text:
# Primordial perturbations in a non singular bouncing universe model.

## I Introduction

For more than two decades, inflation  has been the only available paradigm to solve the standard cosmological problems of flatness, homogeneity, and monopole excess. It also predicts, as a bonus, that primordial fluctuations, assumed to be of quantum origin, could be enhanced to the level required to trigger large scale structure formation, with an almost scale-invariant spectrum. To date, no model has ever come close to challenging this impressive list of successes.

Inflation cosmology suffers, however, from a few problems of its own, whose seriousness is largely a matter of opinion. For instance, in a typical realization, the underlying parameters (mass and coupling constants of the inflaton field) must be assigned “un-natural” values in order to reproduce the observed temperature fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) which the mechanism seeds. However, such a fine-tuning can be accounted for in various realistic models.

The inflation paradigm is also endowed with two specific problems, conceptually much more serious, that may ultimately be related, namely the meaning of the trans-Planckian  perturbations and the existence of a past singularity . Concerning the latter, many ideas were discussed, among which the Tolman Phœnix universe , and many others in the seventies , and recently revived under the name “ekpyrotic”  in the somewhat different context of superstring  inspired brane cosmology . This model, however, was the subject of many criticisms, both from the string  and cosmological  points of view. In its latest version , moreover, the model also contains a supposedly actual singularity .

Quantum cosmology, in the framework of the Wheeler-de-Witt (WdW) equation, exhibits bouncing solutions  which can be interpreted as truly avoiding the singularity, even for flat ($`𝒦=0`$) spatial sections, a possibility strictly forbidden in classical General Relativity (GR), unless  some exotic material, with negative energy density violating the Null Energy Condition (NEC) , is introduced, which most cosmologists are reluctant on doing. Such a bouncing universe model provides a solution to the horizon problem by geodesically completing the manifold in the past, and avoids the monopole formation if the bounce takes place at a temperature below that of Grand Unification (GUT); this class of models does not however address the question of flatness and one must assume $`𝒦=0`$ from the outset. Moreover, in such a context, the trans-Planckian issue simply does not exist because the initial conditions for the perturbations can be imposed during a phase where the universe is as close to the Minkowski spacetime as one wishes, without ever passing through a Planck phase. Thus, it could be a natural competitor to the inflationary paradigm, and it is therefore of interest to estimate the primordial perturbation spectrum that it can produce.

In a previous work , we examined the stability of a bouncing universe dominated, at the bounce, by an exotic hydrodynamical perfect fluid. We showed, by computing scalar perturbations using the gauge invariant Bardeen  potential, that such perturbations grow unboundedly either at the bouncing point, or at the time when the NEC was violated or restored, thereby contradicting the hypothesis of low amplitude first order perturbation theory . Such models are thus incompatible with observational data, e.g., CMBR data  according to which these first order effects indeed still dominate (over nonlinear effects) at large scales.

The next to simple possibility consists on using a scalar field instead of an exotic fluid. The purpose of this paper is to exhibit a toy model in which a radiation fluid is coupled to a negative energy free scalar field that is supposed to dominate the universe for a limited amount of time, during which the bounce occurs . Our universe thus comes from a low-density, radiation dominated, contracting state, passes through a bounce, and connects again back to the usual Hot Big-Bang phase . In this context, we shall be concerned with the scalar perturbations induced during the transition between the collapsing and expanding phases.

In section II we set the various constraints our model needs to satisfy, and we explain how it can be made phenomenologically reasonable. Then we calculate, in section III, the power spectrum of the perturbations by matching the relevant solutions in the various regions of interest, and we compare the results with numerical calculations. Contrary to what one would naively expect from a fluid analysis , we find that scalar perturbations are perfectly well behaved all along.

Setting vacuum initial conditions for the quantized hydrodynamical perturbations deep in the low-density radiation dominated phase, we find that the relevant spectrum of perturbations, at last horizon crossing during the expanding radiation dominated era, has a spectral index $`n__\mathrm{S}=1`$. It is thus incompatible with observational data. As it is a model dependent result, further investigations of more realistic models , from the point of view of particle physics, need to be done .

While other models yield a scale invariant spectrum by making use of various assumptions , the present calculations are made with a specific model where the transition through the bounce is made with an exact solution. This allows one to obtain, qualitatively and numerically, the transitions in the Bardeen potential and its derivative through the bounce, yielding indications on what kind of matching conditions  should be proposed for perturbations passing through a general bounce. We obtain the perhaps not so surprising result that the Bardeen potential changes sign through the bounce, even though its derivative is continuous, contrary to the case of a sharp transition . This result will be discussed in more detail in section IV, in which we present a way to obtain a scale invariant spectrum for the scalar perturbation by connecting our bounce and radiation dominated model with a slowly contracting phase. If such a four-dimensional and singularity-free model can be constructed, it will be able to reproduce all the available observational data while avoiding most of the questions raised by the inflation solution.

This paper only deals with the scalar part of the perturbations, which we show does not yield a spectrum compatible with the data. The tensor part was already calculated in Ref. , where the spectral index $`n__\mathrm{T}=n__\mathrm{S}1=2`$ was obtained, and is therefore unable to reproduce the data. Finally, we will not be concerned with vectorial (rotational) perturbations even though, contrary to the usual inflationary case, one could think that those have no reason to be a priori negligible with a time symmetric scale factor. However, the Universe is torque-free  since at least the nucleosynthesis epoch that occurred at a redshift of $`z_{_{\mathrm{nucl}}}3\times 10^8`$. Hence, the present relative contribution $`\delta _v`$ for the vectorial perturbation, which scales as $`a^2`$ , is expected to be $`\delta _v10^{17}`$, independent of the scale $`k`$ at which it is evaluated, and hence observationally irrelevant.

## II The model

We shall consider a very simple toy model for which we demand the following conditions to hold. First of all, we want general relativity to be valid for all times. We also impose that at late times, the model should reproduce the standard hot big bang case, i.e. there should exist a time in which radiation dominates. This implies in particular that we assume some amount of radiation to be present in our model. We also restrict our attention to the spatially flat situation. Finally, the model should have a bouncing phase. This means, given that there is already some radiation present, that, in the context of GR, there must exist some other fluid having negative energy. In particular, for the special case at hand for which the spatial curvature $`𝒦=0`$, this means that the Null Energy Condition (NEC) must be violated at some time near the bounce .

Realizing such a model is in principle feasible with just another fluid, e.g., some stiff matter with negative energy, namely one for which the equation of state reads $`p=\rho <0`$. However, it was recently shown  that such an approach will lead to an overproduction of large inhomogeneities at various different times, breaking the cosmological principle hypothesis long before nucleosynthesis. Such an approach is therefore not applicable, and we must resort to the next-to-simple possibility, namely a free massless scalar field which is known to reproduce the stiff matter fluid behavior at the background level . The action we shall start with thus reads

$$𝒮=\left(\frac{1}{16\pi G}Rϵ\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi \right)\sqrt{g}\mathrm{d}^4x,$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the curvature scalar, $`ϵ`$ the energy density of the radiation fluid, and $`\varphi `$ the scalar field. We assume that the background metric takes the standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker form

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=a^2(\eta )\left(\mathrm{d}\eta ^2\delta _{ij}\mathrm{d}x^i\mathrm{d}x^j\right),$$
(2)
with $`\eta `$ the conformal time. The cosmic time, $`t`$, is then obtained as the solution of the equation $`a\mathrm{d}\eta =\mathrm{d}t`$ once the scale factor $`a(\eta )`$ is known. Note that throughout this paper, we assume the background curvature to vanish, $`𝒦=0`$. In this context, it has to be a particular choice: this category of models does not indeed solve the flatness problem.

Varying the action (1) with respect to the fluid and fields yields the background dynamical equations

$$\epsilon ^{}+4\epsilon =0,\phi ^{\prime \prime }+2\phi ^{}=0,$$
(3)
where $`a^{}/a`$, $`\epsilon `$ and $`\phi `$ are the background space-independent values of the radiation energy density $`ϵ`$ and scalar field $`\varphi `$ respectively, and a prime denotes a differentiation with respect to the conformal time $`\eta `$. These background equations imply

$$\phi ^{}=\frac{c}{a^2},\epsilon =\frac{d}{a^4},$$
(4)
where $`c`$ and $`d`$ are constant. The energy density of the scalar field is given by

$$\rho _\phi \frac{\phi ^2}{2a^2}=\frac{c^2}{2a^6},$$
(5)
and as such it is dominant when $`a`$ is small and negligible when $`a`$ is very large. These solutions, together with Friedmann equation

$$^2=\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}}^2\left(a^2\epsilon \frac{1}{2}\phi ^2\right),\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}}^2\frac{8\pi G}{3},$$
(6)
lead to the bouncing solution

$$a(\eta )=a_0\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{\eta }{\eta _0}\right)^2},$$
(7)
where the minimum scale factor $`a_0`$ and the characteristic bouncing conformal time $`\eta _0`$ solely depend on the relative quantities of energy density in radiation and scalar field at some given time: $`a_0^2=c^2/(2d)`$ and $`\eta _0^2=c^2/(2d^2\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}}^2)`$. In what follows, these two parameters will be considered as the relevant ones.

Before turning to first order perturbations of this background, which is the subject of the following section, we want to emphasize a point of stability of this model related to the “wrong” sign chosen in Eq. (1). Indeed, an expansion of Eq. (1) with respect to

$$g_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }^{^{(0)}}+h_{\mu \nu },\varphi =\phi +\delta \varphi ,$$
(8)
with $`[𝐠^{^{(0)}},\phi ]`$ the classical part and $`(𝐡,\delta \varphi )`$ interpreted respectively as gravitons and scalar particles in a semi-classical approach, will inevitably lead to two different kinds of instabilities, each arising at a different order in perturbation. The first one, with which we shall deal later since it is actually the one responsible for the large scale structure formation in this model, is second order in perturbation (first order in the equations of motion) and goes essentially as $`h^{\mu \nu }_\mu \delta \varphi _\nu \phi `$. This term is absent in ordinary Minkowski space, but is present in the cosmological setup we are considering because of Eq. (3) in which the classical part of the scalar field varies with time and thus behaves as a source for the production of gravitons and scalar particles. As it originates in a derivative coupling \[see FIG. 1$`(a)`$\], the characteristic time scale of this instability is that of the classical scalar part, in our case the typical cosmological timescale.

The second instability that must be discussed is much more serious, even though, at first sight, it looks innocuous because of a higher order in perturbation: it is the same term as before, but with the classical part replaced by a first order perturbation, namely $`h^{\mu \nu }_\mu \delta \varphi _\nu \delta \varphi `$ \[see FIG. 1$`(b)`$\]. The presence of such a process means that the vacuum can spontaneously decay into a pair of negative energy scalar particles and a graviton, and, due to this fact, the energy levels are not bounded from below. This sounds like a catastrophe, and even more so because the only available timescale comes from the coupling constant, i.e., the Planck time. However, it is clear from the figure that the process probability amplitude $`𝒜`$ is $`𝒜p^2/M__P^2`$, with $`M__P\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}}^110^{19}`$GeV the Planck mass and $`p`$ the momentum at the vertex. Such an amplitude therefore becomes important when the characteristic scale $`p^1`$ is comparable to $`\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}}`$. At this point, it should be argued that the model of Eq. (1) is understood as an effective low energy theory which must be implemented with a cutoff scale much larger than the Planck one: as one reaches the Planck energy scale, the theory is expected to break down into a completely different one such as, e.g., quantum gravity or superstring theory. As a result, for cosmological purposes, one can safely ignore this instability and concentrate on the production of cosmological perturbations.

## III Linear perturbation spectrum

In what follows, we shall consider perturbations stemming from the model (1), making use of the gauge invariant formalism . As there are no anisotropic stress perturbations in this model, the most general form of metric perturbations on the background given by Eq. (2) reads, in the longitudinal gauge,

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=a^2(\eta )\left[(1+2\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{d}\eta ^2(12\mathrm{\Phi })\delta _{ij}\mathrm{d}x^i\mathrm{d}x^j\right],$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the gauge invariant Bardeen potential . Setting also

$$\varphi =\phi (\eta )+\delta \varphi (𝐱,\eta )\text{and}ϵ=\epsilon (\eta )+\delta ϵ(𝐱,\eta ),$$
(10)
one obtains the radiation fluid current conservation and Klein-Gordon equation respectively in the form

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\delta ϵ^{}+4\delta ϵ=\frac{4}{3}\epsilon \left(3\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+a^1^2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\right),\\ \\ \delta \varphi ^{\prime \prime }+2\delta \varphi ^{}^2\delta \varphi =4\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\phi ^{},\end{array}$$
(11)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ is the gauge invariant fluid velocity potential, and use has been made of the relation $`\delta ϵ=\frac{1}{3}\delta p`$ between the energy density $`\delta ϵ`$ and pressure $`\delta p`$ fluctuation. Einstein equations yield, after a bit of algebra ,

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}}^2\left(\phi ^{}\delta \varphi +\frac{4}{3}a\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\right),& \\ & \\ ^2\mathrm{\Phi }3\mathrm{\Phi }^{}3^2\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}}^2\left(\phi ^{}\delta \varphi ^{}+\phi ^2\mathrm{\Phi }+a^2\delta ϵ\right),& \\ \\ \mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }+3\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\left(2^{}+^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}}^2& \\ \times \left(\phi ^{}\delta \varphi ^{}+\phi ^2\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{1}{3}a^2\delta ϵ\right).& \end{array}$$
(12)
Simple manipulations of Eqs. (11) and (12) permit to eliminate the radiation fluctuation in favor of the Bardeen potential through the relation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }+6\mathrm{\Phi }_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\left[2\left(^{}+2^2\right)+k^2\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_k=\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}}^2a^2\delta ϵ_k,$$
(13)
where, from now on, we assume a Fourier decomposition of each variable $`A`$ into its components $`A_k`$ defined through

$$A_k(\eta )\frac{\mathrm{d}^3x}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}\mathrm{e}^{i𝐤𝐱}A(|𝐱|,\eta ),$$
(14)
where $`A_k`$ only depends on the amplitude $`k`$ of the wave-vector $`𝐤`$.

The dynamical equations for the Bardeen potential and the fluctuations of the scalar field therefore decouple from the radiation fluid perturbations and are then expressible solely in terms of themselves as (making use of the background Einstein equations)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }+4\mathrm{\Phi }_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\frac{1}{3}k^2\mathrm{\Phi }_k=\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}}^2\phi ^{}\delta \varphi _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{},$$
(15)
and

$$\delta \varphi _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }+2\delta \varphi _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+k^2\delta \varphi _k=4\phi ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{}.$$
(16)
We shall now investigate the solution of these equations in order to get the perturbation spectrum such a bouncing model predicts.

### III.1 The relevant phases in the perturbations evolution

In order to investigate Eqs. (15) and (16), let us write them in terms of the variables $`u_ka^2\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$, and $`w_ka\delta \varphi _k`$. Using Eq. (4), they read

$$u_k^{\prime \prime }+\left[\frac{1}{3}k^22\left(^{}+2^2\right)\right]u_k=\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}}^2\frac{c}{a}\left(w_k^{}w_k\right),$$
(17)
and

$$w_k^{\prime \prime }+\left(k^2^2^{}\right)w_k=4\frac{c}{a^3}\left(u_k^{}u_k\right).$$
(18)
Each of these equations can be seen as an inhomogeneous equation, i.e., one with a source term not depending on the function itself. Asymptotically, since the scale factor grows like $`|\eta |`$, it can be checked explicitly, by means of an expansion in powers of $`\eta ^1`$ for $`u_k`$ and $`w_k`$, that the source terms in both Eqs. (17) and (18) are small for111This is valid not only when $`\eta \mathrm{}`$ but also when $`k^2<6(^{}+2^2)`$ as long as $`\eta \eta _0`$. We shall return to this point in more detail below. $`\eta \eta _0`$. Therefore, in this limit, Eqs. (15) and (16) can be reduced to the usual parametric oscillator equations for the variables $`u_k`$ and $`w_k`$, namely

$$u_k^{\prime \prime }+\left[\frac{1}{3}k^2\frac{(a^2)^{\prime \prime }}{a^2}\right]u_k=0,$$
(19)
and

$$w_k^{\prime \prime }+\left(k^2\frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a}\right)w_k=0.$$
(20)
The potentials $`(a^2)^{\prime \prime }/a^2=2(^{}+2^2)=2/(\eta ^2+\eta _0^2)`$ for $`u_k`$ and $`a^{\prime \prime }/a=^{}+^2=\eta _0^2/(\eta ^2+\eta _0^2)^2`$ for $`w_k`$ are shown on FIG. 2 on which we also define the variable $`x\eta /\eta _0`$, as well as the various corresponding matching values $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$.

We shall be interested in the cosmologically relevant limit $`k1`$. However, as $`|\eta |\mathrm{}`$, the $`k`$-dependent terms in Eqs. (19) and (20) become important. More precisely, when $`k|\eta |>\sqrt{6}`$, i.e., when $`|x|>x_1\sqrt{6}/(k\eta _0)1`$, the solutions of the above equations in terms of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ and $`\delta \varphi _k`$ can be written in terms of Hankel functions, namely ,

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Phi }_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{\mathrm{rad}}}=\eta ^{3/2}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_{_{(1)}}H_{3/2}^{^{(1)}}(\omega \eta )+\mathrm{\Phi }_{_{(2)}}H_{3/2}^{^{(2)}}(\omega \eta )\right],& \\ & \\ \delta \varphi _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{\mathrm{rad}}}=\eta ^{1/2}\left[X_{_{(1)}}H_{1/2}^{^{(1)}}(k\eta )+X_{_{(2)}}H_{1/2}^{^{(2)}}(k\eta )\right],& \end{array}$$
(21)
where $`\omega =k/\sqrt{3}`$.

When the potential terms dominate over the $`k`$-dependent terms, which for $`u_k`$ is the case so long as $`k|\eta |\sqrt{6}`$, or $`1|x|x_1`$, and for $`v_k`$ when $`k|\eta |\sqrt{k\eta _0}`$, or $`1|x|x_2`$, where $`x_21/\sqrt{k\eta _0}`$, the zeroth order solutions for Eqs. (19) and (20) read, when $`x_1xx_2`$,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}=A_1+A_2a^2d\eta +O(k\eta )A_1A_2\frac{\eta _0^4}{3a_0^4\eta ^3},$$
(22)
$$\delta \varphi _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}=B_1+B_2a^1d\eta +O(k\eta )B_1B_2\frac{\eta _0^2}{a_0^2\eta }.$$
(23)
In fact, solution (23) needs amelioration because around $`|x|=x_2`$ the source term of Eq. (16) become important. This is not the case of solution (22) because for $`1|x|<x_2`$, the source terms of Eq. (15) are still negligible, even taking into account the corrections of (23). Fortunately, for what follows in the next subsection, only the solution (22) will be needed.

Near the bounce, when the potentials and $`c/a`$ are of order $`1/\eta _0^2`$ and $`a_0/(\eta _0\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}})`$, the source terms become important222The constraints on the values of $`a_0`$ and $`\eta _0`$ in order for the bounce to happen at a scale much larger than the Planck scale and a long time before nucleosynthesis takes place are $`\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}}a_0\eta _010^8\mathrm{cm}`$. Hence, if one chooses $`\eta _0`$ of order one, the potentials are of order one, and $`c/a1`$ near the bounce., but the terms proportional to $`k^2`$ are still negligible. In this situation, one can neglect altogether the $`k^2`$ term in Eqs. (15) and (16), yielding the solutions

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{^{\mathrm{Bounce}}}=\stackrel{~}{A}+\stackrel{~}{B}f_1(x)+\stackrel{~}{C}f_2(x),$$
(24)
and

$$\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\delta \varphi ^{^{\mathrm{Bounce}}}=\stackrel{~}{D}+\stackrel{~}{B}f_3(x)+\stackrel{~}{C}f_4(x),$$
(25)
with $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ arbitrary constants. The bounce functions $`f_i(x)`$ are found to be

$$f_1(x)\frac{x}{(1+x^2)^2},f_2(x)\frac{1x^2}{2(1+x^2)^2},$$
(26)
$$f_3(x)\frac{\sqrt{2}}{(1+x^2)^2},f_4(x)\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{3+x^2}{(1+x^2)^2},$$
(27)
and are displayed on FIG. 3.

These solutions will be used to match the asymptotic solutions through the bounce.

### III.2 Matching the solutions, and the power spectrum

In the limit $`\eta \pm \mathrm{}`$ ($`a\pm \mathrm{}`$), i.e., very far from the bounce, the Universe is radiation dominated, so that the coupling term in the left hand side of Eqs. (17) and (18) can be neglected, as it was explained in the last subsection. From Eq.(21), and for $`\eta \mathrm{}`$, the Bardeen potential and the scalar field perturbation respectively scale as $`1/a^2`$ and $`1/a`$. From Eq. (13) one can see that the fluid perturbation $`\delta ϵ_k`$ goes like $`1/a^4`$. Therefore, from Eq. (12), we find that the scalar field and its perturbation are irrelevant, in this regime, for the evolution of the Bardeen potential with respect to the radiation fluid. For this reason, one can conclude that the appropriate quantum gauge invariant variable to be used must be the same as the one defined in Ref.  for the quantum treatment of hydrodynamical fluids perturbation theory, which, in the case of pure radiation, is related to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_k=3\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\frac{\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\beta }{k^2}\left(\frac{v_k}{z}\right)^{},$$
(28)
where $`\beta =^2^{}`$ and $`za\sqrt{3\beta }/`$. Similarly, the gauge invariant quantum variable connected to the scalar field perturbation given in Ref.  is given by

$$\omega _k=a[\delta \varphi +(\phi /)^{}\mathrm{\Phi }]w_k.$$
(29)
It is interesting to note that the quantum field $`v`$ leaves the oscillatory regime at the same conformal time as $`\delta \varphi `$ does, and that neither of them do so at horizon crossing. This is a peculiarity of our model due to the fact that at the time at which the quantum fields leave the oscillatory regime, the space is almost radiation dominated, but not quite.

Imposing the initial vacuum state for these quantum variables implies that we can set

$$v_k=\frac{3^{1/4}\mathrm{e}^{ik\left(\eta \eta _\mathrm{i}\right)/\sqrt{3}}}{\sqrt{2k}}$$

and

$$w_k=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{ik\left(\eta \eta _\mathrm{j}\right)}}{\sqrt{2k}}$$

at $`\eta \mathrm{}`$, with $`\eta _\mathrm{i}`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{j}`$ two a priori arbitrary conformal times, having no influence on the subsequent evolution. From the solutions (21) and these initial conditions, one can write the Bardeen potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ and the scalar field perturbation $`\delta \varphi _k`$ at $`k\eta \sqrt{6}`$ (or $`|x|x_11`$) as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{\mathrm{ini}}}=\frac{\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\eta _03^{3/4}}{2a_0\eta ^2k^{3/2}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{k\eta }+i\right)\mathrm{e}^{ik(\eta \eta _\mathrm{i})/\sqrt{3}},$$
(30)
and

$$\delta \varphi _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{\mathrm{ini}}}=\frac{\eta _0}{a_0\eta \sqrt{2k}}\mathrm{e}^{ik(\eta \eta _\mathrm{j})}.$$
(31)
We are interested in calculating the power spectrum

$$𝒫_kk^3|\mathrm{\Phi }_k|^2A__\mathrm{S}k^{n__\mathrm{S}1},$$
(32)
evaluated at the time when $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ returns to its oscillatory regime, i.e., at $`x=x_1`$. As we shall see later, the values of $`\delta \varphi _k`$ in the different phases of perturbation evolution are not necessary to calculate $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ at $`x=x_1`$. Hence, we will forget about $`\delta \varphi _k`$ from now on.

Looking at Eq. (17), one can see that the first matching must be imposed when $`k^2/3=2(^{}+2^2)=(a^2)^{\prime \prime }/a^2`$, for $`u_k=a^2\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$. As $`k`$ is very small, this happens when $`|\eta |1`$ (where we can ignore the source terms). Matching the solution (30) with solution (22) at the point $`k\eta \sqrt{6}`$ (or $`xx_1`$) yields

$$A_1=\frac{\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\eta _0\sqrt{k}}{3^{5/4}2\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{e}^{i\left(\sqrt{2}+k\eta _\mathrm{i}\right)/\sqrt{3}},$$
(33)
and

$$A_2=\frac{\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}}a_0^33^{5/4}}{2\eta _0^3k^{5/2}}(13\sqrt{2}i)\mathrm{e}^{i\left(\sqrt{2}+k\eta _\mathrm{j}\right)/\sqrt{3}}.$$
(34)
The solution (22) is valid up to the point where $`x`$ is of order one, when we approach the bounce. Differentiating Eq. (15) twice and making use of Eq. (16) as well as the background equations, we obtain the following fourth order equation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{(\mathrm{IV})}}+10\mathrm{\Phi }_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime \prime }+\left[\frac{4}{3}k^2+20\left(^{}+2^2\right)\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }+6k^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\frac{1}{3}k^2\left[k^2+4\left(^{}+2^2\right)\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_k=0,$$
(35)
whose analysis indicates that the solution (22) is valid for $`|x|x_2`$, up to $`|x|1`$, where the source term in Eqs. (15) become relevant but $`k`$ is still completely negligible. We have to match this solution with the other relevant solution in this region, namely, the bounce solution (24), which have three arbitrary constants. As confirmed by the numerical analysis below, we have to set $`\stackrel{~}{C}=0`$ because the function it multiplies goes like $`1/x^2`$, which should appear, and dominate, in Eq. (22) in a region where both solutions are valid. Hence, we only need to determine $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$. That is why we do not need to calculate the evolution of $`\delta \varphi _k`$ in order to determine such constants; this also explains why the initial conditions we assume for the scalar field perturbation are irrelevant for the final power spectrum.

The solution (24) will propagate the Bardeen potential to the other side of the bounce, to the region where $`x`$ is of order one. As we are in a region where $`k`$ is negligible, the point of matching will be chosen to be $`x=N1`$, where $`N`$ does not depend on $`k`$ but is large333We consider $`N`$ large but not large enough to neglect terms of order $`N^5`$ in the expansion of $`f_1`$ in Eq. (24). If we neglect such terms, we loose the effect of the bounce in the evolution of the perturbations. Also, considering $`N=1`$, without approximations, would not change our qualitative results and the power spectrum..

The result of the matching reads

$$\stackrel{~}{A}=A_1\frac{8\eta _0}{45a_0^4N^5}A_2,$$
(36)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{B}=\frac{\eta _0}{3a_0^4}A_2.$$
(37)
At $`x=N1`$, on the other side of the bounce, these solutions must be matched with a solution similar to Eq. (22), namely

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}=C_1C_2\frac{\eta _0^4}{3a_0^4\eta ^3},$$
(38)
yielding

$$C_1=A_1\frac{16\eta _0}{45a_0^4N^5}A_2,$$
(39)
and $`C_2=A_2`$. For the power spectrum, the important term in Eq. (38) is the constant $`C_1`$: as we are now back to a regular expanding universe, the other term is a decaying mode which rapidly becomes negligible. In $`C_1`$, the dominant term when $`k1`$ is the one proportional to $`A_2`$ which goes as $`k^{5/2}`$, while the other is proportional to $`\sqrt{k}`$. Hence, we get

$$k^3|\mathrm{\Phi }_k(x_1)|^2k^3|\stackrel{~}{A_2}|^2\frac{\eta _0^2}{a_0^8N^{10}}\frac{\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}}^2}{a_0^2\eta _0^4N^{10}}k^2.$$
(40)
yielding a spectral index $`n__\mathrm{S}=1`$.

One can then define a transfer function between “Horizon exit” and “Horizon re-entry” as the ratio of the power spectra at the corresponding two different times. It is given in the case of our bounce by the relation

$$T(k)=\frac{k^3|\mathrm{\Phi }_k(x_1)|^2}{k^3|\mathrm{\Phi }_k(x_1)|^2}(\eta _0k)^6.$$
(41)
This transfer function essentially depends on the behavior of the scale factor at both times, as well as on the nature of the bounce itself. It is represented on Fig. 5

Let us now check all these approximations through a numerical examination of Eqs. (15) and (16).

### III.3 Numerical calculations

The system (15-16) can be solved numerically for any value of $`k`$. For that purpose, we also include the characteristic conformal timescale $`\eta _0`$ in the wavenumber $`\stackrel{~}{k}=k\eta _0`$ (and correspondingly $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\omega \eta _0`$), and write the system as

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2\mathrm{\Phi }_k}{\mathrm{d}x^2}+\frac{4x}{x^2+1}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi }_k}{\mathrm{d}x}+\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2\mathrm{\Phi }_k& =& \frac{\sqrt{2}}{x^2+1}\frac{\mathrm{d}X_k}{\mathrm{d}x},\\ \\ \frac{\mathrm{d}^2X_k}{\mathrm{d}x^2}+\frac{2x}{x^2+1}\frac{\mathrm{d}X_k}{\mathrm{d}x}+\stackrel{~}{k}^2X_k& =& \frac{4\sqrt{2}}{x^2+1}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Phi }_k}{\mathrm{d}x},\end{array}$$
(42)
relations in which $`X_k\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\delta \varphi _k`$ (recall that $`x\eta /\eta _0`$), subject to initial conditions, far in the limit $`x\mathrm{}`$, given by Eqs. (30) and (31) with $`\eta _\mathrm{i}=\eta _\mathrm{j}=0`$ , namely

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{\mathrm{ini}}}=\frac{3^{3/4}\alpha }{2x^2\stackrel{~}{k}^{3/2}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{3}}{\stackrel{~}{k}x}+i\right)\mathrm{e}^{i\stackrel{~}{k}x/\sqrt{3}},$$
(43)
and

$$X_k^{^{\mathrm{ini}}}=\frac{\alpha }{x\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{k}}}\mathrm{e}^{i\stackrel{~}{k}x},$$
(44)
where we have defined the only free dimensionless parameter $`\alpha =\mathrm{}_{_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\sqrt{\eta _0}/a_0`$. In all the figures, this parameter has been arbitrarily fixed to the value $`\alpha =10^3`$; the conclusions do not, however, depend on this value, which acts as a simple normalization constant.

The solution of Eqs. (42) for the square of the Bardeen potential $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_k|^2`$ is shown on the bottom panel of FIG. 4 for various values of the wavenumber, renormalized with the bounce characteristic conformal timescale, $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$, ranging from $`10^6`$ to $`1`$ on the figure as a function of the renormalized conformal time $`y\stackrel{~}{k}x=k\eta `$. All calculations are started far in the radiation dominated epoch, for $`y=100`$, where the boundary conditions hold. This is verified as, indeed, for small enough values of $`k\eta _0`$, $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_k|^2`$ behaves as $`\eta ^4`$, as expected. It can be checked that, as discussed above, in the long wavelength limit, the Bardeen potential starts with a negligible constant part and a growing, $`\eta ^3`$, mode, for $`x_1x1`$, which then connects to the $`f_1`$ part while crossing the bounce, and then connects back to the usual growing and decaying modes, although the new constant part has now acquired a piece from both modes of the previous epoch.

Once the system (42) is solved, one can easily compute the value of the Bardeen potential at horizon crossing, namely for $`x1/\stackrel{~}{k}`$, i.e., $`\eta 1/k`$, or $`y1`$. This provides the spectrum shown on the top panel of FIG. 4. It is clear on that figure that for small values of $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$, the behavior of the power spectrum is indeed a power law, which we checked indeed corresponds to $`n__\mathrm{S}=1`$. Also shown is a comparison between various cases of interest, namely the vacuum case for which the initial conditions given by Eqs. (43) and (44) hold, the gravitational vacuum case for which Eq. (43) still holds, but with Eq. (44) replaced by $`X_k^{^{\mathrm{ini}}}=0`$, and finally the decoupled case for which the coupling between $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ and $`X_k`$ is made to vanish, i.e. for which the left-hand side of Eqs. (42) is arbitrarily set to zero. The curves corresponding to either vacuum or gravitational vacuum initial conditions are seen to be almost undistinguishable, showing that, as expected and discussed in the previous section, the final spectrum for the gravitational potential does not depend on the initial conditions for the scalar field perturbations. The decoupled curve shows that, for $`\stackrel{~}{k}1`$, if one were to neglect the bounce duration and apply some matching conditions by brute force, one gets the same spectral index $`n__\mathrm{S}=1`$, but with a normalization that is wrong by many orders of magnitude. The situation is even worse for intermediate scales for which even the index is wrong.

On FIG. 6 is shown an enhancement of the region surrounding the bounce itself. This figure shows that the real and imaginary parts of both the Bardeen potential and the scalar field perturbation connect, respectively, with the bounce functions $`f_1`$ and $`f_3`$, thereby confirming the prediction $`\stackrel{~}{C}=0`$.

The fact that the Bardeen potential only connects to the odd bounce function $`f_1(x)`$ suggests that in the limit in which the bounce duration $`\eta _0`$ can be neglected, one may apply the following junction conditions across the surface at which the bounce is located ($`\eta =0`$)

$$\left[\mathrm{\Phi }\right]_\pm =\left[\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\mathrm{\Phi }\right]_\pm =0,$$
(45)
where $`\left[A\right]_\pm =A(\eta __\mathrm{B})A(+\eta __\mathrm{B})`$ is the jump in the geometric quantity $`A`$. On FIG. 7 are shown the time evolution across the bounce of the quantities involved in Eq. (45). For a fixed surface thickness $`\eta __\mathrm{B}`$, and in a way independent of this thickness, the relevant quantities are indeed conserved and can be safely used. This is of course true only in the particular example presented here, but it can also be conjectured to apply for a symmetric bounce in general. In fact, taking the ekpyrotic model  with our matching conditions (45), one obtains a scale invariant spectrum.

## IV Conclusions

We have presented a cosmological model in which a bounce takes place in the framework of pure general relativity. This is achieved by assuming that, at some stage after a contracting phase, a negative energy free scalar field became important. Performing a bounce with such a scalar field, instead of an ordinary hydrodynamical fluid, permits to regularize the perturbation, which otherwise grow unbounded near the bounce . We derived the last horizon crossing spectrum and obtained, both analytically and numerically, a spectral index $`n__\mathrm{S}=1`$ in the long wavelength limit, therefore ruling out such a model as a competitor to the inflationary paradigm. However, our study of a concrete bouncing model allowed us to obtain some intuition on what happens with perturbations when they pass through a bounce. First of all, the bounce acts indeed as a “pump field” for perturbations. Secondly, the field which produces the bounce in the background solution, and its perturbations, is not relevant for the evolution of the Bardeen potential in almost the whole history of the model, except near the bounce itself, where it becomes very important for the power spectrum amplitude, although not for the spectral index. Finally, usual matching conditions are not valid for transitions through a bounce. In fact, even for the background metric, such conditions are not valid since the Hubble parameter $`H=/a`$ changes sign through the bounce, by definition. Through our bounce, the Bardeen potential also changes sign, and what happens to be continuous is the combination $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Inspired by our concrete model, we suggested matching conditions to be applied to general models where the bounce is not specified, which are spelled out in the subsection III.3. Of course, these suggestions must be checked within other concrete examples, or through a more general formal analysis.

The model we have discussed is admittedly over simplistic. We may be confident in its latest part describing the radiation dominated epoch, which we know have taken place in our Universe, and accept that it may provide a reasonable description of an immediately preceding bouncing phase. There is, however, no reason to believe, even in the case of a bounce, that the evolution of the Universe should have been symmetric in time. One can instead set up a contracting phase with a different scale factor, assuming at some stage some form of entropy production, to end up with enough radiation before the bounce, yielding a scale factor of the form (7) that ultimately connects back to standard cosmology. Such a model should originate in a realistic underlying particle physics theory.

Let us briefly discuss an example, which is reminiscent of the ekpyrotic proposal , with a few differences. First, the model we have in mind would be purely four dimensional and does not intend to address the flatness problem. Second, such a model would be effectively singularity free. Finally, we would not need to impose arbitrary  matching conditions across the bounce to obtain the required mixing in the growing and decaying modes before and after the bounce, since its specific form would be known.

More precisely, a model satisfying the abovementioned requirements could consist in a bouncing model having a slowly contracting phase, $`a(\eta )^p`$, with $`0<p1`$, connected to the phase examined in the previous sections, as the one shown on FIG. 8. When the perturbation in the Bardeen potential crosses the horizon for the first time, the dependence $`\eta ^2`$ in Eq. (30), stemming from the fact that the universe is supposed to be radiation dominated at that time, would be substituted by a dependence $`\eta ^{2p}`$, i.e., almost independent of $`k`$ when $`k\eta 1`$. Doing calculations along the lines of those presented in Sec. III, the scale invariant spectrum follows.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank CNPq of Brazil for financial support. NPN should like to acknowledge IAP for hospitality during the time this work was being done. We also would like to thank Ruth Durrer, Gilles Esposito-Farèse, Jean-Philippe Uzan and the group of “Pequeno Seminário” for various enlightening discussions. We are also especially indebted to Jérôme Martin for numerous important comments and discussions.


format: text

text:
# Pionic susceptibility for charged pions in asymmetric nuclei

## Appendix A Explicit expressions

In the explicit expression for the function $`\varphi _{ab^1}(\omega ,k)`$ defined in Eq. (1) four different cases must be distinguished:

* $`kp_F^{(a)}+p_F^{(b)}`$ (no Pauli blocking):

$$\varphi _{ab^1}(\omega ,k)=f_{ab^1}^{(u)}(\omega ,k,p_F^{(b)},p_F^{(b)}),$$
(5)
* $`|p_F^{(a)}p_F^{(b)}|k<p_F^{(a)}+p_F^{(b)}`$:

$`\varphi _{ab^1}(\omega ,k)=`$ $`f_{ab^1}^{(r)}(\omega ,k,\frac{p_F^{(a)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}p_F^{(b)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}k^2}{2k},p_F^{(a)}k)`$
$`+f_{ab^1}^{(u)}(\omega ,k,p_F^{(a)}k,p_F^{(b)}),`$ (6)
* $`k<|p_F^{(a)}p_F^{(b)}|`$ and $`p_F^{(a)}p_F^{(b)}`$:

$`\varphi _{ab^1}(\omega ,k)=`$ $`f_{ab^1}^{(u)}(\omega ,k,p_F^{(b)},p_F^{(a)}k)`$
$`+f_{ab^1}^{(r)}(\omega ,k,p_F^{(a)}k,p_F^{(a)}k)`$
$`+f_{ab^1}^{(u)}(\omega ,k,p_F^{(a)}k,p_F^{(b)}),`$ (7)
* $`k<|p_F^{(a)}p_F^{(b)}|`$ and $`p_F^{(a)}>p_F^{(b)}`$ (complete Pauli blocking):

$$\varphi _{ab^1}(\omega ,k)=0.$$
(8)

In these equations $`f_{ab^1}^{(u)}`$ and $`f_{ab^1}^{(r)}`$ denote the integrals over $`p_{}`$ and $`p_{}`$ in the regions of $`p_{}`$ where the integration over $`p_{}`$ is unrestricted or restricted by Pauli blocking, respectively:

$$\begin{array}{c}f_{ab^1}^{(u)}(\omega ,k,p_1,p_2)=\frac{m}{16\pi ^2k^3}\hfill \\ \hfill \times [2k(p_1p_2)(k^2k(p_1+p_2)2m\omega )\\ \hfill +(4k^2p_F^{(b)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(k^22m\omega ^2)^2)\mathrm{ln}x],\end{array}$$
(9)
$$\begin{array}{c}f_{ab^1}^{(r)}(\omega ,k,p_1,p_2)=\frac{m}{4\pi ^2k}[2k(p_1p_2)\hfill \\ \hfill +(p_F^{(b)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}p_F^{(a)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+2m\omega )\mathrm{ln}x],\end{array}$$
(10)
with

$$x=\frac{k^2+2kp_12m\omega i\epsilon }{k^2+2kp_22m\omega i\epsilon }.$$
(11)
If one is only interested in the real part of Eq. (2), the Pauli-blocking effects in the two terms cancel, and it is possible to use the simple formula (5) for all cases, see Eqs. (10.6) to (10.8) of Ref. Migdal . However, for Eqs. (3) and (4), the distinction of the four cases (a) to (d) is necessary.