Phenomenological Implications of Modified Loop Cosmologies: An Overview

Abstract

In this paper, we first provide a brief review of the effective dynamics of two recently well-studied models of modified loop quantum cosmologies (mLQCs), which arise from different regularizations of the Hamiltonian constraint and show the robustness of a generic resolution of the big bang singularity, replaced by a quantum bounce due to non-perturbative Planck scale effects. As in loop quantum cosmology (LQC), in these modified models the slow-roll inflation happens generically. We consider the cosmological perturbations following the dressed and hybrid approaches and clarify some subtle issues regarding the ambiguity of the extension of the effective potential of the scalar perturbations across the quantum bounce, and the choice of initial conditions. Both of the modified regularizations yield primordial power spectra that are consistent with current observations for the Starobinsky potential within the framework of either the dressed or the hybrid approach. But differences in primordial power spectra are identified among the mLQCs and LQC. In addition, for mLQC-I, striking differences arise between the dressed and hybrid approaches in the infrared and oscillatory regimes. While the differences between the two modified models can be attributed to differences in the Planck scale physics, the permissible choices of the initial conditions and the differences between the two perturbation approaches have been reported for the first time. All these differences, due to either the different regularizations or the different perturbation approaches in principle can be observed in terms of non-Gaussianities.

1 Introduction

Despite offering a solution to several fundamental and conceptual problems of the standard big bang cosmology, including the flatness, horizon, and exotic-relic problems, the cosmic inflation in the early Universe also provides a mechanism to produce density perturbations and primordial gravitational waves (PGWs) (Starobinsky, 1980; Guth, 1981; Sato, 1981; Kodama and Sasaki, 1984; Mukhanov et al., 1992; Malik, 2001; Dodelson, 2003; Mukhanov, 2005; Weinberg, 2008; Malik and Wands, 2009; Senatore, 2017). The latter arise from quantum fluctuations of spacetimes and produce not only a temperature anisotropy, but also polarizations in the cosmic microwave background (CMB), a smoking gun of PGWs. However, the inflationary paradigm is incomplete without the knowledge of key elements from quantum gravity. First, it is well-known that the cosmic inflation is sensitive to the ultraviolet (UV) physics, and its successes are tightly contingent on the understanding of this UV physics (Brandenberger, 1999; Martin and Brandenberger, 2001; Niemeyer and Parentani, 2001; Bergstorm and Danielsson, 2002; Niemeyer and Parentani, 2002; Niemeyer and Parentani, 2003; Easther et al., 2005; McAllister and Silverstein, 2007; Joras and Marozzi, 2009; Ashoorioon et al., 2011; Jackson and Schalm, 2012; Kiefer and Krämer, 2012; Brandenberger and Martin, 2013; Burgess et al., 2013; Chernoff and Tye, 2014; Krauss and Wilczek, 2014; Woodard, 2014; Baumann and McAllister, 2015; Cicoli, 2016; Silverstein, 2016). In particular, if the inflationary phase lasts somewhat longer than the minimal period required to solve the above mentioned problems, the length scales we observe today will originate from modes that are smaller than the Planck length during inflation (Brandenberger, 1999; Martin and Brandenberger, 2001; Niemeyer and Parentani, 2001; Bergstorm and Danielsson, 2002; Niemeyer and Parentani, 2002; Niemeyer and Parentani, 2003; Easther et al., 2005; Joras and Marozzi, 2009; Ashoorioon et al., 2011; Jackson and Schalm, 2012; Brandenberger and Martin, 2013). Then, the treatment of the underlying quantum field theory on a classical spacetime becomes questionable, as now the quantum geometric effects are expected to be large, and the space and time cannot be treated classically any more. This is often referred to as the trans-Planckian problem of cosmological fluctuations¹.

The second problem of the inflationary paradigm is more severe. It is well known that inflationary spacetimes are past-incomplete because of the big bang singularity (Borde and Vilenkin, 1994; Borde et al., 2003), with which it is not clear how to impose the initial conditions. This problem gets aggravated for low energy inflation in spatially-closed models which are slightly favored by current observations where the Universe encounters a big crunch singularity and lasts only for a few Planck seconds (Linde, 2014; Linde, 2018).

Another problematic feature of inflation is that one often ignores the pre-inflationary dynamics and sets the Bunch-Davies (BD) vacuum in a very early time. But, it is not clear how such a vacuum state can be realized dynamically in the framework of quantum cosmology (McAllister and Silverstein, 2007; Burgess et al., 2013; Chernoff and Tye, 2014; Baumann and McAllister, 2015; Cicoli, 2016; Silverstein, 2016), considering the fact that a pre-inflationary phase always exists between the Plank and inflation scales, which are about orders of magnitude difference (Dodelson, 2003; Mukhanov, 2005; McAllister and Silverstein, 2007; Weinberg, 2008; Burgess et al., 2013; Chernoff and Tye, 2014; Baumann and McAllister, 2015; Cicoli, 2016; Silverstein, 2016). While these problems of inflationary paradigm demand a completion from quantum theory of spacetimes, they also open an avenue to overcome one of the main obstacles in the development of quantum gravity, which concerns with the lack of experimental evidences. Thus, understanding inflation in the framework of quantum gravity could offer valuable guidances to the construction of the underlying theory (Weinberg, 1980; Carlip, 2003; Kiefer, 2007; Green et al., 1999; Polchinski, 2001; Johson, 2003; Becker et al., 2007; Ashtekar and Lewandowski, 2004; Thiemann, 2007; Rovelli, 2008; Bojowald, 2011; Gambini and Pullin, 2011; Ashtekar and Pullin, 2017).

In particular, when applying the techniques of loop quantum gravity (LQG) to homogeneous and isotropic Universe, namely loop quantum cosmology (LQC) (Ashtekar and Singh, 2011; Ashtekar and Barrau, 2015; Bojowald, 2015; Agullo and Singh, 2017), it was shown that, purely due to quantum geometric effects, the big bang singularity is generically resolved and replaced by a quantum bounce at which the spacetime curvature becomes Planckian (Ashtekar et al., 2006; Ashtekar et al., 2006; Ashtekar et al., 2010). The robustness of the singularity resolution has been shown for a variety of isotropic and anisotropic spacetimes (Giesel et al., 2020). Interestingly, there exists a reliable effective spacetime description, which has been used to confirm a generic resolution of all strong curvature singularities (Singh, 2009; Singh, 2014). Various phenomenological implications have been studied using this effective spacetime description, whose validity has been verified for isotropic and anisotropic spacetimes (Diener et al., 2014; Diener et al., 2014; Agullo et al., 2017; Diener et al., 2017; Singh, 2018). For low energy inflation models with a positive spatial curvature, the singularity resolution and a successful onset of inflation for classically inadmissible initial conditions have been demonstrated (Dupuy and Singh, 2020; Gordon et al., 2021; Motaharfar and Singh, 2021).

In the last couple of years, several approaches have been proposed, in order to address the impacts of the quantum geometry on the primordial power spectra. These include the approaches of the deformed algebra (Bojowald et al., 2008; Cailleteau et al., 2012; Cailleteau et al., 2012), dressed metric (Agullo et al., 2012; Agullo et al., 2013; Agullo et al., 2013), and hybrid (Fernández-Méndez et al., 2012; Fernández-Méndez et al., 2013; Castelló Gomar et al., 2014; Gomar et al., 2015; Martínez and Olmedo, 2016) [For a recent discussion about similar ideas in anisotropic Bianchi I LQC spacetimes see Refs. (Gupt and Singh, 2012; Gupt and Singh, 2013; Agullo et al., 2020; Agullo et al., 2020) and references therein.]. In particular, the last two approaches have been widely studied and found that they are all consistent with current cosmological observations (Agullo and Morris, 2015; Bonga and Gupt, 2016; Bonga and Gupt, 2016; de Blas and Olmedo, 2016; Ashtekar and Gupt, 2017; Ashtekar and Gupt, 2017; Castelló Gomar et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2017; Agullo et al., 2018; Elizaga Navascués et al., 2018; Navascues et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2018). In addition, within the framework of the dressed metric approach recently it has been also shown that some anomalies from the CMB data (Akrami and Planck collaboration, 2020; Akrami and Planck collaboration, 2020; Schwarz et al., 2016) can be reconciled purely due to the quantum geometric effects (Ashtekar et al., 2020; Agullo et al., 2021; Agullo et al., 2021; Ashtekar et al., 2021).

In addition to the standard LQC, in which the Lorentzian term of the classical Hamiltonian constraint is first expressed in terms of the Euclidean term in the spatially flat Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) Universe, and then only the quantization of the Euclidean term is considered, the robustness of the singularity resolution with respect to different quantizations of the classical Hamiltonian constraint in the symmetry reduced spacetimes have been extensively studied. Two notable examples are the so-called modified LQC-I (mLQC-I) and modified LQC-II (mLQC-II) models, which were first proposed by Yang, Ding and Ma more than a decade ago (Yang et al., 2009). In a recent study, Dapor and Liegener (DL) (Dapor and Liegener, 2018a; Dapor and Liegener, 2018b) obtained the expectation values of the Hamiltonian operator in LQG using complexifier coherent states (Thiemann, 2001a; Thiemann and Winkler, 2001b; Thiemann, 2006), adapted to the spatially flat FLRW Universe. Using the non-graph changing regularization of the Hamiltonian advocated by Thiemann (Thiemann, 1998a; Thiemann, 1998b; Giesel and Thiemann, 2007), DL obtained an effective Hamiltonian constraint, which, to the leading order, agrees with the mLQC-I model first obtained in (Yang et al., 2009). Sometimes, this model has also been referred to as the DL model or Thiemann regularized LQC. Strictly speaking, when constructing loops in (Dapor and Liegener, 2018a) DL treated the edge length μ as a free parameter, but in (Yang et al., 2009) it was considered as a specific triad dependent function, the so-called scheme (Ashtekar et al., 2006), which is known to be the only possible choice in LQC, and results in physics that is independent from underlying fiducial structures used during quantization, and meanwhile yields a consistent infrared behavior for all matter obeying the weak energy condition (Corichi and Singh, 2008). Lately, the studies of (Dapor and Liegener, 2018a) have been extended to the scheme (Assanioussi et al., 2018; Assanioussi et al., 2019a; Assanioussi et al., 2019b; Liegener and Singh, 2019).

In the two modified LQC models, mLQC-I and mLQC-II, since different regularizations of the Lorentzian term were used, the resulting equations become the fourth-order and non-singular quantum difference equations, instead of the second-order difference ones obtained in LQC. In these two models the big bang singularity is also generically resolved and replaced by a quantum bounce. In addition, the inflationary phase can naturally take place with a very high probability (Li et al., 2018a; Li et al., 2018b; Saini and Singh, 2019a; Saini and Singh, 2019b; Li et al., 2019). In addition, the dynamics in LQC and mLQC-II is qualitatively similar in the whole evolution of the Universe, while the one in mLQC-I becomes significantly different from LQC (as well as mLQC-II) in the contracting phase, in which an emergent quasi de Sitter space is present. This implies that the contracting phase in mLQC-I is purely a quantum regime without any classical limit².

An important question now is what are the effects of these models and approaches on the CMB observations. The answer to this question requires the knowledge of how the quantum fluctuations propagate on a quantum spacetime in LQC and modified loop cosmological models. In particular, in the framework of the dressed metric approach the power spectra of the cosmological perturbations for both mLQC-I and mLQC-II models were investigated (Li et al., 2020c). In the same framework but restricted only to the mLQC-I model, the power spectra of the cosmological perturbations were studied in (Agullo, 2018). More recently, the hybrid approach was applied to mLQC-I (García-Quismondo and Mena Marugán, 2019; Castelló Gomar et al., 2020; García-Quismondo and Mena Marugán, 2020), for which the time-dependent mass of the perturbations was studied in detail (García-Quismondo et al., 2020). The primordial scalar power spectra obtained in the three models, LQC, mLQC-I and mLQC-II, were also investigated in the hybrid approach (Li et al., 2020a), and found that the relative differences in the amplitudes of the power spectra among the three models could be as large as in the UV regime of the spectra, which is relevant to the current observations. Interestingly, in the above work, differences in primordial power spectra were found between the hybrid and dressed metric approaches in the infra-red and oscillatory regimes in mLQC-I.

In this brief review, we shall focus mainly on the states that are sharply peaked along the classical trajectories, so that the description of the “effective” dynamics of the Universe becomes available (Ashtekar and Singh, 2011; Ashtekar and Barrau, 2015; Bojowald, 2015; Agullo and Singh, 2017), and the questions raised recently in (Kamiński et al., 2020) are avoided. This includes the studies of the “effective” dynamics of the homogeneous and isotropic mLQC-I and mLQC-II models, and their cosmological perturbations in the framework of the dressed metric and hybrid approaches. We shall first clarify the issue regarding the ambiguities in the extension of the effective potential for the scalar perturbations across the quantum bounce, and then pay particular attention to the differences among the three models, LQC, mLQC-I and mLQC-II, and possible observational signals. It is important to note that initial conditions are another subtle and important issue not only in LQC but also in mLQCs. This includes two parts: 1) when to impose the initial conditions, and 2) which kind of initial conditions one can impose consistently. To clarify this issue, we discuss it at length by showing the (generalized) comoving Hubble radius in each model and in each of the dressed and hybrid approaches. From this analysis, one can see clearly what initial conditions can and cannot be imposed at a chosen initial time.

The outline of this brief overview is as follows. In Sec. 2 we consider the effective dynamics of mLQC-I and mLQC-II, and discuss some universal features of their dynamics such as the resolution of big bang singularity. In addition, in this section we also show that for states such that the evolution of the homogeneous Universe was dominated initially at the bounce by the kinetic energy of the inflaton, that is, , the post-bounce evolution between the bounce and the reheating can be always divided universally into three different phases: the bouncing, transition, and slow-roll inflation [cf. Figure 1]. During each of these phases the expansion factor and the scalar field can be given analytically. In particular, they are given by Eqs 2.54–2.55, 2.56–2.57 during the bouncing phase for mLQC-I and mLQC-II, respectively. In this same section, the probabilities of the slow-roll inflation is considered, and shown that it occurs generically. This particular consideration is restricted to the quadratic potential, but is expected to be also true for other cases.

FIGURE 1

In Sec. 3, the cosmological perturbations of mLQC-I and mLQC-II are studied. We discuss initial conditions and the subtle issue of the ambiguity in the choice of the variables and (present in the effective potential), which correspond to the quadratic and linear inverse of the momentum conjugate to the scale factor. In addition, to understand the issue of initial conditions properly, we first introduce the comoving Hubble radius and then state clearly how this is resolved in GR [cf. Figure 2], and which are the relevant questions in mLQC-I [cf. Figure 5] and mLQC-II [cf. Figure 6]. From these figures it is clear that the BD vacuum cannot be consistently imposed at the bounce³, as now some modes are inside the (comoving) Hubble radius while others not. However, the fourth-order adiabatic vacuum may be imposed at this moment for both of these two modified LQC models, as that adopted in LQC (Agullo et al., 2013). In addition, in mLQC-I the de Sitter state given by Eq. 3.7⁴ can be imposed in the contracting phase as long as is sufficiently early, so the Universe is well inside the de Sitter phase. On the other hand, in mLQC-II and LQC, the BD vacuum can be imposed in the contracting phase as long as is sufficiently early, so the Universe becomes so large that the spacetime curvature is very small, and particle creation is negligible. With these in mind, the power spectra obtained in the three models, mLQC-I, mLQC-II and LQC, within the framework of the dressed metric approach were calculated and compared by imposing the initial conditions in the contracting phase. In particular, the spectra can be universally divided into three regimes, the infrared, intermediate and UV. In the infrared and intermediate regimes, the relative differences in the amplitudes of the spectra can be as large as between mLQC-I and mLQC-II (the same is also true between mLQC-I and LQC), but in the UV regime such differences get dramatically reduced, which is no larger than . Since the modes in the UV regime are the relevant ones to the current observations and also their corresponding power spectra are scale-invariant, so these three models are all consistent with observations.

FIGURE 2

In Sec. 4, the cosmological perturbations of mLQC-I and mLQC-II are studied within the hybrid approach, and the subtleties of the initial conditions are shown in Figures 8–10, where Figures 8, 9 are respectively for the quadratic and Starobinsky potentials in mLQC-I, while Figure 10 is for the Starobinsky potential in mLQC-II. The case with the quadratic potential in mLQC-II is similar to that of mLQC-I, given by Figure 8. From these figures it is clear that imposing the initial conditions now becomes a more delicate issue, and sensitively depends on the potential of the inflaton field. First, in the cases described by Figures 8, 9, all the modes are oscillating during the time , so one might intend to impose the BD vacuum at the bounce. However, for the quantity defined in Eq. 3.9 experiences a period during which it is very large and negative. As a result, particle creation is expected not to be negligible during this period. Then, imposing the BD vacuum at the bounce will not account for these effects, and the resulting power spectra shall be quite different from the case, in which in the deep contracting phase () the BD vacuum is imposed for mLQC-II and LQC, and the de Sitter state for mLQC-I. On the other hand, in the case described by Figure 10, even if the BD vacuum is chosen at the bounce, it may not be quite different from the one imposed in the deep contracting phase, as now in the whole contracting phase all the modes are oscillating, and particle creation is not expected to be important up to the bounce. To compare the results from the three different models, in this section the second-order adiabatic vacuum conditions are chosen in the contracting phase, which is expected not to be much different from the de Sitter state for mLQC-I and the BD vacuum for mLQC-II and LQC, as long as in all the cases described by Figures 8–10. The ambiguities of the choice of and also occur in this approach, but as far as the power spectra are concerned, different choices lead to similar conclusions (Castelló Gomar et al., 2020). So, in this section only the so-called prescription A is considered. Then, similar conclusions are obtained in this approach regarding the differences among the amplitudes of the power spectra in the three different models. In particular, the relative differences can be as large as between mLQC-I and mLQC-II/LQC, but in the UV regime such differences are reduced to about . A remarkable feature between the two different approaches is also identified: in the infrared and oscillatory regimes, the power spectrum in mLQC-I is suppressed as compared with its counterpart in LQC in the hybrid approach. On the other hand, in the dressed metric approach, the power spectrum in mLQC-I is largely amplified in the infrared regime where its magnitude is as large as of the Planck scale (Agullo, 2018; Li et al., 2020c). The main reason for such differences is that the effective mass in the hybrid approach is strictly positive near the bounce, while it is strictly negative in the dressed metric approach for states that are initially dominated by the kinetic energy of the inflaton (Agullo, 2018; Castelló Gomar et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020c).

The review is concluded in Sec. 5, in which we summarize the main conclusions and point out some open questions for future studies.

2 Effective Quantum Dynamics in Modified LQCS

To facilitate our following discussions, let us first briefly review the standard process of quantization carried out in LQC, from which one can see clearly the similarities and differences among the three models, LQC, mLQC-I and mLQC-II.

2.1 Quantum Dynamics of LQC

The key idea of LQC is to use the fundamental variables and quantization techniques of LQG to cosmological spacetimes, by taking advantage of the simplifications that arise from the symmetries of these spacetimes. In the spatially-flat FLRW spacetime,there exists only one degree of freedom, the scale factor , where is the lapse function and can be freely chosen, given the freedom in reparametrizing t, and denotes the 3-dimensional (3D) spatial metric of the hypersurface Constant. In this paper, we shall use the indices to denote spatial coordinates and to denote the internal su (2) indices. Repeated indices will represent sum, unless otherwise specified.

In full GR, the gravitational phase space consists of the connection and density weighted triad . In the present case, the 3D spatial space M has a topology, from which we can introduce a fiducial cell and restrict all integrations to this cell, in order to avoid some artificial divergences and have a well-defined symplectic structure. Within this cell, we introduce a fiducial flat metric via the relation , and then an associated constant orthogonal triad and a cotriad . Then, after symmetry reduction and are given by,where , denotes the volume of the fiducial cell measured by , is the determinant of , and γ is the Barbero-Immirzi parameter whose value can be set to using black hole thermodynamics in LQG (Meissner, 2004). For classical solutions, symmetry reduced connection c is related to time derivative of scale factor as , where an over dot denotes a derivative with respect to t for the choice .

The physical triad and cotriad are given by and , where (sgn p) arises because in connection dynamics the phase space contains triads with both orientations. In the following we choose this orientation to be positive and volume of the fiducial cell to be = 1. The variables c and p satisfy the communication relation,

Then, the gravitational part of the Hamiltonian is a sum of the Euclidean and Lorentzian terms,where, with the choice , these two terms are given, respectively, bywhere , is the field strength of the connection , and is the extrinsic curvature, given, respectively, by

Upon quantization, ambiguities can arise due to different treatments of the Euclidean and Lorentzian terms in the Hamiltonian constraint. In particular, LQC takes the advantage that in the spatially-flat FLRW Universe the Lorentzian part is proportional to the Euclidean part,

so that, when coupled to a massless scalar field, the classical Hamiltonian can be rewritten as (Ashtekar et al., 2003; Ashtekar et al., 2006)where , with being the momentum conjugate of ϕ.

The elementary operators in the standard LQC are the triads⁵p and elements of the holonomies given by of c, where with , and being the minimum non-zero eigenvalue of the area operator, and the Planck length is defined as . However, it is found that, instead of using the eigenket of the area operator p as the basis, it is more convenient to use the eigenket of the volume operator , wherewith . Let denote the wavefunction in the kinematical Hilbert space of the gravitational field coupled with the scalar field ϕ, we have

where

Then, the equation satisfied by selecting the physical states can be cast in the form,

where

This is the main result of LQC (Ashtekar et al., 2006), which shows that: 1) It is a second order quantum difference equation with uniform discreteness in volume, rather than a simple differential equation, a direct consequence of the discrete nature of loop quantum geometry. 2) It provides the evolution of the quantum cosmological wavefunction , in which the scalar field serves as a clock. Thus, once an initial state is given at the initial moment , the study of the quantum dynamics of LQC can be carried out. It is found that, instead of a big bang singularity, a quantum bounce is generically produced, a result confirmed through extensive numerical simulations (Diener et al., 2014; Diener et al., 2014; Agullo et al., 2017; Diener et al., 2017; Singh, 2018) and an exactly solvable model (Ashtekar et al., 2010). Using this model, one can compute the probability for the quantum bounce which turns out to be unity for an arbitrary superposition of wavefunctions (Craig and Singh, 2013).

For the states sharply peaked around a classical solution, we can obtain “effective” Friedmann and Raychaudhuri (FR) equations, by using the geometric quantum mechanics in terms of the expectation values of the operators ,

which take the same forms as their classical ones, but all the quantities now represent their expectation values, . Then, it was found that the effective Hamiltonian is given by (Ashtekar et al., 2006),which can also be expressed in terms of v and b via the relations and . Then, from Eqs 2.15, 2.16 one can find that the “effective” FR equations are given by,whereand . Since cannot be negative, from Eq. 2.18 we can see that we must have , and at we have , that is, a quantum bounce occurs at this moment. When , the quantum gravity effects are negligible, whereby the classical relativistic limit is obtained.

For a scalar field ϕ with its potential , we have

Then, from Eq. 2.16 we find that

In the rest of this review, we shall consider only the states that are sharply peaked around a classical solution, so the above “effective” descriptions are valid, and the questions raised recently in (Kamiński et al., 2020) are avoided.

2.2 Effective Dynamics of mLQC-I

As mentioned in the introduction, an important open issue in LQC is its connection with LQG (Brunnemann and Fleischhack, 2007; Engle, 2007; Brunnemann and Koslowski, 2011). In particular, in LQC the spacetime symmetry is first imposed (in the classical level), before the quantization process is carried out. However, it is well-known that this is different from the general process of LQG (Ashtekar and Lewandowski, 2004; Thiemann, 2007; Rovelli, 2008; Bojowald, 2011; Gambini and Pullin, 2011; Ashtekar and Pullin, 2017), and as a result, different Hamiltonian constraints could be resulted, hence resulting in different Planck scale physics. Though the question of ambiguities in obtaining the Hamiltonian in LQG is still open, based on some rigorous proposals by Thiemann (Thiemann, 1998a; Thiemann, 1998b; Giesel and Thiemann, 2007), various attempts have been carried out, in order to obtain deeper insights into the question.

One of the first attempts to understand this issue was made in (Dapor and Liegener, 2018a), in which the Euclidean and Lorentzian terms given by Eqs 2.5, 2.6 are treated differently, by closely following the actual construction of LQG. To be more specific, in the full theory (Ashtekar and Lewandowski, 2004; Thiemann, 2007; Rovelli, 2008; Bojowald, 2011; Gambini and Pullin, 2011; Ashtekar and Pullin, 2017), the extrinsic curvature in the Lorentzian term (2.6) can be expressed in terms of the connection and the volume aswhich once substituted back into Eq. 2.6 lead to an expression of different from that of in the standard LQC (see (Yang et al., 2009) for more details). Correspondingly, one is able to obtain the following “effective” Hamiltonian (Yang et al., 2009; Li et al., 2018a),

Hence, the Hamilton’s equations take the form,where P represents the pressure defined in Eq. 2.20. Once the matter Hamiltonian is specified, together with the Hamiltonian constraint,Equations 2.26, 2.27 uniquely determine the evolution of the Universe. Using the non-graph changing regularization of the Hamiltonian (Thiemann, 1998a; Thiemann, 1998b; Giesel and Thiemann, 2007), the expectation values of the Hamiltonian operator yield the same “effective” Hamiltonian of Eq. 2.25 to the leading order (Dapor and Liegener, 2018a).

It has been shown in detail that the big bang singularity is generically replaced by a quantum bounce when the energy reaches its maximum (Yang et al., 2009; Dapor and Liegener, 2018a; Li et al., 2018a; Li et al., 2018b; Li et al., 2019), whereand the Universe is asymmetric with respect to the bounce, in contrast to LQC.

To write Eqs 2.26–2.28 in terms of and P, it was found that one must distinguish the pre- and post- bounce phases (Li et al., 2018a). In particular, before the bounce, the modified FR equations take the form (Li et al., 2018a),where

As , Eqs 2.30, 2.31 reduce, respectively, to

These are exactly the FR equations in GR for an ordinary matter field coupled with a positive cosmological constant , and a modified Newton’s constant, . For , we have , which is of the same order as the one deduced conventionally in quantum field theory for the vacuum energy in our Universe. In addition, we also have

Finally, we want to emphasize that the minimal energy density of this branch, for which the Hubble rate vanishes, turns out to be negative which can be shown as . As a result, the necessary condition to generate a cyclic Universe in mLQC-I is the violation of the weak energy condition which is in contrast to the cyclic universes in LQC where the energy density is always non-negative (Li and Singh).

In the post-bounce phase (), from Eqs 2.26–2.28 we find that (Li et al., 2018a),from which we obtain

Therefore, regardless of the matter content, the super-inflation (starting at the bounce) will always end at , wherefor which we have .

In the classical limit , Eqs 2.36, 2.37 reduce, respectively, towhereby the standard relativistic cosmology is recovered.

It is remarkable to note that in the pre-bounce phase the limit leads to Eqs 2.33, 2.34 with a modified Newtonian constant , while in the post-bounce the same limits leads to Eqs 2.40, 2.41 but now with the precise Newtonian constant G.

2.3 Effective Dynamics of mLQC-II

In LQG, the fundamental variables for the gravitational sector are the su (2) Ashtekar-Barbero connection and the conjugate triad . When the Gauss and spatial diffeomorphism constraints are fixed, in the homogeneous and isotropic Universe the only relevant constraint is the Hamiltonian constraint, from which we obtain the FR equations, as shown in the previous section. The Hamiltonian in mLQC-II arises from the substitutionin the Lorentzian term (2.6). Then, the following effective Hamiltonian is resulted (Yang et al., 2009),from which we find that the corresponding Hamilton’s equations are given by,

It can be shown that the corresponding (modified) FR equations now read (Li et al., 2018b),where . From these equations we can see that now the quantum bounce occurs when , at which we have and , wherewhich is different from the critical density in LQC as well as the one in mLQC-I. Therefore, the big bang singularity is also resolved in this model, and replaced by a quantum bounce at , similar to LQC and mLQC-I, despite the fact that the bounce in each of these models occurs at a different energy density. However, in contrast to mLQC-I, the evolution of the Universe is symmetric with respect to the bounce, which is quite similar to the standard LQC model.

In addition, similar to the other two cases, now the bounce is accompanied by a phase of super-inflation, i.e., , which ends at , but now is given by,For , we find .

When , the modified FR Eqs 2.46, 2.47 reduce to,which are identical to those given in GR. Therefore, in this model, the classical limit is obtained in both pre- and post-bounce when the energy density ρ is much lower than the critical one .

2.4 Universal Properties of mLQC-I/II Models

To study further the evolution of the Universe, it is necessary to specify the matter content . For a single scalar field with its potential , the corresponding Hamiltonian takes the form (2.21). As a result, the Hamilton’s equations of the matter sector are given by Eqs 2.22, 2.23.

The effective quantum dynamics of LQC, mLQC-I, and mLQC-II were studied in detail recently in (Li et al., 2018b) for a single scalar field with various potentials, including the chaotic inflation, Starobinsky inflation, fractional monodromy inflation, non-minimal Higgs inflation, and inflation with an exponential potential, by using dynamical system analysis. It was found that, while several features of LQC were shared by the mLQC-I and mLQC-II models, others belong to particular models. In particular, in the pre-bounce phase, the qualitative dynamics of LQC and mLQC-II are quite similar, but are strikingly different from that of mLQC-I. In all the three models, the non-perturbative quantum gravitational effects always result in a non-singular post-bounce phase, in which a short period of super-inflation always exists right after the bounce, and is succeeded by the conventional inflation. The latter is an attractor in the phase space for all the three models.

Moreover, similar to LQC (Zhu et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2017)⁶, for the initially kinetic energy dominated conditions,it was found that the evolution of the Universe before the reheating is universal. In particular, in the post-bounce phase (between the quantum bounce and the reheating), the evolution can be uniquely divided into three phases: bouncing, transition and slow-roll inflation, as shown in Figure 1 for the Starobinsky potential,

For other potentials, similar results can be obtained, as long as at the bounce the evolution of the Universe is dominated by the kinetic energy of the inflaton (Li et al., 2019; Xiao, 2020).

In each of these three phases, the evolutions of and can be well approximated by analytical solutions. In particular, during the bouncing phase, they are given byfor mLQC-I model, where the parameters A, B, C and D are fixed through numerical simulations. It was found that the best fitting is provided by (Li et al., 2019),

For the mLQC-II model, during the bouncing phase and are given by

but now with,

In the transition and slow-roll inflationary phases, the functions and were given explicitly in (Li et al., 2019).

For the initially potential energy dominated cases,it was found that such universalities are lost. In particular, for the Starobinsky potential, the potential energy dominated bounce cannot give rise to any period of inflation for both mLQC-I and mLQC-II models, quite similar to what happens in LQC (Bonga and Gupt, 2016; Bonga and Gupt, 2016).

2.5 Probabilities of the Slow-Roll Inflation in mLQC-I/II Models

To consider the probability of the slow-roll inflation in the modified LQC models, let us start with the phase space of the modified Friedmann and Klein-Gordon equations, which now is four-dimensional (4D), and consists of the four variables, and , from the gravitational and matter sectors, respectively. Using the canonical commutation relations, the symplectic form on the 4D phase space is given by (Singh et al., 2006; Zhang and Ling, 2007; Ashtekar and Sloan, 2011a; Ashtekar and Sloan, 2011b; Corichi and Karami, 2011; Linsefors and Barrau, 2013; Corichi and Sloan, 2014; Chen and Zhu, 2015; Bedic and Vereshchagin, 2019),

However, after taking the effective Hamiltonian constraint into account,where means that the equality holds only on , we can see that the 4D phase space reduces to a three-dimensional (3D) hypersurface .

On the other hand, the phase space is isomorphic to a 2-dimensional (2D) gauge-fixed surface of , which is intersected by each dynamical trajectory once and only once (Ashtekar and Sloan, 2011a; Ashtekar and Sloan, 2011b). From the FR equations, it can be shown that for both mLQC-I and mLQC-II the variable b satisfies the equation (Li et al., 2018a; Li et al., 2018b; Li et al., 2019),

For any given matter field that satisfies the weak energy condition (Hawking and Ellis, 1973), we have , so the function b is monotonically decreasing. Then, a natural parameterization of this 2D surface is constant, say, . Hence, using the Hamiltonian constraint (2.60) we findwhere , and

On the other hand, from Eqs 2.25, 2.43 we find that constant on . Thus, we find

Inserting this expression into Eq. 2.59, we find that the pulled-back symplectic structure reads

from which we find that the Liouville measure on is given by

Note that does not depend on v, so that the integral with respect to is infinite. However, this divergency shall be canceled when calculating the probability, as it will appear in both denominator and numerator. Therefore, the measure for the space of physically distinct solutions can be finally taken asso that the 2D phase space is further reduced to an interval . It should be noted that such a defined measure depends explicitly on , and its choice in principle is arbitrary. However, in loop cosmology there exists a preferred choice, which is its value at the quantum bounce (Ashtekar and Sloan, 2011a; Ashtekar and Sloan, 2011b). With such a choice, the probability of the occurrence of an event E becomeswhere is the interval on the -axis, which corresponds to the physically distinct initial conditions in which the event E happens, and is the total measure

Once the probability is properly defined, we can calculate it in different models of the modified LQCs. In LQC (Ashtekar and Sloan, 2011a; Ashtekar and Sloan, 2011b), the calculations were carried out for the quadratic potential. In order to compare the results obtained in different models, let us consider the same potential. Then, for the mLQC-I model it was found that (Li et al., 2019)

so that the probability for the desired slow-roll not to happen is,where .

In mLQC-II, following a similar analysis, it can be shown that the probability for the desired slow-roll not to happen is (Li et al., 2019),

Note that in LQC the probability for the desired slow roll inflation not to occur is (Ashtekar and Sloan, 2011a; Ashtekar and Sloan, 2011b),which is smaller than that for mLQC-I and slightly larger than the one for mLQC-II. However, it is clear that the desired slow-roll inflation is very likely to occur in all the models, including the two modified LQC ones.

3 Primordial Power Spectra of Modified LQCS in Dressed Metric Approach

As mentioned above, in the literature there exist several approaches to investigate the inhomogeneities of the Universe. Such approaches can be generalized to the modified LQC models, including mLQC-I and mLQC-II. In this section we shall focus ourselves on cosmological perturbations in the framework of mLQCs following the dressed metric approach (Agullo et al., 2012; Agullo et al., 2013; Agullo et al., 2013), while in the next section we will be following the hybrid approach (Fernández-Méndez et al., 2012; Fernández-Méndez et al., 2013; Castelló Gomar et al., 2014; Gomar et al., 2015; Martínez and Olmedo, 2016). We shall restrict ourselves to the effective dynamics, as we did with the homogeneous background in the last section. Such investigations in general include two parts: 1) the initial conditions; and 2) the dynamical evolutions of perturbations. In the framework of effective dynamics, the latter is a second-order ordinary differential equation in the momentum space, so in principle once the initial conditions are given, it uniquely determines the cosmological (scalar and tensor) perturbations.

However, the initial conditions are a subtle issue, which is true not only in LQC but also in mLQCs. This is mainly because that in general there does not exist a preferred initial time and state for a quantum field in an arbitrarily curved space-time (Birrell and Davies, 1982; Wald, 1994; Mukhanov and Winitzki, 2007; Parker and Toms, 2009). If the Universe is sufficiently smooth and its evolution is sufficiently slow, so that the characteristic scale of perturbations is much larger than the wavelengths of all the relevant modes, a well justified initial state can be defined: the BD vacuum. This is precisely the initial state commonly adopted in GR at the beginning of the slow-roll inflation, in which all the relevant perturbation modes are well inside the comoving Hubble radius (Baumann, 2009) [cf. Figure 2].

However, in LQC/mLQCs, especially near the bounce, the evolution of the background is far from “slow,” and its geometry is also far from the de Sitter. In particular, for the perturbations during the bouncing phase, the wavelengths could be larger, equal, or smaller than the corresponding characteristic scale, as it can be seen, for example, from Figure 5. Thus, it is in general impossible to assume that the Universe is in the BD vacuum state at the bounce (Agullo et al., 2013; Ashtekar and Gupt, 2017; Ashtekar and Gupt, 2017; Zhu et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2017). Therefore, in the following let us first elaborate in more details about the subtle issues regarding the initial conditions.

3.1 Initial Conditions for Cosmological Perturbations

The initial conditions for cosmological perturbations in fact consists of two parts: when and which? However, both questions are related to each other. In LQC literature, for cosmological perturbations, two different moments have been chosen so far in the dressed and hybrid approaches: 1) the remote past in the contracting phase (Li et al., 2020c) and 2) the bounce (Agullo et al., 2013; Ashtekar and Gupt, 2017; Ashtekar and Gupt, 2017). To see which conditions we need to impose at a given moment, let us first recall how to impose the initial conditions in GR, in which the scalar perturbations are governed by the equation,where k denotes the comoving wave number, and , with being the scalar field perturbations, . A prime denotes a derivative with respect to the conformal time η, while an over dot denotes a derivative with respect to the cosmic time t, where . The standard choice of the initial sate is the Minkowski vacuum of an incoming observer in the far past, [cf. Figure 2]. In this limit, Eq. 3.1 becomes , which has the solution,where and are two integration constants, and must satisfy the normalized condition,

If we further require the vacuum to be the minimum energy state, a unique solution exists, which is given by , that is,which is often referred to as the BD vacuum (Baumann, 2009).

Consider the de Sitter space as the background, we have , and , where is the corresponding comoving Hubble radius. Then, Eq. 3.1 reads,where denotes the comoving wavelength. The above equation has the following exact solutions,

It is clear that on scales much smaller than the comoving Hubble radius (), is oscillating with frequency k and constant amplitude, given by Eq. 3.2. Then, setting we find that Eq. 3.6 reduces to

Note that if the initial time is chosen sufficiently small, i.e., or , all the modes are inside the comoving Hubble radius [cf. Figure 2], and the BD vacuum (3.4) becomes a natural choice.

However, on the scales much larger than the comoving Hubble radius (), the term is negligible compared to the squeezing term, , and as a result, the fluctuations will stop oscillating and the amplitude of starts to increase, yielding

As shown in Figure 2, if the initial time is chosen to be sufficiently early, all the currently observed modes will be well inside the comoving Hubble radius at , so the mode function can be well approximately given by Eq. 3.4, which is the well-known zeroth order adiabatic state, where Mpc⁻¹ and (Bennett et al., 1996; Banday et al., 1996; Komatsu et al., 2011; Larson et al., 2011; Ade and PLANCK Collaboration, 2016; Aghanim and PLANCK Collaboration, 2020).

In modified LQC models, the mode function satisfies the following modified equation,where depends on the homogeneous background and the inflation potential , so it is model-dependent. Therefore, the choice of the initial conditions will depend on not only the modified LQC models to be considered but also the moment at which the initial conditions are imposed.

One of the main reasons to choose the remote past in the contracting phase as the initial time for perturbations is that at such time either the background is well described by the de Sitter space (mLQC-I) or the expansion factor becomes so large that the curvature of the background is negligible (mLQC-II and LQC), so imposing the BD vacuum for mLQC-II and LQC and the de Sitter state given by Eq. 3.7 for mLQC-I at this moment is well justified. It should be noted that the reason to refer to the state described by Eq. 3.7 as the de Sitter state is the following: In the slow-roll inflation, the homogeneous and isotropic Universe is almost de Sitter, as the Hubble parameter is almost a constant, so we have . For we have , and , so the choice will lead Eq. 3.7 directly to Eq. 3.4 at the onset of the slow-roll inflation [cf. Figure 2]. However, in the deep contracting phase of the same de Sitter space, now the Universe is very large, that is, , so we must have and , which can be very small in sufficiently early times of the contracting phase, so the terms in Eq. 3.6 now cannot be neglected. To distinguish this case from the one described by Eq.3.4, In this review we refer the state described by Eq. 3.7 with the term not being negligible as the de Sitter state, while the state described by Eq. 3.4 is still called the BD vacuum state, or simply the BD vacuum.

On the other hand, if the initial time is chosen to be at the bounce, cautions must be taken on what initial conditions can be imposed consistently. In particular, if at this moment some modes are inside the comoving Hubble radius and others are not, it is clear that in this case imposing the BD vacuum at the bounce will lead to inconsistencies. In addition, there also exist the cases in which particle creation in the contracting phase is not negligible, then it is unclear how a BD vacuum can be imposed at the bounce, after the Universe is contracting for such a long time before the bounce. Thus, in these cases other initial conditions need to be considered, such as the fourth-order adiabatic vacuum (Agullo et al., 2013; Ashtekar and Gupt, 2017; Ashtekar and Gupt, 2017; Zhu et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2017).

With the above in mind, in the following we turn to consider power spectra of the cosmological perturbations.

3.2 Power Spectra of Cosmological Perturbations

Since the evolutions of the effective dynamics of the homogeneous backgrounds for mLQC-I and mLQC-II are different, in this subsection let us first consider the case of mLQC-I and then mLQC-II. To compare the results with those obtained in LQC, at the end of this subsection, we also discuss the LQC case.

3.2.1 mLQC-I

For mLQC-I, the power spectrum of the cosmological scalar perturbations was first studied in (Agullo, 2018) for the quadratic potential, and re-examined in (Li et al., 2020c). In the terminology used in (Agullo, 2018), it was found that the corresponding mode function satisfies Eq. 3.9 withwhere and denotes the scalar field potential.

It should be noted that, when generalizing the classical expression of the function defined in Eq. 3.10 to its corresponding quantum mechanics operator, there exists ambiguities. In fact, classically only coincides with in the expanding phase. The latter is a function of the phase space variables which is explicitly given by (Agullo et al., 2013; Agullo, 2018; Agullo et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020c),where is the moment conjugate to a, and given by one of Hamilton’s dynamical equations,with the choice of the lapse function . Therefore, corresponds to . At the quantum bounce we have , so that . Then, defined by Eq. 3.11 diverges at the bounce. Hence, from the Friedmann equation, , we find thatwhere “-” corresponds to , and “+” to . Then, a direct generalization leads to (Li et al., 2020c),

where

It should be noted that in (Agullo, 2018) only the function was chosen over the whole process of the evolution of the Universe. The same choice was also adopted in (Agullo et al., 2018; Agullo et al., 2021; Agullo et al., 2021).

In addition, defined by Eq. 3.13 is not continuous across the bounce, as the coefficient in general does not vanish at the bounce. In (Zhu et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2017; Navascues et al., 2018) appearing in Eq. 3.10 was replaced by over the whole process of the evolution of the homogeneous Universe, whereand .

Another choice was introduced in (Li et al., 2020c), which was motivated from the following considerations. The functions defined above are not continuous across the bounce, quite similar to . However, if we introduce the quantity as,to replace in Eq. 3.10, it could be continuous across the bounce by properly choosing . In particular, the variable satisfies Eq. 2.61 (Li et al., 2018a; Li et al., 2018b; Li et al., 2019)⁷, from which we can see that is always a monotonically decreasing function for any matter that satisfies the weak energy condition (Hawking and Ellis, 1973). Moreover, one can construct a step-like function of b with the bounce as its symmetry axis (Li et al., 2018a; Li et al., 2018b; Li et al., 2019). Therefore, if we define as

it behaves precisely as a step function, so that smoothly connects across the bounce, as shown in Figure 3.

FIGURE 3

In addition to the above choices, motivated by the hybrid approach (Fernández-Méndez et al., 2012; Fernández-Méndez et al., 2013; Castelló Gomar et al., 2014; Gomar et al., 2015; Martínez and Olmedo, 2016), the following replacements for and in Eq. 3.11 were also introduced in (Li et al., 2020c),

where

Such obtained was referred to as in (Li et al., 2020c), and in Figure 4, we show the differences among , and the quantity , from which one can see that the term dominates the other two terms over the whole range .

FIGURE 4

To study the effects of the curvature term, let us first introduce the quantity,which is much larger than other two terms and , where and . Therefore, the differences between and near the bounce are highly diluted by the background. On the other hand, in the post-bounce phase, and coincide after , while near the onset of the inflation their amplitudes first become almost equal to that of the curvature term, and then quickly exceeds it during the slow-roll inflation, as we can see from Figure 4.

From Figure 4 we can also see that the difference between and lies mainly in the region near the bounce. However, as the curvature term overwhelmingly dominates in this region, it is usually expected that the impact of the different choices of on the power spectrum might not be very large (Agullo et al., 2013; Agullo, 2018; Agullo et al., 2018). However, in (Li et al., 2020c), it was found that the relative difference in the magnitude of the power spectrum in the IR and oscillating regimes could be as large as , where the relative difference is defined as,

However, the power spectra obtained from and are substantially different even in the UV regime due to the (tiny) difference between at the bounce, see Fig. 14 given in (Li et al., 202c). In fact, the difference is so large that the power spectrum calculated from is essentially already ruled out by current observations.

With the clarification of the ambiguities caused by the quantum mechanical generalization of the function defined in Eq. 3.10, now let us turn to the issue of the initial conditions, for which we consider only two representative potentials, the quadratic and Starobinsky, given explicitly by

In mLQC-I, the evolution of the effective (quantum) homogeneous Universe is asymmetric with respect to the bounce (Dapor and Liegener, 2018a; Li et al., 2018a; Li et al., 2018b; Li et al., 2019). In particular, before the bounce (), the Universe is asymptotically de Sitter, and only very near the bounce (about several Planck seconds), the Hubble parameter H which is negative in the pre-bounce regime suddenly increases to zero at the bounce. Then, the Universe enters a very short super-acceleration phase (super-inflation) right after the bounce, which lasts until , where . Afterward, for a kinetic energy dominated bounce , it takes about Planck seconds before entering the slow-roll inflation (Li et al., 2018a; Li et al., 2018b; Li et al., 2019). Introducing the quantity,where is the effective mass of the modes, from Eq. 3.10 we find thatwhere denotes the comoving wavelength of the mode k, as mentioned above. Note that such a defined quantity becomes negative when the effective mass is positive. In Figure 5, we plot schematically for the quadratic and the Starobinsky potentials with the mass of the inflaton set to and respectively. The initial conditions for the background evolution are set as follows: for the quadratic potential, the inflaton starts with a positive velocity on the right wing of the potential and for the Starobinsky potential the inflaton is released from the left wing of the potential with a positive velocity. For both potentials, the initial conditions are set at the bounce which is dominated by the kinetic energy of the inflaton field. The same mass parameters and similar initial conditions are also used in the following figures where the comoving Hubble radius is plotted schematically. In Figure 5, the moments and are defined, respectively, by , so represents the beginning of the inflationary phase, and during the slow-roll inflation (Region III), we have , which is exponentially decreasing, and all the modes observed today were inside the comoving Hubble radius at . Between the times and , is negative, and is strictly positive. Therefore, during this period the mode functions are oscillating, while during the epoch between and , some modes () are inside the comoving Hubble radius, and others () are outside it right after the bounce, where . In the contracting phase, when , the Universe is quasi-de Sitter and increases exponentially toward the bounce , as now is decreasing exponentially. However, several Planck seconds before the bounce, the Universe enters a non-de Sitter state, during which starts to decrease until the bounce, at which a characteristic Planck scale can be well defined. Therefore, for , all the modes are outside the comoving Hubble radius. Then, following our previous arguments, if the initial moment is chosen at , the de Sitter state seems not to be viable. However, when we have , where and

FIGURE 5

for which Eq. 3.9 has the exact solutions given by Eq. 3.6. Therefore, at sufficient early times, choosing leads us to the de Sitter state (3.7). From the above analysis it is clear that this is possible precisely because of the isometry of the de Sitter space, which is sufficient to single out a preferred state, the de Sitter state (Agullo, 2018).

With the exact solution (3.7) as the initial conditions imposed at the moment in the contracting phase, it was found that the power spectrum of the cosmological scalar perturbations can be divided into three different regimes: 1) the ultraviolet (UV) (); 2) intermediate (); and 3) infrared (), where and , and and are the curvatures given at the bounce and the beginning of the slow-roll inflation, respectively [cf. Figure 5]. During the infrared regime, the power spectrum increases as k increases, while in the intermediate regime it is oscillating very fast and the averaged amplitude of the power spectrum is decreasing as k increases. In the UV regime, the spectrum is almost scale-invariant, which is consistent with the current observations. There exists a narrow band, , in which the quantum gravitational effects could be detectable by current or forthcoming cosmological observations (Agullo, 2018). Within the dressed metric approach, one of the most distinctive features of the power spectrum in mLQC-I is that its magnitude in the IR regime is of the Planck scale (Agullo, 2018; Li et al., 2020c). This is because those infrared modes are originally outside the Hubble horizon in the contracting phase and thus their magnitudes are frozen as they propagate across the bounce and then into the inflationary phase. Considering that the contracting phase is a quasi de Sitter phase with a Plank-scale Hubble rate, the magnitude of the IR modes is thus also Planckian (Li et al., 2020c).

It should be noted that if the initial conditions are imposed at the bounce, from Figure 5 we can see clearly that some modes are inside the comoving Hubble radius, and some are not. In addition, in the neighborhood of the bounce, the background is far from de Sitter. So, it is impossible to impose either the BD vacuum or the de Sitter state at the bounce. In this case, one of the choices of the initial conditions is the fourth-order adiabatic vacuum, similar to that in LQC (Agullo et al., 2013; Ashtekar and Gupt, 2017; Ashtekar and Gupt, 2017; Zhu et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2017).

3.2.2 mLQC-II

In mLQC-II, the evolution of the effective homogeneous Universe is different from that of mLQC-I. In particular, it is symmetric with respect to the bounce and in the initially kinetic energy dominated case at the bounce the solutions can be well approximated by Eq. 2.56 in the bouncing phase (Li et al., 2018b; Li et al., 2019), similar to that of LQC (Ashtekar and Singh, 2011; Ashtekar and Barrau, 2015; Bojowald, 2015; Agullo and Singh, 2017).

When considering the cosmological perturbations, similar ambiguities in the choices of and in Eq. 3.11 exist. In particular, for the choice of Eq. 3.17 now the function is replaced bywhich behaves also like a step function across the bounce and picks up the right sign in both contracting and expanding phases, so it smoothly connects defined by Eq. 3.16.

On the other hand, is obtained from Eq. 3.11 by the replacements,but now with

Such obtained , and are quite similar to those given by Figures 3, 4 in mLQC-I. In particular, at the bounce, we havethat is, the curvature term still dominates the evolution near the bounce.

To see how to impose the initial conditions, let us introduce the quantity defined by Eq. 3.25 but now will be replaced either by or . The details here are not important, and is schematically plotted in Figure 6, from which we can see that if the initial conditions are chosen to be imposed at the bounce, the BD vacuum (as well as the de Sitter state) is still not available, and the fourth-order adiabatic vacuum is one of the possible choices, similar to the LQC case. However, if the initial conditions are imposed in the contracting phase at , the Universe becomes very large and can be practically considered as flat, then the BD vacuum can be chosen.

FIGURE 6

Certainly, one can choose different initial conditions. In particular, the fourth-order adiabatic vacuum was chosen even in the contracting phase in (Li et al., 2020c). With such a choice, the power spectra from and in the region were studied and found that the relative difference in the magnitude of the power spectra is around in the IR regime and less than in the intermediate regime. In the UV regime, the relative difference can be as small as or even less.

3.2.3 LQC

To consider the effects of the ambiguities in the choice of and in Eq. 3.11⁸, power spectra of the cosmological perturbations were also studied in the framework of LQC in (Li et al., 2020c). In this case, is obtained from Eq. 3.17 with

while is obtained from Eq. 3.11 by the replacements,

As shown explicitly, the term is always negligible comparing with the curvature term in the expression of defined in Eq(B.1) by replacing with . So, from Eq. 3.25 we find thatduring the bouncing phase , and was shown schematically by Fig. 18 in (Zhu et al., 2017), which is quite similar to Figure 6 given above for mLQC-II.

As a result, the initial states of the linear perturbations can be either imposed in the contracting phase at a moment as the BD vacuum, or at the bounce as the fourth-order adiabatic vacuum (Agullo et al., 2013). However, it was shown analytically that such two conditions lead to the same results (Zhu et al., 2017).

To compare the results obtained from the three different models, in (Li et al., 2020c) the fourth-order adiabatic vacuum was chosen even in the contracting phase for LQC. Here, we cite some of the results in Figure 7. In particular, it was found that the relative difference in the amplitudes of the power spectra of the scalar perturbations due to the choice of or is about in the infrared regime, about in the intermediate regime, and about in the UV regime. Since only modes in the UV regime can be observed currently, clearly this difference is out of the sensitivities of the current and forhcoming observations (Abazajian, 2015; Abazajian, 2019).

FIGURE 7

However, comparing the power spectra obtained from the three different models, even with the same choice of and , it was found that the relative difference among LQC, mLQC-I and mQLC-II are significant only in the IR and oscillating regimes, while in the UV regime, all three models give quite similar results. In particular, with the same regularization of the difference can be as large as throughout the IR and oscillating regimes, while in the UV regime it is about .

For the tensor perturbations, the potential term vanishes identically, so no ambiguities related to the choice of exist. But, due to different models, the differences of the power spectra of the tensor perturbations can be still very large in the IR and oscillating regimes among the three models, although they are very small in the UV regime, see, for example, Fig. 12 given in (Li et al., 2020c).

4 Primordial Power Spectra of Modified LQCS in Hybrid Approach

As in the previous section, in this section we also consider the three different models, LQC, mLQC-I, and mLQC-II, but now in the hybrid approach, and pay particular attention to the differences of the power spectra among these models. Since the scalar perturbations are the most relevant ones in the current CMB observations, in the following we shall mainly focus on them, and such studies can be easily extended to the tensor perturbations.

4.1 mLQC-I

Power spectra of the cosmological scalar and tensor perturbations for the effective Hamilton in mLQC-I were recently studied in the hybrid approach (Fernández-Méndez et al., 2013; Castelló Gomar et al., 2014; Gomar et al., 2015). In particular, the mode function of the scalar perturbations satisfies the differential equation (Li et al., 2020b),

wherewhich is the effective mass of the scalar mode, with

Note that in (Li et al. 2020a), instead of , the symbol was used. In addition, the cosmological tensor perturbations are also given by Eqs 4.1, 4.2 but with the vanishing potential . Then, we immediately realize that in the hybrid approach quantum mechanically there are also ambiguities in the replacements and , as mentioned in the last section. So far, two possibilities were considered (Castelló Gomar et al., 2020; García-Quismondo et al., 2020). One is given by the replacements,in Eq. 4.2, where

This is the case referred to as prescription A in (García-Quismondo et al., 2020).

The other possibility is obtained by the replacement of Eqs 3.34, 3.35, which was referred to as Prescription B (García-Quismondo et al., 2020), and showed that the two prescriptions lead to almost the same results. So, in the rest of this section we restrict ourselves only to prescription A.

Then, for the case in which the evolution of the homogeneous Universe was dominated by kinetic energy at the bounce,it was shown that the effective mass is always positive at the bounce (García-Quismondo et al., 2020). In fact, near the bounce we have (Wu et al., 2018),

Note that in writing the above expression, we have used the fact that during the bouncing phase we have , and . On the other hand, in the pre-bounce phase, when the background is a contracting de Sitter spacetime, so we have (García-Quismondo et al., 2020),where . Thus, the effective mass remains positive in the pre-bounce phase, as long as . This is the case for both quadratic and Starobinsky potentials. In fact, from (3.24), we find that

For the case that satisfies the condition (4.6) initially at the bounce, we find that becomes very negative at for the Starobinsky potential, so is positive even in this case. Then, the quantity defined by

has similar behavior in the post-bounce phases for the case in which the evolution of the homogeneous Universe was dominated by kinetic energy at the bounce, but has different behaviors in the pre-bounce phases, depending specifically on the potentials considered.

In Figures 8, 9 we show the comoving Hubble radius for the quadratic and Starobinsky potentials, respectively. From these figures it is clear that for , is strictly negative, which implies the effective mass s is positive in this regime. Hence, all the modes assume the oscillatory behavior as the modes inside the Hubble horizon, and we may impose the BD vacuum at the bounce. In addition, when , the background is well described by the de Sitter space, so the de Sitter state can be imposed in the deep contracting phase. However, imposing the BD vacuum at the bounce will clearly lead to different power spectra at the end of the slow-roll inflation from that obtained by imposing the de Sitter state in the deep contracting phase. This is because, when the background is contracting to about the moments , the effective mass becomes so large and negative that the mode function will be modified significantly, in comparison with that given at ), or in other words, particle creation now becomes not negligible during the contracting phase. Then, other initial conditions at the bounce may need to be considered.

FIGURE 8

FIGURE 9

4.2 mLQC-II

Similar to LQC, the homogeneous Universe of mLQC-II is symmetric with respect to the bounce, and is well described by the analytical solutions given by Eqs 2.56, 2.57 for the states that are dominated by kinetic energy at the bounce.

In this model, the cosmological perturbations are also given by Eqs 4.1–4.3 but now with the replacement (Li et al., 2020a),where

In this case, it can be shown that the effective mass defined by Eq. 4.2 is always positive in the neighborhood of the bounce, but far from the bounce, the properties of depend on the potential in the pre-bounce phase, similar to mLQC-I.

In Figure 10, we plot for the Starobinsky potential, while for the quadratic one, it is quite similar to the corresponding one in mLQC-I, given by Figure 8. From Figure 10 we can see that now is negative not only near the bounce but also in the whole contracting phase, so that all the modes are oscillating for . Then, one can choose the BD vacuum at the bounce. It is remarkable that for the quadratic potential, this is impossible [cf. Figure 8].

FIGURE 10

Moreover, as , the expansion factor becomes very large, and the corresponding curvature is quite low, so to a good approximation, the BD vacuum can also be chosen in the distant past, not only for the Starobinsky potential but also for other potentials. Due to the oscillating behavior of the mode function over the whole contracting phase, imposing the BD vacuum at the bounce is expected not to lead to significant difference in the power spectra from that in which the same condition is imposed in the deep contracting phase.

4.3 LQC

The evolution of the homogeneous Universe of standard LQC model is also symmetric with respect to the bounce, and is well described by the analytical solutions given in (Zhu et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2017) for the states that are dominated by kinetic energy at the bounce.

In this model, the cosmological perturbations are also given by Eqs 4.1.3.–.Eqs 4.4.3 but now with the replacement (Li et al., 2020a),where

In this case, it can be shown that the effective mass defined by Eq. 4.2 is always positive for the states that are dominated by kinetic energy at the bounce (Navascues et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2018), and the quantity defined by Eq. 4.10 is negative near the bounce. Again, similar to the mLQC-II case, the modes are oscillating near the bounce. However, in the contracting phase the behavior of sensitively depends on the inflation potentials. For the Starobinsky one, behaves similar to that described by Figure 10, so the BD vacuum can be imposed either in the deep contracting phase or at the bounce, and such resulted power spectra are expected not to be significantly different from one another. But for the quadratic potential the situation is quite different, and a preferred choice is to impose the BD vacuum in the deep contracting phase ().

4.4 Primordial Power Spectra

As it can be seen that one of the preferred moments to impose the initial conditions for the cosmological perturbations in all these three models is a moment in the contracting phase . In this phase, we can impose the BD vacuum state as long as the moment is sufficiently earlier, . Certainly, other initial conditions can also be chosen. In particular, in (Li et al., 2020a) the second-order adiabatic vacuum conditions were selected, but it was found that the same results can also be obtained even when the BD vacuum state or the fourth-order adiabatic vacuum is imposed initially.

The nth-order adiabatic vacuum conditions can be obtained as follows: Let us first consider the solution,

Then, inserting it into (4.1), one can find an iterative equation for . In particular, it can be shown that the zeroth-order solution is given by , while the second and fourth order adiabatic solutions are given by,

Here . It should be noted that, in order to compare directly with observations, it is found convenient to calculate the power spectrum of the comoving curvature perturbation , which is related to the Mukhanov-Sasaki variable via the relation , with . Then, its power spectrum reads

In addition, the power spectrum is normally evaluated at the end of inflation, at which all the relevant modes are well outside the Hubble horizon [cf. Figure 2].

It should be also noted that the above formula is only applicable to the case where and/or remains real at the initial time. This is equivalent to require for and for . Since the effective mass s in general depends on t, it is clear that the validity of (4.16) depends not only on the initial states but also on the initial times.

In addition, in the following only the Starobinsky potential given in Eq. 3.24 will be considered, as it represents one of the most favorable models by current observations (Bennett et al., 1996; Banday et al., 1996; Komatsu et al., 2011; Larson et al., 2011; Ade and PLANCK Collaboration, 2016; Aghanim and PLANCK Collaboration, 2020). Let us turn to consider the power spectrum of the scalar perturbations in each of the three models. Similar results can be also obtained for the tensor perturbations. In particular, it was found that the scalar power spectra in these three models can be still divided into three distinctive regimes: the infrared, oscillatory and UV, as shown in Figure 11.

FIGURE 11

In the infrared and oscillatory regimes, the relative difference between LQC and mLQC-I can be as large as , while this difference reduces to less than in the UV regime. This is mainly because LQC and mLQC-I have the same classical limit in the post-bounce phase, and as shown in Figures 5, 8, the effective masses in both approaches tend to be the same during the inflationary phase.

However, it is interesting to note that in the infrared and oscillatory regimes, the power spectrum in mLQC-I is suppressed in comparison with that of LQC, which has been found only in the hybrid approach. As a matter of fact, in the dressed metric approach, the power spectrum in mLQC-I is largely amplified in the infrared regime, and its magnitude is of the Planck scale as depicted in Figure 7 (Agullo, 2018; Li et al., 2020c). The main reason might root in the distinctive behavior of the effective masses in the two approaches, as shown explicitly in Figures 5, 8.

On the other hand, the difference of the power spectra between LQC and mLQC-II is smaller than that between LQC and mLQC-I. In particular, in the infrared regime, it is about . The large relative difference (more than ) of the power spectra between mLQC-I and mLQC-II also happens in the infrared and oscillatory regimes, while in the UV regime it reduces to about .

To summarize, in the hybrid approach the maximum relative differences of the power spectra among these three different models always happen in the infrared and oscillatory regimes, while in the UV regime, the differences reduce to no larger than , and all the three models predict a scale-invariant power spectrum, and is consistent with the current CMB observations. However, in the hybrid approach, the power spectrum in mLQC-I is suppressed in the infrared and oscillatory regimes. The latter is in a striking contrast to the results obtained from the dressed metric approach, which might be closely related to the fact that the effective masses in these two approaches are significantly different, especially near the bounce and in the prebounce stage.

5 Conclusion and Outlook

In the past 2 decades, LQC has been studied extensively, and several remarkable features have been found (Ashtekar and Singh, 2011; Ashtekar and Barrau, 2015; Bojowald, 2015; Agullo and Singh, 2017), including the generic resolution of the big bang singularity (replaced by a quantum bounce) in the Planckian scale, the slow-roll inflation as an attractor in the post-bounce evolution of the Universe, and the scale-invariant power spectra of the cosmological perturbations, which are consistent with the current CMB observations. Even more interestingly, it was shown recently that some anomalies from the CMB data (Akrami and Planck collaboration, 2020; Akrami and Planck collaboration, 2020; Schwarz et al., 2016) can be reconciled purely due to the quantum geometric effects in the framework of LQC (Ashtekar et al., 2020; Agullo et al., 2021; Agullo et al., 2021; Ashtekar et al., 2021).

Despite of all these achievements, LQC is still plagued with some ambiguities in the quantization procedure. In particular, its connection with LQG is still not established (Brunnemann and Fleischhack, 2007; Engle, 2007; Brunnemann and Koslowski, 2011), and the quantization procedure used in LQC owing to symmetry reduction before quantization can result in different Hamiltonian constraints than the one of LQG.

Motivated by the above considerations, recently various modified LQC models have been proposed, see, for example (Alesci and Cianfrani, 2013; Alesci and Cianfrani, 2015; Alesci et al., 2017; Oriti, 2017; Oriti et al., 2017; Wilson-Ewing, 2017; Engle and Vilensky, 2018; Gerhardt et al., 2018; Wilson-Ewing, 2018; Baytas et al., 2019; Engle and Vilensky, 2019; Neuser et al., 2019; Olmedo and Alesci, 2019; Schander and Thiemann, 2019; Schander and Thiemann, 2019; Han and Liu, 2020a; Han and Liu, 2020b; Giesel et al., 2020; Giesel et al., 2020; Han et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020b), and references therein. In this brief review, we have restricted ourselves only to mLQC-I and mLQC-II (Yang et al., 2009; Dapor and Liegener, 2018a; Dapor and Liegener, 2018b), as they are the ones that have been extensively studied in the literature not only the dynamics of the homogeneous Universe (Li et al., 2018a; Li et al., 2018b; Saini and Singh, 2019a; Saini and Singh, 2019b; García-Quismondo and Mena Marugán, 2019; Li et al., 2019; García-Quismondo and Mena Marugán, 2020), but also the cosmological perturbations (Agullo, 2018; Castelló Gomar et al., 2020; García-Quismondo et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020a; Li et al., 2020b).

In these two modified LQC models, it was found that the resolution of the big bang singularity is also generic (Li et al., 2018a; Li et al., 2018b; Saini and Singh, 2019a; Saini and Singh, 2019b; Li et al., 2019). This is closely related to the fact that the area operator in LQG has a minimal but nonzero eigenvalue (Ashtekar and Lewandowski, 2004; Thiemann, 2007; Rovelli, 2008; Ashtekar and Singh, 2011; Bojowald, 2011; Gambini and Pullin, 2011; Ashtekar and Barrau, 2015; Bojowald, 2015; Agullo and Singh, 2017; Ashtekar and Pullin, 2017), quite similar to the eigenvalue of the ground state of the energy operator of a simple harmonic oscillator in quantum mechanics. This deep connection also shows that the resolution of the big bang singularity is purely due to the quantum geometric effects. In addition, similar to LQC, the slow-roll inflation also occurs generically in both mLQC-I and mLQC-II (Li et al., 2019). In particular, when the inflaton has a quadratic potential, , the probabilities for the desired slow-roll inflation not to occur are , , and for mLQC-I, mLQC-II and LQC, respectively.

When dealing with perturbations, another ambiguity rises in the replacement of the momentum conjugate of the expansion factor a in the effective potential of the scalar perturbations. This ambiguity occurs not only in the dressed metric approach [cf. Eq. 3.11] but also in the hybrid approach [cf. Eq. 4.2], as it is closely related to the quantization strategy used in LQG/LQC, because now only the holonomies (complex exponentials) of are defined as operators. Several choices have been proposed in the literature (Mena Marugán et al., 2011; Agullo et al., 2013; Agullo, 2018; Agullo et al., 2018; Castelló Gomar et al., 2020; García-Quismondo et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020a; Li et al., 2020b). In Secs. 3, 4, we have shown that for some choices the effects on the power spectra are non-trivial, while for others the effects are negligible. However, even with the same choice, the relative differences in the amplitudes of the power spectra among the three different models can be as large as in the infrared and intermediate regimes of the spectra, while in the UV regime the relative differences are no larger than , and the corresponding power spectra are scale-invariant. Since only the modes in the UV regime are relevant to the current observations, the power spectra obtained in all the three models are consistent with current observations (Bennett et al., 1996; Banday et al., 1996; Komatsu et al., 2011; Larson et al., 2011; Ade and PLANCK Collaboration, 2016; Aghanim and PLANCK Collaboration, 2020).

However, the interactions between the infrared and UV modes appearing in non-Gaussianities might provide an excellent window to observe such effects. This was initially done in LQC (Agullo et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2018), and lately generalized to bouncing cosmologies (Agullo et al., 2021; Agullo et al., 2021). It should be noted that in (Agullo et al., 2021; Agullo et al., 2021), the expansion factor near the bounce was assumed to take the form,where b and n are two free parameters. For example, for LQC we have and , where is the Ricci scalar at the bounce (Zhu et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2017). But, it is clear that near the bounce takes forms different from the above expression for mLQC-I/II, as one can see from Eqs 2.54–2.57. Thus, it would be very interesting to study such effects in mLQC-I/II, and look for some observational signals.

Moreover, initial conditions are another subtle and important issue not only in LQC but also in mLQCs. As a matter of fact, the initial conditions consist of two parts: the initial time, and the initial conditions. Different choices of the initial times lead to different choices of the initial conditions, or vice versa. To clarify these issues, in Sections 3, 4 we have discussed it at length by showing the (generalized) comoving Hubble radius in each model as well as in each of the two approaches, dressed metric and hybrid. From these analyses, we have shown clearly which initial conditions can and cannot be imposed at a given initial time.

In addition, when the Universe changes from contraction to expansion at the bounce, particle and entropy creations are expected to be very large, and it is crucial to keep such creations under control, so that the basic assumptions of the models are valid, including the one that the cosmological perturbations are small and can be treated as test fields propagating on the quantum homogeneous background, as assumed in both the dressed metric and hybrid approaches.

Yet, different initial conditions also affect the amplitudes and shapes of the primordial power spectra, and it would be very interesting to investigate the consistency of such obtained spectra with current observations, in particular the possible explanations to the anomalies found in the CMB data (Akrami and Planck collaboration, 2020; Akrami and Planck collaboration, 2020; Schwarz et al., 2016), and the naturalness of such initial conditions.

On the other hand, bouncing cosmologies, as an alternative to the cosmic inflation paradigm, have been extensively studied in the literature, see, for example (Wand, 1999; Brandenberger and Peter, 2017), and references therein. However, in such classical bounces, exotic matter fields are required in order to keep the bounce open. This in turn raises the question of instabilities of the models. On the other hand, quantum bounces found in LQC/mLQCs are purely due to the quantum geometric effects, and the instability problem is automatically out of the question. So, it would be very interesting to study bouncing cosmologies in the framework of LQC/mLQCs. The first step in this direction has already been taken (Li et al., 2020b), and more detailed and extensive analyses are still needed.

References

• 1

  AbazajianK. (2019). CMB-S4 Decadal Survey APC White Paper. arXiv:1908.01062.

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AbazajianK. N. (2015). Inflation Physics from the Cosmic Microwave Background and Large Scale Structure. Astropart. Phys.63, 55.

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AdeP.PLANCK Collaboration (2016). Planck 2015 Results. XX. Constraints on Inflation. A&A594, A20.

  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AghanimN.PLANCK Collaboration (2020). Planck 2018 Results. X. Constraints on Inflation. A&A641, A10.

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AgulloI.AshtekarA.GuptB. (2017). Phenomenology with Fluctuating Quantum Geometries in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Class. Quan. Grav.34, 074003. 10.1088/1361-6382/aa60ec

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  AgulloI.AshtekarA.NelsonW. (2013). Extension of the Quantum Theory of Cosmological Perturbations to the Planck Era. Phys. Rev.D87, 043507.

  • Google Scholar

• 7

  AgulloI.AshtekarA.NelsonW. (2012). Quantum Gravity Extension of the Inflationary Scenario. Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 251301. 10.1103/physrevlett.109.251301

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  AgulloI.AshtekarA.NelsonW. (2013). The Pre-inflationary Dynamics of Loop Quantum Cosmology: Confronting Quantum Gravity with Observations. Class. Quan. Grav.30, 085014. 10.1088/0264-9381/30/8/085014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  AgulloI.BollietB.SreenathV. (2018). Non-Gaussianity in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev.D97, 066021.

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  AgulloI.KranasD.SreenathV. (2021). Anomalies in the CMB from a Cosmic Bounce. Gen. Relativ Gravit.53, 17. 10.1007/s10714-020-02778-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  AgulloI.KranasD.SreenathV. (2021). Large Scale Anomalies in the CMB and Non-gaussianity in Bouncing Cosmologies. Class. Quan. Grav.38, 065010. 10.1088/1361-6382/abc521

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  AgulloI.MorrisN. A. (2015). Detailed Analysis of the Predictions of Loop Quantum Cosmology for the Primordial Power Spectra. Phys. Rev. D92, 124040. 10.1103/physrevd.92.124040

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  AgulloI.OlmedoJ.SreenathV. (2020). Observational Consequences of Bianchi I Spacetimes in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev.D102, 043523.

  • Google Scholar

• 14

  AgulloI.OlmedoJ.SreenathV. (2020). Predictions for the Cosmic Microwave Background from an Anisotropic Quantum Bounce. Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 251301. 10.1103/physrevlett.124.251301

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  AgulloI. (2018). Primordial Power Spectrum from the Dapor-Liegener Model of Loop Quantum Cosmology. Gen. Relativ Gravit.50, 91. 10.1007/s10714-018-2413-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  AgulloI.SinghP. (2017). “Loop Quantum Cosmology,” in Loop Quantum Gravity: The First 30 Years. Editors AshtekarA.PullinJ. (Singapore: Wald Scientific).

  • Google Scholar

• 17

  AkramiY.Planck collaboration (2020). Planck 2018 Results. I. Overview and the Cosmological Legacy of Planck. A&A641, A1.

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  AkramiY.Planck collaboration (2020). Planck 2018 Results. VII. Isotropy and Statistics of the CMB. A&A641, A7.

  • Google Scholar

• 19

  AlesciE.BottaG.CianfraniF.LiberatiS. (2017). Cosmological Singularity Resolution from Quantum Gravity: the Emergent-Bouncing Universe. Phys. Rev.D96, 046008.

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  AlesciE.CianfraniF. (2015). Quantum Reduced Loop Gravity: a Realistic Universe. Phys. Rev.D92, 084065.

  • Google Scholar

• 21

  AlesciE.CianfraniF. (2013). Quantum-Reduced Loop Gravity: Cosmology. Phys. Rev.D87, 083521.

  • Google Scholar

• 22

  AshoorioonA.ChialvaD.DanielssonU. (2011). Effects of Nonlinear Dispersion Relations on Non-gaussianities. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2011, 034. 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/06/034

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  AshtekarA.GuptB.JeongD.SreenathV. (2020). Alleviating the Tension in the Cosmic Microwave Background Using Planck-Scale Physics. Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 051302. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.051302

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  AshtekarA.PawlowskiT.SinghP. (2006). Quantum Nature of the Big Bang. Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 141301. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.141301

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  AshtekarA.BarrauA. (2015). Loop Quantum Cosmology: From Pre-inflationary Dynamics to Observations. Class. Quan. Grav.32, 234001. 10.1088/0264-9381/32/23/234001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  AshtekarA.BojowaldM.LewandowskiJ. (2003). Mathematical Structure of Loop Quantum Cosmology. Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.7, 233–268. 10.4310/atmp.2003.v7.n2.a2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  AshtekarA.CorichiA.SinghP. (2010). Robustness of Key Features of Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev.D77, 024046.

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  AshtekarA.GuptB. (2017). Initial Conditions for Cosmological Perturbations. Class. Quan. Grav.34, 035004. 10.1088/1361-6382/aa52d4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  AshtekarA.GuptB.JeongD.SreenathV. (2021). Cosmic Tango between the Very Small and the Very Large: Addressing CMB Anomalies through Loop Quantum Cosmology. arXiv:2103.14568.

  • Google Scholar

• 30

  AshtekarA.GuptB. (2017). Quantum Gravity in the Sky: Interplay between Fundamental Theory and Observations. Class. Quan. Grav.34, 014002. 10.1088/1361-6382/34/1/014002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  AshtekarA.LewandowskiJ. (2004). Background Independent Quantum Gravity: A Status Report. Class. Quan. Grav.21, R53–R152. 10.1088/0264-9381/21/15/r01

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  AshtekarA.PawlowskiT.SinghP. (2006). Quantum Nature of the Big Bang: An Analytical and Numerical Investigation. Phys. Rev. D73, 124038. 10.1103/physrevd.73.124038

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  AshtekarA.PullinJ. (2017). Loop Quantum Gravity - the First 30 Years. Singapore: World Scientific.

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  AshtekarA.SinghP. (2011). Loop Quantum Cosmology: a Status Report. Class. Quan. Grav.28, 213001. 10.1088/0264-9381/28/21/213001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  AshtekarA.SloanD. (2011a). Probability of Inflation in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Gen. Relativ. Gravit.43, 3619–3655. 10.1007/s10714-011-1246-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  AshtekarA.SloanD. (2011b). Loop Quantum Cosmology and Slow Roll Inflation. Phys. Lett. B694, 108.

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  AssanioussiM.DaporA.LiegenerK.PawłowskiT. (2018). Emergent de Sitter epoch of the quantum Cosmos from Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 081303. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.081303

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  AssanioussiM.DaporA.LiegenerK.PawlowskiT. (2019b). Challenges in Recovering a Consistent Cosmology from the Effective Dynamics of Loop Quantum Gravity. Phys. Rev.D100, 106016.

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  AssanioussiM.DaporA.LiegenerK.PawlowskiT. (2019a). Emergent de Sitter epoch of the loop quantum cosmos: A detailed analysis. Phys. Rev.D100, 084003.

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  BandayK. M. A. J.BennettC. L.HinshawG.KogutA.SmootG. F.WrightE. L. (1996). Power Spectrum of Primordial Inhomogeneity Determined from the FOUR-Year [ITAL]COBE[/ITAL] DMR Sky Maps. ibid464, L11–L15. 10.1086/310077

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  BaumannD.McAllisterL. (2015). Inflation and String Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 42

  BaumannD. (2009). TASI Lectures on Inflation. arXiv:0907.5424.

  • Google Scholar

• 43

  BaytasB.BojowaldM.CroweS. (2019). Equivalence of Models in Loop Quantum Cosmology and Group Field Theory. Universe5, 41.

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  BeckerK.BeckerM.SchwarzJ. H. (2007). String Theory and M-Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 45

  BedicS.VereshchaginG. (2019). Probability of Inflation in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev.D99 (4), 043512.

  • Google Scholar

• 46

  BedroyaA.BrandenbergerR.LoverdeM.VafaC. (2020). Trans-Planckian Censorship and Inflationary Cosmology. Phys. Rev. D101, 103502. 10.1103/physrevd.101.103502

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  BedroyaA.VafaC. (2020). Trans-Planckian Censorship and the Swampland. J. High Energ. Phys.2020, 123. 10.1007/jhep09(2020)123

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  BennettC. L.BandayA. J.GórskiK. M.HinshawG.JacksonP.KeegstraP.et al (1996). Four-Year [ITAL]COBE[/ITAL] DMR Cosmic Microwave Background Observations: Maps and Basic Results. Astrophys. J.464, L1–L4. 10.1086/310075

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  BergstormL.DanielssonU. H. (2002). Can MAP and Planck Map Planck Physics?J. High Energ. Phys.12, 038.

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  BhardwajA.CopelandE. J.LoukoJ. (2019). Inflation in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev.D99, 063520.

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  BirrellN. D.DaviesP. C. W. (1982). Quantum fields in Curved Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 52

  BojowaldM. (2011). Canonical Gravity and Applications: Cosmology, Black Holes, and Quantum Gravity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 53

  BojowaldM.HossainG. M.KaganM.ShankaranarayananS. (2008). Anomaly freedom in Perturbative Loop Quantum Gravity. Phys. Rev.D78, 063547.

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  BojowaldM. (2015). Quantum Cosmology: a Review. Rep. Prog. Phys.78, 023901. 10.1088/0034-4885/78/2/023901

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  BongaB.GuptB. (2016). Inflation with the Starobinsky Potential in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Gen. Relativ. Grav.48, 1. 10.1007/s10714-016-2071-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  BongaB.GuptB. (2016). Phenomenological Investigation of a Quantum Gravity Extension of Inflation with the Starobinsky Potential. Phys. Rev.D93, 063513.

  • Google Scholar

• 57

  BordeA.GuthA. H.VilenkinA. (2003). Inflationary Spacetimes Are Incomplete in Past Directions. Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 151301. 10.1103/physrevlett.90.151301

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  BordeA.VilenkinA. (1994). Eternal Inflation and the Initial Singularity. Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 3305–3308. 10.1103/physrevlett.72.3305

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  BrandenbergerR. H. (1999). Inflationary Cosmology: Progress and Problems. arXiv:hep-th/9910410.

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  BrandenbergerR. H.MartinJ. (2013). Trans-Planckian Issues for Inflationary Cosmology. Class. Quan. Grav.30, 113001. 10.1088/0264-9381/30/11/113001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  BrandenbergerR.PeterP. (2017). Bouncing Cosmologies: Progress and Problems. Found. Phys.47, 797–850. 10.1007/s10701-016-0057-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  BrandenbergerR. (2021). Trans-Planckian Censorship Conjecture and Early Universe Cosmology. arXiv:2102.09641.

  • Google Scholar

• 63

  BrunnemannJ.FleischhackC. (2007). On the Configuration Spaces of Homogeneous Loop Quantum Cosmology and Loop Quantum Gravity. arXiv:0709.1621.

  • Google Scholar

• 64

  BrunnemannJ.KoslowskiT. A. (2011). Symmetry Reduction of Loop Quantum Gravity. Class. Quan. Grav.28, 245014. 10.1088/0264-9381/28/24/245014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  BurgessC. P.CicoliM.QuevedoF. (2013). String Inflation after Planck 2013. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2013, 003. 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/11/003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  CailleteauT.BarrauA.GrainJ.VidottoF. (2012). Consistency of Holonomy-Corrected Scalar, Vector and Tensor Perturbations in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev.D86, 087301.

  • Google Scholar

• 67

  CailleteauT.MielczarekJ.BarrauA.GrainJ. (2012). Anomaly-free Scalar Perturbations with Holonomy Corrections in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Class. Quan. Grav.29, 095010. 10.1088/0264-9381/29/9/095010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  CarlipS. (2003). Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions. Cambridge: Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 69

  Castelló GomarL.Fernández-MéndezM.Mena MaruganG. A.OlmedoJ. (2014). Cosmological Perturbations in Hybrid Loop Quantum Cosmology: Mukhanov-Sasaki Variables. Phys. Rev.D90, 064015.

  • Google Scholar

• 70

  Castelló GomarL.García-QuismondoA.Mena MarugánG. A. (2020). Primordial Perturbations in the Dapor-Liegener Model of Hybrid Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev.D102, 083524.

  • Google Scholar

• 71

  Castelló GomarL.Mena MarugánG. A.Martín de BlasD.OlmedoJ. (2017). Hybrid Loop Quantum Cosmology and Predictions for the Cosmic Microwave Background. Phys. Rev. D96, 103528. 10.1103/physrevd.96.103528

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  ChenL.ZhuJ.-Y. (2015). Loop Quantum Cosmology: The Horizon Problem and the Probability of Inflation. Phys. Rev.D92, 084063.

  • Google Scholar

• 73

  ChernoffD. F.TyeS.-H. H. (2014). Inflation, String Theory and Cosmology. arXiv:1412.0579.

  • Google Scholar

• 74

  CicoliM. (2016). Recent Developments in String Model-Building and Cosmology. arXiv:1604.00904.

  • Google Scholar

• 75

  CorichiA.KaramiA. (2011). Measure Problem in Slow Roll Inflation and Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev. D83, 104006. 10.1103/physrevd.83.104006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  CorichiA.SinghP. (2008). Is Loop Quantization in Cosmology Unique?Phys. Rev.D78, 024034.

  • Google Scholar

• 77

  CorichiA.SloanD. (2014). Inflationary Attractors and Their Measures. Class. Quan. Grav.31, 062001. 10.1088/0264-9381/31/6/062001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  CraigD. A.SinghP. (2013). Consistent Probabilities in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Class. Quan. Grav.30, 205008. 10.1088/0264-9381/30/20/205008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  DadhichN.JoeA.SinghP. (2015). Emergence of the Product of Constant Curvature Spaces in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Class. Quan. Grav.32, 185006. 10.1088/0264-9381/32/18/185006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  DaporA.LiegenerK. (2018b). Cosmological Coherent State Expectation Values in Loop Quantum Gravity I. Isotropic Kinematics. Class. Quan. Grav.35, 135011. 10.1088/1361-6382/aac4ba

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  DaporA.LiegenerK. (2018a). Cosmological Effective Hamiltonian from Full Loop Quantum Gravity Dynamics. Phys. Lett. B785, 506–510. 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.09.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  de BlasD. M.OlmedoJ. (2016). Primordial Power Spectra for Scalar Perturbations in Loop Quantum Cosmology. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2016, 029. 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/06/029

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  DienerP.GuptB.MegevandM.SinghP. (2014). Numerical Evolution of Squeezed and Non-gaussian States in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Class. Quan. Grav.31, 165006. 10.1088/0264-9381/31/16/165006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  DienerP.GuptB.SinghP. (2014). Numerical Simulations of a Loop Quantum cosmos: Robustness of the Quantum Bounce and the Validity of Effective Dynamics. Class. Quan. Grav.31, 105015. 10.1088/0264-9381/31/10/105015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  DienerP.JoeA.MegevandM.SinghP. (2017). Numerical Simulations of Loop Quantum Bianchi-I Spacetimes. Class. Quan. Grav.34, 094004. 10.1088/1361-6382/aa68b5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  DodelsonS. (2003). Modern Cosmology. New York: Academic Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 87

  DupuyJ. L.SinghP. (2020). Hysteresis and Beats in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev.D101, 086016.

  • Google Scholar

• 88

  EastherR.KinneyW. H.PeirisH. (2005). Observing Trans-planckian Signatures in the Cosmic Microwave Background. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2005, 009. 10.1088/1475-7516/2005/05/009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  Elizaga NavascuésB.Martín de BlasD.Mena MarugánG. (2018). The Vacuum State of Primordial Fluctuations in Hybrid Loop Quantum Cosmology. Universe4, 98. 10.3390/universe4100098

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  EngleJ. (2007). Relating Loop Quantum Cosmology to Loop Quantum Gravity: Symmetric Sectors and Embeddings. Class. Quan. Grav.24, 5777–5802. 10.1088/0264-9381/24/23/004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  EngleJ.VilenskyI. (2018). Deriving Loop Quantum Cosmology Dynamics from Diffeomorphism Invariance. Phys. Rev.D98, 023505.

  • Google Scholar

• 92

  EngleJ.VilenskyI. (2019). Uniqueness of Minimal Loop Quantum Cosmology Dynamics. Phys. Rev. D100, 121901. 10.1103/physrevd.100.121901

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  Fernández-MéndezM.Mena MarugánG. A.OlmedoJ. (2013). Hybrid Quantization of an Inflationary Model: The Flat Case. Phys. Rev.D88, 044013.

  • Google Scholar

• 94

  Fernández-MéndezM.Mena MarugánG. A.OlmedoJ. (2012). Hybrid Quantization of an Inflationary Universe. Phys. Rev.D86, 024003.

  • Google Scholar

• 95

  GambiniR.PullinJ. (2011). A First Course in Loop Quantum Gravity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 96

  García-QuismondoA.Mena MarugánG. A. (2020). Dapor-Liegener Formalism of Loop Quantum Cosmology for Bianchi I Spacetimes. Phys. Rev.D101, 023520.

  • Google Scholar

• 97

  García-QuismondoA.Mena MarugánG. A. (2019). Martin-Benito-Mena Marugan-Olmedo Prescription for the Dapor-Liegener Model of Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev.D99, 083505.

  • Google Scholar

• 98

  García-QuismondoA.Mena MarugánG. A.PérezG. S. (2020). The Time-dependent Mass of Cosmological Perturbations in Loop Quantum Cosmology: Dapor-Liegener Regularization. Class. Quan. Grav.37, 195003. 10.1088/1361-6382/abac6d

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  GerhardtF.OritiD.Wilson-EwingE. (2018). The Separate Universe Framework in Group Field Theory Condensate Cosmology. Phys. Rev.D98, 066011.

  • Google Scholar

• 100

  GieselK.LiB.-F.SinghP. (2020). Revisiting the Bardeen and Mukhanov-Sasaki Equations in the Brown-Kuchar and Gaussian Dust Models. arXiv:2012.14443.

  • Google Scholar

• 101

  GieselK.LiB.-F.SinghP. (2020). Towards a Reduced Phase Space Quantization in Loop Quantum Cosmology with an Inflationary Potential. Phys. Rev. D102, 126024. 10.1103/physrevd.102.126024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  GieselK.ThiemannT. (2007). Algebraic Quantum Gravity (AQG): I. Conceptual Setup. Class. Quan. Grav.24, 2465–2497. 10.1088/0264-9381/24/10/003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  GomarL. C.Martín-BenitoM.MarugánG. A. M. (2015). Gauge-invariant Perturbations in Hybrid Quantum Cosmology. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2015, 045. 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/06/045

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  GordonL.LiB.-F.SinghP. (2021). Quantum Gravitational Onset of Starobinsky Inflation in a Closed Universe. Phys. Rev.D103, 046016.

  • Google Scholar

• 105

  GreenM. B.SchwarzJ. H.WittenE. (1999). Superstring Theory: Vol.1 & 2. Cambridge: Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 106

  GuptB.SinghP. (2013). A Quantum Gravitational Inflationary Scenario in Bianchi-I Spacetime. Class. Quan. Grav.30, 145013. 10.1088/0264-9381/30/14/145013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  GuptB.SinghP. (2012). Quantum Gravitational Kasner Transitions in Bianchi-I Spacetime. Phys. Rev.D86, 024034.

  • Google Scholar

• 108

  GuthA. H. (1981). Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems. Phys. Rev. D23, 347–356. 10.1103/physrevd.23.347

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  HanM.LiH.LiuH. (2020). Manifestly Gauge-Invariant Cosmological Perturbation Theory from Full Loop Quantum Gravity. arXiv:2005.00883.

  • Google Scholar

• 110

  HanM.LiuH. (2020a). Effective Dynamics from Coherent State Path Integral of Full Loop Quantum Gravity. Phys. Rev.D101, 046003.

  • Google Scholar

• 111

  HanM.LiuH. (2020b). Semiclassical Limit of New Path Integral Formulation from Reduced Phase Space Loop Quantum Gravity. Phys. Rev.D102, 024083.

  • Google Scholar

• 112

  HawkingS. W.EllisG. F. R. (1973). The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 113

  JacksonM. G.SchalmK. (2012). Model Independent Signatures of New Physics in the Inflationary Power Spectrum. Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 111301. 10.1103/physrevlett.108.111301

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  JinW.-J.MaY.-G.ZhuT. (2019). Pre-inflationary Dynamics of Starobinsky Inflation and its Generalization in Loop Quantum Brans-Dicke Cosmology. JCAP02, 010.

  • Google Scholar

• 115

  JohsonC. V. (2003). D-Branes, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 116

  JorasA. E.MarozziG. (2009). Trans-Planckian Physics from a Nonlinear Dispersion Relation. Phys. Rev.D79, 023514.

  • Google Scholar

• 117

  KamińskiW.KolanowskiM.LewandowskiJ. (2020). Dressed Metric Predictions Revisited. Class. Quan. Grav37, 095001. 10.1088/1361-6382/ab7ee0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  KieferC.KrämerM. (2012). Quantum Gravitational Contributions to the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Spectrum. Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 021301. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.021301

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  KieferC. (2007). Quantum Gravity. Oxford Science Publications, Oxford University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 120

  KodamaH.SasakiM. (1984). Cosmological Perturbation Theory. Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.78, 1–166. 10.1143/ptps.78.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  KomatsuE.SmithK. M.DunkleyJ.BennettC. L.GoldB.HinshawG.et alWMAP Collaboration (2011). Seven-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe ( Wmap ) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation. ApJS192, 18. 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/18

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  KraussL. M.WilczekF. (2014). Using Cosmology to Establish the Quantization of Gravity. Phys. Rev.D89, 047501.

  • Google Scholar

• 123

  LarsonD.DunkleyJ.HinshawG.KomatsuE.NoltaM. R.BennettC. L.et alWMAP Collaboration (2011). Seven-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe ( Wmap ) Observations: Power Spectra and Wmap -Derived Parameters. ApJS192, 16. 10.1088/0067-0049/192/2/16

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  LiB.-F.OlmedoJ.SinghP.WangA. (2020a). Primordial Scalar Power Spectrum from the Hybrid Approach in Loop Cosmologies. Phys. Rev. D102, 126025. 10.1103/physrevd.102.126025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  LiB.-F.SainiS.SinghP. (2020b). Primordial Power Spectrum from a Matter-Ekpyrotic Bounce Scenario in Loop Quantum Cosmology. arXiv:2012.10462.

  • Google Scholar

• 126

  LiB.-F.SinghP.Singularity resolution may forbid a cyclic evolution (To Appear).

  • Google Scholar

• 127

  LiB.-F.SinghP.WangA. (2019). Genericness of Pre-inflationary Dynamics and Probability of the Desired Slow-Roll Inflation in Modified Loop Quantum Cosmologies. Phys. Rev.D100, 063513.

  • Google Scholar

• 128

  LiB.-F.SinghP.WangA. (2020c). Primordial Power Spectrum from the Dressed Metric Approach in Loop Cosmologies. Phys. Rev.D100, 086004.

  • Google Scholar

• 129

  LiB.-F.SinghP.WangA. (2018b). Qualitative Dynamics and Inflationary Attractors in Loop Cosmology. Phys. Rev.D98, 066016.

  • Google Scholar

• 130

  LiB.-F.SinghP.WangA. (2018a). Towards Cosmological Dynamics from Loop Quantum Gravity. Phys. Rev.D97, 084029.

  • Google Scholar

• 131

  LiegenerK.SinghP. (2020). Gauge-invariant Bounce from Loop Quantum Gravity. Class. Quan. Grav.37, 085015. 10.1088/1361-6382/ab7962

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  LiegenerK.SinghP. (2019). New Loop Quantum Cosmology Modifications from Gauge-Covariant Fluxes. Phys. Rev. D100, 124048. 10.1103/physrevd.100.124048

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  LiegenerK.SinghP. (2019). Some Physical Implications of Regularization Ambiguities in SU(2) Gauge-Invariant Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev. D100, 124049. 10.1103/physrevd.100.124049

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  LindeA. (2014). Inflationary Cosmology after Planck 2013. arXiv: 1402.0526.

  • Google Scholar

• 135

  LindeA. (2018). On the Problem of Initial Conditions for Inflation. Found. Phys.48, 1246–1260. 10.1007/s10701-018-0177-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  LinseforsL.BarrauA. (2013). Duration of Inflation and Conditions at the Bounce as a Prediction of Effective Isotropic Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev. D87, 123509. 10.1103/physrevd.87.123509

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  MalikK. A. (2001). Cosmological Perturbations in an Inflationary Universe. arXiv:astro-ph/0101563.

  • Google Scholar

• 138

  MalikK. A.WandsD. (2009). Cosmological Perturbations. Phys. Rep.475, 1–51. 10.1016/j.physrep.2009.03.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  MartinJ.BrandenbergerR. H. (2001). Trans-Planckian Problem of Inflationary Cosmology. Phys. Rev. D63, 123501. 10.1103/physrevd.63.123501

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  MartínezF. B.OlmedoJ. (2016). Primordial Tensor Modes of the Early Universe. Phys. Rev. D93, 124008. 10.1103/physrevd.93.124008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  McAllisterL.SilversteinE. (2007). String Cosmology: A Review. Gen. Relativ. Grav.40, 565.

  • Google Scholar

• 142

  MeissnerK. A. (2004). Black-hole Entropy in Loop Quantum Gravity. Class. Quan. Grav.21, 5245–5251. 10.1088/0264-9381/21/22/015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  Mena MarugánG. A.OlmedoJ.PawlowskiT. (2011). Prescriptions in Loop Quantum Cosmology: A Comparative Analysis. Phys. Rev. D84, 064012. 10.1103/physrevd.84.064012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  MotaharfarM.SinghP. (2021). On the Role of Dissipative Effects in the Quantum Gravitational Onset of Warm Starobinsky Inflation in a Closed Universe. arXiv:gr-qc/2102.09578.

  • Google Scholar

• 145

  MukhanovV.FeldmanH. A.BrandenbergerR. H. (1992). Theory of Cosmological Perturbations. Phys. Rep.215, 203–333. 10.1016/0370-1573(92)90044-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  MukhanovV. F.WinitzkiS. (2007). Introduction to Quantum Effects in Gravity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 147

  MukhanovV. (2005). Physics Foundations of Cosmology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 148

  NavascuesB. E.de BlasD. M.MaruganG. A. M. (2018). Time-dependent Mass of Cosmological Perturbations in the Hybrid and Dressed Metric Approaches to Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev.D97, 043523.

  • Google Scholar

• 149

  NeuserJ.SchanderS.ThiemannT. (2019). Quantum Cosmological Backreactions II: Purely Homogeneous Quantum Cosmology. arXiv:1906.08185.

  • Google Scholar

• 150

  NiemeyerJ. C.ParentaniR. (2002). Corley-Jacobson Dispersion Relation and Trans-planckian Inflation. Phys. Rev.D65, 103514.

  • Google Scholar

• 151

  NiemeyerJ. C.ParentaniR. (2003). Dependence of the Spectra of Fluctuations in Inflationary Cosmology on Trans-planckian Physics. Phys. Rev.D68, 063513.

  • Google Scholar

• 152

  NiemeyerJ. C.ParentaniR. (2001). Trans-Planckian Dispersion Relation and Scale Invariance of Inflationary Perturbations. Phys. Rev.D64, 101301(R).

  • Google Scholar

• 153

  OlmedoJ.AlesciE. (2019). Power Spectrum of Primordial Perturbations for an Emergent Universe in Quantum Reduced Loop Gravity. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2019, 030. 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/04/030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  OritiD.SindoniL.Wilson-EwingE. (2017). Bouncing Cosmologies from Quantum Gravity Condensates. Class. Quan. Grav.34, 04LT01. 10.1088/1361-6382/aa549a

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  OritiD. (2017). The Universe as a Quantum Gravity Condensate. Comptes Rendus Physique18, 235–245. 10.1016/j.crhy.2017.02.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  ParkerL.TomsD. (2009). Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime: Quantized Fields and Gravity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 157

  PolchinskiJ. (2001). String Theory, Vol. 1 & 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 158

  RovelliC. (2008). Quantum Gravity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 159

  SainiS.SinghP. (2019a). Generic Absence of strong Singularities and Geodesic Completeness in Modified Loop Quantum Cosmologies. Class. Quan. Grav.36, 105014. 10.1088/1361-6382/ab1274

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  SainiS.SinghP. (2019b). Von Neumann Stability of Modified Loop Quantum Cosmologies. Class. Quan. Grav.36, 105010. 10.1088/1361-6382/ab1608

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  SatoK. (1981). First-order Phase Transition of a Vacuum and the Expansion of the Universe. Monthly Notices R. Astronomical Soc.195, 467–479. 10.1093/mnras/195.3.467

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  SchanderS.ThiemannT. (2019). Quantum Cosmological Backreactions I: Cosmological Space Adiabatic Perturbation Theory. arXiv:1906.08166.

  • Google Scholar

• 163

  SchanderS.ThiemannT. (2019). Quantum Cosmological Backreactions III: Deparametrised Quantum Cosmological Perturbation Theory. arXiv:1906.08194.

  • Google Scholar

• 164

  SchwarzD. J.CopiC. J.HutererD.StarkmanG. D. (2016). CMB Anomalies after Planck. Class. Quan. Grav.33, 184001. 10.1088/0264-9381/33/18/184001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  SenatoreL. (2017). “Lectures on Inflation,” in New Frontiers in Fields and Strings, Proceedings of the 2015 Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder, Colorado, 1 - 26 June 2015. Editors PolchinskiJ.VieiraP.DeWolfeO. (Singapore: World Scientific), 447–543.

  • Google Scholar

• 166

  ShahalamM.Al AjmiM.MyrzakulovR.WangA. (2020). Revisiting Pre-inflationary Universe of Family of α -attractor in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Class. Quan. Grav.37, 195026. 10.1088/1361-6382/aba486

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  ShahalamM. (2018). Preinflationary Dynamics of Power-Law Potential in Loop Quantum Cosmology †. Universe4, 87. 10.3390/universe4080087

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  ShahalamM.SamiM.WangA. (2018). Pre-inflationary Dynamics of α-attractor in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev.D98, 043524.

  • Google Scholar

• 169

  ShahalamM.SharmaM.WuQ.WangA. (2017). Preinflationary Dynamics in Loop Quantum Cosmology: Power-Law Potentials. Phys. Rev. D96, 123533. 10.1103/physrevd.96.123533

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  SharmaM.ShahalamM.WuQ.WangA. (2018). Preinflationary Dynamics in Loop Quantum Cosmology: Monodromy Potential. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2018, 003. 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/11/003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  SharmaM.ZhuT.WangA. (2019). Background Dynamics of Pre-inflationary Scenario in Brans-Dicke Loop Quantum Cosmology. Commun. Theor. Phys.71, 1205. 10.1088/0253-6102/71/10/1205

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  SilversteinE. (2016). TASI Lectures on Cosmological Observables and String Theory. arXiv:1606.03640.

  • Google Scholar

• 173

  SinghP. (2009). Are Loop Quantum cosmos Never Singular?Class. Quan. Grav.26, 125005. 10.1088/0264-9381/26/12/125005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  SinghP. (2018). Glimpses of Space-Time beyond the Singularities Using Supercomputers. Comput. Sci. Eng.20, 26–38. 10.1109/mcse.2018.042781324

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175

  SinghP. (2014). Loop Quantum Cosmology and the Fate of Cosmological Singularities. Bull. Astron. Soc. India42, 121.

  • Google Scholar

• 176

  SinghP.VanderslootK.VereshchaginG. V. (2006). Non-singular Bouncing Universes in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev.D74, 043510.

  • Google Scholar

• 177

  StarobinskyA. A. (1980). A New Type of Isotropic Cosmological Models without Singularity. Phys. Lett. B91, 99–102. 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90670-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178

  ThiemannT. (2006). Complexifier Coherent States for Quantum General Relativity. Class. Quan. Grav.23, 2063–2117. 10.1088/0264-9381/23/6/013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179

  ThiemannT. (2001a). Gauge Field Theory Coherent States (GCS): I. General Properties. Class. Quan. Grav.18, 2025–2064. 10.1088/0264-9381/18/11/304

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  ThiemannT. (2007). Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 181

  ThiemannT. (1998a). Quantum Spin Dynamics (QSD). Class. Quan. Grav.15, 839–873. 10.1088/0264-9381/15/4/011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 182

  ThiemannT. (1998b). Quantum Spin Dynamics (QSD): II. The Kernel of the Wheeler - DeWitt Constraint Operator. Class. Quan. Grav.15, 875–905. 10.1088/0264-9381/15/4/012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  ThiemannT.WinklerO. (2001b). Gauge Field Theory Coherent States (GCS): II. Peakedness Properties. Class. Quan. Grav.18, 2561–2636. 10.1088/0264-9381/18/14/301

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184

  WaldR. M. (1994). Quantum Field Theory Om Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 185

  WandD. (1999). Duality Invariance of Cosmological Perturbation Spectra. Phys. Rev.D60, 023507.

  • Google Scholar

• 186

  WeinbergS. (1980). in General Relativity, an Einstein Centenary Survey. Editors HawkingS. W.IsraelW. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

  • Google Scholar

• 187

  WeinbergS. (2008). Cosmology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 188

  Wilson-EwingE. (2017). Testing Loop Quantum Cosmology. Comptes Rendus Physique18, 207–225. 10.1016/j.crhy.2017.02.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189

  Wilson-EwingE. (2018). The Loop Quantum Cosmology Bounce as a Kasner Transition. Class. Quan. Grav.35, 065005. 10.1088/1361-6382/aaab8b

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  WoodardR. P. (2014). Perturbative Quantum Gravity Comes of Age. arXiv:1407.4748.

  • Google Scholar

• 191

  WuQ.ZhuT.WangA. (2018). Nonadiabatic Evolution of Primordial Perturbations and Non-gaussinity in Hybrid Approach of Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev. D98, 103528. 10.1103/physrevd.98.103528

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 192

  XiaoK. (2020). Tachyon Field in Loop Cosmology. Phys. Lett. B811, 135859. 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135859

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193

  XiaoK. (2019). Tachyonic Inflation in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Eur. Phys. J. C79, 1019. 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7538-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 194

  XiaoK.WangS.-Q. (2020). Pre-inflation Dynamical Behavior of Warm Inflation in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Mod. Phys. Lett. A.35, 2050293. 10.1142/s0217732320502934

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 195

  YangJ.DingY.MaY. (2009). Alternative Quantization of the Hamiltonian in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Lett. B682, 1–7. 10.1016/j.physletb.2009.10.072

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 196

  ZhangX.LingY. (2007). Inflationary Universe in Loop Quantum Cosmology. JCAP08, 012.

  • Google Scholar

• 197

  ZhuT.WangA.KirstenK.CleaverG.ShengQ. (2017). Pre-inflationary Universe in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev.D96, 083520.

  • Google Scholar

• 198

  ZhuT.WangA.KirstenK.CleaverG.ShengQ. (2018). Primoridial Non-gaussianity and Power Asymmetry with Quantum Gravitational Effects in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev.D97, 043501.

  • Google Scholar

• 199

  ZhuT.WangA.KirstenK.CleaverG.ShengQ. (2017). Universal Features of Quantum Bounce in Loop Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Lett. B773, 196–202. 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.08.025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar