Abstract
The homogeneous cosmological models with a Liouville scalar field are investigated in classical and quantum contexts of Wheeler–DeWitt geometrodynamics. In the quantum case of quintessence field with potential unbounded from below and phantom field, the energy density operators are not essentially selfadjoint, and selfadjoint extensions contain ambiguities. Therefore the same classical actions correspond to a family of distinct quantum models. For the phantom field the energy spectrum happens to be discrete. The probability conservation and appropriate classical limit can be achieved with a certain restriction of the functional class. The appropriately localized wave packets are studied numerically using the Schrödinger’s norm and a conserved Mostafazadeh’s norm introduced from techniques of pseudoHermitian quantum mechanics. These norms give a similar packet evolution that is confronted with analytical classical solutions.
Introduction
Cosmological models with scalar fields have drawn a lot of attention in the last decades because of investigations on cosmological inflation [1] and dark energy [2], but few of them can be exactly integrated. A universe driven by scalar fields with an exponential potential is dubbed Liouville cosmology, which is one of the wellstudied integrable models in cosmology. The powerlaw expansion of particular solutions and its applications are investigated in e.g. [3,4,5]. The general classical solutions have been discussed in detail under various gauge conditions in e.g. [6, 7]. The correspondence between Jordan and Einstein frame is studied in [8,9,10,11,12,13], wherein the Liouville field in the Einstein frame is related to the powerlaw potential in Jordan frame through a conformal transformation combining with a parameter transformation of scalar field. The exactly solvable models with several Liouville scalar fields were developed in [14, 15]. The appearance of the Lioville cosmologies from higherdimensional theories, in particular superstring theories and Mtheory was studied in [16, 17].
General relativity is a theory with constraints, the corresponding Hamiltonian is zero [18,19,20,21]. The reason for the vanishing Hamiltonian is the presence of a nondynamical symmetry, namely diffeomorphism invariance; in other words, the gravitational theory contains redundant degrees of freedom. In the minisuperspace approximation, the redundancy appears in the form of the lapse function N(t). Therefore, to solve the dynamics of the model, it is necessary to introduce a specific gauge condition to eliminate N(t) [6, 14]. Traditionally, the lapse function is set to unity, such that the universe evolves in cosmic time [22]. However one could eliminate N(t) and avoid an explicit time parametrization to obtain exact solutions of Einstein’s equation. This fits well the Wheeler–DeWitt quantum cosmology which does not involve time.
The cosmological models driven by a scalar field with a constant potential may serve as examples of the latter approach [5, 21]. In these models, the scalar field is a cyclic coordinate, hence the conjugate momentum is integral of motion, and the conservation law can be applied to eliminate the lapse function N(t), such that the modified Friedman equation contains only minisuperspace variables. Inspired by this, we introduce a similar integral of motion in Liouville cosmology of homogeneous and isotropic models [23], in order to eliminate the redundant degrees of freedom. With the help of this integral of motion, the classical Friedman equation reduces to a timeindependent nonlinear equation, the solution of which can be derived explicitly and describes the trajectory in minisuperspace. This method can also be directly extended to higher dimensional [24, 25] and anisotropic models, such as BianchiI cosmology considered in [12].
The physical meaning of the formal Wheeler–DeWitt equation and its correspondence with the classical theory can be derived in three steps. The first one is the selection of the space of physical wave functions, usually by endowing proper boundary conditions. In traditional quantum mechanics, crucial properties of the theory depend on the boundary conditions for wave functions, such as the Hermiticity of observables [26], the orthogonality of wave functions (e.g. [26, 27]) and the conservation of probability, to name a few. A similar situation holds in quantum cosmology [21, 28], in which proper boundary conditions have to be specified, such that the solutions of the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, which are not squareintegrable, are eliminated from the space of physical wave functions. In this paper we address an important issue encountered at this step. The Hamiltonian operator naively constructed by the canonical quantization in some cosmological models, which are interesting from the phenomenological point of view, including phantom field, happens to be not essentially selfadjoint and its selfadjoint extension is not unique [29,30,31]. Namely while the clasical action fixes up to the usual ordering ambiguities how the Hamiltonian acts on the localized wavefunctions the evolution over finite amounts of time depends on its behaviour at infinity where extra ambiguity arises. Hence one classical action correspond to a family of distinct quantum models with different quantum evolutions. The cosmological models with similar selfadjointness issues were considered in [32, 33].
The second step is to define an inner product on the physical space that would give the conserved probability distribution in quantum cosmology. Since the Wheeler–DeWitt equation is of Klein–Gordon type, the ‘probability density’ defined by the socalled Klein–Gordon norm is not guaranteed to be positive. While one may restrict consideration to the WKB wavepackets the question arises how to interpret the wavefunction of the universe beyond the WKB region. A resolution of this problem may be provided within the pseudoHermitian theory by introducing the Mostafazadeh’s norm [34,35,36]. While we do not treat this norm as the only possible way to tackle the probability problem it may be considered as an useful tool to study the quantum cosmology as a fully consistent quantum theory within restrictions of the minisuperspace approximation.
Finally one has to attribute a proper energy distribution to construct a wave packet [37,38,39]. For a given initial coordinate distribution of wave packet in minisuperspace, the energy distribution can be calculated, which however is not easy to realize in practice. A common compromise is to choose a Gaussian energy distribution. Then in correspondence with classical theory the probability distribution of the established wave packet should ‘centre’ at the classical path and follow it as closely as possible apart from turning points.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we briefly elucidate the problem of the quantum particle in the unstable potential \(V=\mathrm {e}^{2x}\) and the ambiguity of selfadjoint extension of the Hamiltonian operator. In Sect. 3 an integral of motion is introduced for three types of Liouville cosmological models and explicit classical solutions are given in terms of minisuperspace variables. Section 4 introduces the corresponding canonical quantum cosmology and there the physical state space is constructed. As a verification of the results, in Sect. 5 the limit of potential parameter \(\lambda \) tending to zero is considered. Section 6 is devoted to the classicalquantum correspondence, in which the wave packets are implemented and the probability distributions are plotted for two kinds of norms. The conclusions Sect. 7 contain some comments on further extensions and applications of the approach adopted in this paper.
Quantum mechanics of a particle in a negative Liouville potential
To explain the issues that will arise in the quantum cosmological models of interest let us consider the onedimensional motion of a nonrelativistic particle in a Liouville potential which is unbounded from below, described by the Hamiltonian
This is the special case of the unstable Morse potential considered in detail in [30, Ch. 8.5].
The corresponding timeindependent Schrödinger equation is
For the positive energies \(E>0\) the solutions are,
where,
where \(J_{\nu }\) is a Bessel function,
and functions,
are defined according to [40]. They have undamped oscillatory behavior as \(x\rightarrow \infty \),
and oscillations as \(x\rightarrow +\infty \) exponentially decreasing amplitude but accelerating frequency,
Thanks to this behavior both functions should naively contribute to the continuous spectrum. Using the method from [41] one can obtain the following orthogonality relations,
However both of these functions \({{{\mathrm{F}}}_{\mathrm {i}k}}\mathopen {}\left( \mathrm {e}^x\right) \mathclose {}\) and \({{{\mathrm{G}}}_{\mathrm {i}l}}\mathopen {}\left( \mathrm {e}^x\right) \mathclose {}\) can not be included into the continuous spectrum of a selfadjoint operator simultaneously as they are not orthogonal even when \(k\ne l\) is different. Nevertheless, we note that their symmetrized scalar product vanishes,
For negative energies \(E\le 0\) one naively obtains the continuous spectrum of squareintegrable solutions,
Similarly to the part of the spectrum with \(E>0\), not all of these wavefunctions can be included into the spectrum of a selfadjoint operator because they are not orthogonal for different values of \(\mu \) in general [42],
These peculiarities are caused by the operator \(\hat{H}\), as defined on the standard domain of \(\hat{p}^2\), being not essentially selfadjoint. Thus it actually describes a family of different selfadjoint extensions that are indistinguishable on sufficiently localized smooth functions but generate different unitary evolutions. Since this important topic is often neglected in the quantum mechanics courses we elucidate few important facts here and refer to [29,30,31] for details.
In infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces it is too restrictive to demand that the domain of the operator \(\mathscr {D}(\hat{A})\) covered the whole Hilber space \(\mathscr {H}\). Therefore operators including observables are usually defined on the domains that are merely dense in \(\mathscr {H}\) i.e. any element in the Hilbert space can be obtained as a limit of some sequence of elements in \(\mathscr {D}(\hat{A})\). For example the operator \(\hat{p}^2\) can not be defined on the whole \(L^2(\mathbb {R})\) but is symmetric on the domain of all ‘bumps’  infinitely differentiable functions with compact support, \(\mathscr {C}_c^{\infty }\).
However this leads to the following pitfall. Even if its domain is dense a symmetric operator \(\hat{A}\) such that,
does not in general possess important properties like spectral theorem and reality of eigenvalues. For \(\hat{A}\) to be selfadjoint its adjoint \(\hat{A}^\dagger \) defined as,
should have the same domain \(\mathscr {D}(\hat{A}^\dagger )=\mathscr {D}(\hat{A})\). However in general the domain of \(\hat{A}^\dagger \) is larger than the domain of \(\hat{A}\). In many cases this happens because \(\mathscr {D}(\hat{A})\) is selected to be too small and it is possible to find the selfadjoint operator called selfadjoint extension on a larger domain that equals to \(\hat{A}\) on the original domain. If such extension is unique \(\hat{A}\) is said to be essentially selfadjoint. But in general the operator \(\hat{A}\) has many selfadjoint extenstions. This should not be considered as a pathology, rather the original definition of \(\hat{A}\) happens to be incomplete and provides merely a local description of many different selfadjoint operators each generating its own unitary evolution.
For nonsingular potentials bounded from below the Hamiltonian is essentially selfadjoint. However this is not a case for Eq. (1). It shows itself in the existence of squareintegrable solutions of Eq. (2) with complex E. For example for \(E_{\pm }=\pm 2\mathrm {i}\) one gets,
The dimensions of the subspaces of solutions corresponding to complex E with \({\text {Im}} E>0\) and \({\text {Im}} E<0\) are known as deficiency indices \(n_{+}\) and \(n_{}\) respectively. If \(n_{+}=n_{}=0\) (i.e. there are no such solutions) the operator is essentially selfadjoint, that is its selfadjoint extension is unique. If \(n_{+}\ne n_{}\) no selfadjoint extension exists. In our case the squareintegrability requires \(\tilde{C}_{\pm }=0\) however \(C_{\pm }\ne 0\) is allowed. Therefore \(n_{+}=n_{}=1\). According to the Weyl–von Neumann theorem [29] this means that a single parameter family of selfadjoint extensions exists.
The functions \(\tilde{\psi }_\mu \) are square integrable but don’t belong to \(\mathscr {C}_c^{\infty }\). As result the \(\hat{p}^2\) and \(\hat{H}\) are not generally symmetric on these solutions,
To extend the domain of \(\hat{H}\) conserving its symmetricity we consider the new functional class bigger than \(\mathscr {C}_c^{\infty }\) with a specific oscillatory behavior as \(x\rightarrow +\infty \),
where a is an arbitrary parameter \(a\in [0,2)\). For \(E>0\) using Eqs. (10), (11) we then get nondegenerate continuous spectrum,
whereas for \(E\le 0\) using 10.7.2 from [43] we obtain the discrete spectrum,
The resulting full spectrum forms orthonormal set,
It is interesting that the discreteness of the spectrum for \(E<0\) and the nondegeneracy of the continuous spectrum for \(E>0\) makes the abyss of the potential at large positive x analogous to a reflecting wall. The classical trajectories for the particle described by H reach infinity in finite time. Therefore in the first WKB approximation, the Gaussian wave packet also reaches the infinity in finite time. The subsequent motion of the particle may be described as a bounce from infinity. The nonuniqueness of the selfadjoint extension for \(\hat{H}\) may be understood intuitively in the following way. After crossing over infinity the wave function may be multiplied by an arbitrary phase factor \(\mathrm {e}^{2\uppi \mathrm {i}a}\) without losing the conservation of probability. Thus we have a family of unitary evolution operators generated by different selfadjoint extensions of \(\hat{H}\) that locally are indistinguishable however differ at finite times.
Another way, perhaps more physical, to understand this nonuniqueness is to consider the regularized potential, for example introducing an infinitely high wall at \(x=L\) that forms a potential well with the fall of the potential at large x playing the role of another wall,
Even in the limit \(L\rightarrow +\infty \) the energy levels for \(E<0\) stay apart from each other and the spectrum remains to be discrete. The nonuniqueness of the selfadjoint extension takes the form of the regularizationdependence. The parameter a can be shown to be equal to,
Classical solutions of Liouville cosmology
Consider a Friedmann–Lemaître model minimally coupled with a spatially isotropic and homogeneous Liouville field. The Friedmann–Lemaître– Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric is
where N(t) is the lapse function, and \(a(t)= \exp \alpha (t)\) the cosmological scale factor; moreover, the scalar field is a function only of time, \(\phi = \phi (t)\). With \(\varkappa = 8 \uppi G\), \(\sigma = \pm 1\) and \(\lambda \in \mathbb {R}\), the minisuperspace action reads
where \(\sigma = +1\) gives a quintessence model [44], and \(\sigma = 1\) is dubbed as a phantom model [45]. From Eq. (30) one readily derives the Hamiltonian density
in terms of \(\alpha \) and \(\phi \), as well as their canonical momenta
the significance of stressing \(\lambda \) will be elaborated in Sect. (5). It has been shown in [14, 23] that
is an integral of motion, i.e. \(\omega \) is a constant on the constraint surface
where \(\approx \) represents Dirac’s weak equivalence [46,47,48,49,50].
Applying Eq. (33) to the Friedmann equation
one can eliminate the lapse function N and obtain a nonlinear equation
in terms of minisuperspace variables \(\alpha \) and \(\phi \) only, and \({\dot{\alpha }}/{\dot{\phi }}\) has already been replaced by \(\mathrm {d}\alpha (\phi ) / \mathrm {d}\phi \). Equation (36) can be solved with the help of a change of variables
where x is for quintessence and y is for phantom.
Defining
the solution for a quintessence model \(\sigma =+1\) can be divided into two cases:

1.
When \(m_x\) and V are of different sign, one obtains
$$\begin{aligned} \mathrm {e}^{6 \alpha +\lambda \phi } =\frac{3 \varkappa \omega ^2}{ V m_x} {{{\mathrm{csch}}}^2}\mathopen {}\left( \lambda \sqrt{\frac{3}{2 \varkappa }} \alpha +\sqrt{\frac{3 \varkappa }{2}} \phi +c_1\right) \mathclose {}, \end{aligned}$$(39)where \(c_1\) is an integration constant associated with the initial conditions. Equation (39) contains two distinct solutions separated by \(\lambda \sqrt{\frac{3}{2 \varkappa }} \alpha +\sqrt{\frac{3 \varkappa }{2}} \phi +c_1 = 0\) due to the divergence of \({{\mathrm{csch}}}x\) for \(x \rightarrow 0\). Both of the solutions can be interpreted as an expansion model, see e.g. Fig. 2. For \(\omega =0\), one recovers the powerlaw special solution or \(\alpha \propto \phi \) in [5].

2.
When \(m_x\) and V are of the same sign, one has
$$\begin{aligned} \mathrm {e}^{6 \alpha +\lambda \phi } =\frac{3\varkappa \omega ^2}{ V m_x} {{{\mathrm{sech}}}^2}\mathopen {}\left( \lambda \sqrt{\frac{3}{2 \varkappa }} \alpha +\sqrt{\frac{3 \varkappa }{2}} \phi +c_1\right) \mathclose {}, \end{aligned}$$(40)this trajectory contains a single turning point in finite domain of minisuperspace.
As for the second case the quantization is straightforward we will concentrate on the first case.
Similar to Eq. (38), one can define
for phantom model with \(\sigma =1\). The solution reads
where \(c_2\) is another integration constant. Equation (42) contains a infinite family of distinct solutions separated by two types of cosmological singularities at infinity, due to the periodic divergences of \(\sec \) function, see Fig. 1. These three results Eqs. (39), (40) and (42) can also be obtained through HamiltonJacobi (HJ) approach [51], where the nonlinear Eq. (36) is replaced by HJ equation including \(\omega \) as an integral of motion.
With a given set of initial conditions, the universe runs only along one branch. Hence the domain of minisuperspace variables in Eq. (42) has to be restricted
such that only one trajectory between a pair of singularities is selected. In other words, eliminating time parameter in the classical solution gives rise to Eq. (42) that covers redundant trajectories as well, which should be eliminated by the additional condition Eq. (43). For simplicity, one can choose \(c_1 \equiv 0\), \(k \equiv 0\) and obtain
which could be applied as a boundary condition in quantum theory. According to DeWitt’s criterion [52] , the wave functions must vanish at classical singularities. This restriction on the classical domain of variables affords the possibility to determine the ambiguity of selfadjoint extension, if one prefers to fix the periodicity of wave function with respect to \(\tau \). See Sect. 4.
Dirac quantization of Liouville cosmology
Inner product and probabilities
On of the basic building blocks of any quantum model is the inner product that allows to assign probabilities. However this is a long standing problem in quantum cosmology due to the Wheeler–DeWitt equation being of the Klein–Gordon type. The naturally conserved Klein–Gordon inner product corresponds to the indefinite norm [20, ch. 5]. PseudoHermitian quantum mechanics [36] provides a cure and will be applied here to reconstruct wave packets based on consistent norms.
Assume that the Wheeler–DeWitt equaton can be written in the form,
The simplest approach is to use the usual Schrödinger inner product,
however it is not conserved. On the other hand, the naturally conserved Klein–Gordon inner product,
is not suitable to define the probabilities as it is not positivedefinite.
In the pseudoHermitian quantum mechanics, an alternative definition of inner product by Mostafazadeh can be adapted from [34, 35], where a family of Hilbert spaces with a corresponding pseudoHamiltonian were constructed for the Klein–Gordon equation (45). The solution of Eq. (45) are endowed with, again, the Schrödinger \({L^2}\mathopen {}\left( \mathbb {R}\right) \mathclose {}\) inner product in Eq. (46), and \(\mathbf {D}\) (not necessarily independent of \(\tau \)!) is required to be Hermitian with eigenfunctions and nonnegative eigenvalues
The Mostafazadeh inner product of the new Hilbert space, which features timetranslational invariance with respect to \(\tau \), can be chosen to be
in which \(\mu \) is a normalizing constant, \({\dot{\psi }}:=\partial _\tau \psi \), and \(\mathbf {D}^\gamma \) is defined by the spectral decomposition
Equation (49) is manifestly positivedefinite, but its integrand \(\varrho \) is, in general, complex. Luckily, a nonnegative density
can be defined whose integral gives the Mostafazadeh inner product
Therefore \(\rho \) is a good candidate for a probability density in the minisuperspace.
Quintessence field
In addition to Eq. (37), a further transformation
is to be performed in order to separate the variables, which is related to \(\omega \) by
Because of Eq. (54), \(\tau \) can be treated as the time of a Klein–Gordontype equation and \(\omega \) as its Fourier conjugate. The Hamiltonian in Eq. (31) then becomes
which is of Klein–Gordon form. Promoting the canonical variables to operators in the position representation
one can obtain the Wheeler–DeWitt equation
which is Eq. (45) with
Its solution can be represented by the Fourier integral
where \({\psi }\mathopen {}\left( \omega ,x\right) \mathclose {}\) satisfies
In order to save the Hermiticity of operators and define meaningful probability densities [20, 21] one can demand the solution to be square integrable. The expectation value of a physical observable can be defined naively by
When \(m_x V>0\) the operator is essentially selfadjoint and the quantization proceeds in a straightforward fashion. In contrast when \(m_x V<0\), the Eq. (60) can be regarded as the stationary Schrödinger equation with negative potential unbounded from below and the corresponding operator is not essentially selfadjoint which is the problem that was considered in detail in Sect. 2. The squareintegrable functions can be represented as superpositions of eigenfunctions of,
where \(\nu \) is given by,
and the functions \(\varXi _\nu ^{(a)}\) and \(\varPhi _n^{(a)}\) are defined in Eqs. (2223) and (24) respectively. The solution contains arbitrary parameter \(a\in [0,2)\) specifying the selfadjoint extension. The first part of the wave function corresponds to the solution of Eq. (60) with positive \(\omega ^2>0\), while the second is derived from same equation with negative \(\omega ^2<0\). The discrete purely imaginary \(\omega _n\)
are required for completeness and hermiticity, but they produce growing and decreasing modes, which are not compatible with conservation neither of the Klein–Gordon norm Eq. (47) nor of the Mostafazadeh norm Eq. (49). It is worth noting that these modes also violate the classical restriction \(\omega ^2>0\) imposed by reality of metric and field variables in Eq. (40). It will be shown below that the wave packets along the correct classical trajectories can be constructed only from the continuous spectrum \(\varXi _{\mathrm {i}\nu }^{(a)}\). Thus we conclude that on the physical space there’s no contribution from the discrete spectrum, i.e.
as a result in the quantum model both unitary evolution and correct classical limit can be guaranteed.
Phantom field
A transformation similar to the quintessence case
can be made for phantom, such that the Hamiltonian in Eq. (31) becomes
The Wheeler–DeWitt equation then reads
That again takes the form of Eq. (45) with,
The separation of variables allows us to find the solution using two equations
and
The Eq. (71) is very similar to Eq. (60) with \(m_x V<0\), hence it will give rise to a similar problem, which will be considered in Sect. 2 as well. But in this case the sign of \(\omega ^2\) is different with quintessence, the general solutions include two parts, one is the timeoscillating functions constructed from the discrete spectrum, and the other is decreasing and increasing functions as the superpositions of the modes with continuous spectrum,
where,
Similarly to the case of quintessence with \(m_x<0\) and \(V>0\) one can exclude the continuous spectrum to preserve both probability conservation and correct classical limit with \(\omega ^2>0\) by setting
The resulting wave packet can be written explicitly as,
If the wave packet is only restricted to the positive frequencies the discreteness will be associated with periodicity of \(\tau \). The value of a can be fixed by the condition,
Such periodic condition also guarantees the selfadjointness of the \(\partial _\tau ^2\) operator. If both positive and negative frequencies are included the only possibilities are \(a=0\) and \(a=1\) corresponding to periodic and antiperiodic wavefunctions respectively.
The limit \(\lambda \rightarrow 0\)
As a verification of our approach to the minisuperspace trajectory, the limit \(\lambda \rightarrow 0\) will be considered, which have been extensively studied as a pedagogic model, see e.g. [5, 13, 21]. This limit enforces \(m_x<0\) which will be assumed for the rest of the section.
The action in Eq. (30) in this limit becomes
and the integral of motion Eq. (33) tends to
For quintessence model with \(V<0\), one obtains the classical solution from Eq. (39) by setting \(\lambda =0\)
The quantum solution can also be calculated in similar way
where the index of the Bessel function becomes
For the phantom model, one obtains
and
Semiclassical wave packets and comparisons with classical solutions
With the explicit form of minisuperspace trajectories at hand, its comparison with the quantum solutions becomes more transparent, since the latter does not depend on any time parameter, but only the minisuperpace coordinates. It is expected that a classical trajectory could be restored from the wave functions at the limit \(\hslash \rightarrow 0\), which must be consistent with the results in Sect. (3); furthermore, the cosmological wave packets are expected to go along the classical trajectories in minisuperspace, which can be visualized in plots.
WKB limit as \(\hslash \rightarrow 0\)
The minisuperspace Wheeler–DeWitt wave functions can be compared with the classical trajectories by taking the WKB limit, i.e. expanding at \(\hslash \rightarrow 0\).
For the model with \(m_x V<0\), it is sufficient to consider the phase contribution of \({{{\mathrm{F}}}_{\mathrm {i}\nu }}\mathopen {}\left( x\right) \mathclose {}\). The uniform asymptotic expansion of unmodified Bessel function for large index \(\nu \) provides the leading order [40]
The zerothorder action reads
where
\(\partial S_0/\partial \omega =0\) gives
which is consistent with Eq. (40) up to a choice of \(c_2\).
For the phantom model, the Bessel function \({{\mathrm{J}}}_n\) is to be considered, whose leadingorder expansion reads
for
The zerothorder of action then reads
where
Consequently \(\partial S_0 /\partial \omega =0\) gives us
which is consistent with Eq. (42).
WKB Gaussian wave packet
The WKB Gaussian wave packet of quintessence models is expected to solve the Wheeler–DeWitt equation in the WKB approximation. For the model with \(m_x V<0\), one obtains
where
and two zerothorder actions are
so that a Gaussian wave packet can be written as
where \(\mathscr {A}(\omega ,{\bar{\omega }})\) is the square root of a Gaussian distribution
To integrate Eq. (98), one can first expand \(S_0\) around \({\bar{\omega }}\),
then apply the stationary phase approximation, and obtain the general form of wave packet
The ellipsis denote the same formula but with the another \({\bar{S}}_0\), and
For the phantom model, in the limit \(\hbar \rightarrow 0\) the discreteness diappears and we can assume that the spectrum is continuous. Note that this approximation makes the leading order blind to the choice of the selfadjoint extension. The WKB wave packet is \(\psi ^\text {WKB}={C}\mathopen {}\left( y,\omega \right) \mathclose {} \mathrm {e}^{\frac{\mathrm {i}}{\hslash }S_0}\), with
and
Numerical matching
The integral with Gaussian distribution in Eq. (98) cannot be implemented analytically. Even though the WKB approximation Sect. (6.2) is effective, its precision is poor in regions where semiclassical approach does not hold, for instance near the classical turning point. Instead, one can turn to numerical approaches.
With the wave functions normalized, one may construct wave packets for the quintessence and phantom models. The corresponding plots are in (2), (3) and (4). The parameters are specified in Planck units \(\hbar =\varkappa =1\). The common feature of the plots is that the wave packets coincide with classical trajectories and follow them as closely as possible. The height of the wave ‘tube’ is negatively correlated to the ‘speed’ of the classical trajectory with respect to the Klein–Gordon time \(\tau \), i.e. the higher the ‘speed’ is, the lower the amplitude of the wave ‘tube’ is [53]. It is interesting to note that for all models the naive inner product Eq. (46) happen to approximate the conserved norm Eq. (45) very well so that there’s no noticeable difference in plots.
In Figs. 2 and 3, the classical trajectory contains two disjoint branches representing two distinct solutions separated by cosmological singularity. This leads to a quite interesting interference of the two wave tubes. The different choice of a corresponds to slightly different wave packets.
For the phantom model, on the other hand, Poisson’s distribution of momentum (see Fig. 4) has been chosen,
As expected from Eq. (76) the wave packet is periodic in \(\tau \) emerging along all the periodic classical solutions separated by Big Rip singularities.
Conclusions
In this paper, by using the integral of motion to eliminate the lapse function in Friedmann equation, we have solved the cosmological model with Liouville field for homogeneous isotropic metrics. The general classical solutions are obtained and represented in terms of minisuperspace variables only, such that the correspondence between classical and quantum theory can be demonstrated manifestly. The quantum wave packets reproduce the classical limit in a sense that the distributions of traditional Schrödinger’s norm and the Mostafazadeh’s inner product are maximized near the classical trajectories.
Generally if ordinary matter is added, the model loses integrability and it is not possible to find the analytical solution even in terms of minisuperspace variables. Nevertheless one may consider the integrable model with multiple scalar fields considered in [14]. The homogeneous Wheeler–DeWitt equation for this model is separated into a system of the Schrödinger equations for onedimensional particle in the exponential potential. Each of the fields could be then treated independently in the same way as the onefield model considered in this paper. Thus our results are trivially generalized to this integrable model.
The classical models of quintessence with potential unbounded below and the phantom fields give rise to the appearance of a family of nonequivalent quantum models, because the energy density operators are not essentially selfadjoint operator. In order to preserve unitarity and correct classical limit one has to omit half of the spectrum. While this requires that the wave packet at some fixed \(\tau \) belongs to much narrower class than \({L^2}\mathopen {}\left( \mathbb {R}\right) \mathclose {}\), it is enough to produce wave packets in the vicinity of the classical trajectories.
For the phantom field the resulting spectrum is discrete. It is associated with the fact that at the classical level the universe exists in a finite interval between two singularities and nonsingular unitary evolution is accessible through the periodicity of wave function. This periodicity may be regarded as a fundamental condition not only for the homogeneous but also on inhomogeneous modes. On the other hand, if the minisuperspace wave packet contains multiple semiclassical branches they may be associated with coherent superposition of different universes. This Schrödingercatlike effect at the cosmic scale might be an artifact of the model in minisuperspace. In the full theory in Wheeler’s superspace [54], inhomogeneity is involved, which may serve as an unobservable environment, in contrast with the scale factor [55]. The observable effects are then fully described by the density matrix of the scale factor only, whose offdiagonal elements characterize the superposition of universes with different scale factors. Calculation suggests that those elements are highlysuppressed in the abovementioned decoherence scheme [56, 57]; hence the cosmic Schrödinger cat might be fictitious, and the superposition of distinct semiclassical branches might be decohered to vanish. The approach developed in the paper can also be extended to Higher dimensional [24, 25] and anisotropic models, such as BianchiI cosmology considered in [12].
It is known that the quantum field theory with the phantom fields considered on the classical cosmological background suffers from the vacuum instability problem [58, 59]. However the selfadjoint issues in the homogeneous modes quantization considered in this paper may influence the applicability of the mean field approach. To address this question one should combine the WheelerDeWitt equation on the homogeneous minisuperspace with inhomogeneous perturbations. This could be done for instance starting with the BornOppenheimer approximation of the Wheeler–DeWitt equation for the free inhomogeneous perturbations [60,61,62,63]. We leave this problem for future work.
As the different selfadjoint extensions lead to different quantum evolution and require the wavefunction to belong to the different restricted functional class they may produce different observable results. The leading order of WKB approximation is insensitive however one may expect that the choice of selfadjoint extension should be important for the NLO corrections to the spectra of perturbations [64,65,66,67].
References
 1.
A. Linde, Inflationary Cosmology (Springer, Berlin, 2008), pp. 1–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783540743538_1
 2.
E.J. Copeland, M. Sami, S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15(11), 1753 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1142/S021827180600942X
 3.
J.J. Halliwell, Phys. Lett. B 185(3–4), 341 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1016/03702693(87)910112
 4.
V. Gorini, A.Yu. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, V. Pasquier, Phys. Rev. D 69(12), 123512 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.69.123512
 5.
M.P. Dąbrowski, C. Kiefer, B. Sandhöfer, Phys. Rev. D (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.044022
 6.
A.A. Andrianov, F. Cannata, A.Yu. Kamenshchik, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2011(10), 004 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1088/14757516/2011/10/004
 7.
A.A. Andrianov, F. Cannata, A.Yu. Kamenshchik, Phys. Rev. D (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.107303
 8.
A.Yu. Kamenshchik, E.O. Pozdeeva, A. Tronconi, G. Venturi, S.Y. Vernov, Class. Quant. Grav. 31(10), 105003 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1088/02649381/31/10/105003
 9.
A.Yu. Kamenshchik, C.F. Steinwachs, Phys. Rev. D (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.084033
 10.
A.Yu. Kamenshchik, E.O. Pozdeeva, A. Tronconi, G. Venturi, S.Y. Vernov, Class. Quant. Grav. 33(1), 015004 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1088/02649381/33/1/015004
 11.
A.Yu. Kamenshchik, E.O. Pozdeeva, S.Y. Vernov, A. Tronconi, G. Venturi, Phys. Rev. D (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.063510
 12.
A.Yu. Kamenshchik, E.O. Pozdeeva, S.Y. Vernov, A. Tronconi, G. Venturi, Phys. Rev. D (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.083503
 13.
A.Yu. Kamenshchik, E.O. Pozdeeva, A. Tronconi, G. Venturi, S.Y. Vernov, Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. 14(2), 382 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1547477117020169
 14.
A.A. Andrianov, O.O. Novikov, C. Lan, Theor. Math. Phys. 184(3), 1224 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s1123201503285
 15.
A.A. Andrianov, C. Lan, O.O. Novikov, NonHermitian Hamiltonians in Quantum Physics. Springer Proceedings in Physics (Springer, Berlin, 2016), pp. 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783319313566_3
 16.
C.M. Chen, P.M. Ho, I.P. Neupane, N. Ohta, J.E. Wang, J. High Energy Phys. 2003(10), 058 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1088/11266708/2003/10/058
 17.
N. Ohta, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 20(01), 1 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X05021257
 18.
A.O. Barvinsky, Phys. Rep. 230(5–6), 237 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1016/03701573(93)900329
 19.
G. Fulop, D.M. Gitman, I.V. Tyutin, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38(7), 1941 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026641400067
 20.
C. Kiefer, Quantum Gravity. International Series of Monographs on Physics, 3rd edn. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199585205.001.0001
 21.
A.O. Barvinsky, A.Yu. Kamenshchik, Phys. Rev. D 89(4), 043526 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.043526
 22.
D.S. Gorbunov, V.A. Rubakov, Introduction to the Theory of the Early Universe: Hot big bang theory, 3rd edn. (World Scientific, Singapore, 2017). https://doi.org/10.1142/10447
 23.
C. Lan, The integrable cosmological model with scalar field and its extension to PTsymmetric theory. Ph.D. thesis, SPbSU (2016). URL https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01006663434
 24.
A.A. Garcia, S. Carlip, Phys. Lett. B 645(2–3), 101 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PhysLetB.2006.11.064
 25.
P.S. Letelier, J.P.M. Pitelli, Phys. Rev. D (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.104046
 26.
A.M. Essin, D.J. Griffiths, Am. J. Phys 74(2), 109 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2165248
 27.
V.S. Araujo, F.A.B. Coutinho, J.F. Perez, Am. J. Phys 72(2), 203 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1624111
 28.
M. BouhmadiLópez, C. Kiefer, B. Sandhöfer, P.V. Moniz, Phys. Rev. D 79(12), 124035 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.124035
 29.
G. Bonneau, J. Faraut, G. Valent, Am. J. Phys 69(3), 322 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1328351
 30.
D.M. Gitman, I.V. Tyutin, B.L. Voronov, Selfadjoint Extensions in Quantum Mechanics (Birkhäuser, Basel, 2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/9780817646622
 31.
B.C. Hall, Quantum Theory for Mathematicians, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 267 (Springer, Berlin, 2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/9781461471165
 32.
C.R. Almeida, A.B. Batista, J.C. Fabris, P.R.L.V. Moniz, Grav. Cosmol. 21(3), 191 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0202289315030020
 33.
S. Gryb, K.P.Y. Thébault (2018). arXiv:1801.05789 [grqc]
 34.
A. Mostafazadeh, Class. Quant. Grav. 20(1), 155 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1088/02649381/20/1/312
 35.
A. Mostafazadeh, F. Zamani, Ann. Phys. 321(9), 2183 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2006.02.007
 36.
A. Mostafazadeh, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 07(07), 1191 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219887810004816
 37.
C. Kiefer, Nucl. Phys. B 341(1), 273 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1016/05503213(90)90271e
 38.
C. Kiefer, Phys. Rev. D 38(6), 1761 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.38.1761
 39.
C. Kiefer, H.D. Zeh, Phys. Rev. D 51(8), 4145 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.51.4145
 40.
T.M. Dunster, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 21(4), 995 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1137/0521055
 41.
R. Szmytkowski, S. Bielski, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 365(1), 195 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2009.10.035
 42.
G.N. Watson, A Treatise on the Theory of Bessel Functions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1922)
 43.
F.W.J. Olver, D.W. Lozier, R.F. Boisvert, C.W. Clark, NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions Hardback and CDROM (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010)
 44.
R.R. Caldwell, R. Dave, P.J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80(8), 1582 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.1582
 45.
R.R. Caldwell, Phys. Lett. B 545(1–2), 23 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/s03702693(02)025893
 46.
P.A.M. Dirac, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, Belfer Graduate School of Science Monographs Series, vol. 2 (Yeshiva University, New York, 1964)
 47.
D.M. Gitman, I.V. Tyutin, Quantization of Fields with Constraints. Springer Series in Nuclear and Particle Physics (Springer, Berlin, 1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/9783642839382
 48.
H.J. Rothe, K.D. Rothe, Classical and Quantum Dynamics of Constrained Hamiltonian Systems. World Scientific Lecture Notes in Physics (World Scientific, Singapore, 2010). https://doi.org/10.1142/7689
 49.
M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim, Quantization of Gauge Systems (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1994). http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5156.html. Accessed 21 Sept 2018
 50.
L.V. Prokhorov, S.V. Shabanov, Hamiltonian Mechanics of Gauge Systems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009). https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511976209
 51.
D.S. Salopek, J.R. Bond, Phys. Rev. D 42(12), 3936 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.42.3936
 52.
B.S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 160(5), 1113 (1967). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.160.1113
 53.
S.W. Hawking, D.N. Page, Nucl. Phys. B 264, 185 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1016/05503213(86)904785
 54.
J.A. Wheeler, in Battelle Rencontres, ed. by C.A.P. DeWittMorette, J.A. Wheeler (Benjamin, New York, 1968), pp. 242–307
 55.
C. Kiefer, in Towards Quantum Gravity, vol. 541, Lecture Notes in Physics, ed. by J. KowalskiGlikman (Springer, Berlin, 2000), pp. 158–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/3540466347_7
 56.
C. Kiefer, Class. Quant. Grav. 4(5), 1369 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1088/02649381/4/5/031
 57.
C. Kiefer, Phys. Rev. D 46(4), 1658 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.46.1658
 58.
I.Ya. Aref’eva, I.V. Volovich, Theor. Math. Phys. 155(1), 503 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s1123200800418
 59.
R. Kallosh, J.U. Kang, A. Linde, V. Mukhanov, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2008(04), 018 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1088/14757516/2008/04/018
 60.
A.Yu. Kamenshchik, A. Tronconi, G. Venturi, Phys. Lett. B726, 518 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2013.08.067
 61.
A.Y. Kamenshchik, A. Tronconi, G. Venturi, Phys. Lett. B734, 72 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.05.028
 62.
A.Yu. Kamenshchik, A. Tronconi, G. Venturi, Class. Quant. Grav. 35(1), 015012 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1088/13616382/aa8fb3
 63.
O.O. Novikov, Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. 15(4), 353 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1547477118040179
 64.
C. Kiefer, M. Krämer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108(2), 021301 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.021301
 65.
D. Bini, G. Esposito, C. Kiefer, M. Krämer, F. Pessina, Phys. Rev. 87(10), 104008 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.104008
 66.
D. Brizuela, C. Kiefer, M. Krämer, Phys. Rev. D93(10), 104035 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.104035
 67.
D. Brizuela, C. Kiefer, M. Krämer, Phys. Rev. D94(12), 123527 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.123527
Acknowledgements
The funding for this work was provided by the RFBR projects 160200348 and 180200264 (A. A. and O. N.) and the Spanish MINECO under project MDM20140369 of ICCUB (Unidad de Excelencia ‘Maria de Maeztu’), Grant FPA201676005C21P, Grant 2014SGR104 (Generalitat de Catalunya) (A. A.). Y. F. Wang is grateful to the BonnCologne Graduate School for Physics and Astronomy (BCGS) for financial support. The authors are grateful to Claus Kiefer for illuminating comments and suggestions as well as to Maxim Kurkov for valuable remarks. Y. F. Wang is also grateful to Nick Kwidzinski, Dennis Piontek and Tim Schmitz for inspiring discussions.
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Funded by SCOAP^{3}
About this article
Cite this article
Andrianov, A.A., Lan, C., Novikov, O.O. et al. Integrable minisuperspace models with Liouville field: energy density selfadjointness and semiclassical wave packets. Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 786 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s1005201862555
Received:
Accepted:
Published: