4.6 Article

The quantum realm of the Little Sibling of the Big Rip singularity

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/11/044

关键词

quantum cosmology; cosmic singularity; quantum gravity phenomenology

资金

  1. Portuguese Agency Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia [PTDC/FIS/111 032/2009]
  2. Portuguese Agency Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia through an Investigador FCT Research [IF/01442/2013/CP1196/CT0001]
  3. Basque government (Spain) [IT592-13]
  4. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiviness through the postdoctoral training [FPDI-2013-16161]
  5. [PTDC/FIS/111032/2009]
  6. [UID/MAT/00212/2013]
  7. [FIS2014-57956-P]
  8. [FIS2014-52837-P]
  9. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [IF/01442/2013/CP1196/CT0001] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We analyse the quantum behaviour of the Little Sibling of the Big Rip singularity (LSBR) [1]. The quantisation is carried within the geometrodynamical approach given by the Wheeler-DeWitt (WDW) equation. The classical model is based on a Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker Universe filled by a perfect fluid that can be mapped to a scalar field with phantom character. We analyse the WDW equation in two setups. In the first step, we consider the scale factor as the single degree of freedom, which from a classical perspective parametrises both the geometry and the matter content given by the perfect fluid. We then solve the WDW equation within a WKB approximation, for two factor ordering choices. On the second approach, we consider the WDW equation with two degrees of freedom: the scale factor and a scalar field. We solve the WDW equation, with the Laplace-Beltrami factor-ordering, using a Born-Oppenheimer approximation. In both approaches, we impose the DeWitt (DW) condition as a potential criterion for singularity avoidance. We conclude that in all the cases analysed the DW condition can be verified, which might be an indication that the LSBR can be avoided or smoothed in the quantum approach.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据