Effects of Massless Conformally-Coupled Fields on

Future Classical Singularities - A Semiclassical

Approach

Presented before the faculty of the Wake Forest University

Department of Physics as a requirement for graduating with
the distinction of Honors in Physics

Andrew J. Lundeen
Summer 2015

Approved by

Eric D. Carlson

Paul R. Anderson

Gregory B. Cook

2
Contents

I. Introduction
II. Background

3
4

III. The Order-Reduced Method

IV. A Significant Feature of All < 0 Cases

V. The = 0 Case: Nearly All Models Evolve to a Type II Singularity

VI. The Type I (Big Rip) Singularity and the Little Rip Singularity

9
11

A. The < 0 Case

12

B. The > 0 Case

13

1. Proof That the Big Rip and Little Rip Singularities Are Avoided for > 0
VII. The Type III Singularity
3
2

16

3
2

16

< B 6= 2

18

A. 1 < B
B.

14

C. B = 2
VIII. The Type II and Type IV Singularities
IX. Discussion of Results and Significance of Findings
X. Acknowledgments
References

19
20
23
23
24

3
I.

INTRODUCTION

In conflict with previously commonly-held expectations, the universe is not slowing down
in its expansion, but instead is currently accelerating in its expansion according to recent
observations [1]. Normally, one would expect the universe to be slowing in its expansion
due to gravity, but the evidence seems to indicate that the contrary is occurring. The
problem of understanding the mysterious cause that must be driving the universes outward
acceleration, and the goal to better understand the implications of such an effect on the future
of the universe are both focuses of current research. The latter concern will be considered
in this paper. First, though, it is helpful to consider some history of research in cosmology
to better place this work in context.
In 1929, Edwin Hubble showed that objects in the universe seem to expand at a rate that
is proportional to their separation distance [2]. Hubble observed the brightness of stars called
Cepheid variables and compared this to their known luminosity. Such a comparison allowed
him to measure their distance from Earth. Hubble also observed the rate of recession (or
approach) of the Cepheids host galaxies by measuring the galaxies redshift (or blueshift).
Combining the data, Hubble was able to plot the recession rate (or rate of approach) of
the galaxies as a function of their distance from Earth. He found the relationship to be
approximately linear. The slope of this line is now known as Hubbles Constant, H0 . This
constant measures the current expansion rate of the universe. Cosmologists believe, however,
that the universes rate of expansion is not constant, and in fact there is convincing evidence
to suggest that it is currently increasing. In other words, the universe is presently accelerating
its expansion.
The aforementioned evidence comes from observations of stellar eruptions known as type
Ia supernovae [3]. These supernovae are similar to Cepheid variables in that both are standard candles (their peak luminosity is known to a relatively high degree of precision), but
these supernovae are much brighter. In fact, type Ia supernovae are visible at distances of
billions of light years, since their luminosity is comparable to the luminosity of entire galaxies. Extending Hubbles method to these supernovae, one finds that the recession velocity
is slower for large distances (the brightness of the supernovae are larger than they a linear Hubble relationship would predict). In other words, observations of type Ia supernovae
indicate that the universe is currently accelerating outward in its expansion. This is odd,

4
because all baryonic matter (ordinary matter) and so-called dark matter (whose composition is unknown) should cause the expansion rate of the universe to slow due to gravity.
This suggests that something besides ordinary and dark matter exists in the universe that
causes the universe to accelerate its expansion, and this so-called dark energy is currently
the dominant component of the universe.
More evidence exists that indicates the existence of dark energy [1]. Observations of the
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) from the Big Bang show that the CMBR
is nearly uniform in every direction. This, along with the evidence that the universe on a large
scale is flat, requires that the ratio

crit

be very close to one, where is the energy density

of the content of the universe, and crit is the critical density (H02

8
).
3 crit

However,

current measurements of using only the energy content of ordinary and dark matter yields
.27, or 27% of critical density. This suggests that the remaining 73% is something
besides ordinary or dark matterthe aforementioned currently dominant component of the
universe, dark energy.
What dark energy is is not known. The universe accelerates its expansion if the equation
of state relating the pressure P to the energy density satisfies w

< 1/3. The central

aim of this paper is to investigate equations of state of particular interest, namely ones that
lead to future singularities (divergences in the size of the universe a, the Hubble rate H a/a,

the energy density , and others). We investigate whether or not including a quantum term
in the Friedmann equation removes or softens these singularities. In particular, we examine
the effects of massless, conformally-coupled fields when the universe undergoes rapid change,
such as rapid change in its scale factor a or its time derivatives. Similar work has been
explored in detail in the literature [46], but this paper is novel in that the conclusions are
more general, and we attempt to examine every possible interesting case.
Throughout, we use units such that ~ = c = G = 1, and we employ the conventions of
Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler [7].

II.

BACKGROUND

In order to model the expansion of the universe, an equation of state relating pressure to
energy density is needed. However, since the nature of the dark energy is unknown, several
viable models exist that could accurately describe the future expansion of space. Let the

5
equation of state be Pc = Pc (c ), where Pc is the pressure and c is the energy density of
dark energy. The type of function used to model Pc determines the dependence of c on the
scale factor of the universe a through the equation
c = 3H [c + Pc (c )] ,

(2.1)

where a dot denotes a derivative with respect to time, and H is the Hubble expansion rate,
defined as
a
H .
a

(2.2)

Notice that in Eq. (2.1), if c + Pc (c ) < 0 for all values of c , then despite the fact that
the universe is expanding and the matter in the universe is separating with it, the dark
energy density increases with time. If the dark energy density increases without bound it
can result in a future singularity. Assuming the dark energy is the dominant contribution,
one can then solve for the scale factor a by solving the classical Friedmann equation for a
flat universe,
H2 =

8
c ,
3

(2.3)

to determine a(t).
Many forms of Pc (c ) exist that could each accurately describe the dark energy. However,
many models cause divergences in a, , P and/or P in finite (or in one category, infinite)
time. These equations of state are said to contain future singularities. Table 1 classifies the
main types of classical cosmological singularities. Note that these model equations are simply
modelsthere are many viable models that can construct the future classical singularities
we investigated. Note that we are interested in the behavior of the universe only near the
singularity. Our model equations of state should not be taken literally except near the
singularity.
For the Big Rip singularity model with B = 1, we can write Pc = wc , where w =
1 A < 1. This is a significant parameter value for B, since Pc = wc is one of the
most common models currently in the literature, with w being experimentally measured to
be very close to 1 [1].
In all cases except for the Little Rip singularity, the singularity is reached within a finite
time. Singularities that occur only in higher time derivatives can easily be created by using

6
Type of Singularity

Divergence

Type I/Big Rip

Little Rip
Type III
Type II

a, , P
a, , P
, P
P

Type IV

When

Model Equation

Finite
Pc = c AB
c
Infinite
Finite
A>0
Finite Pc = c A|s c |B
Finite

A>0

Parameters
1
2

<B1
B 12
B>1
B<0

0<B<

1
2

TABLE I: The main types of classical singularities, their characteristic quantities that
diverge, and the equations of state we used to model them.
values of B in the range

1
2

B < 1 in the Types II and IV equation of state. However, these

singularities are weak, and we decided that they did not warrant our attention.
In the equations presented so far, the energy density term in these equations is not the
total energy density. It accounts only for the classical energy density (the contribution from
dark energy) and does not take into account the contributions of quantum fields. Normally the contribution of the quantum fields are negligible, but this may not be the case as
the universe approaches times where the Hubble factor and/or its time derivatives become
significantly large, which occurs at times near the singularities of these models.
The contribution of massless, conformally-coupled fields in the semiclassical approach to
the total energy density of the universe is given by
H 2 + 6HH
2 ) + H 4 ,
q = (2HH

(2.4)

where
=

Ns + 11Nf + 62N
,
960 2

(2.5)

where Ns is the number of scalar fields, Nf is the number of fermion fields, and N is the
number of vector fields. The quantity is given by
= 1 + 2 ,

(2.6)

Ns + 6Nf + 12N
,
960 2

(2.7)

where
1 =

and 2 is the contribution from the renormalization of higher derivative gravitational terms.

7
Because 2 is unknown, the sign and magnitude of is unknown, and could even be zero.
In our numerical computations, we arbitrarily chose = 1 in Eq. (2.4). Some theories
allow many fields to exist, so we chose to use numbers that allowed the quantum effects to
occur on scales larger than the Planck scale. Typically, we used Ns = 1000, with Nf = N =
0.
The complete Friedmann equation reads
H2 =

8
(c + q ),
3

(2.8)

where c is the energy density term found from solving Eq. (2.1), and q is described by
Eq. (2.4).
Eq. (2.8) is rarely possible to solve analytically. To solve it, we used numerical methods.
However, Eq. (2.8) is third-order. For > 0 it is unstable and highly sensitive to the
initial conditions. Because of this, there is a problem in figuring out how to choose initial
conditions so that the appropriate solution may be found. To resolve this issue, we first
solved the Friedmann equation using a method that I will refer to as the order-reduced
approach, but is also commonly known as the Parker-Simon method [8, 9].

III.

THE ORDER-REDUCED METHOD

The order-reduced approach is a perturbative expansion where we treat the quantum

terms as corrections to the classical energy density. In this approach, one solves Eq. (2.3) for
H and then substitutes this expression in each of the terms of Eq. (2.4), so that q f (Hc ),
where Hc is dependent only on the form of the classical energy density contribution. In other
words, the quantum energy density contribution is now written in terms that depend only
on a and a.
Next, using this expression for q , one can solve Eq. (2.8) by specifying only one
initial condition. The solution is stable, and the initial condition should simply match the
classical solutions initial condition.
The following equations summarize how to get the order-reduced solution to the Friedmann equation. First, rewrite Eq. (2.1) as
dc
3
= [c + Pc (c )]
da
a

(3.1)

8
and solve to find c (a). Next, insert this into the classical Friedmann equation to find an
expression for H
r
Hc =

8c
.
3

(3.2)

Now write the quantum contribution in terms of this Hubble parameter

2

q = (2Hc Hc H c + 6H c Hc 2 ) + Hc 4 .

(3.3)

Lastly, solve the Friedmann equation using this expression for the quantum contribution
H2 =

8
[c + q (c )] .
3

(3.4)

Matching the initial value of a to the initial value of a in the classical solution specifies the
solution.
The order-reduced method works well while the perturbations are small. Since the solution
is stable and reliable until the quantum effects become significant, the order-reduced solution
is able to guide the initial condition choices in the third-order full Friedmann equation before
the singularity is approached.

IV.

A SIGNIFICANT FEATURE OF ALL < 0 CASES

Well now consider a simple proof by contradiction that the universes size increases
without bound when < 0. Begin by assuming that the universe will reach a maximum
size. When the universe reaches a maximum size, H = 0. Therefore, Eq. (2.8) with the
quantum energy density Eq. (2.4) simplifies to
0=

8
(c + ||H 2 ).
3

(4.1)

Since both terms on the right hand side of this equation are positive, it must not be possible
for H to equal 0. It follows that if H > 0 initially, H will always be strictly positive.
This proves that a(t) is an increasing function in all cases when < 0. Since a is always
increasing, quantum effects will not allow us to evade the singularity.

9
V.

THE = 0 CASE: NEARLY ALL MODELS EVOLVE TO A TYPE II

SINGULARITY

When the parameter in Eq. (2.4) vanishes, Eq. (2.8) simplifies to

H2 =

8
(c + H 4 ).
3

(5.1)

Solving it, we find

2

H =

9 256 2 c
.
16

(5.2)

We have chosen the minus sign because this gives Eq. (2.3) in the limit that c is small.
Clearly, there is a value max

9
256 2

which makes the argument in the square root 0; if

were to exceed this value, the value of H 2 would become complex.

If the equation of state is that of a Type II or Type IV singularity and if s < max ,
then the singularity at c = s occurs before max is reached. In this case, H 2 is a smooth
function of c in the neighborhood of s , so that any singularities resulting from the classical
equation H 2 =

3 c

will be manifested in the quantum equation as well.

However, if s > max (or if c diverges), then c will attain the value max ; it follows
2
=
from Eq. (5.2) that H 2 |max Hmax

3
.
16

However, since

8
2
,
H =p
c
9 256 2 c

(5.3)

2
H |max = .
c

(5.4)

then

Since H is finite when c = max , this implies that H = here. However, if H diverges,
this means that P and its derivatives diverge. This is precisely what characterizes the Type
II singularity. Hence, for = 0, the only equation of state that does not cause the universe
to evolve to a Type II singularity is the Type IV singularity model with s < max .1
Next, we seek to derive a function a(t) that describes the scale factor of the universe in
the neighborhood of max when = 0 model-independently. Starting with Eq. (5.2), we
1

Even for the Type IV singularity model with s < max , the universe experiences a Type II singularity at
= max after it first experiences the Type IV singularity at = s .

10
take the time derivatives of both sides, and we make a substitution for the c term using
Eq. (2.1) to get the expression
12
H = p
(c Pc ).
9 256 2 c

(5.5)

Next, we approximate the value of c by using a Taylor expansion of c (t) around the
point t = tmax to first order:
c max + c (t tmax ) = max 3Hmax (max + Pmax )(t tmax ),

(5.6)

where Pmax Pc (max ). Approximating c + Pc = max + Pmax in Eq. (5.5), and substituting
Eq. (5.6), we find
s
H

3(max + Pmax )
16Hmax (tmax t)

(5.7)

As expected, the analytical model predicts that H diverges as t approaches tmax . Integrating this equation, we find that H approaches a finite value, namely
s
H Hmax

3(max + Pmax )(tmax t)

.
4Hmax

(5.8)

Solving this for a, we find that

"
a amax exp Hmax (tmax t) +

#
3
(max + Pmax )
(tmax t) 2 .
3Hmax

(5.9)

This describes what happens to the universe when quantum effects are taken into account
when = 0 for all classical equations of state that have future singularities. However, for
the cases > 0 and < 0, the analysis is far more difficult and must be examined separately
and type-by-type. First we will examine the Type I singularity and the closely-related Little
Rip singularity.

11
VI.

THE TYPE I (BIG RIP) SINGULARITY AND THE LITTLE RIP

SINGULARITY

As described in Table 1, the Type I (Big Rip) and Little Rip singularities are modeled by
the equation of state

where A > 0,

1
2

Pc = c AB
c ,

(6.1)

1
2

for the Little Rip. Solving Eq. (2.1)

< B 1 for the Big Rip, and B

gives the relation



c = 3A(1B) ln

a
a0

1
 1B

(6.2)

where a0 > 0. Substituting this into Eq. (2.3) yields, for B 6= 12 ,


a = a0 exp

3 A

2B2 
i 2B1

1 h
,
(2B1) 2(ts t)
1B

1

12B

2
i 2B1

c = A(2B1) 6(ts t)
.

(6.3)

(6.4)

When B = 1, we again have the Type I singularity, but the equation for the energy density
instead is described by
c = ca3A ,

(6.5)

where c > 0, and the corresponding equations in terms of time are

i 2
h
3A
.
a = A 6c(ts t)

c =

1
6A2 (ts

t)2

(6.6)

(6.7)

Fig. 1 illustrates the classical behavior of a for the Big Rip and Little Rip singularities.
(The Little Rip is considered a singularity because the energy density diverges.) To
investigate what impact the quantum contribution has on the universes evolution for these
types, we first need to choose the sign of . First we will look at the < 0 case.

12

FIG. 1: In the Big Rip singularity (left), the scale factor diverges in finite time, while in
the Little Rip singularity (right), it diverges in infinite time. Since each time derivative of
the scale factor also diverges, it follows that , P , and P also diverge. In the Little Rip, the
scale factor diverges faster than exponentially, as shown.

FIG. 2: Numerical results from our Little Rip model with < 0. The blue line is the
classical result, the red line is the order-reduced result, and the black lines are the
full-quantum computation with three choices of initial conditions. For the full-quantum
results, the scale factor diverges in finite time independent of initial conditions, which
means that the Little Rip is converted to a Big Rip for < 0.
A.

The < 0 Case

The solutions to the Friedmann equation for < 0 are not sensitive to the initial conditions. We used the order-reduced method to help set the initial conditions, but explored a
range of such conditions. For these cases we found that the singularities remain or become
more singular. For the Little Rip, numerical computations indicated that the quantum effects cause the universe to evolve to a Type I singularity instead for a wide range of initial
conditions.

13
With the numerical results as a guide, we attempted to understand these models analytically. We conjectured that near the singularity, the scale factor behaves as
a c (ts t) .

(6.8)

Here, c > 0 is a constant, ts is the time where the singularity occurs, and we postulated
that > 0.
To solve for the value of , we first wrote the Friedmann equation, substituting Eq. (6.8)
for each a. Next, we looked for the terms of the lowest powers on (ts t), i.e. the leading
order terms, in the q contribution using our postulate that > 0. We discovered that the
quantum terms typically overtake and surpass the classical contribution so that to leading
order the quantum terms must cancel each other. We found that, indeed, > 0 and for
B < 1 it is given by
=

3|| +

p
92 + 3||
.

(6.9)

For B = 1, the equation for c is different and the situation is more complicated. For
( 43 A + 1)2 < 1 +

,
3||

the quantum effects still dominate the classical contribution, and we

found that the value of is still given by Eq. (6.9). For ( 43 A + 1)2 > 1 +

,
3||

the classical

contribution can no longer be neglected, but we still find Eq. (6.8) is valid, but with =
For the special case ( 43 A + 1)2 = 1 +

,
3||

4
.
3A

it is necessary to modify Eq. (6.8) to

4

a c (ts t) 3A [ ln(ts t)] 3A .

(6.10)

The end result is that, once again, we have a Type I divergence.

In all cases of the Type I and Little Rip singularities for < 0, we found that the universe
evolved towards a Type I singularity.

B.

The > 0 Case

For > 0, numerical solutions exhibited interesting results, both for the Big Rip and the
Little Rip. Independently of initial conditions, the universe eventually reaches a maximum
size. Fig. 3 shows typical results. We did not think this was a coincidence, so we looked for
a way to prove this seemingly-generic feature.

14

FIG. 3: Classical (blue), order-reduced (red), and full-quantum (black) for Big Rip (left)
and Little Rip (right) cosmologies with > 0. Note that the full-quantum cosmology always
reaches a maximum size, evading the singularity.
1.

Proof That the Big Rip and Little Rip Singularities Are Avoided for > 0

We claim that for massless, conformally-coupled fields, self-consistent quantum backreaction effects avoid the Big Rip and Little Rip singularities when > 0. Well use a proof
by contradiction, assuming a increases without bound, ultimately resulting in conflicting
statements.
The Friedmann equation, Eq. (2.8), can be written as
 (H 2
1
2
2

2HH H + 6HH =
4

3
)2
16

+ (A c )

(6.11)

where
9
.
256 2

(6.12)



1
d 1d
1/2
2) ,
(aH ) = (2HH
H 2 + 6HH
dt a dt
4

(6.13)





d 1d
1 d
1/2
5/2 d
3/2
3/2
(aH ) = H
H +
H
.
dt a dt
d ln a
3 d ln a

(6.14)

A
Now, one can prove that
H

3/2

and show that

H

3/2

15
By direct substitution, we have that


3
(H 2 16
)2 + (A c )
d
1 d
3/2
3/2
=
H +
H
.
d ln a
3 d ln a
4H 5/2

(6.15)

It is important to note that, in Eq. (6.15), no assumptions were made. Let a` be the scale
where c reaches the value A, then since c is an increasing function of a, c > A for a > a` .
Then


1 d
d
3/2
3/2
H +
H
< X
d ln a
3 d ln a
where X > 0.

Now, let H 3/2 +

d
H 3/2 a=a
d ln a
`


H

3/2

for

a > a` ,

(6.16)

= R. Then integrating Eq. (6.16), we see that

1 d
+
H 3/2
3 d ln a

a

< [X ln a]aa` .

(6.17)

a`

Since H 3/2 is positive, this implies

1 d
H 3/2 < R X ln (a/a` ) .
3 d ln a

(6.18)

1 3/2 1 3/2
1
H < H` + R ln(a/a` ) X [ln(a/a` )]2 .
3
3
2

(6.19)

Integrating both sides yields

If one chooses

a = a` exp

R+

3/2

R2 + 23 XH`
X

(6.20)

the right hand side of Eq. (6.19) vanishes. Choosing this value of a and substituting into
Eq. (6.19), one obtains
H 3/2 < 0 .

(6.21)

This is impossible if the universe expands without bound. Hence our assumption must
be false, and in fact, the universe must reach a maximum size before recollapsing, avoiding
the singularity.
This proof applies to the pressure equation of state P = AB with B 1, because

16
the universe must reach infinite size. When B > 1, we have a Type III singularity. This is
what we shall examine next.

VII.

THE TYPE III SINGULARITY

The equation of state that leads to a Type III singularity is given by Eq. (6.1) with 1 < B
and A > 0. Substituting this into Eq. (2.1) gives the relation
1
h
 a i 1B
s
c = 3A(B1) ln
a

(7.1)

where as > 0 is the value of a that marks when the singularity is reached.
Fig. 4 shows the classical behaviors of the scale factor and energy density of the Type III
singularity. The effects of quantum fields on Type III singularities depend on both the sign
of and the value of B.

FIG. 4: The classical Type III singularity scale factor (left) and energy density (right). The
dashed green line denotes the singular value as = 10.

A.

1<B

3
2

For < 0 we know that the universe must always increase in size. However, the classical
Type III singularity occurs at a finite value of a, a = as . Therefore, the singular value of a is
always reached. Our numerical results, shown in Fig. 5, suggest that the singularity remains
Type III.

17

FIG. 5: Classical (blue), order-reduced (red), and full-quantum (black) for a Type III
singularity with B = 5/4 for < 0 (left) and > 0 (right). Note that for the full-quantum
result, the singularity is inevitably reached for < 0 but inevitably avoided for > 0.
We analytically modeled the divergence to leading order with the expression

c

a as exp (ts t) .

(7.2)

We found the value of by substituting this in Eq. (2.8), keeping only the most divergent
terms, and found that
=

4(B 1)
,
2B 1

(7.3)

so that the leading order classical energy density term cancels the leading order term in the
quantum energy density term. (Since the order of H 2 is not of leading order, the leading
order terms present on the right hand side of the equation must cancel.) By matching the
coefficients of the leading order terms, we found that

c = [(1)(3)]

1B
2B1

3A
(2B1)
4

1
 2B1

(7.4)

For 1 < B < 23 , we see that 0 < < 1. Also, c > 0 for < 0. The behavior must be
slightly modified if B = 23 , but it is still a Type III singularity [10].
However, for > 0, expression (7.4) yields nonsensical results. There is good reason that
this model fails for > 0. E. Carlson found a proof which shows that for this case a reaches
a maximum value instead of reaching as [10]. This is also backed by numerical evidence,
which is shown in Fig. 5.

18
B.

3
2

< B 6= 2

Numerically, when we input a value for B that was greater than 32 , we found that for
> 0 the singularity can be reached or avoided depending on initial conditions. For both
signs of we found that H no longer diverged at as . However, H remained divergent, as
illustrated in Fig. 6.

FIG. 6: The scale factor (left) and its second time derivative (right) for classical (blue),
order-reduced (red), full-quantum (black), and singular value as = 10 (green) for a Type III
singularity with B = 7/4 with < 0. Note that for the full-quantum neither the scale factor
nor its first time derivative diverge at the singularity, but the second derivative does,
indicating the singularity has been softened to a Type II singularity.

FIG. 7: Classical (blue), order-reduced (red), full-quantum (black), and singular value
as = 10 (green) for a Type III singularity with > 0 and B = 7/4. Note that the
singularity can be reached or avoided depending on initial conditions.
Therefore, we suspected that for values of B in this range, the universe should exhibit a
Type II singularity. Indeed, when B > 32 , the contribution of the c term to H is no longer

19
divergent, and hence H is generally dominated by non-divergent terms. To study this, we
modified our expression for a and postulated that instead

c2
c
2

a as exp c1 (ts t) (ts t) (ts t) ,

2

(7.5)

where c1 and c2 are arbitrary parameters that depend on initial conditions.

Solving this equation by similar methods as before for the value of , we found that
=

3B 4
.
B1

(7.6)

This equation implies that the value of lies in the range of 1 < < 3, due to the range of
values available for B.
As before, we substituted this value for to find the value of the c term and found that
B

(B 1)3 [c1 (B 1)] 1B

.
c =
2(B 2)(2B 3)
For

3
2

(7.7)

< B < 2, we find 1 < < 2, and, using Eq. (7.5), it is evident that at t = ts

there is no divergence in a,
but there is a divergence in a
, which is characteristic of a Type
II singularity. For 2 < B, we have 2 < < 3, which causes a and a
to be finite while a(3)
diverges, indicating a Type IV singularity. Eq. (7.7), however, breaks down for B = 2.

C.

B=2

For this case, we modified our model for a to

h
i
c2
c
a as exp c1 (ts t) (ts t)2 + (ts t)2 ln(ts t) .
2
2

(7.8)

We found the leading order divergent terms all on the right hand side of Eq. (2.8), so we
found an expression for c by matching coefficients. We found that
c =

1
.
6Ac1 2

Note that Eq. (7.8) implies a

still diverges at t = ts , so it is a Type II singularity.

(7.9)

20
A summary of our findings of the effects of quantum fields on the classical Type III
singularity is given below.
Value of B Sign of
Quantum Effect
+
Always avoided
1 < B 32

Always Type III

+
If
not
avoided, Type II
3
<B2
2

Always Type II
+
If not avoided, Type IV
2<B

Always Type IV
This concludes our findings about the Type III singularity. The final singularities that
we investigated are the Types II and IV singularities.

VIII.

THE TYPE II AND TYPE IV SINGULARITIES

The Types II and IV singularities share similar characteristics. We modeled them with
the equation of state
Pc = c A|s c |B ,

(8.1)

where A, s > 0. This yields the energy density equation

  a i 1

s  1B
c = s sgn(as a) 3A(1 B) ln
.

a
h

(8.2)

For the Type II singularity, B < 0, and for the Type IV singularity, 0 < B < 1/2. (If B = 0,
then the equation of state transforms into Pc = c A, which is a particular Little Rip
case.)
Fig. 8 shows the classical behavior of the Type II singularity. The Type II singularity
is characterized by the divergence of P . P diverges when the second time derivative of a
diverges.
Now, as before, we investigate what happens when quantum contributions are included.
Our numerical results indicate that the Type II singularity is softened. Fig. 9 shows these
results for < 0, and Fig. 10 shows comparable results for > 0. For < 0, a must reach
the singularity at as since a cannot reach a maximum. However, our results indicate that
there is no longer a divergence in the second or third time derivatives of a. The singularity
has been softened to a divergence in higher time derivatives of a. For > 0, if as is reached

21

FIG. 8: The Classical Type II singularity. Note that the scale factor (blue) passes through
the singular value (green).
the singularity is softened in the same wayhowever, initial conditions can be chosen such
that a never reaches as , in which case the singularity is avoided.
Similarly, our numerical results of the Type IV singularity indicate that it is softened. We
do not provide figures for these results because they look similar to Figs. 9 and 10. Again,
for < 0, a must reach as , so the singularity is softened, and for > 0 it is also softened at
as if initial conditions are not chosen such that a reaches a maximum before then.
For both these cases, the singularity (if reached) is softened so the divergence depends
on time derivatives of the scale factor that do not appear in Eq. (2.8), so we consider the
singularities to be effectively removed.

FIG. 9: The scale factor (left) and its second time derivative (right) for classical (blue),
order-reduced (red), full-quantum (black), and singular value as = 10 (green) for a Type II
singularity with B = 2 with < 0. Note that for the full-quantum the second derivative of
the scale factor is continuous, indicating that the singularity has been softened.

22

FIG. 10: The scale factor (left) and its second time derivative (right) for classical (blue),
order-reduced (red), full-quantum (black), and singular value as = 10 (green) for a Type II
singularity with B = 2 with > 0.
As before, we examined these singularities analytically, postulating that the expansion
can be approximated by



c2
c3
c
2
3

a exp c1 (t ts ) + (t ts ) + (t ts ) + |t ts | .
2
3

(8.3)

Here, c1 and c2 are free parameters that depend on initial conditions. Using this model in
the Friedmann equation and looking to cancel the highest-order terms in the classical and
quantum energy densities, we found that
c3 =

1
c2 2 + 6c1 2 ( 16
c2 ) c1 4 s
.
4c1

(8.4)

We also found that

=3+
and

1
1B

(8.5)
1

[3c1 A(1 B)] 1B

c =
.
2c1 (1)(2)

(8.6)

For Type II, 3 < < 4, and for Type IV, 4 < < 5. One can show with these ranges
that the divergence is now in a(4) and a(5) , respectivelyhence the singularities are effectively
removed.

23
IX.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS

With the nature of dark energy unknown, the future of the universe is uncertain. Some
viable models contain future singularities, points where quantities like energy density and
pressure diverge. We found, however, that quantum fields can have a significant effect on
the universe when it experiences a rapid growth. Table II summarizes our findings.
Equation of State

Classical Classification Constraint

Little Rip
Big Rip/Type I

Pc = c AB
c ,
A>0

Type III

Pc = c A|s c |B ,
A>0

Type II
Type IV

Quantum Classification
>0
<0
=0

B 21
Type I
< B 1 Avoided
1 < B 32
Type III Type II
3
Type II
<B2
2
2<B
Type IV
B<0
Type II
Effectively Removed
0 < B < 12
Type IV
1
2

TABLE II: Effects of massless conformally-coupled fields on future classical singularities.

We note that by Effectively Removed we mean that the singularities have been softened
to divergences that are likely not physically significant.
Although model equations are given in Table II, these models were only used to create
numerical results which guided the more general analysis. Most of our findings are modelindependent.
To conclude, in many cases massless conformally-coupled fields have a significant impact
on future singularities. Sometimes the singularities are even completely avoided. Future
research could investigate whether non-conformal fields have effects on singularities that
differ qualitatively from conformal fields.

X.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Id like to thank Dr. Paul Anderson for the guidance he provided me in this research since
it began in 2013. Id also like to thank the Wake Forest physics department for funding my
efforts in this research in the summer of 2013. Further, Id like to thank the Wake Forest
Research Foundation for funding my work this project in the summer of 2014.
Lastly, I would like to personally thank Dr. Eric Carlson for his support, constructive
feedback, patience, insights, and contributions throughout the work on this project. His

24
mentorship has been valuable to me.

[1] P. A. R. Ade, et al., arXiv eprints arXiv:1502.01589 (2015).

[2] E. Hubble PNAS 15 (1929)
[3] A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, et al., Ap. J. 116, 1009 (1998).
[4] J. D. Bates and P. R. Anderson, Phys. Rev. D 82, 024018 (2010).
[5] S. J. M. Houndjo EPL 92, 10004 (2010).
[6] S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 71, 063004 (2005).
[7] C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973).
[8] J. Z. Simon Phys. Rev. D 43, 3308 (1991).
[9] L. Parker and J. Z. Simon Phys. Rev. D 47, 1339 (1993).
[10] E. D. Carlson, private communication