (1981) 347; \\

2208: %\bibitem{Linde:1982mu}

2209: A.~D.~Linde, {\it A new inflationary universe scenario: A possible solution of

2210:   the horizon, flatness, homogeneity, isotropy and primordial monopole

2211:   problems},  {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B108} (1982) 389; \\

2212: %\bibitem{Albrecht:1982wi}

2213: A.~Albrecht and P.~J.~Steinhardt, {\it Cosmology for grand unified theories

2214:   with radiatively induced symmetry breaking},  {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 48}

2215:   (1982) 1220.

2216: 

2217: %\bibitem{Tryon:1973}

2218: %E.~P. Tryon, {\it Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation ?},  {\em Nature} {\bf   246} (1973) 396.

2219: 

2220: \bibitem{Dvali:1998pa}

2221: G.~R. Dvali and S.-H.~H. Tye, {\it Brane inflation},  {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf

2222:   B450} (1999) 72, hep-ph/9812483.

2223: 

2224: \bibitem{Kachru:2003sx}

2225: S.~Kachru, R.~Kallosh, A.~Linde, J.~Maldacena, L.~McAllister, and S.~P.

2226:   Trivedi, {\it Towards inflation in string theory},  {\em JCAP} {\bf 0310}

2227:   (2003) 013, hep-th/0308055.

2228: 

2229: \bibitem{Halliwell:1985eu}

2230: J.~J. Halliwell and S.~W. Hawking, {\it The origin of structure in the

2231:   universe},  {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D31} (1985) 1777.

2232: 

2233: \bibitem{Kiefer:1987ft}

2234: C.~Kiefer, {\it Continuous measurement of minisuperspace variables by higher

2235:   multipoles},  {\em Class. Quant. Grav.} {\bf 4} (1987) 1369.

2236: 

2237: \bibitem{Kiefer:1989ud}

2238: C.~Kiefer, {\it Continuous measurement of intrinsic time by fermions},  {\em

2239:   Class. Quant. Grav.} {\bf 6} (1989) 561.

2240: 

2241: \bibitem{Halliwell:1989vw}

2242: J.~J. Halliwell, {\it Decoherence in quantum cosmology},  {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf

2243:   D39} (1989) 2912.

2244: 

2245: \bibitem{Kiefer:1992cn}

2246: C.~Kiefer, {\it Decoherence in quantum electrodynamics and quantum gravity},

2247:   {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D46} (1992) 1658;\\

2248: A.~O.~Barvinsky, A.~Yu.~Kamenshchik,

2249: C.~Kiefer and I.~V.~Mishakov, {\it Decoherence in quantum cosmology at the onset of inflation}, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 551} (1999) 374-396,

2250: gr-qc/9812043

2251: 

2252: 

2253: 

2254: %\cite{Gerlach:1978gy}

2255: \bibitem{Gerlach:1978gy}

2256: U.~H.~Gerlach and U.~K.~Sengupta,

2257: {\it Homogeneous Collapsing Star: Tensor And Vector Harmonics 

2258: For Matter And Field Asymmetries},

2259: {\em Phys.Rev.} {\bf D18} (1978) 1773.

2260: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D18,1773;%%

2261: 

2262: %\cite{Barvinsky:1993nf}

2263: \bibitem{Barvinsky:1993nf}

2264:   A.~O.~Barvinsky,

2265:  {\it Tunneling geometries. 2. Reduction methods for functional determinants},

2266:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50}, 5115 (1994),

2267:   gr-qc/9311023.

2268: 

2269: \bibitem{Harrison:1967ab}

2270: E.~R.~Harrison,

2271: {\it Classification of uniform cosmological models}, {\em Mon. 

2272: Not. R. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 137} (1967) 69.

2273: 

2274: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs}

2275: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs}

2276:   N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,

2277:   {\it The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter},

2278:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 429}, 263 (1998)

2279:   hep-ph/9803315.

2280:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803315;%%

2281:   

2282:   %\cite{Hsu:2004jt}

2283: \bibitem{Hsu:2004jt}

2284:   S.~Hsu and A.~Zee,

2285:  {\it A speculative relation between the cosmological constant and the Planck mass},

2286:   hep-th/0406142; \\

2287:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0406142;%%

2288:  %\cite{Kobakhidze:2004gm}

2289: %\bibitem{Kobakhidze:2004gm}

2290:   A.~Kobakhidze and L.~Mersini-Houghton,

2291:   {\it Birth of the universe from the landscape of string theory},

2292: hep-th/0410213; \\

2293:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0410213;%%

2294:   %\cite{Mersini-Houghton:2005im}

2295: %\bibitem{Mersini-Houghton:2005im}

2296:   L.~Mersini-Houghton,

2297:   {\it Can we predict Lambda for the non-SUSY sector of the landscape?},

2298:   hep-th/0504026.

2299:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0504026;%%

2300:  

2301: \bibitem{Kachru:2003aw}

2302: S.~Kachru, R.~Kallosh, A.~Linde, and S.~P. Trivedi, {\it De sitter vacua in

2303:   string theory},  {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D68} (2003) 046005,

2304:      hep-th/0301240.

2305: 

2306: \bibitem{Douglas:2003um}

2307: M.~R. Douglas, {\it The statistics of string / m theory vacua},  {\em JHEP}

2308:   {\bf 05} (2003) 046, 

2309:     hep-th/0303194.

2310: 

2311: %\cite{Barvinsky:1992dz}

2312: \bibitem{Barvinsky:1992dz}

2313: A.~O.~Barvinsky, A.~Y.~Kamenshchik and I.~P.~Karmazin,

2314: {\it One loop quantum cosmology: Zeta function technique for the Hartle-Hawking

2315: wave function of the universe},

2316: Annals Phys.\  {\bf 219}, 201 (1992).\\

2317: %%CITATION = APNYA,219,201;%%

2318: A.~O.~Barvinsky and A.~Yu.~Kamenshchik, 

2319: {\it Tunnelling Geometries: Analyticity, Unitarity and Instantons in Quantum Cosmology}

2320: , {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 50} (1994) 5093-5114, gr-qc/9311022.

2321: 

2322: 

2323: %\cite{Barvinsky:1996ce}

2324: \bibitem{Barvinsky:1996ce}

2325: A.~O.~Barvinsky, A.~Y.~Kamenshchik and I.~V.~Mishakov,

2326: {\it Quantum origin of the early inflationary universe},

2327: {\em Nucl. Phys. B} {\bf 491}, 387 (1997),

2328: gr-qc/9612004.\\

2329: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9612004;%%

2330: %\cite{Barvinsky:1999qn}

2331:  A.~O.~Barvinsky, A.~Y.~Kamenshchik and C.~Kiefer,

2332: {\it Origin of the inflationary universe}

2333: {\em Mod. Phys. Lett.}  {\bf A 14}, 1083 (1999),

2334:  gr-qc/9905098.

2335:   %%CITATION = GR-QC 9905098;%%

2336:  

2337: %\cite{Felsager:1981iy}

2338: \bibitem{Felsager:1981iy}

2339:   B.~Felsager,

2340:  {\it Geometry, Particles And Fields}, {Springer, 1981}

2341: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=998630}{SPIRES entry}

2342: 

2343: \bibitem{Kane:2004ct}

2344:   G.~L.~Kane, M.~J.~Perry and A.~N.~Zytkow,

2345:  {\it An approach to the cosmological constant problem(s)},

2346:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 609}, 7 (2005),

2347: hep-ph/0408169.

2348: 

2349: 

2350: 

2351: 

2352: 

2353: \end{thebibliography}

2354: 

2355: 

2356: \end{document}

2357: 

2358: