arX

iv:1

405.

5813

v1 [

gr-q

c] 2

2 M

ay 2

014

EPJ manuscript No.(will be inserted by the editor)

Quantum dynamics of early Universe

Sergei P. Maydanyuka

Institute for Nuclear Research, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, prosp. Nauki, 47, Kiev, 03680, Ukraine

Received: date / Revised version: date

Abstract. In order to study quantum dynamics of the FRW-universe of closed type, definitions of velocity,Hubble function and duration of the evolved universe are introduced into cosmology. The proposed defini-tions are characterized by high stability of calculations and easy for use. The introduced characteristics aresupported by calculations of wave function in the fully quantum (non-semiclassical) approach. We achievehigh precision agreement between the classical and quantum calculations after the formation of Universewith classical spacetime (i.e. Big Bang). Such an agreement confirms efficiency of the proposed definitions,and classical-quantum correspondence allows to obtain quantum information before Big Bang, to studydynamics of evolution of universe in the first stage and later times.

PACS. 98.80.Qc Quantum cosmology – 98.80.Bp Origin and formation of the Universe, Big Bang theory– 98.80.Jk Mathematical and relativistic aspects of cosmology – 03.65.Xp Tunneling, traversal time,quantum Zeno dynamics

1 Introduction

Data of astronomical observations suggest on speeding upcharacter of expansion of the present universe. This is re-sent observations of supernova of type Ia (SNe Ia) [1,2,3,4,5], more recent cosmic microwave background radiation(CMBR) data [6,7,8], clusters of galaxies [9], etc. Thishas been designed as “dark energy” effect known longbefore (which practically could be known starting frompapers [10,11] of Einstein introduced the cosmological Λterm, see also [12]) and related presence of “dark mat-ter” (see [13,14], also [15,16] for details). In order to ex-plain this phenomenon, different approaches in cosmologyhave been intensively developed. These are Λ-term mod-els [17,18,19,20,21,22], ΛCDM [23], phantom-type darkenergy [24,25], quintessence [26,27,28,29,30], k-essence,quintom [31], standard Chaplygin gas [32], generalizedChaplygin gas [33,34], modified Chaplygin gas [35], os-cillating dark-energy [36], holographic dark energy [37,38,39], non-commutativity models [40,41], etc. If to look atsuch a variety of models via description of formation ofuniverse and ability to test by astronomical observations,then one can divide them into two groups.

To the first group we can include the models, describ-ing evolution of expansion of the universe at present time.However, these models mainly are not quantum, and theydo not study the initial stage in details. One of the char-acteristics used in these models is the parameter of Hub-ble: from comparison of its calculated values with obser-vational data some conclusions are made about the re-strictions applied on the considered models (for example,

a E-mail: maidan@kinr.kiev.ua

see [42]) and, sometimes, information about character ofthe evolution of the universe at present times is extracted.

To the second group one can include the models max-imally oriented on study of the formation of the universeand its further evolution in the first stage (i.e., Big Bang).Models oriented on study of quantum peculiarities formone research line in such a group. Here, start of expand-ing of the universe is associated with tunneling transitionthrough the barrier, usually based on quantum cosmol-ogy [43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60]. However, in frameworks of such models it is usuallyvery difficult to hold out the calculations to the presenttimes, and to connect them with data of astronomical ob-servations.

Natural and important interest is dynamics of evolu-tion of universe in the first stage: It could be interestingto know how the universe evolves in details in the lightof quantum physics. However, this question has not beenstudied in needed level that can be explained by seriousdifficulties. From literature we find that practically all cal-culations of quantum rates of universe evolution were per-formed for the case of k = 1 only [61,62]. In such a case,potential used in the Wheeler-De Witt equation has a bar-rier, and formation of universe is described as tunnelingtransition through it. A basic idea, which quantum physicsprovides us, is attempt to perform analysis on the basisof wave packet which evolves through this barrier [61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77]. The diffi-culty can be explained by huge non-stability of such cal-culations, which are started after leaving of wave packetfrom the barrier region, practically.

2 Sergei P. Maydanyuk: Quantum dynamics of early Universe

Another problem is necessity to include univocal cor-respondence between such dynamical evolution and ini-tial, boundary conditions, which reinforce such divergen-cies but can lead to new quantum effects (see [78], for de-tails). So, construction of new special apparatus of quan-tum mechanics based on other ideas could be crucial inresolving of such a problem.

As another research line in this second group, stringand brane models [79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88], andalso multidimensional models [89] are intensively inves-tigated. However, they involve other aspects of physicsand geometry. Quantum formalism in such theories is usu-ally realized via lagrangian approaches of quantum fieldswhere authors try to describe interactions between differ-ent ingredients. But, this way does not provide appara-tus on such successful level for study of quantum effectsconsidered above. Open questions are multi-particle in-teractions (formed not small collective effects in nuclearphysics), quantum non-locality, role of boundary and ini-tial conditions1.

The expanded number of papers present calculationsin frameworks of the semiclassical approximations (for ex-ample, see [55,91,92,93,94]). However, for accurate studyone would like to renounce such approximations. Some-times researchers use exactly solvable potentials (for ex-ample, see [55,95,96,97,98,99,100]). But the total num-ber of such initial cases (i.e. potentials generating corre-sponding hierarchies) can be counted on the fingers, whileproper grounds for such research should be tools for workwith barriers of arbitrarily shape and without semiclassi-cal approximations. This has caused interest to develop-ment of methods of quantum mechanics specially orientedon quantum cosmology (for example, see [101,102,103]).

One can understand the most clearly the quantumproperties of the formation of the universe in the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) model. For example, in [78] theresonant behavior of the penetrability of the barrier in de-pendence on the chosen initial and boundary conditions(i.e. coordinate of the start of wave, position of the exter-nal boundary outside the barrier, energy of the radiation)was opened. This result can strongly (up to several thou-sand of percents) change the results obtained by other au-thors in the semiclassical approximation. Another resultof this paper (and [104,105]) is that space-time in the firststage of evolution of the universe is discrete rather thancontinuous. But, in later times this property gradually de-

1 As clear example, multi-particle interactions of nuclearforces are absolutely not small and, so, they is serious prob-lem. From literature one can find that, up to present day, mi-croscopic models for description of nuclear forces (based onFeynmann diagrams procedures) in processes with participa-tion of many nucleons (fission, alpha-decay, emission of protonor cluster from nucleus, etc.) is essentially less successful (indescription of experimental data), than models based on fold-ing approaches where nuclear system is studied as medium.Many particle interactions are related with collective dynam-ics, they can be directly connected with quantum non-localitywhich can be studied by quantum mechanics methods (see [90],as demonstration).

creases and is lost. At the same time, the semiclassicalmethods are not sensitive to such peculiarity.

By motivations above, in this paper we investigate fur-ther the fully quantum approach proposed in [78]. Foranalysis, how fastly the universe is expanding in frame-works of the different models, we introduce quantum def-initions of the velocity of expansion of the universe. Inorder to realize connection of fully quantum calculationswith current astronomic observations, we introduce thefunction of Hubble in quantum formulation. This basis al-lows us to investigate dynamics in quantum cosmology, tobecome a basis for testing the quantum models via astro-nomical observations.

2 Formulation of quantum dynamics of

evolution of universe in

Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric

2.1 Model

We shall start from consideration of FRWmodel. We writeaction in the form (for example, like in [91], Eq. (1), p. 2,in case without matter term):

S =

∫ √−g

(

R

16πG− ρ

)

dx4, R =6a2 + 6aa+ 6k

a2,

(1)where t and r, θ, φ are time and spherical space coordi-nates, our metric signature is (−,+,+,+) as in [106,107],a is the scale factor, an overdot denotes a derivative withrespect on time t, R is Ricci scalar, k is curvature of thespatial sector which equals to −1, 0 or +1 (for open, flatand closed universe, correspondingly). We shall use sys-tem of units in which c = h = 1, and define the reducedPlank mass by MP ≡ (8πG)−1/2 ≃ 1018 GeV, G is Newto-nian constant. The energy density in presence of radiationand dark sector can be written as

ρ (a) = ρgCg (a) +ρrada4

,

ρgCg (a) =

(

A+B

a3 (1+α)

)1/(1+α)

=

=1

π

(

A+B

a3 (1+α)

)1/(1+α)

,

(2)

where A = Aπ1+α and B = B π1+α. Here, the first itemρgCg (a) represents the generalized Chaplygin gas, includ-ing dark energy term A and dark matter term B, thesecond term ρrad describes energy density of radiation.

Substituting (2) to (1), assuming√−g = N a3 where

N is lapse function (for example, like in [108]), and choos-ing N = 1 for further calculations, we obtain lagrangian:

L (a, a) =3 a

8πG

(

−a2 + k − 8πG

3a2 ρ(a)

)

. (3)

This form for Lagrangian coincides with Eqs. (1)–(4) inRef. [62] (at choosing MP ≡ (8πG)−1/2 → 1, and if gener-alized Chaplygin gas and energy of radiation terms are in-cluded in energy density), coincides with Eq. (3) in Ref. [109]

Sergei P. Maydanyuk: Quantum dynamics of early Universe 3

(up to normalized factor 2π2 and renormalization of theenergy density ρ, which is chosen in the generalized Chap-lygin gas form), similar with Eq. (17) in Ref. [110] (atD = 3 and after connecting pressure p via energy den-sity ρ on the further basis of equation of state, in thatpaper multidimensional universe is studied with arbitrarydimension D). For case for the universe of the closed typewithout dark matter and radiation (α = 0, k = 1, N = 1)we obtain Eq. (11) in [91] (up to normalized factor). Defin-ing hamiltonian as

h (a, pa) = p a− L (a, a) = a{

− 3

8πG

[

a2 + k]

+ a2 ρ(a)}

,

(4)where p is momentum conjugated to generalized coordi-nate a, we find [78]:

h (a, pa) = − 1

a

{

2πG

3p2a + a2

3 k

8πG− a4 ρ(a)

}

. (5)

We apply quantization and obtain the stationaryWheeler-De Witt equation (for example, see [91], (16)–(17) p. 4;see [112,111,102]):

{

− ∂2

∂a2+ V (a)

}

ϕ(a) = Erad ϕ(a),

V (a) =12

8πG

[ 3

8πGk a2 − ρgCg(a) a

4]

,

Erad =3 ρrad2πG

.

(6)

2.2 Motivations for non-stationary generalization ofWheeler-De Witt equation

Let us analyze how the velocity of the evolution of theuniverse can be defined in quantum approach. In clas-sical mechanics the velocity of the particle is related toits momentum. In quantum mechanics, there is connec-tion between the corresponding operators. According tobasic positions of quantum mechanics, determination ofthe wave function Ψ at some moment of time t0, notonly fully describes all quantum properties of the stud-ied system at this time t0, but also fully determines itsevolution at all future times. In other words, derivative∂Ψ/∂t of the wave function over time at any given mo-ment of time t0 is determined by this wave function Ψ att0 [113]. In particular, such an idea is used in the formu-lation of the non-stationary Schrodinger equation in thenon-relativistic quantum mechanics. However, this initialidea (followed from sense of the wave function in quan-tum physics) does not restrict us to use only the differ-ential derivatives over time of the first order and formsof hamiltonian in the non-relativistic case. It also coverspossibility to involve the differential derivatives over timeof higher orders and other time operators acting on thewave functions. If we want to use the principle of super-position, the relations between separated terms should belinear. On this basis, instead of the stationary Wheeler-DeWitt equation we shall introduce the following equation

(which we shall consider further up to terms with deriva-tives over time by the second order):

i h1∂Ψ

∂t+ h2

∂2Ψ

∂t2+ o

(

∑

n=3

hn∂nΨ

∂tn

)

+ ε(t)Ψ = h Ψ,

(7)

where h is some unknown operator, h1, h2 and hn are con-stants (which are supposed could be different, in general,and they determine relative contributions of the differentnon-stationary components), ε(t) is operator describingpossible interference between different components.

This equation is not direct continuation of the hamilto-nian determined before, as action and following lagrangianand hamiltonian are determined in classical dynamics.Quantum physics should be not direct result of the de-fined before classical dynamics, but it covers this classicaldynamics, including it as partial case. Moreover, in depen-dence on the chosen transition to the classical physics thedifferent equations of motion and corresponding hamilto-nians can be obtained, and classical characteristics canobtain different formulations (for example, tunneling phe-nomenon is strongly different in frameworks of non-relativisticScgrodinger equation and Dirac equation, that can beconfirmed after analysis of the corresponding wave func-tions). Quantum chromodynamics is particular examplewhen quantum theory is not only be obtained via quanti-zation of classical theory, but it has no any classical ana-logue.

Quantum physics provides more independent degreesof freedom of the studied system, than classical physics.Quantum physics works with measured observables (forexample, components of electric and magnetic fields) andnot measurable characteristics hidden for classical physics(for example, components of vector potential of electro-magnetic field, where gauges are imposed further). Bysuch motivations it is fair to conclude that the introducedquantum equations should contradict to the existed clas-sical equations of Einstein. Use of the classical equationsof cosmology as final criterium of validity of formulationof the quantum equations (in result of direct quantiza-tion) has no so proper basis (as it has smaller number ofindependent degrees of freedom). Now, if we consider for-mulation of the non-stationary non-relativistic quantummechanics [113], we shall see that it is not direct result ofthe chosen quantization procedure of classical mechanics.But, its stationary limits is related with classical mechan-ics (or wave optics).

For formulation of such a theory we shall choose away of selection of the leading components, which shoulddescribe the main quantum properties of the cosmologicalmodel. In particular, if to consider in (7) the first item asleading term, then we obtain

i h1∂Ψ

∂t= h Ψ. (8)

Note that we obtain this equation as not simple rewritingof form of the non-relativistic non-stationary Schrodingerequation (as it is often supposed in literature). This equa-tion can also include form of Dirac equation (with possibil-ity to include interactions terms), and even Klein-Gordon

4 Sergei P. Maydanyuk: Quantum dynamics of early Universe

equation, some forms of spinor equations, etc., that is de-pendent on the used hamiltonian (see [114]). In case of theleading second term the resulting equation continues lineof Klein-Gordon equations. However, this Klein-Gordonequation can be exactly presented in the form (8) (see[114], p. 9–10 for details). So, Eq. (8) includes differentformulations of Klein-Gordon equation and next develop-ments of spinor physics.

As next step, before further study of all peculiaritieswhich quantum equation (7) gives us, it is better to seewhich results such a way can give us. In order to performthis, we shall restrict ourselves in this paper by consid-eration of eq. (8) (further, we shall omit bottom index

at constant h). Let us clarify what the operator h shouldcorrespond to. If to assume that the universe expands clas-sically (i.e. with high degree of confidence we can neglectby the quantum properties) at large values of the scalefactor a, then the wave function can be written as

Ψ = AeiS/h, (9)

where S is action. Substituting this expression for thewave function into (7) and neglecting by change of am-plitude A over time, we find:

∂Ψ

∂t=

i

h

∂S

∂tΨ, (10)

Comparing this expression with definition (7), we con-

clude that in the limiting case the operator h is reducedto simple multiplication on value of −∂S/∂t, i.e. Hamilto-nian function. Now we have introduced time into quantumequation, connecting it with Hamiltonian operator andtaking into account that the asymptotic representation ofthe wave function is connected with action as (8).

2.3 Operators of function of Hubble and velocity ofexpansion of the universe

As the non-stationary quantum equation has already beendefined, now we can define operator of the velocity usinggeneral rule of differentiation of operators over time (forexample, see (9.2), (19.1) in [113]).

Definition 1. We define operator of the velocity as

ˆa =i

h(h a− a h). (11)

Here, we use requirement (as in standard quantum me-chanics):

∂

∂t

∫

|Ψ(a, t)|2 da = 0. (12)

Substituting hamiltonian, we find2:

ˆa =i

h

8πG

6 a

∂

∂a. (13)

2 Note that the operator of velocity (13) is different fromthe standard definition of the operator of velocity in the non-relativistic quantum mechanics (for example, see (19.1) in[113]), as it is introduced on the basis of the non-linear hamilto-

Definition 2. We define operator of function of Hubbleas

H (a) =1

aˆa. (14)

According to this definition, we shall consider the param-eter of Hubble at the given scale factor a0, as action ofcertain operator H on the wave function at a0. The wavefunction is not eigenfunction of operators of the velocityand the function of Hubble, as there are no any constanteigenvalues for these operators. So, action of these opera-tors on the wave function can be written as

ˆa Ψ (a) = v(a)Ψ (a), H (a)Ψ (a) = H (a)Ψ (a). (15)

Here, v(a) and H (a) are some functions changed in de-pending on a. Near to arbitrarily chosen value a0 thesefunctions tend to certain well-defined fixed values, whichcan be locally considered as eigenvalues of operators of thevelocity and the function of Hubble at a0. Thus, on thebasis of the functions v(a) and H (a) we shall understandthe velocity and the parameter of Hubble in the quantumapproach. For practical calculations, one can obtain thesefunctions as

v (a) =ˆa Ψ (a)

Ψ (a), H (a) =

H Ψ (a)

Ψ (a)=

v (a)

a. (16)

2.4 Quantum definition of duration of existence ofuniverse

As the function of Hubble has been defined, as next stepwe can define duration of existence of the universe. Weshall be interesting in such a characteristic which is depen-dent on the scale factor a: this should allow to see clearlybehavior of expansion (evolution) and compare such a dy-namic for different model scenarios. So, we introduce thefollowing characteristic:

t (a) =

a∫

amin

1

a H (a)da. (17)

One can see that such a definition is analog of the classicaldefinition of the universe age given in classical cosmology(for example, see (36), p. 11 in [107]).

2.5 Rescaling

Inside region 0 < a < 100 potentials of the consideredmodels above achieve essential values (that can cause se-rious difficulties in practical calculations and further anal-ysis). But, they can be decreased via renormalization of

nian (5). On such a reason, knowledge of the differential equa-tion (19) and wave function is not enough for full determinationof velocity (in contrast to the standard non-relativistic quan-tum mechanics).

Sergei P. Maydanyuk: Quantum dynamics of early Universe 5

the corresponding equations (6) (we shall call such a pro-cedure as rescaling). By such a reason, let us pass to anew variable:

anew = ν aold, ν =

√

12

8πG. (18)

Now from (6) we obtain new equations for determinationof the wave function:{

− ∂2

∂a2new+ V

(anewν

)

}

ϕ(anew) = Erad ϕ(anew),

V (a) =1

8πG

[ 3

8πGk a2 − ρgCg(a) a

4]

,

Erad =ρrad8πG

.

(19)

For operator of velocity (13), determined via new variable,we obtain:

ˆa =i

h

8πGν2

6 anew

∂

∂anew. (20)

3 Analysis

3.1 Tunneling deeply under the barrier

Now we shall demonstrate how the formulation of quan-tum dynamics works on the cosmological model above.We shall use eq. (19) at the energy density defined in (2)for the closed Universe (k = 1). Some estimations of rateswere performed on the basis of analysis of wave packettunneling through the potential barrier in the standardformulation of Chaplygin gas [62]. In order to give otherresearchers basis for comparison and analysis, we shallchoose A = 0.001, B = 0.001, according to that paper.

In the beginning let us consider tunneling deeply un-der the barrier where we choose energy of radiation ofErad = 100. In particular, such energy region is hiddenfor the semiclassical approaches. The calculated penetra-bility in dependence on the starting point astart has oscil-lating behavior, maxima are slowly increased and minimaare decreased at tending of the starting point to internalturning point (see Fig. 1 (a)). At increasing of the ex-ternal boundary amax (starting from the external turningpoint) the penetrability tends to some definite value (seeFig. 1 (b)). From such calculations we conclude: (1) deter-mination of the penetrability on the basis of shape of thebarrier inside tunneling region only (used in the semiclas-sical approaches) is far from the penetrability calculatedafter taking into account external tail and internal well,(2) in spite of sharp decreasing of the potential in the ex-ternal region (after external turning point) at increasingof the external boundary amax calculations of the penetra-bility are convergent (that allows us to say about reliablevalues of the penetrability for such potentials).

Now we shall analyze the function of Hubble defined byformula (16). In Fig. 2 a general picture how the modulusof this function is changed in dependence on scale factor ais shown. At small a (close to a = 21) sharp chaotic peaks

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 225,0x10-255

5,0x10-255

5,1x10-255

5,2x10-255

5,2x10-255

5,3x10-255

5,3x10-255

5,4x10-255

5,4x10-255

(a)

Pe

netr

abili

ty, T

bar

Starting point, astart

56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70

4,0x10-255

5,0x10-255

6,0x10-255

7,0x10-255

8,0x10-255

(b)Pene

trab

ility

, Tba

r

External boundary, amax

Fig. 1. The penetrability of the barrier for model [78] atErad = 100 (parameters of calculation: 10000 intervals atamax = 100): (a) dependence of penetrability on the startingpoint astart in region from zero up to internal turning point, atfixed amax = 100: at increasing of astart the penetrability os-cillates, maxima are increased and minima are decreased, (b)dependence of the penetrability on external boundary amax atfixed astart = 0.1 (corresponding to coordinate of minimumof the internal well before the barrier): one can see that atincreasing of amax the calculated penetrability tends to somedefinite limit value, which we chose for further calculations andanalysis.

are observed, then this function has one clear maximumand minimum, at finishing it increases monotonously. Inthe first consideration, such a behavior of the function ofHubble (especially at small a) looks to be enough strange.But after increasing insight of the last right minimum ata = 55.6 one can see (see Fig. 3 (a)) that it is stable andis not equal to zero (that confirms convergence of calcula-tions), corresponding to the external turning point — i.e.it separates the tunneling region from the external region.In the external region the modulus of the function of Hub-ble increases monotonously, slowly transforming to lineardependence. Inside the region 21 < a < 55.6 the modulusof the function of Hubble has no any oscillation — this is

6 Sergei P. Maydanyuk: Quantum dynamics of early Universe

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

Scale factor, a

Hub

ble

func

tion,

H

Fig. 2. The modulus of the function of Hubble in dependenceon scale factor a at Erad = 100 (calculation parameters: start-ing point astart = 0.1; 10000 intervals at amax = 100): wholerange of variable a can be separated on 3 regions: in the inter-nal region (at a < 21) presence of chaotic peaks and minimais observed, in the tunneling region (at 21 < a < 55.6) thefunction is smooth and has no any oscillation, in the externalregion it increases monotonously (slowly transforming to lineardependence).

the tunneling region, which is finished by convergent min-ima at both sides. Detailed analysis of the internal region(at a < 21) shows that location of minima and peaks hereis similar (see Fig. 3 (b)), the last minimum correspondsto the internal turning point.

The following question can be appeared: whether peaksare finite at small a or we are dealing with divergenciesin calculations? Let us consider formula (16) for the func-tion of Hubble: one can see that maximal values shouldbe caused by practically zero values of the wave function,which is in the denominator. The wave function calculatedfor this process is shown in Fig. 4. In the first figure (a)the modulus of the wave function is shown: indeed, withclearly determined finite maxima (which should definitelygive not zero minima of the function of Hubble) the sharpminima are seen tending to zero — it explains presenceof the sharp peaks in the Hubble function in Fig. 1. Thiscould be explained by almost simultaneous zeroing of thereal and imaginary parts of the wave function. However,this is strange as we have non-zero complex wave function(as it defines non-zero constant flux directed outside in-side entire region of variable a), so zeros of its real andimaginary parts should not be coincide anywhere. In thenext figure (b) the real and imaginary parts of the wavefunction are shown. Here, one can see clear stable curvesthat demonstrates convergence and stability of calcula-tions, and we need to understand the result. However, thecurves behave almost similarly: their maxima, minima andzeroes are located at close coordinates. This situation issimilar to the behavior of the wave function of the bound

54 55 56 576x10-47x10-48x10-49x10-410-3

2x10-3

3x10-3

4x10-35x10-36x10-37x10-3

(a)

Scale factor, a

Hub

ble

func

tion,

H

17 18 19 20 21 2210-5

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

(b)

Scale factor, a

Hub

ble

func

tion,

H

Fig. 3. The modulus of the function of Hubble in dependenceon scale factor a at Erad = 100 (calculation parameters: start-ing point astart = 0.1; 10000 intervals at amax = 100): (a) attransition from the tunneling region to external one smoothminimum of this function is observed, corresponding to exter-nal turning point, (b) location of minima and peaks at small ais similar (the last minimum corresponds to the internal turn-ing point).

state for a particle inside a potential well (with infinitelyhigh boundaries). Indeed, at the chosen energy the pene-trability is very small (Tbar ∼ 10−255) and output is ex-tremely small. By other words, we are dealing with thequasi-stationary state with extremely small output out-side, which is very close to stationary one, practically.

3.2 Tunneling near the barrier maximum andabove-barrier propagation processes

Now let us consider a case where the tunneling occurs nearthe barrier maximum. In this case, we can use our previousanalysis in [78] and choose Erad = 220. So, at start inpoint astart = 0.1 we obtain Tbar = 1.52129237224042 ·

Sergei P. Maydanyuk: Quantum dynamics of early Universe 7

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

(a)

Real ImaginaryW

ave

func

tion

(Re,

Im)

Scale factor, a

5 10 15 20 25 30

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

(b)

Wav

e fu

nctio

n (R

adiu

s)

Scale factor, a

Fig. 4. The wave function in dependence on the scale factora at Erad = 100 (calculation parameters: the starting pointastart = 0.1; 10000 intervals at amax = 100) (a) in the internalregion (at a < 21) accelerated growth of the maxima of modu-lus of the wave function (with minima very closed to zero) upto the internal turning point is observed, in the tunneling andexternal regions (at 21 < a) this modulus decreases withoutoscillations, (b) in the internal region the real and imaginaryparts of the wave functions oscillate almost simultaneously,while in the tunneling and external regions they extremely falldown [consideration of the wave function in the logarithmicscale clearly demonstrates its non-zero values in the tunnelingand the external regions].

10−7, Rbar = 0.999999847870763 and the condition Tbar+Rbar = 1 holds up to 14 digits3.

Our calculations show that the penetrability in de-pendence on the starting point astart and on the external

3 Note that the semiclassical methods usually do not give thereflection coefficient Rbar and the mentioned test is not applied.However, in discussions on comparison between fully quantumcalculations and semiclassical ones this important point is usu-ally ignored, with assumptions on advantage of the semiclassi-cal apparatus without alternatives.

boundary amax behaves like to the case studied above atErad = 100 (also see [78]). Placing the starting point in theminimum of the internal well, we calculate the wave func-tion (see Fig. 5) and the function of Hubble (see Fig. 6).From these figures it is clear that these functions behave

12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

(a)

Real Imaginary

Wav

e fu

nctio

n (R

e, Im

)

Scale factor, a

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8010-5

10-3

10-1

101

(b)

Wav

e fu

nctio

n (R

adiu

s)

Scale factor, a

Fig. 5. The wave function in dependence on the scale factora at Erad = 220 (calculation parameters: the starting pointastart = 0.1, 10000 intervals at amax = 100): (a) in the inter-nal region number of oscillations of the wave function is muchlarger and its maxima increase stronger in comparison withresults at Erad = 100 (see Fig. 3 (b)), that is explained by in-creasing of the energy Erad and enlarging of the internal wellregion; (b) in the tunneling and external regions the modulusof the wave function is changed essentially weaker in compar-ison with results at Erad = 100 (see Fig. 3 (c)), that indicateson essential oncoming of energy Erad to the barrier maximum.

as obtained above at Erad = 100. However, in this case weobserve: (1) in the internal region number of oscillationsof the wave function is essentially larger and the differ-ence between its maxima is reinforced (see Fig. 5 (a) incomparison with Fig. 4 (a)), caused by enlarging of theinternal region with shift of the internal turning point tothe right; (2) in the tunneling and external regions the

8 Sergei P. Maydanyuk: Quantum dynamics of early Universe

difference between the maxima and minima of modulusof the wave function is much smaller (see Fig. 5 (b) incomparison with Fig. 4 (b)), that indicates on essentialoncoming of the energy Erad to the barrier maximum andmuch stronger outgoing flux through the barrier outside;(3) the tunneling region is less, which can be easily foundby typical behavior of the function of Hubble (see Fig. 6).

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

Scale factor, a

Hub

ble

func

tion,

H

Fig. 6. The function of Hubble in dependence on the scalefactor a at Erad = 220 (calculation parameters: the startingpoint astart = 0.1, 10000 intervals at amax = 100): the functionof Hubble behaves similarly to the case at Erad = 100 (seeFig. 2), but here the tunneling region is much smaller and thefunction of Hubble in it is smaller.

Now let us find out how these pictures will be changed,if we increase the energy Erad above the barrier. Resultssuch calculations are shown in Fig. 7, where we have cho-sen Erad = 250. In the first figure (a) the function of Hub-ble is shown. One can see that (1) In the internal region thesharp peaks and minima have disappeared completely, (2)In the middle region the behavior of this function, typicalfor the tunneling region, has disappeared also, and insteadthere is a smooth minimum in the coordinate of the po-tential barrier maximum, (3) In the external region themonotonic increasing of the function of Hubble remains,slowly becoming to linear dependence. The modulus of thewave function is shown in next figure (b). In this case, wesee oscillatory behavior, typical for the above-barrier en-ergies. However, its maximum is located at coordinate ofthe barrier maximum, with a monotonic decrease to bothsides.

Now let us analyze, how velocity defined by the for-mula (16) behaves in each case. Such calculations are pre-sented in Fig. 8. In general, the behavior of the veloc-ity looks like the function of Hubble. From the figuresit is clear that if in the internal region there are sharppeaks and minima at the sub-barrier energies (see fig-ure (a)), then they disappear at increasing of the energyErad above the barrier (see figure (b)). However, after de-tailed analysis one can see the oscillations with a general

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10010-3

10-2

10-1

100

(a)

Scale factor, a

Hub

ble

func

tion,

H

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000,0

0,4

0,8

1,2

1,6

2,0

Wav

e fu

nctio

n (R

adiu

s)

(b)

Scale factor, a

Fig. 7. The function of Hubble and wave function in depen-dence on the scale factor a at Erad = 250 (calculation pa-rameters: the starting point astart = 0.1, 10000 intervals atamax = 100): (a) the function of Hubble has a smooth form:in the internal region the sharp peaks and minima (typicalfor above-barrier energies and reflecting bound state) are dis-appeared completely, in the middle region there is only onesmooth minimum in the coordinate of the barrier maximum(tunneling maximum is disappeared as shown in Figs. 3 (a)and 6), in the external region the accelerated increase of thefunction of Hubble remains (as in Figs. 3 (a) and 6); (b) mod-ulus of the wave function has maximum in coordinate of thebarrier maximum.

tendency to decreasing (and decreasing amplitude withincreasing Erad). They can be explained by wave nature,which quantum-mechanical treatment of the process givesus. They are the previously considered sharp peaks andminima at sub-barrier energies, i.e. now picture of sub-barrier and above-barrier processes becomes unite. Fig. 9shows that the function of Hubble at different energiesErad tend to the same limit behavior at large a.

So, there is the following picture at the above-barrierenergy Erad = 250. We have no any classically forbiddenregion inside whole area of the scale factor a. Hence itwould seem that this situation forbids to consider forma-tion of the universe, and we would reject this case. How-

Sergei P. Maydanyuk: Quantum dynamics of early Universe 9

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0,1

1

10

(a)

Scale factor, a

velo

city

, v

Erad=220 Erad=100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000,1

1

10

(b)

Scale factor, a

velo

city

, v

Fig. 8. The velocity of expansion of universe in dependence onthe scale factor a (calculation parameters: the starting pointastart = 0.1, 10000 intervals at amax = 100): (a) in the inter-nal region at sub-barrier energies there are sharp peaks andminima, in the tunneling region the velocity is smooth, in theexternal region velocities at different energies tend to the samelimit, (b) for the above-barrier energy Erad = 250 sharp peaksand minima are disappeared, hump of tunneling (previouslyobserved for the sub-barrier energies) transforms to smoothminimum in coordinate, corresponding to the potential barriermaximum.

ever, we see that for values of a less than coordinate ofthe barrier maximum (we denote it as abar) the velocitygradually decreases to minimum with increasing of a. Inthis case, the modulus of the wave function increases upto maximum: it points to a gradual increase of probabil-ity of appearance of the universe, with maximum at abar.If to take the spherically symmetric picture of the exten-sion into account (where the density of matter in filledvolume should not increase and it can be associated withthe probability of appearance of the the universe), thensuch an increase of the probability is contrary to naturalexpansion of the universe in classical treatment. So, thissituation is more suitable to description of formation of theuniverse with classical space-time, with its birth at abar.

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

10-3

10-2

10-1

Erad=100 Erad=220 Erad=250

Scale factor, a

Hub

ble

func

tion,

H

Fig. 9. The functions of Hubble at different energies Erad tendto the same limit at large a (calculation parameters: the start-ing point astart = 0.1, 10000 intervals at amax = 100).

Starting from abar, the expansion of space-time becomesclassic. Before to this coordinate, the universe is formedwith a gradual damping expansion, at maximum in pointabar this extension is practically stops for a certain pe-riod, then further expansion begins with the acceleration.This logic points us to competence of quantum descriptionof formation of the universe at the above-barrier energies(when there is no tunneling).

Also another property is found: All velocities at differ-ent energies Erad tend to the same limit with increasinga in the external region: i.e. this model gives the samedynamics of the accelerated expansion of the universe forlater times with completely different scenarios of its evo-lution in the first stage.

3.3 Time of evolution of the universe

Concluding such results, we see that the introduced abovedefinitions for operators of the velocity of expansion ofthe universe and the function of Hubble give a clear basisfor analysis of the dynamical evolution in its fully quan-tum consideration, supported by stable calculations. Now,if we hide such characteristics, then some calculations ofchanged shape of the wave packet will remain only forquantum description (estimation) of dynamics of evolu-tion of the universe (see [61,62,63]). But this way is es-sentially more complicated and strongly higher unstable.It is very difficult to obtain proper results for not largevalues of the scale factors. And, practically, sense of thevelocity and the function of Hubble could be essentiallymore natural and convenient, than penetrability and evo-lution of shape of the wave packet. To continue such a line,we perform some calculations of the duration of evolutionof the universe defined by (17) (see Fig. 11, where we re-strict ourselves by choosing amin = astart in this paper).

10 Sergei P. Maydanyuk: Quantum dynamics of early Universe

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

3

2 1

Tim

e of

evo

lutio

n, t(

a)

Scale factor, a

, 1 - Erad=100 , 2 - Erad=220 , 3 - Erad=250

Fig. 10. Duration of evolution of the universe (its age) asfunction of the scale factor (calculation parameters: the start-ing point astart = 0.01, 10000 intervals at amax = 100,amin = astart). Model [78] at k = 1 (green dash-dotted line1 for Erad = 100, blue solid line 2 for Erad = 220, red dashedline 3 for Erad = 250). For a < 65 larger duration at Erad = 220in comparison with the duration at Erad = 100 is consistentwith the previous results for the velocities in Fig. 5 (a, b): thevelocity at Erad = 100 is changed more strongly, that causesmore strong increase of the duration. But for larger a one cansee similar increase of all durations, that corresponds to similartendencies of the velocities to unite limit as a → 100.

At finishing, we support the presented above character-istics by classical calculations which the standard classicalcosmology gives. We have Friedmann equation:

H2 =( a

a

)2

=8πG

3ρ(a)− k

a2, (21)

where energy density ρ(a) is defined in (2). Solving it, wefind formula for velocity

v = a =da

dt=

√

8πG

3a2ρ(a)− k (22)

and duration of existence of the Universe

t = t0 +

a(t)∫

a(t0)

da√

8πG

3a2ρ(a)− k

. (23)

Results of such calculations at Erad = 100 are presentedin next Fig. 11. From here one can see that we achieveexcellent agreement between classical and quantum cal-culations after the first minimum at a = 21. Such anagreement confirms advance of the proposed our defini-tions (13), (16) and (17) for the velocity of expansion ofthe Universe, parameter of Hubble and duration of evo-lution of the Universe, which we introduce into quantumcosmology. At the same time, using such a correspondencebetween classical and quantum calculations, we can use

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0,1

1

10

(a)

Scale factor, a

velo

city

, v

Erad=100, quantum calc. Erad=100, classic. calc.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0

100

200

300

400

(b)

21

Tim

e of

evo

lutio

n, t(

a)

Scale factor, a

, 1 - Erad=100, quantum calc. , 2 - Erad=100, classic. calc.

Fig. 11. Classical calculations of velocity of evolution of theuniverse defined by (22) (a) and Hubble parameter defined by(21) (b) at Erad = 100 as function of the scale factor anew incomparison with quantum calculations of such characteristicsgiven by (16) and presented in Fig. 10 (quantum calculationparameters: the starting point astart = 0.01, 10000 intervals atamax = 100, amin = astart). After the first minimum, we achieveexcellent agreement between classical and quantum calcula-tions of the velocity and Hubble parameter.

quantum information for description of the initial stagebefore formation of the Universe with classical space-time(i.e. before Big Bang). The classical curve for time hassimilar behavior as quantum, but there is shift, which canbe connected by choosing of the starting moment t0.

4 Conclusions

The formation of the universe of closed type and its fur-ther expansion in the first evolution stage are studied inthe framework of Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metrics inthe quantum consideration. In order to form quantum ba-sis for description of dynamics of evolution of the uni-

Sergei P. Maydanyuk: Quantum dynamics of early Universe 11

verse, we introduce operators of the velocity of expan-sion and the function of Hubble, and define duration ofthe evolved universe after its formation. We demonstratethat the proposed definitions are characterized by highstability of calculations and easy for use. In particular,such a way working with barriers of arbitrary shape isessentially more stable and effective than other existedquantum dynamical approach based on evolution of thewave packet (for example, see [61,62,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77] for comparison of results). Theintroduced characteristics are supported by calculationsof wave function in the fully quantum (non-semiclassical)approach. Resonant influence of the initial and bound-ary conditions on the barrier penetrability is observed.We achieve high precision agreement between the classicaland quantum calculations after the formation of Universewith classical spacetime (i.e. Big Bang). Such an agree-ment confirms efficiency of the proposed definitions, andclassical-quantum correspondence allows to obtain quan-tum information before Big Bang, to study dynamics ofevolution of universe in the first stage and later times.

References

1. S. Perlmutter et al., Nature 391 (1998) 51.2. Supernova Cosmology Project Collaboration, S. Perlmut-

ter et al., Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) 565.3. Supernova Search Team Collaboration, A. G. Riess et al.,

Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009, astro-ph/9805201.4. B. P. Schmidt et al., Astrophys. J. 507 (1998) 46.5. J. L. Tonry et al., Astrophys. J. 594 (2003) 1.6. D. N. Spergel et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 148 (2003)

175, astro-ph/0302209.7. C. L. Bennett et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 148 (2003)

1.8. SDSS Collaboration, M. Tegmark et al., Phys. Rev. D 69,

103501 (2004).9. A. C. Pope et al., Astrophys. J. 607 (2004) 655,

astro-ph/0401249.10. A. Einstein, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Acad. Wiss. 1 (1917)

142–152.11. A. Einstein, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Acad. Wiss. 1 (1919)

349–356.12. V. Sahni, Class. Quant. Grav. 19 (2002) 3435.13. J. H. Oort, Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands 6 (1932) 249.14. F. Zwicky, Helv. Phys. Acta. 6 (1933) 110.15. A. D. Dolgov, Phys. Part. Nucl. 43 (2012) 273.16. A. D. Dolgov, Ya. B. Zeldovich, M. V. Sazhin, Cosmology

of early Universe (Moskwa, Moscow Univ. Press, 1988)199 p. [in Russian].

17. A. Guth, Phys. Rev. D23 (1981) 347–356.18. B. Saha, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 123501.19. R. Cardenas, et al., Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 083501.20. T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rep. 380 (2003) 235–320.21. B. Saha, T. Boyadjiev, Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 124010.22. B. Saha, Astroph. Space Sci. 302 (2006) 83–91.23. S. Weinberg, Mod. Phys. Rev. 61 (1989) 527.24. R. R. Caldwell, M. Kamionkowski, N. N. Weinberg, Phys.

Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 071301, astro-ph/0302506.25. M. R. Setare, Eur. Phys. J. C 50 (2007) 991.

26. B. Ratra, P. J. E. Peebels, Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988) 3406.

27. R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave, P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.80 (1998) 1582–1585.

28. I. Zlatev, L. Wang, P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82(1999) 896–899.

29. V. Sahni, A. A. Starobinsky, Intern. J. Mod. Phys. D9

(2000) 373–443.30. B. Saha, Intern. J. Theor. Phys. 45 (2006) 983–995.

31. B. Feng, X. L. Wang, X. M. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 607

(2005) 35, astro-ph/0404224.32. A. Y. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella and V. Pasquier, Phys.

Lett. B 511 (2001) 265, gr-qc/0103004.

33. M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami, A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev. D 66

(2002) 043507, gr-qc/0202064.

34. M. Bouhmadi-Lopez, P. F. Gonzales-Diaz, P. Martin-Moruno, Int. Journ. Mod. Phys. D17 (2008) 2269,arXiv:0707.2390.

35. J. B. Lu, L. X. Xu, J. C. Li, H. Y. Liu, Mod. Phys. Lett.A 23 (2008) 25.

36. P. J. Steinhart, N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 126003.37. M. Li, Phys. Lett. B 603 (2004) 1, hep-th/0403127.

38. Q. Wu, Y. G. Gong, A. Z. Wang, J. S. Alcanizd, Phys.Lett. B 659 (2008) 34.

39. M. R. Setare, Phys. Lett. B 648 (2007) 329,arXiv:0704.3679 [hep-th].

40. C. Bastos, O. Bertolami, N. C. Dias and J. N. Prata, Phys.Rev. D78 (2008) 023516.

41. E. M. C. Abreu, M. V. Marcial, A. C. R. Mendes,W. Oliveira, G. Oliveira-Neto, JHEP (2012) 144,arXiv:1111.5376 [hep-th].

42. J. Lu, Y. Gui, L. X. Xu, Eur. Phys. Journ. C 63 (2009)349–354.

43. P. I. Fomin, Dokl. Akad. Nauk Ukr. SSR 9A (1975) 831.44. Ya. B. Zeldovich, Sov. Astron. Lett. 7 (1981) 322.

45. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Lett. B 117 (1982) 25–28.46. J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983)

2960–2975.

47. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D27 (1983) 2848–2855.48. A. D. Linde, Lett. Nuov. Cim. 39 (1984) 401–405.

49. A. D. Linde, JETP 60 (1984) 211, Lett. Nuovo Sim. 39(1984) 401.

50. Ya. B. Zel’dovich and A. A. Starobinsky, Sov. Astron. Lett.10 (1984) 135.

51. V. A. Rubakov, Phys. Lett. B 148 (1984) 280–286.52. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 30 (1984) 509–511.

53. D. Atkatz and H. Pagels, Phys. Rev. D 25 (1982) 2065–2073.

54. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 33 (1986) 3560–3569.

55. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988) 888–897.

56. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 2581–2594,gr-qc/9403010.

57. J. Garriga, A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev.D56 (1997) 2464–2468.58. M. Bouhmadi-Lopez, L. J. Garay, P. F. Gonzalez-Diaz,

Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 083504, gr-qc/0204072.

59. J. Hong, A. Vilenkin, S. Winitzki, Phys. Rev. D68 (2003)023521.

60. S. P. Kim, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 45 (2004) S172–S180,gr-qc/0403015.

61. J. Acacio de Barros, E. V. Correa Silva, G. A. Monerat,G. Oliveira-Neto, L. G. Ferreira Filho and P. Romildo Jr.,Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 104004, gr-qc/0612031.

12 Sergei P. Maydanyuk: Quantum dynamics of early Universe

62. G. A. Monerat, G. Oliveira-Neto, E. V. Correa Silva,L. G. Ferreira Filho, P. Romildo, Jr., J. C. Fabris,R. Fracalossi, S. V. B. Goncalves, and F. G. Alvarenga,Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 024017.

63. G. Oliveira-Neto, G. A. Monerat, E. V. Correa Silva,C. Neves, L. G. Ferreira Filho, Int. J. Mod. Phys.Conf. Ser. 03 (2011) 254–265, arXiv:1106.3963 [gr-qc].

64. P. Pedram, S. Jalalzadeh, S. S. Gousheh, Int. J. Theor.Phys. 46 (2007) 3201–3208.

65. P. Pedram, S. Jalalzadeh, S. S. Gousheh, Phys. Lett. B655

(2007) 91–96; arXiv:0708.4143.66. P. Pedram, S. Jalalzadeh, S. S. Gousheh, Class. Quant.

Grav. 24 (2007) 5515–5526; arXiv:0709.1620.67. P. Pedram, S. Jalalzadeh, Phys. Lett. B659 (2008) 6–13;

arXiv:0711.1996.68. P. Pedram, S. Jalalzadeh, Phys. Lett. B660 (2008) 1–6;

arXiv:0712.2593.69. P. Pedram, M. Mirzaei, S. Jalalzadeh, S. S. Gousheh, Gen.

Rel. Grav. 40 (2008) 1663–1681; arXiv:0711.3833.70. P. Pedram, S. Jalalzadeh, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 123529;

arXiv:0805.4099.71. P. Pedram, JCAP 0807 (2008) 006; arXiv:0806.1913.72. P. Pedram, Phys. Lett. B671 (2009) 1–6; arXiv:0811.3668.73. P. Pedram, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 49 (2010) 2910–2917.74. B. Vakili, P. Pedram, S. Jalalzadeh, Phys.Lett. B687

(2010) 119–123; arXiv:1003.1194.75. E. V. Correa Silva, G. A. Monerat, G. Oliveira-Neto,

C. Neves, L. G. Ferreira Filho, Phys. Rev. D80 (2009)047302; arXiv:0903.3933.

76. B. Vakili, Class. Quant. Grav. 27 (2010) 025008;arXiv:0908.0998.

77. B. Majumder, Phys. Lett. B697 (2011) 101–106;arXiv:1103.5543.

78. S. P. Maydanyuk, Europ. Phys. J. Plus 126 (2011) 76,arXiv:1005.5447.

79. R. H. Brandenberger, C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B 316 (1989)391.

80. C. Park, S. J. Sin, S. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 083514.81. M. Gasperini, G. Veneziano, Phys. Rep. 373 (2003) 1.82. T. Battefeld, S. Watson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78 (2006) 435.83. G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B 265, 287.84. R. Brustein, S. P. de Alwis, Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 046009.85. J. M. Cline, String Cosmology, 47 p., hep-th/0612129.86. M. Bouhmadi-Lopez, P. V. Moniz, Journ. Cosm. Astr.

Phys. 5 (2007) 005, hep-th/0612149.87. S. Lee, Class. Quant. Grav. 24 (2007) 5247–5255.88. S. Lee, Class. Quant. Grav. 25 (2008) 055008.89. E. Carugno, M. Litterio, F. Occhionero, and G. Pollifrone,

Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 6863–6874.90. S. P. Maydanyuk, S. V. Belchikov, Journ. Mod. Phys. 2

(2011) 572.91. A. Vilenkin, Predictions from quantum cosmology, Pro-

ceedings: String Gravity and Physics at the Planck En-ergy Scale (International School of Astrophysics (NATOAdvanced Study Institute), Erice, Italy, 8–19 Sep 1995;NATO ASI Series C, Mathematical and Physical Sciences,476; Edited by N. Sanchez and A. Zichichi; Boston, MA,Kluwer, 1996, 544 p.), p. 345–367, gr-qc/9507018.

92. R. Casadio, F. Finelli, M. Luzzi, G. Venturi, Phys. Rev.D 71 (2005) 043517, gr-qc/0410092.

93. R. Casadio, F. Finelli, M. Luzzi, G. Venturi, Phys. Rev.D 72 (2005) 103516, gr-qc/0510103.

94. M. Luzzi, Semiclassical Approximations to Cosmologi-cal Perturbations, PhD thesis, University of Bologna,2007 (Advisor: Prof. Giovanni Venturi, 148 pages),arXiv:0705.3764.

95. A. V. Yurov, Class. Quant. Grav. 18 (2001) 3753–3766.96. A. V. Yurov, and S. D. Vereshchagin, Theor. Math. Phys.

139 (2004) 787–800.97. A. V. Yurov, V. A. Yurov, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 026003,

hep-th/0412036.98. A. V. Yurov, A. V. Astashenok, Theor. Math. Phys. 158

(2009) 261–268, arXiv:0902.1979 [astro-ph.CO].99. A. V. Yurov, V. A. Yurov, S. V. Chervon, M. Sami, Theor.

Math. Phys. 166 (2011) 259–269.100. A. Garcia, W. Guzman, M. Sabido, and J. Socorro, Int.

Journ. Theor. Phys. 45 (2006) 2529–2541.101. S. P. Maydanyuk, Time analysis of tunneling pro-

cesses in nuclear collisions and decays, PhD thesis,Kiev Institute for Nuclear Research, 2003 (Supervisor:Prof. V. S. Olkhovsky, p. 147) [in Ukrainian].

102. D. Levkov, C. Rebbi and V. A. Rubakov, Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 083516, gr-qc/0206028.

103. G. Esposito, G. Fucci, A. Yu. Kamenshchik, K. Kirsten,J. Phys. A 45 (2012) 374004.

104. S. P. Maydanyuk, Europ. Phys. Journ. C 57 (2008) 769–784, arxiv.org:0707.0585.

105. S. P. Maydanyuk, Int. Journ. Mod. Phys. D19 (2010)392–435, arXiv:0812.5081.

106. S. Weinberg, Gravitatsiya i kosmologiya: printsipi iprilozheniya obschei teorii otnositel’nosti (Mir, Moskva,1975), 696 p.. — [in Russian; eng. variant: S. Weinberg,Gravitation and cosmology: principles and applications ofthe General theory of relativity, MIT, John Wiley andSons, New York - London - Sydney - Toronto, 1972].

107. M. Trodden and S. M. Carroll, TASI Lectures: Introduc-tion ot cosmology, Lectures at the Theoretical AdvancedStudy Institutes in elementary particle physics (TASI-2003, Recent Trends in String Theory, University of Col-orado at Boulder, 1–27 Jun 2003; Edited by J. M. Malda-cena; Hackensack, World Scientific, 2005; 548 pp.), 82 pp.,astro-ph/0401547.

108. A. V. Yurov, The Destiny of Universes After the BigTrip, 0710.0094v1 [astro-ph].

109. M. Bouhmadi-Lopez, P. V. Moniz, Phys. Rev.D71 (2005)063521, gr-qc/0404111.

110. R. Mansouri, F. Nasseri, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 123512,gr-qc/9902043.

111. B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 160 (1967) 1113–1148.112. J. A. Wheeler, Batelle Rencontres (Benjamin, New York,

1968).113. L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum mechan-

ics (non-relativistic theory), course of Theoretical Physics,Vol. 3 (Edition 6, Fizmatlit, Mockva, 2004), p. 800 — [inRussian; eng. variant: Oxford, Uk, Pergamon, 1982].

114. A. I. Ahiezer and V. B. Berestetskii, Kvantovaya Elektro-dinamika (Nauka, Mockva, 1981) p. 432 — [in Russian].