1

NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS

For the computations below, we will use the Klein-Gordon equation in the form

( ) ( )
, f
k b
f

=

with initial conditions specified at 23 = by
i
and 0
i

= . Other input data will be values of
0
=0.40, 0.41, ....., 0,99, 1, and the value
0
70 H = . The dimensionless potential ( ) V Af = ,
where ( ) f is the function we are looking for. The simulation program adjusts the value A so that
0
equals the input value of
0
.
As output data we have the following parameters:
L : The maximum distance between empirical cdf and normal cdf (Lilliefors test of normality).
0
w : The present equation of state parameter w.
1
w :
1
0
dw
w
d

=
(
=
(


2
w :
2
2
2
0
d w
w
d

=
(
=
(
(


ave
w : The average w for 2 z .
A: The constant of the equation ( ) V Af =
t : The transition time. That is, the when the universe made a transition from deceleration to
acceleration.
t
z : The transition redshift.
0
q : The present deceleration parameter.
: The maximum change of for 23 0 .

After a plethora of simulations I noticed two things:
First: The simulations point out the CDM model with
0
0.72

= == = and
0
70 / sec/ H km Mpc = == = as the winning model.
Second: Nearly, any quintessence model fits to the astronomical data, just by choosing
the right initial value
i
.
We will verify these two conclusions, by the examples bellow. They are the CDM model
and six quintessence models inspired by supergravity or M/string theory. All the acceptable results
of these models are presented in tables 1-7, where the results are in an increasing order of the value
L . That means, on top of the table are the results that fit better to the astronomical data.








2
1. CDM model.
The CDM potential is
( ) f C = .
Here 1 C = (figure 1). The results for ( ) f C = are
independent of the initial value
i
, which we arbitrarily
set equal zero. All the acceptable results are presented
in table 1. As you see the best goodness of fit occurs at
0
0.72

= and
0
70 H = .











2. Sugra model
The Sugra potential is
( )
( )
2
exp 2
a
f = .
Here 4 a = . The minimum of the potential occurs at
2 = = (figure 2).
Input values
i
: 0.1, 0.5, 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6,
1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9,
3, 4, 5, 7, 10.
I found 61 acceptable results. They are presented in
table 2. As you see the model doesnt fit for
i
= 1.2,
1.3, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 3. The best goodness of fit occurs
at 2
i
= where the model evolves exactly as the
CDM model with
0
0.72

= and
0
70 H = . For 1.6 2.4
i
the Sugra potential cosmology
mimics CDM cosmology with
0
0.72

= and
0
70 H = .






3



4








3. Polonyi model.
The Polonyi potential is
( )
( )
2 2
2
1 3 exp 2
2 2 2
f b b



( | | | |
= + + +
`
( | |
\ \

)
.
Here 0.2 b = . The minimum of the potential occurs at
0.9557 = (figure 3).
Input values
i
: -7, -4, -2, -1, 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5,
0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 0.9557, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7,
1.8, 1.9, 2, 4, 6, 9.

I found 67 acceptable results. They are
presented in table 3. As you see the model doesnt fit for
i
= -7, -4, -2, -1, 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 2.
The best goodness of fit occurs at 0.9557
i
= where the model evolves exactly as the CDM
model with
0
0.72

= and
0
70 H = . For 0.93 0.99
i
the Polonyi potential cosmology mimics
CDM cosmology with
0
0.72

= and
0
70 H = .
5




6







4. Stable De Sitter model.
The Stable De Sitter potential is
( ) ( ) cosh f = .
Here 2 = . The minimum of the potential occurs at 0 = (figure 4).
Input values
i
: 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.
I found 23 acceptable results. They are presented in table 4. As you see the model doesnt
fit for
i
= 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1. The best goodness of fit occurs at 0
i
= where the model evolves
exactly as the CDM model with
0
0.72

= and
0
70 H = . For 0.4 0.4
i
the Stable De Sitter
potential cosmology mimics CDM cosmology with
0
0.72

= and
0
70 H = .









7







5 Unstable De Sitter model.
The Unstable De Sitter potential is
( ) ( ) 2 cosh f = .
Here 2 = . The maximum of the potential occurs at
0 = (figure 5).
Input values
i
: 0, 0.1, 0.2.
I found 10 acceptable results. Some of them are
presented in table 5. As you see the model doesnt fit
for
i
= 0.2 or higher values
i
. The best goodness of
fit occurs at 0
i
= where the model evolves exactly as
the CDM model with
0
0.72

= and
0
70 H = , but
this doesnt last because in this position the scalar field is unstable. For 0.16 0.16
i
the
Unstable De Sitter potential cosmology mimics CDM cosmology with
0
0.72

= and
0
70 H = .
8














6. Axion model.
The Axion potential is
( ) ( ) 1 cos f = + .
Here 1 = . The maximum of the potential occurs at
0 = (figure 6).
Input values of
i
: 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8
0.9, 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4.
I found 49 acceptable results. Some of them are
presented in table 6. As you see the model doesnt fit
for
i
= 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4. The best goodness of fit
occurs at 0
i
= where the model evolves exactly as the
CDM model with
0
0.72

= and
0
70 H = , but this
doesnt last because in this position the scalar field is unstable. For 0.9 0.9
i
the Axion
potential cosmology mimics CDM cosmology with
0
0.72

= and
0
70 H = .

9




10
7. Unstable De Sitter Axion model.
The Unstable De Sitter Axion potential is
( ) ( ) os f c = .
The maximum of the potential occurs at 0 = (figure 7).
Input values of
i
: 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6.
I found 22 acceptable models. Some of them are
presented in table 7. As you see the model doesnt fit
for
i
= 0.5, 0.6, or higher values
i
. The best
goodness of fit occurs at 0
i
= where the model
evolves exactly as the CDM model with
0
0.72

= and
0
70 H = , but this doesnt last because in
this position the scalar field is unstable. For
0.4 0.4
i
the Unstable De Sitter Axion potential
cosmology mimics CDM cosmology with
0
0.72

=
and
0
70 H = .