text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

In QCD, as a result of extensive perturbative calculations, some observables are now known to the next–to–next–to–leading order (NNLO, $``$$`a^3`$) in the power expansion in the strong coupling parameter $`a\alpha _s/\pi `$. Knowing such truncated perturbation series (TPS), the question of their resummation is gaining importance, especially if the typical process energies associated with the observable are low and thus the relevant coupling parameter is large. In such cases, it is to be expected that additional perturbative and nonperturbative effects, not explicitly contained in the TPS, will be numerically important. Many methods of resummation, based on the available TPS, try to incorporate such effects. Some of these methods eliminate the dependence on the renormalization scale (RScl) and scheme (RSch) by fixing them in the TPS itself in a judicious way – these methods could be regarded as renormalization–group–improved methods of resummation: BLM–fixing motivated by the large–$`n_f`$ considerations , Stevenson’s principle of minimal sensitivity (PMS) , Grunberg’s effective charge method (ECH)  (cf. Ref.  for a related method). Some of the recent works on resummations are the method of “commensurate scale relations” and related approaches , a method using an analytic form of the coupling parameter , ECH–related approaches , and an expansion in the two–loop coupling parameter . In the past few years, Padé approximants (PA’s) were also shown to be a rather successful method of resummation , especially since the resummed results show in general weakened RScl– and RSch–dependence. The diagonal Padé approximants (dPA’s) are particularly well motivated for observables since they are RScl–independent in the approximation of the one–loop evolution of the coupling $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$ . In addition, PA’s go in their form beyond the polynomial form of the TPS on which they are based, thus contain a strong mechanism of quasianalytic continuation from the weak– into the strong–coupling regime, and can consequently incorporate some of the nonperturbative effects into the resummed result.

Recently, an extension of the method of dPA’s was presented  which leads to the exact perturbative RScl–independence of the resummed result. We then extended the method so that it is applicable also to NNLO TPS’s , and suggested there a way to fix the RSch by applying the principle of minimal sensitivity (PMS). The way suggested in  does not work properly in practice since no minimum of the PMS equation $`A/c_2=0`$ \[Eq. (40) there\] exists. The dependence of our approximants on the RSch–parameters $`c_2`$ and $`c_3`$ of the original TPS is a significant problem when the approximants are applied to the low–energy observables like the Bjorken polarized sum rule (BjPSR) at low $`Q_{\mathrm{photon}}\sqrt{3}`$ GeV .

This problem is addressed in the present paper. For the case of NNLO TPS, an extended version $`𝒜`$ of our approximant is constructed where the dependence on the leading RSch–parameter $`c_2`$ is eliminated by a variant of the PMS. Subsequently, the sub–leading RSch–parameter $`c_3`$ is adjusted so that the approximant reproduces the correct location of the leading infrared renormalon pole. The latter procedure is carried out in the concrete example of the BjPSR. The same method of $`c_3`$–fixing is then applied to Grunberg’s ECH and Stevenson’s TPS–PMS approximants. Hence, in the approximants we use $`\beta `$–functions which go beyond the last perturbatively calculated order in the observable (NNLO). Further, a PA–type of quasianalytic continuation for the $`\beta `$–functions is used in all these approximants. The resulting predictions for $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(M_Z^2)`$ from the BjPSR are presented, along with those when PA’s are applied to the BjPSR, and compared with the world average. Differences between between our approximant and the other methods (ECH, TPS–PMS; PA’s) are pointed out.

## II Construction of $`c_2`$–independent approximants

Consider a QCD observable $`S`$ with negligible mass effects and known NNLO TPS

$`S_{[2]}`$ $`=`$ $`a_0(1+r_1a_0+r_2a_0^2),`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{with}:a_0`$ $``$ $`a(\mathrm{ln}Q_0^2;c_2^{(0)},c_3^{(0)},\mathrm{}),r_1=r_1(\mathrm{ln}Q_0^2),r_2=r_2(\mathrm{ln}Q_0^2;c_2^{(0)}).`$ (2)
We denoted $`a\alpha _s/\pi `$; $`Q_0`$ is the Euclidean RScl; $`c_j^{(0)}`$ ($`j2`$) are the RSch–parameters used in the TPS. The coupling parameter $`a(\mathrm{ln}Q^2;c_2^{(0)},\mathrm{})`$ in this RSch evolves according to the renormalization group equation (RGE) $`a/\mathrm{ln}Q^2=\beta (a;c_2^{(0)},c_3^{(0)},\mathrm{})`$. Here, the $`\beta `$–function has the power expansion $`\beta (a)=\beta _0a^2(1+c_1a+c_2^{(0)}a^2+c_3^{(0)}a^3+\mathrm{})`$, and $`\beta _0`$ and $`c_1`$ are RScl– and RSch–invariant. This RGE can be integrated (see Appendix of )

$$\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{Q_0^2}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}\right)=\frac{1}{a_0}+c_1\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{c_1a_0}{1+c_1a_0}\right)+_0^{a_0}𝑑x\left[\frac{1}{x^2(1+c_1x)}+\frac{\beta _0}{\beta (x;c_2^{(0)},c_3^{(0)}\mathrm{})}\right],$$
(3)
where $`a_0a(\mathrm{ln}Q_0^2;c_2^{(0)},c_3^{(0)},\mathrm{})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is a universal scale ($``$$`0.1`$ GeV). When subtracting (3) from the analogous equation for $`aa(\mathrm{ln}Q^2;c_2,c_3,\mathrm{})`$, an equation is obtained which relates $`a`$ with $`a_0`$, i.e., determines $`a`$ in terms of $`a_0`$. This equation then determines also the expansion of $`a`$ in powers of $`a_0`$. From now on, we fix the “$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–convention” to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$.

We make the following ansatz for our approximant, motivated by the RScl–invariant (but not RSch–invariant) approximant of Refs. :

$$\sqrt{𝒜_{S^2}}=\left\{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\left[a(\mathrm{ln}Q_1^2;c_2^{(1)},c_3^{(1)},\mathrm{})a(\mathrm{ln}Q_2^2;c_2^{(2)},c_3^{(2)},\mathrm{})\right]\right\}^{1/2}\left(=S_{[2]}+𝒪(a_0^4)\right),$$
(4)
where we regard now the parameters $`c_2^{(j)},c_3^{(j)},\mathrm{}`$ ($`j=1,2`$) as fixed numbers, and $`c_2^{(1)}c_2^{(2)}`$. Five parameters in the approximant ($`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$, $`Q_1^2`$, $`Q_2^2`$, $`c_2^{(1)}`$, $`c_2^{(2)}`$) can be fixed by applying five conditions to the approximant. Three conditions are obtained from the so called minimal requirement: When we expand the approximant back in powers of $`a_0`$, the first three coefficients of the original TPS (1) have to be reproduced. The additional two conditions are obtained by a variant of the PMS

$$(𝒜_{S^2}/c_2^{(1)})|_{c_2^{(2)}}a_0^6(𝒜_{S^2}/c_2^{(2)})|_{c_2^{(1)}}.$$
(5)
This allows us to fix $`c_2^{(j)}`$’s. If we took in (4) $`c_2^{(1)}=c_2^{(2)}`$ ($`c_2`$), and $`c_k^{(1)}=c_k^{(2)}`$ ($`k3`$), i.e., the approximants of , we would obtain $`𝒜_{S^2}/c_2=10c_1a_0^5+𝒪(a_0^6)\sim ̸a_0^6`$, i.e., the PMS condition would not be satisfied. This is the main reason why we take two different (leading) parameters $`c_2^{(j)}`$ in the two $`a`$’s in (4). Further, since the two energy scales in (4), and in the approximants of , are $`Q_1^2Q_2^2`$, it does not appear unnatural to have $`c_2^{(1)}c_2^{(2)}`$. But the (subleading) parameters $`c_3^{(j)}`$ cannot be fixed by such an approach since

$$(𝒜_{S^2}/c_3^{(s)})|_{\delta c_3}=2a_0^5+𝒪(a_0^6)\mathrm{where}:c_3^{(s)}(c_3^{(1)}+c_3^{(2)})/2,\delta c_3(c_3^{(1)}c_3^{(2)}).$$
(6)
The same problem arises in the NNLO polynomial approximants ECH and TPS–PMS where $`𝒜_𝒮/c_3=(1/2)a_0^4+𝒪(a_0^5)`$ \[$`(𝒜_𝒮)^2/c_3=a_0^5+𝒪(a_0^6)`$\]. We will take, for simplicity, $`c_3^{(1)}=c_3^{(2)}c_3`$, and the value of $`c_3`$ will be fixed later.

Conditions (5) then depend also on $`\delta c_4(c_4^{(1)}c_4^{(2)})`$ which we set equal to zero to avoid further (presumably unnecessary) complications. Then the set of the five equations determining $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$, $`Q_j^2`$ and $`c_2^{(j)}`$ ($`j=1,2`$) reads

$`y_{}^4y_{}^2z_0^2(c_2^{(s)})+y_{}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}c_1\delta c_2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}(\delta c_2)^2=0,`$ (7)
$`\{27(\delta c_2)^3157c_1(\delta c_2)^2y_{}8\delta c_2y_{}^2[27c_1^2+12c_2^{(s)}+34y_{}^28z_0^2(c_2^{(s)})]`$ (9)
$`+48c_1y_{}^3[13y_{}^23z_0^2(c_2^{(s)})]\}[5c_1\delta c_2+16y_{}^38z_0^2(c_2^{(s)})y_{})]^1=0,`$
$`\{27(\delta c_2)^4315c_1(\delta c_2)^3y_{}+64z_0^4(c_2^{(s)})y_{}^2[7c_1^22c_2^{(s)}+3z_0^2(c_2^{(s)})]4\delta c_2(20c_1y_{}3\delta c_2)`$ (12)
$`\times \left[2c_2^{(s)}y_{}^22c_2^{(s)}z_0^2(c_2^{(s)})+12z_0^2(c_2^{(s)})y_{}^2+3z_0^4(c_2^{(s)})+7c_1^2\left(y_{}^2+z_0^2(c_2^{(s)})\right)\right]`$
$`+36(\delta c_2)^2y_{}^2[z_0^2(c_2^{(s)})+25c_1^2]\left\}\right[5c_1\delta c_2+16y_{}^38z_0^2(c_2^{(s)})y_{}]^1=0,`$
$`r_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta c_2}{y_{}}}=y_+,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2y_{}}},`$ (13)
where we use notations

$`y_\pm `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _0\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_1^2}{Q_0^2}}\pm \mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_2^2}{Q_0^2}}\right],\delta c_2c_2^{(1)}c_2^{(2)},c_2^{(s)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(c_2^{(1)}+c_2^{(2)}),`$ (14)
$`z_0^2`$ $``$ $`\left(2\rho _2+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}c_1^2\right)3c_2^{(s)}z_0^2(c_2^{(s)}),\rho _2=r_2r_1^2c_1r_1+c_2^{(0)}.`$ (15)
Here, $`\rho _2`$ is an RScl– and RSch–invariant, and therefore it is straightforward to see that the solutions of the system (7)–(13) for $`Q_j^2`$ and $`c_2^{(j)}`$ ($`j=1,2`$) and for $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ are independent of the original choice of the RScl ($`Q_0^2`$) and of the RSch ($`c_2^{(0)},c_3^{(0)},\mathrm{}`$). Eqs. (9)–(12) originate from PMS conditions (5), and the other three identities from the minimal condition. In particular, the latter three identities (7) and (13) show that $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ and the scales $`Q_1^2`$ and $`Q_2^2`$ are $`Q_0^2`$–independent irrespective of whether $`\delta c_20`$ or $`\delta c_2=0`$.

The coupled system of three equations (7)–(12) for the three unknowns $`c_2^{(j)}`$ ($`j=1,2`$) and $`y_{}\beta _0\mathrm{ln}(Q_1/Q_2)`$ can be solved numerically. The solutions which give $`|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|1`$ or $`|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|1`$ must be discarded because they would cause numerical instabilities in the approximant, and they would not make sense physically either – one of the scales $`Q_1`$, $`Q_2`$ would be orders of magnitude different from the other. There are apparently two possibilities: 1.) $`y_{}`$, $`c_2^{(s)}`$ and $`\delta c_2`$ are all real numbers; 2.) $`c_2^{(s)}`$ is real, $`y_{}`$ and $`\delta c_2`$ are imaginary numbers. In both cases, the approximant itself would be real, as it shoud be.

If there are several solutions which give different values for the approximant, we should choose (again within the PMS–logic) among them the solution with the smallest curvature with respect to $`c_2^{(1)}`$ and $`c_2^{(2)}`$.

## III Application to the Bjorken polarized sum rule; $`c_3`$-fixing

The Bjorken polarized sum rule (BjPSR) involves the isotriplet combination of the first moments over $`x_{\mathrm{Bj}}`$ of proton and neutron polarized structure functions

$$_0^1𝑑x_{\mathrm{Bj}}\left[g_1^{(p)}(x_{\mathrm{Bj}};Q_{\mathrm{ph}}^2)g_1^{(n)}(x_{\mathrm{Bj}};Q_{\mathrm{ph}}^2)\right]=\frac{1}{6}|g_A|\left[1S(Q_{\mathrm{ph}}^2)\right],$$
(16)
where $`p^2=Q_{\mathrm{ph}}^2`$$`<0`$ is $`\gamma ^{}`$ momentum transfer. At $`Q_{\mathrm{ph}}^2=3\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}^2`$ where three quarks are assumed active ($`n_f=3`$), and if taking $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ RSch and RScl $`Q_0^2=Q_{\mathrm{ph}}^2`$, we have :

$`S_{[2]}(Q_{\mathrm{ph}}^2;Q_0^2=Q_{\mathrm{ph}}^2;c_2^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}},c_3^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}})`$ $`=`$ $`a_0(1+3.583a_0+20.215a_0^2),`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{with}:a_0=a(\mathrm{ln}Q_0^2;c_2^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}},c_3^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}},\mathrm{}),n_f`$ $`=`$ $`3,c_2^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=4.471,c_3^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=20.99.`$ (18)
Solving numerically the system of equations (7)–(13), we obtain one solution only

$$c_2^{(1)}=1.465,c_2^{(2)}=5.137,Q_1=0.594\mathrm{GeV},Q_2=1.164\mathrm{GeV}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=0.3301).$$
(19)
This solution is independent of the choice of RScl and RSch. For the time being, we will set the higher parameters $`c_k^{(j)}=0`$ ($`k4`$, $`j=1,2`$). Now our approximant depends only on the still free parameter $`c_3`$. This dependence is numerically significant. For a typical value $`a_0=0.09`$ \[$``$ $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(3\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}^2)0.283`$, $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(M_Z^2)0.113`$\], the approximant (4) gives $`0.1523`$ and $`0.1632`$ when $`c_3=0,c_3^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$, respectively, i.e. a difference of $`7.2\%`$. In the case of the ECH and TPS–PMS approximants for the BjPSR, the respective differences are $`3.8\%`$ and $`4.0\%`$.

Parameter $`c_3`$ characterizes the $`\mathrm{N}^3\mathrm{LO}`$ term in the corresponding $`\beta `$–functions \[cf. Eq. (3)\], and information on its value cannot be obtained from the NNLO TPS \[cf. Eq. (6)\]. Therefore, to fix $`c_3`$, we should incorporate into the approximants a known piece of (nonperturbative) information beyond the NNLO TPS (17). Natural candidates for this are the known locations of the poles  of the leading infrared renormalon ($`\mathrm{IR}_1`$: $`z_{\mathrm{pole}}=1/\beta _0`$) or ultraviolet renormalon ($`\mathrm{UV}_1`$: $`z_{\mathrm{pole}}=1/\beta _0`$), i.e., the poles of the Borel transform $`B_S(z)`$ of $`S`$ closest to the origin. Large–$`\beta _0`$ evaluations , based on the formulas of  and using simple Borel transforms in a variant of the V–scheme (RScl $`Q_0=Q_{\mathrm{ph}}\mathrm{exp}(5/6)`$ and one–loop–evolved $`a`$), suggest that the $`\mathrm{UV}_1`$ contributions to the BjPSR at $`Q_{\mathrm{ph}}^2=2`$-$`3\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ are suppressed in comparison to the $`\mathrm{IR}_1`$ contributions by a factor 3–4 (cf. their Fig. 2).

Therefore, we will fix $`c_3`$ in the three approximants by incorporating in them the information on the location of the $`\mathrm{IR}_1`$ pole $`z_{\mathrm{pole}}=1/\beta _0`$ ($`=4/9`$). For that, we employ RScl– and RSch–invariant Borel transforms. Simple Borel transforms are not RScl/RSch–invariant, the use of their TPS’s leads to RScl/RSch–dependent $`c_3`$–fixing, which we want to avoid. We use a variant of the invariant Borel transform $`B(z)`$ introduced by Grunberg , who in turn introduced it on the basis of the modified Borel transform of Ref.

$$S(Q_{\mathrm{ph}}^2)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑z\mathrm{exp}\left[\rho _1(Q_{\mathrm{ph}}^2)z\right]B_S(z),$$
(20)
where $`\rho _1`$ is the first RScl/RSch–invariant  of $`S`$: $`\rho _1=r_1+\beta _0\mathrm{ln}(Q_0^2/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2)=\beta _0\mathrm{ln}(Q_{\mathrm{ph}}^2/\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2)`$. Here, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is the universal scale of Eq. (3), and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ a scale which depends on the choice of $`S`$ but is RScl/RSch–invariant and $`Q_{\mathrm{ph}}`$–independent. The $`\rho _1(Q_{\mathrm{ph}}^2)`$ is, up to an additive constant (the latter not affecting the poles of $`B_S`$), equal to $`1/a^{(1\mathrm{loop})}(Q_{\mathrm{ph}}^2)`$. Thus, $`B_S(z)`$ of (20) reduces to the simple Borel transform, up to a factor $`\mathrm{exp}(cz)`$, once higher than one–loop effects are ignored. The coefficients of the power expansion of $`B_S(z)`$ of (20) are RScl/RSch–invariant, in contrast to the case of the simple Borel transform. These invariant coefficients can be related with coefficients $`r_n`$ of $`S`$ most easily in a specific RSch $`c_k=c_1^k`$ ($`k2`$)

$$B_S(z)=(c_1z)^{c_1z}\mathrm{exp}(r_1z)\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\stackrel{~}{r}_nc_1\stackrel{~}{r}_{n1})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1+c_1z)}z^n(c_1z)^{c_1z}\overline{B}_S(z).$$
(21)
Here, $`\stackrel{~}{r}_n`$ is the coefficient at $`\stackrel{~}{a}^{n+1}`$ in the expansion of $`S`$ in powers of $`\stackrel{~}{a}a(\mathrm{ln}Q_0^2;c_1^2,c_1^3,\mathrm{})`$; by definition $`\stackrel{~}{r}_1=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{r}_0=1`$. Thus, the expansion of the approximant $`\sqrt{𝒜_{S^2}}(c_3)`$ in powers of $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ leads to the expansion of the (reduced) Borel transform $`\overline{B}_\sqrt{𝒜}(z)`$ in powers of $`z`$. The coefficients starting at $`z^3`$ are predictions of the approximant and $`c_3`$–dependent: $`\overline{B}_\sqrt{𝒜}(z)=1+\overline{b}_1z+\overline{b}_2z^2+\overline{b}_3z^3+\mathrm{}`$, with $`\overline{b}_10.7516`$, $`\overline{b}_20.4209`$, $`\overline{b}_3(2.664+0.1667c_3)`$, etc. Terms with high powers of $`z`$ are not reliable, because the approximant is based on an NNLO TPS $`S_{[2]}`$ with only two terms beyond the leading order. We then employ Padé approximants (PA’s) of power expansion of $`\overline{B}_\sqrt{𝒜}`$, since they are efficient in determining the pole structure of $`\overline{B}_\sqrt{𝒜}`$. We performed the expansion of $`\sqrt{𝒜}(c_3)`$ up to $``$$`\stackrel{~}{a}^7`$, obtaining the expansion of $`\overline{B}_\sqrt{𝒜}(z)`$ up to $``$$`z^6`$. This allowed us to construct $`\mathrm{PA}_{\overline{B}}`$’s of as high order as $`[3/3]`$ or $`[4/2]`$. The value of $`c_3`$ in $`\mathrm{PA}_{\overline{B}}`$ was then adjusted to achieve $`z_{\mathrm{pole}}=1/\beta _0`$ ($`=4/9`$). The resulting values of $`c_3`$ are presented in the second column ($`\mathrm{TPS}_\beta `$) of Table I.

We carried out the analogous $`c_3`$–fixing for the polynomial approximants ECH and TPS–PMS111 The ECH approximant is $`𝒜_S^{(\mathrm{ECH})}(c_3)=a(\mathrm{ln}Q_{\mathrm{ECH}}^2;\rho _2,c_3,\mathrm{})`$; the TPS–PMS approximant is $`𝒜_S^{(\mathrm{PMS})}(c_3)=a_{\mathrm{PMS}}\rho _2a_{\mathrm{PMS}}^3/2`$, with $`a_{\mathrm{PMS}}(c_3)=a(\mathrm{ln}Q_{\mathrm{ECH}}^2;3\rho _2/2,c_3,\mathrm{})`$, $`Q_{\mathrm{ECH}}^2=Q_0^2\mathrm{exp}(r_1/\beta _0)`$. to the BjPSR, and $`c_3`$ predictions for them are also included in Table I (columns with “$`\mathrm{TPS}_\beta `$”). These entries in the Table suggest the values $`c_312.5,17,16`$ for $`\sqrt{𝒜_{S^2}}`$, ECH, and TPS–PMS, respectively. The predictions of $`\mathrm{PA}_{\overline{B}}`$’s of intermediate order ($`[3/1]`$, $`[4/1]`$, $`[2/2]`$, $`[3/2]`$, $`[1/3]`$, $`[2/3]`$) appear to give the most stable results. Predictions of the higher order $`\mathrm{PA}_{\overline{B}}`$’s gradually lose predictability (predicted $`c_3`$’s can even become complex) because of the afore–mentioned overdetermination. The lowest order $`\mathrm{PA}_{\overline{B}}`$’s are unreliable due to their too simple structure.

The possibility to adjust the $`\mathrm{N}^3\mathrm{LO}`$ coefficient $`r_3`$ of (17) in a similar way, was apparently first mentioned by the authors of Ref. . They referred to PA’s ($`[2/1]`$) of the simple Borel transform, so their (PA–resummed) predictions would depend on the choice of the RScl and RSch. A systematic method to optimize the perturbative expansion by including the information on the location of the $`\mathrm{IR}_1`$ pole was suggested in Ref. .

Up until now we have taken the higher order parameters $`c_k^{(j)}`$ ($`k4`$, $`j=1,2`$) in our approximant (and in the ECH and TPS–PMS) to be zero, thus truncating the corresponding $`\beta `$–functions ($`\mathrm{TPS}_\beta `$). However, since the considered observable has low process energy $`Q_{\mathrm{ph}}1.73`$ GeV, we expect the higher order terms $`c_k^{(j)}x^{k+2}`$ ($`k4`$, $`x\alpha _s/\pi `$) of the $`\beta `$–function to contribute significantly to the determination (via evolution) of the relevant coupling parameters of the approximants. This leads us immediately to the question of quasianalytic continuation of the $`\beta (x)`$ functions from the small–$`x`$ into the large–$`x`$ regime. We can choose again Padé approximants (PA’s) as a tool of this quasianalytic continuation, keeping $`c_3`$ as the only free parameter, and subsequently determine $`c_3`$ in the afore–mentioned way.

In $`\sqrt{𝒜_{S^2}}(c_3)`$ there are $`\beta `$–functions characterized by the RSch–parameters $`(c_2^{(1)},c_3,\mathrm{})`$ (RSch1) and $`(c_2^{(2)},c_3,\mathrm{})`$ (RSch2) and determining the evolution and values of $`a_1a(\mathrm{ln}Q_1^2;c_2^{(1)},c_3,\mathrm{})`$ and $`a_2a(\mathrm{ln}Q_2^2;c_2^{(2)},c_3,\mathrm{})`$, respectively. In the (NNLO) ECH and the TPS–PMS approximants, the RSch–sets are $`(\rho _2,c_3,\mathrm{})`$ and $`(3\rho _2/2,c_3,\mathrm{})`$, respectively. For RSch1, ECH and TPS–PMS RSch, we have at first the freedom to construct $`[2/3]`$, $`[3/2]`$, or $`[4/1]`$ $`\mathrm{PA}_\beta `$’s. For RSch2, the additional condition $`c_4^{(2)}=c_4^{(1)}`$ ($`\delta c_4=0`$) has to be fulfilled. Since $`c_4^{(1)}`$ is a unique function of $`c_3`$ once a $`\mathrm{PA}_{\beta 1}`$ choice has been made for RSch1, we then have for $`\mathrm{PA}_{\beta 2}`$ of RSch2 the possibilities $`[2/4],[3/3],[4/2],[5/1]`$. For each choice of $`\mathrm{PA}_\beta `$’s, we essentially repeat the afore–mentioned procedure of determining the value of $`c_3`$. We consider the best choice of $`\mathrm{PA}_\beta `$’s the one giving the most stable prediction of $`c_3`$ over various PA’s $`[M/N]_{\overline{B}}`$ of the approximant’s invariant Borel transform. This turns out to be for $`\sqrt{𝒜_{S^2}}(c_3)`$ the choice ($`[2/3]_{\beta 1}`$, $`[2/4]_{\beta 2}`$), although ($`[2/3]_{\beta 1}`$, $`[5/1]_{\beta 2}`$) give virtually the same and almost as stable $`c_3`$–predictions. For the ECH and TPS–PMS the choice is $`[3/2]_\beta `$. The predictions for $`c_3`$ are given in Table I (columns with “$`\mathrm{PA}_\beta `$”). Those from PA’s $`[M/N]_{\overline{B}}`$ of intermediate order are significantly more stable than the corresponding ones with truncated $`\beta `$–functions (“$`\mathrm{TPS}_\beta `$”). This is a numerical indication that the PA–resummation of the $`\beta `$–functions improves the ability of the approximants to discern nonperturbative effects in the considered observable. The “$`\mathrm{PA}_\beta `$”–entries in Table I give us approximate values $`c_3=15.5,20,19`$ for our, the ECH, and the TPS–PMS approximant, respectively.

There is yet another argument in favor of the above $`\mathrm{PA}_\beta `$ choices. The chosen $`[2/3]_{\beta 1}`$ and $`[2/4]_{\beta 2}`$ (or: $`[5/1]_{\beta 2}`$) have positive poles with mutually similar values: $`x_{\mathrm{pole}}=0.334,0.325`$ (or: $`0.291`$), respectively. The value of $`x_{\mathrm{pole}}`$ ($`=\alpha _{\mathrm{pole}}/\pi `$) indicates a point where “a strong and an asymptotically–free phase share a common infrared attractor” . Thus, it is reasonable to expect that only those RSch’s whose $`\beta (x)`$–functions have about the same value of $`x_{\mathrm{pole}}`$ are suitable for the use in calculation of nonperturbative effects (on the other hand, in purely perturbative QCD, all RSch’s are formally equivalent). Hence, the mutual proximity of $`x_{\mathrm{pole}}`$’s of RSch1 and RSch2 $`\mathrm{PA}_\beta `$’s is now yet another indication that these $`\mathrm{PA}_\beta `$’s are the reasonable ones. What happens if we choose for RSch1 and RSch2 other $`\mathrm{PA}_\beta `$’s? In such cases, we always end up with one of the following situations: Either the two corresponding positive $`x_{\mathrm{pole}}`$ values are far apart, or both values are unphysically small, or one (positive) $`x_{\mathrm{pole}}`$ doesn’t exist, or there are no predictions for $`c_3`$ (not even unstable), or $`x_{\mathrm{pole}}`$ values are unstable under the change of $`c_3`$ in the interesting region $`c_312`$$`16`$. So, the choice $`[2/3]_{\beta 1}`$ and $`[2/4]_{\beta 2}`$ (or $`[5/1]_{\beta 2}`$) in our approximant is not just the choice giving the most stable $`c_3`$–predictions, it is also the only choice giving mutually similar (and reasonable) values of $`x_{\mathrm{pole}}`$ of RSch1 and RSch2. Further, the choice $`[3/2]_\beta `$ for the ECH and TPS–PMS RSch’s gives us $`x_{\mathrm{pole}}`$ values similar to the ones previously mentioned: $`x_{\mathrm{pole}}=0.263`$ for ECH with $`c_3=20`$; $`x_{\mathrm{pole}}=0.327`$ for TPS–PMS with $`c_3=19`$. Even other choices of $`\mathrm{PA}_\beta `$ for the ECH and TPS–PMS RSch’s ($`[2/3]_\beta `$, $`[4/1]_\beta `$), which also give rather stable and very similar $`c_3`$–predictions, give us $`x_{\mathrm{pole}}0.27`$$`0.41`$. Therefore, we see in all cases a clear correlation between the stability of the $`c_3`$–predictions on the one hand and $`x_{\mathrm{pole}}0.3`$$`0.4`$ on the other hand. Finally, $`[2/3]_\beta `$ is then the good choice for $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ RSch since it has $`x_{\mathrm{pole}}=0.311`$ ($`c_3^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$, cf. Eq. (18), has been determined in Ref. ). The choices $`[3/2]_\beta `$ and $`[4/1]_\beta `$ for $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ give $`x_{\mathrm{pole}}=0.119,0.213`$, respectively, which are further away from $`0.3`$$`0.4`$.

Now that all the hitherto unknown parameters in $`\sqrt{𝒜}`$ of (4) and in the ECH and TPS–PMS have been determined, we use the approximants to predict the values of $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(3\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}^2)`$ ($`=\pi a_0`$) from the measured values of the BjPSR $`S(Q_{\mathrm{ph}}^2=3\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}^2)`$. Experimental values at $`Q_{\mathrm{ph}}=\sqrt{3}`$ GeV are given in  (their Table 4) and are based on SLAC data

$$\frac{1}{6}|g_A|[1S(Q_{\mathrm{ph}}^2)]=0.177\pm 0.018S(Q_{\mathrm{ph}}^2)=0.155\pm 0.086.$$
(22)
where the constant $`|g_A|`$ is known  from $`\beta `$–decay measurements: $`|g_A|=1.257(\pm 0.2\%)`$. The experimental uncertainties are high, mainly because of the effects of perturbative evolution on the small–$`x_{\mathrm{Bj}}`$ extrapolation of the polarized structure functions appearing in the sum rule (16), as explained in Ref. . We vary $`a_0`$ in our, and any other, approximant for the BjPSR $`S`$ in such a way that the values (22) are reproduced. We then obtain the predictions for $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(3\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}^2)`$ given in Table II. Given are always three values for $`\alpha _s`$, corresponding to the three values of $`S`$ (22). The results are given for our, the ECH and the TPS-PMS approximants, all with the described $`c_3`$–fixing and with the afore–mentioned PA–type resummation of the pertaining $`\beta `$–functions: $`[2/3]_\beta `$ (RSch1), $`[2/4]_\beta `$ (RSch2), $`[3/2]_\beta `$ (ECH), $`[3/2]_\beta `$ (TPS–PMS), $`[2/3]_\beta `$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$).

Given are also predictions of such approximants when the $`\beta `$–functions are TPS’s ($`c_k^{(j)}=0`$ for $`k4`$). To highlight the importance of $`c_3`$–fixing, we included predictions of these approximants (with $`\mathrm{TPS}_\beta `$) when we set $`c_3=0`$ in them. In addition, predictions of the following approximants are included in Table II: TPS $`S_{[2]}`$ (17) (NNLO TPS); TPS $`S_{[3]}`$ with $`r_3=128.05`$ ($`\mathrm{N}^3\mathrm{LO}`$ TPS); off–diagonal Padé approximants (PA’s) $`[1/2]_S`$ and $`[2/1]_S`$; square root of the diagonal PA (dPA) $`[2/2]_{S^2}`$, which is based solely on the TPS $`S_{[2]}`$ (17), as are the previous two off–diagonal PA’s; $`[2/2]_S`$ is the dPA constructed on the basis of the $`\mathrm{N}^3\mathrm{LO}`$ TPS $`S_{[3]}`$ with $`r_3=128.05`$. For $`[2/2]_S`$ and $`\mathrm{N}^3\mathrm{LO}`$ TPS we took the value $`r_3=128.05`$ (in $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$, at RScl $`Q_0^2=3\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}^2`$) because then the $`[1/2]`$ PA of the invariant Borel transform $`\overline{B}_S`$ (21) predicts the correct $`\mathrm{IR}_1`$ pole $`z_{\mathrm{pole}}=1/\beta _0`$. Numbers in Table II are with four digits so that predictions of various methods can be easily compared.

Table II includes predictions for $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(M_Z^2)`$. They were obtained from $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(3\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}^2)`$ by evolution via four–loop RGE, using the values of the four–loop $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ coefficient $`c_3(n_f)`$  and the corresponding three–loop matching conditions  for the flavor thresholds. In the matching, we used the scale $`\mu (n_f)=\kappa m_q(n_f)`$ above which $`n_f`$ flavors are active, with $`\kappa =2`$, and $`m_q(n_f)`$ being the running quark mass $`m_q(m_q)`$ of the $`n_f`$’th flavor. If increasing $`\kappa `$ from $`1.5`$ to $`3`$, the predictions for $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(M_Z^2)`$ decrease by at most $`0.15\%`$. If we use $`[2/3]_\beta `$ instead of $`\mathrm{TPS}_\beta `$ in the evolution from $`3\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}^2`$ to $`M_Z^2`$, $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(M_Z^2)`$ decreases by less than $`0.04\%`$.

In Fig. 1 we present various approximants as functions of $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(M_Z^2)`$. Our, ECH and TPS–PMS approximants have TPS $`\beta `$–functions and $`c_3=12.5,17,16`$, respectively (by the described $`\mathrm{IR}_1`$ pole requirement). These three approximants, when the $`\beta `$–functions are resummed by PA’s, and $`c_3=15.5,20,19`$, respectively ($`\mathrm{IR}_1`$ pole), are presented in Fig. 2. The three approximants with $`\mathrm{TPS}_\beta `$’s (from Fig. 1) are included in Fig. 2 for comparison.

If we reexpand the approximants in powers of $`a_0`$ (RScl $`Q_0^2=Q_{\mathrm{ph}}^2`$, in $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$, $`n_f=3`$), predictions for coefficient $`r_3`$ at $`a_0^4`$ of expansion (17) are obtained. Our approximant $`\sqrt{𝒜_{S^2}}(c_3)`$, with $`c_3=15.5`$, predicts $`r_3=125.8c_3^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}/2+c_3130.8`$, and the ECH $`𝒜_S^{(\mathrm{ECH})}=a(\mathrm{ln}Q_{\mathrm{ECH}}^2;\rho _2,c_3,\mathrm{})`$, with $`c_3=20.`$, predicts $`r_3=129.9+(c_3^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}+c_3)/2129.4`$. Both predictions agree well with that of  $`r_3129.9`$ ($`130.`$) which was obtained from the ECH under the assumption $`(c_3^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}+c_3)0`$ (note that $`c_3^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}21.0`$ was not known at the time  was written).

## IV Discussion and conclusions

The results presented in Table II and in Figs. 12 show clearly that nonperturbative effects, as reflected in the mechanism of quasianalytic continuation from the small–$`a`$ into large–$`a`$ regime and in the presence of the leading infrared renormalon ($`\mathrm{IR}_1`$) pole, play an important role in the BjPSR at low photon transfer momenta $`Q_{\mathrm{ph}}1.73`$ GeV. These effects decrease the predicted value of $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(M_Z^2)`$ by very substantial amounts. Our approximant gives the BjPSR–prediction $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(M_Z^2)=0.1120_{0.0219}^{+0.0047}`$ (see Table II). Availability of additional data on polarized structure functions, especially in the low–$`x_{\mathrm{Bj}}`$ regime, may significantly reduce the uncertainties of the BjPSR–predictions for $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(M_Z^2)`$.

The present world average is $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(M_Z^2)=0.1173\pm 0.0020`$ by Ref. , and $`0.1184\pm 0.0031`$ by Ref. . The NNLO TPS predictions of the considered BjPSR ($`0.1171_{0.0260}^{+0.0102}`$, see Table II) cover the entire world average interval and more. However, when the afore–mentioned two classes of nonperturbative effects are taken into account, e.g. via the use of our or the ECH approximants and by the described $`c_3`$–fixing, we obtain an upper bound $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(M_Z^2)_{\mathrm{max}}0.117`$ – see Table II. But this upper bound does not surpass the central values of the afore–mentioned world averages. The central value of $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(M_Z^2)`$ extracted from the BjPSR ($`0.112`$) is significantly lower than the world average.

What could be the reason for this? One speculative possibility would be that some of the Feynman diagrams contributing to the $`\mathrm{N}^3\mathrm{LO}`$ term (yet unknown) of the BjPSR have a genuinely new topology not appearing in the lower diagrams, and that such new topology diagrams push the predicted values of $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(M_Z^2)`$ significantly upwards. The resummation methods based on the NNLO TPS cannot “foresee” such contributions . In this context, we note that the afore–described $`c_3`$–fixing in our, ECH and TPS–PMS approximants enables these approximants to be based on more than just the information contained in the NNLO TPS and in the RGE. However, since the location of the $`\mathrm{IR}_1`$ pole can be determined by large–$`\beta _0`$ considerations, the described $`c_3`$–fixing apparently does not incorporate information from those possible higher–loop diagrams whose topologies are genuinely new.

Another possible reason for the difference between our $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$–predictions and those of the world average could for example lie in a hitherto underestimated relevance of nonperturbative contributions and of higher order perturbative terms in the numerical analyses of data for some QCD observables. This possibility should be seen also in view of the fact that (some) NNLO contributions ($``$$`a^3`$) are not yet theoretically known for several of the quantities whose data have been analyzed to predict the world average . However, lower values are allowed by some recent analyses beyond the NLO: $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(M_Z^2)=0.118\pm 0.006`$  from the CCFR data for $`x_{\mathrm{Bj}}F_3`$ structure function from $`\nu N`$ DIS (NNLO); $`0.112_{0.012}^{+0.009}`$ from Gross–Llewellyn–Smith sum rule  (NNLO); $`0.115\pm 0.004`$  from lattice computations.

From the theoretical point of view, we are dealing with three types of resummation approximants for NNLO TPS’s of QCD observables in the present paper:

1. Padé approximants (PA’s) provide an efficient mechanism of quasianalytic continuation. However, they do not possess RScl– and RSch–invariance, although their dependence on the RScl and on the leading RSch–parameter $`c_2`$ is in general weaker than that of the original TPS. In addition, they implicitly possess a $`c_3`$–dependence, but this dependence has no special role since there is also $`c_2`$– and RScl–dependence.
2. Grunberg’s ECH and Stevenson’s TPS–PMS methods do not possess a strong mechanism of quasianalytic continuation, except the one provided by the RGE–evolution of the coupling parameter $`a`$ itself.222 In the one–loop limit, this amounts to the $`[1/1]`$ PA quasianalytic continuation for $`a`$ (ECH). This is so because these approximants do not go beyond the polynomial form in terms of the coupling parameter $`a`$. On the other hand, these approximants do achieve RScl– and $`c_2`$–independence, since they represent a judicious choice of the RScl and of $`c_2`$ in the TPS. They possess a $`c_3`$–dependence.
3. Our approximants provide an efficient mechanism of quasianalytic continuation, since they reduce to the diagonal PA expression $`[2/2]_{S^2}^{1/2}`$ in the one–loop limit (when all $`c_k^{(0)},c_k^{(j)},c_k0`$ for $`k1`$). At the same time, they possess invariance under the change of the RScl and of the leading RSch–parameter $`c_2`$. They possess a $`c_3`$–dependence.
4. The dependence on $`c_3`$ (and on $`c_k`$, $`k4`$) parameters in our, ECH and TPS–PMS approximants allows us to incorporate into them important nonperturbative information about the location of the leading IR renormalon pole. Further, it allows us to use in these approximants resummed $`\beta `$–functions (PA–type), thus presumably additionally strengthening the effects of quasianalytic continuation mechanism. These approximants are then fully independent of the RScl and RSch of the original TPS.

The leading higher–twist term contribution to the BjPSR ($``$$`1/Q_{\mathrm{ph}}^2`$) , or a part of it, is implicitly contained in our approximant, as well as in the ECH and the TPS–PMS, via the afore–mentioned $`c_3`$–fixing. The described approach implicitly gives an approximant–specific prescription for the elimination of the (leading IR) renormalon ambiguity. It is not clear which approximant accounts for the $``$$`1/Q_{\mathrm{ph}}^2`$ terms in the best way.

A more detailed and extensive presentation of the subject will appear shortly .

Acknowledgement: This work was supported by the Korean Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF).


format: text

text:
# The Bianchi Type 𝐼 minisuperspace model

## I Introduction

Quantum cosmology was initiated by DeWitt  in the late sixties. The canonical quantization procedure which in the twenties was the key to the theory of Quantum mechanics, was again used to derive a “Schrödinger equation” for gravity. The idea was that many of the cosmological mysteries which had their cause in the initial epoch of the universe, could be explained by Quantum cosmology (QC). Through the work of DeWitt, Misner, Ryan etc., QC had prosperous days in the next decade. Suddenly the interest came to a hold, and the number of articles was drasticly reduced. But the interest for QC was again renewed in the eighties pioneered through the work of Hartle and Hawking. They based their work on the boundary condition for a quantum state of the universe. Soon after, Vilenkin and Linde proposed their version of a suitable boundary condition.

Most of the previous work on QC is based on FRW and deSitter universe models although some authors have studied anisotropic models (for instance ). The spatial sections of the FRW and deSitter models correspond to globally homogeneous, isotropic, simply connected spaces. In recent years a paper by the mathematician Thurston has drawn many a physicist’s attention. His main conjecture, which still remains to be proven, claims that there are essentially 8 types of 3-manifolds. Concerning cosmology and especially QC the most interesting are their compact quotients which show interesting properties. In the nineties several authors investigated locally homogeneous spacetimes with non-trivial topologies. Hawking and Turok  studied quantum creation of hyperbolic universes in the context of the no boundary proposal. Coule and Martin  in addition to Costa and Fagundes  studied cosmologies with compact hyperbolic spatial sections. We also want to mention the work of Fagundes  already in the early eighties, in which he studies compact cosmologies which in the Thurston classification are quotients of $`\times ^2`$. In this paper we shall use a locally homogeneous anisotropic model that in the Thurston classification has the covering space $`E^3`$. We will not consider in any detail the covering space $`E^3`$ itself (which is simply connected) but rather one of its compact quotients, the three torus, $`T^3^3/^3`$ (which is a multiply connected space with a non-trivial fundamental group). The possibility of multiply connected spatial sections of the Bianchi metrics  has again renewed the interest for QC. The space $`T^3`$ allows a Bianchi Type $`I`$ metric according to the Bianchi classification.

Using Misner’s notation the Bianchi metrics can be written as:

$`ds^2=N(t)^2dt^2+e^{2\alpha (t)}[e^{2\beta (t)}]_{ij}\chi ^i\chi ^j`$where $`\beta =\text{diag}(\beta _++\sqrt{3}\beta _{},\beta _+\sqrt{3}\beta _{},2\beta _+)`$ and $`\chi ^i=R_{ik}\omega ^k`$ where $`R_{ik}`$ is an $`SO(3)`$ matrix which can be parameterized by its *Euler angles* $`(\theta ,\varphi ,\psi )`$ i.e. $`𝐑=e^{\varphi \kappa _3}e^{\theta \kappa _1}e^{\psi \kappa _3}`$. The matrices $`(\kappa _1,\kappa _2,\kappa _3)`$ are the generators of the Lie group $`SO(3)`$. The invariant 1-forms $`\omega ^i`$ obey the corresponding Bianchi Type Lie algebra: $`d\omega ^i=\frac{1}{2}C_{jk}^i\omega ^j\omega ^k`$.

The Einstein-Hilbert action is given byIn this paper we use the following conventions: $`c=16\pi G=\mathrm{}=1`$. $`S=_Md^4x\sqrt{g}(R2\mathrm{\Lambda })+2_Md^3x\sqrt{h}K`$. In the case of a spatial homogeneous spacetime like the Bianchi Types, an invariant basis of forms on the spatial hypersurfaces can be found. Thus, three of the dimensions in the action may be integrated. We assume that we have a topology of a 3-torus, $`T^3`$, and for simplicity’s sake the volume will be set equal to 1. Choosing compact spatial sections are done for two reasons: Firstly because the spatial integration of the action is then finite, but also because the solution space of non-isomorphic metrics has a dimension equal to the dimension of the (true) phase space.

## II The moduli space of the toroidal Bianchi Type $`I`$ universe and the Principle of symmetric criticality

Let us briefly review how we construct the torus $`T^3`$ as a quotient space of $`E^3`$. It is important that we differenciate between the symmetry group that each hypersurface possesses and the symmetry group the hypersurfaces possess as spatial sections in the four dimensional manifold. For a more thorough investigation on this construction consult .

The full symmetry group of $`E^3`$ is $`IO(3)`$, translations and $`O(3)`$ rotations. The Bianchi metrics admit a 3 dimensional transitive group of isometries. The 3 dimensional group corresponding to the Bianchi Type $`I`$ Lie algebra is translations in three dimensions, thus isomorphic to $`^3`$. $`^3`$ is a normal Lie subgroup of $`IO(3)`$ acting simply transitive on the spaces $`^3`$. We will therefore consider the manifold $`^3`$ with a simply transitively symmetry group $`^3`$ defined in the obvious way. We will call this construction $`\widehat{}^3`$. These spaces have exactly the symmetry allowed by the Bianchi Type $`I`$ Lie algebra. To construct a three torus $`T^3`$ as a quotient of $`\widehat{}^3`$ we can do the following: We find a freely and properly discontinuous subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ ofThe symmetry group of $`\widehat{}^3`$ will actually be $`^3\stackrel{~}{\times }D_2`$ where $`D_2`$ is the dihedral group and $`\stackrel{~}{\times }`$ is the semi-direct product. $`D_2`$ has 4 elements: The unit element and rotations around the 3 axis by an angle of $`\pi `$. Sym$`(\widehat{}^3)`$, and identify points in $`^3`$ under the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This will ensure that the resulting quotient space is a smooth manifold. We are interested in subgroups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ so that the resulting quotient has the topology of a three torus. These subgroups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be characterized by three vectors $`𝐚,𝐛,𝐜^3`$ so that $`[𝐚,𝐛,𝐜]GL^+(3)`$. These vectors will be the generators of the fundamental group of the torus $`T^3`$ and points in $`\widehat{}^3`$ are identified under the action (which in this case is addition) of the vectors $`𝐚,𝐛,𝐜`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will then be $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{(n𝐚+m𝐛+k𝐜)^3|n,m,k\}`$. The moduli space can therefore be described by a matrix $`[𝐚,𝐛,𝐜]GL^+(3)`$ apart from the freedom of discrete modular transformations represented by conjugation with respect to matrices in $`GL^+(3,)`$. We will not fix the gauge with respect to these transformations in this paper. We will simply ignore them. The actual parameter space is therefore Teichmüller space. Through the homeomorphism $`GL^+(3)^6\times SO(3)`$ we will parametrize the SO(3) sector by the Euler angles $`(\theta ,phi,\psi )`$.

In this paper we will follow a slightly different but equivalent point of view. We consider a cube $`C`$ in $`^3`$. We parametrize the cube by $`C=\{(x,y,z)|0x,y,z1\}`$ and identify points on the boundary of the cube so that we have a toroidal topology. The moduli space will be determined by the linear mapping $`l_𝐋(𝐱)=\mathrm{𝐋𝐱}`$. In the above description the matrix $`𝐋`$ is simply $`𝐋=[𝐚,𝐛,𝐜]`$ , $`𝐋GL^+(3)`$. For the Bianchi Type $`I`$ universe the invariant 1-forms can be written locally as $`\omega ^i=K_j^idx^j`$ where $`K_j^i`$ is a constant matrix. After identification the coordinates $`x^i`$ become angular-like variables with periodicity 1.

For a minisuperspace model one always has to ensure that the equations of motion obtained from a locally variational principle are equivalent to the Einstein field equations. If this is true we say that the Principle of symmetric criticality holds. It has been known for a while that the Bianchi Class B models fail to satisfy this principle . To prove consistency of the minisuperspace model used in this paper we will use a theorem by Torre and collaborators . This theorem states

> The principle of symmetric criticality (PSC) is valid for for any metric field theory derivable from a local Lagrangian density if and only if the following 2 conditions are satisfied at each point $`x`$ in the region of spacetime under consideration.
>
> 1. $`H^q(G,I_x)0`$
> 2. $`V_x^I(V_x^I)_0=0`$

We will explain the symbols as we verify the principle of symmetric criticality in our case.

$`G`$ is the symmetry group which is used for reduction. In our case we have $`G=^3\stackrel{~}{\times }D_2`$ . The orbits of $`G`$ in the spacetime have dimension $`q`$, i.e. $`q=3`$. $`I_x`$ is the isotropy group for a point $`x`$. For a Bianchi Type $`I`$ universe with toroidal spatial sections each point $`x`$ has $`I_x^3\times D_2G`$. $`H^q(G,I_x)`$ is the Lie algebra cohomology of $`G`$ relative to $`I`$. In our case it is easy to see that since $`H^3(T^3)0`$ where $`H^3(T^3)`$ is the deRahm cohomology class of the $`T^3`$, we will have $`H^q(G,I_x)0`$. The first condition is therefore fulfilled. $`V_x`$ is the vector space of symmetric rank 2 tensors at a point $`x`$ in the spacetime, and $`V_x^I`$ is the vector space of $`I_x`$-invariant symmetric rank 2 tensors at $`x`$. $`(V_x^I)_0`$ is the annihilator of $`V_x^I`$ , i.e. linear functions on $`V`$ which vanish on $`V^I`$. By for instance direct calculation it is not difficult by ordinary linear algebra to show that also the second condition holds. Alternatively we can use the fact that the group action acts transversally on the bundle of metrics. Thus the principle of symmetric criticality holds for the Bianchi Type $`I`$ universe with toroidal spatial topology.

## III The Kasner universe

Kasner  solved the Einstein field equations for a Bianchi Type $`I`$ universe with a vanishing energy-momentum tensor§§§Due to the fact that a cosmological constant may be viewed as a vacuum energy, we will treat a cosmological constant as a part of the energy-momentum tensor. , $`T^{\mu \nu }=0`$ and spatial sections homeomorphic to the Euclidean three-space $`^3`$. The solution which now bears his name can be written as:

$$ds^2=dt^2+t^{\frac{2}{3}}\left[t^{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{cos}(\gamma )}dX^2+t^{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{cos}(\gamma \frac{2}{3}\pi )}dY^2+t^{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{cos}(\gamma +\frac{2}{3}\pi )}dZ^2\right]$$
(1)
where $`\gamma `$ is an angular variable. If the three (complex) roots of the cubic

$$z^3\frac{64}{27}e^{3i\gamma }=0$$
(2)
are denoted by $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$ and $`p_3`$, the real parts of $`p_1,p_2`$ and $`p_3`$ are equal to the three exponents inside the square brackets in eq. 1. Due to eq. 2 the following will also be true:

$$p_1+p_2+p_3=p_1^2+p_2^2+p_3^2=0$$
(3)
The Kasner solutions are therefore a 1-parameter family of solutions parameterized by the angular variable $`\gamma `$. This solution space is therefore usually called the Kasner circle.

Let us denote the 2-parameter family parameterization of the flat Euclidean 3-space with metric

$$d\sigma _\gamma ^2(t)=t^{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{cos}(\gamma )}dX^2+t^{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{cos}(\gamma \frac{2}{3}\pi )}dY^2+t^{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{cos}(\gamma +\frac{2}{3}\pi )}dZ^2$$
(4)
by $`(^3,d\sigma _\gamma ^2(t))`$. For a fixed $`X,Y`$ and $`Z`$ this family will be volume preserving and homogeneous but it has an anisotropic expansion (in $`t`$).

Despite that Kasner solved the field equations for a vanishing source tensor, the solutions for a mixture of dust and a vacuum energy can be brought onto a similar form to that of Kasner eq. 1.

## IV The general solution of the Bianchi Type $`I`$ universe with $`T^3`$ spatial sections and with dust and a cosmological constant

From  we get the Hamiltonian

$$=\frac{N}{24}\left[e^{3\alpha }(p_\alpha ^2+p_+^2+p_{}^2)+48M+48\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{3\alpha }\right]$$
(5)
where $`M`$ is a constant defined by $`d^3x\sqrt{h}\rho _{dust}=2M`$. The canonical 1-form is given by:

$`\mathrm{\Theta }=p_\alpha d\alpha +p_+d\beta _++p_{}d\beta _{}+p_\theta d\theta +p_\varphi d\varphi +p_\psi d\psi `$We have here treated the dust field non-dynamically, i.e. solved the classical equations for co-moving dust and thereafter inserted the solutions into the action. The conjugate momentum for the dust field is therefore absent in eq. 5 (compare with )

The Einstein field equations are now equivalent to the set of Hamiltonian equations

$$\dot{p}_i=\frac{}{q_i},\dot{q}_i=\frac{}{p_i}$$
(6)
together with the constraint equation

$`=0`$First we will choose the gauge $`N=1`$. From the Hamiltonian equations of motion the following variables will be constants: The Euler angles $`(\theta ,\varphi ,\psi )`$ and their conjugated momenta $`(p_\theta ,p_\varphi ,p_\psi )`$ and the conjugated momenta $`p_\pm `$. Let us set

$`p_+=4a,p_{}=4b.`$and introduce the anisotropy parameter $`A^2=a^2+b^2`$. In addition two more constants $`C_\pm `$ appear when the equations for $`\dot{\beta }_\pm `$ are integrated. The constants $`(\theta ,\varphi ,\psi ,p_\theta ,p_\varphi ,p_\psi ,A,C_+,C_{})`$ have a clear geometrical meaning. These constants (for $`A0`$) specify a matrixFor an explicit expression of this matrix consult . $`𝐋GL^+(3)`$ such that the regular solid cube is mapped into the spaces $`(^3,d\sigma _\gamma ^2(t))`$ by the linear mapping $`l_𝐋(𝐱)\mathrm{𝐋𝐱}`$. The cube is mapped onto a parallelepiped with volume $`A=det(𝐋)`$. Introducing the volume element $`v=e^{3\alpha }`$, the constraint equation yields the equation for $`v`$:

$$\dot{v}^2=3\mathrm{\Lambda }v^2+3Mv+A^2$$
(7)
The constant $`M`$ will scale as $`A`$, so it is more useful to introduce a new constant $`m`$ by $`M=Am`$. The volume element $`v`$ will also scale as $`A`$ so we introduce the function $`V(t)`$ by $`v(t)=AV(t)`$.

### A The case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$

A singularity seems unavoidable since for $`v=0`$, $`\dot{v}=\pm A`$, the volume element starts off at the initial singularity or collapses at the final singularity at a speed $`A`$. Our interest will be mainly on the expanding solutions. Defining $`\kappa =\frac{m}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\omega ^2=3\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we can write the solutions as:

$`V(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}[\mathrm{sinh}\omega t+\kappa \omega (\mathrm{cosh}\omega t1)]`$where we have chosen $`V(0)=0`$.

The remaining equations can be integrated in a straight forward manner, and introducing

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{2}{\omega }(\mathrm{cosh}\omega t1)}{\mathrm{sinh}\omega t+\kappa \omega (\mathrm{cosh}\omega t1)}}`$the equations for $`\beta _\pm `$ can be solved to yield

$`\beta _+=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{sin}(\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{6}})\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Sigma }_+(t)+C_+`$ (8)
$`\beta _{}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{cos}(\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{6}})\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Sigma }_+(t)+C_{}`$ (9)
The line-element for a dust-filled Bianchi Type $`I`$ with a positive cosmological constant is therefore

$$ds^2=dt^2+V(t)^{\frac{2}{3}}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_+(t)^{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{cos}(\gamma )}dX^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_+(t)^{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{cos}(\gamma \frac{2}{3}\pi )}dY^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_+(t)^{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{cos}(\gamma +\frac{2}{3}\pi )}dZ^2\right]$$
(10)
whereHere the notation is a bit misleading(which it often is concerning angular variables). The “exact” differentials $`d𝐗`$ and $`d𝐱`$ are only exact in the covering space $`^3`$. On the torus $`d𝐱`$ can be a globally defined 1-form which will be closed but not exact i.e. it corresponds to a non-trivial element in the deRahm cohomology class of the torus. $`d𝐗=𝐋d𝐱`$ and $`0x,y,z1`$ are “angular” variables.

### B The case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$

Let us now consider the case where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is negative. Perhaps the simplest way to obtain the solution for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ is to redefine $`\omega ^2=3|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$, and $`\kappa =\frac{m}{2|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}`$, and perform the following mapping:

$`\omega `$ $`i\omega `$
$`\kappa `$ $`\kappa `$
to obtain for the volume function

$`V(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}[\mathrm{sin}\omega t+\kappa \omega (1\mathrm{cos}\omega t)].`$We can then define

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{2}{\omega }(1\mathrm{cos}\omega t)}{\mathrm{sin}\omega t+\kappa \omega (1\mathrm{cos}\omega t)}}`$The resulting line-element is then

$$ds^2=dt^2+V(t)^{\frac{2}{3}}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(t)^{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{cos}(\gamma )}dX^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(t)^{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{cos}(\gamma \frac{2}{3}\pi )}dY^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(t)^{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{cos}(\gamma +\frac{2}{3}\pi )}dZ^2\right]$$
(11)
This line element describes a universe that expands at first. After a while the cosmological term becomes dominant and turn the expanding phase into a contracting one, and it ends in a final singularity after an elapsed time $`t_F=\frac{2}{\omega }\left[\pi \mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{2}{m}\sqrt{\frac{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}{3}}\right)\right]`$.

### C The case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, and a general form of the line element

The equations for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ can be solved in a similar manner, and we will therefore just write down the result. Defining

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(t)={\displaystyle \frac{t}{1+\frac{3}{4}mt}}`$the line element for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ takes the form

$$ds^2=dt^2+\left(t+\frac{3}{4}mt^2\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(t)^{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{cos}(\gamma )}dX^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(t)^{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{cos}(\gamma \frac{2}{3}\pi )}dY^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(t)^{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{cos}(\gamma +\frac{2}{3}\pi )}dZ^2\right]$$
(12)
Up to a simple rescaling these three line elements are those derived by Saunders. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case was also derived by Stephani and the $`m=0`$ case by Grøn. Already now we can see the resemblance of these three cases and the Kasner line element. However, the line element can be brought into a more Kasner-like form by choosing another function $`N`$.

We define a new time variable, $`\tau `$, by:

$`t{\displaystyle _0^\tau }{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{(1\frac{3}{4}mz)^2\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{\Lambda }z^2}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^1(\tau )\hfill & ,\mathrm{\Lambda }<0\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Sigma }_0^1(\tau )\hfill & ,\mathrm{\Lambda }=0\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Sigma }_+^1(\tau )\hfill & ,\mathrm{\Lambda }>0\hfill \end{array}`$ (13)
where -1 means the inverse function. Inserting this new time variable into the previous line elements, we see that all the three cases can be brought into a similar form. Thus we can write all the three line elements as:

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds^2=& {\displaystyle \frac{d\tau ^2}{\left((1\frac{3}{4}m\tau )^2\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{\Lambda }\tau ^2\right)^2}}\hfill \\ & +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left((1\frac{3}{4}m\tau )^2\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{\Lambda }\tau ^2\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}}}\tau ^{\frac{2}{3}}\left[\tau ^{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{cos}(\gamma )}dX^2+\tau ^{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{cos}(\gamma \frac{2\pi }{3})}dY^2+\tau ^{\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{cos}(\gamma +\frac{2\pi }{3})}dZ^2\right]\hfill \end{array}`$ (14)
As we see, the line element is now manifestly cast onto a Kasner form. The solution space is now explicitly decomposed into the following sequence:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}C& \stackrel{\begin{array}{c}SO\left(3\right)\times ^6\\ & & \\ l_𝐋\end{array}}{}& ^3& \stackrel{\begin{array}{c}S^1\\ & & \\ s_\gamma \left(t\right)\end{array}}{}& (^3,d\sigma _\gamma ^2(t))& \stackrel{\begin{array}{c}T^{\mu \nu }\\ & & \\ K\end{array}}{}& (\times \mathrm{\Sigma },ds^2)\end{array}$$
(15)
These mappings can be given the following interpretations:

1. Deformation of the cube. If we represent the unit cube $`C`$ by the embedding $`C\{(x^i),i=1,2,3|0(x^ix_0^i)1\}`$ for any $`(x_0^i)`$, then $`l_𝐋(𝐱)=\mathrm{𝐋𝐱}`$ for $`𝐋GL^+(3)SO(3)\times ^6`$.(See figure 1)
2. An explicit 2-parameter parameterization of the Euclidean 3-space with an anisotropic metric. Given $`(X,Y,Z)^3`$ the metric is given by eq. 4.
3. The Kasner foliation, given explicitly by: $`K(^3,d\sigma _\gamma ^2(t))=(\times \mathrm{\Sigma },ds^2)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=^3`$ and $`ds^2=N(t)^2dt^2+V(t)^{\frac{2}{3}}d\sigma _\gamma ^2(t)`$. The $`N`$ and $`V`$ are determined by the Einstein field equations and as shown they are given by $`N(t)=\frac{1}{\left((1\frac{3}{4}mt)^2\frac{3}{4}\mathrm{\Lambda }t^2\right)}`$ and $`V(t)=tN(t)`$.

The solution space is now parameterized by these mappings, and the effect of choosing compact spatial sections is now explicitly shown. We have also factorized the solution space into a topological (or modular) sector (the $`SO(3)\times ^6`$ sector) and a Kasner sector (the Kasner circle). Contributions from the dust and the cosmological terms are also factored out. Different matter configurations only affect the last mapping $`K`$, all the other degrees of freedom affect only the mappings $`l_𝐋`$ and $`s_\gamma `$.

Interestingly, the Kasner limit, where $`A\mathrm{}`$ in such a way that $`lim_A\mathrm{}l_𝐋(C)=^3`$, is well defined. The topological sector becomes degenerate and effectively we have only a $`S^1`$ degree of freedom. On the other hand the FRW limit $`A0`$ is apparently badly defined. Again the topological sector becomes degenerate in addition to the $`S^1`$-sector, but we do not seem to uniquely reproduce the FRW solutions.

There is also one more interesting consequence of a non-trivial topology. For the Kasner universe ($`T^{\mu \nu }=0`$) the special case $`\gamma =0`$:

$`ds^2=dt^2+t^2dX^2+dY^2+dZ^3`$is through the transformation $`\stackrel{~}{T}=t\mathrm{cosh}X,\stackrel{~}{X}=t\mathrm{sinh}X`$ seen to be equal to the inside of the future lightcone in the $`(\stackrel{~}{T},\stackrel{~}{X})`$ Minkowski space. Thus it can be naturally expanded to a flat manifold containing the apparent singularity $`t=0`$. The compact case on the contrary can not. Assuming $`𝐋=A^{\frac{1}{3}}(\mathrm{𝐢𝐝})`$ the differential structure of the $`(\stackrel{~}{T},\stackrel{~}{X})`$ space is that of a cone. The singularity $`t=0`$ is now the locus of the cone. It therefore represents a true singularity in the $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ structure of the maximal extended space (i.e. the cone including the locus). Interestingly we will actually know the true nature of the singularity. Taking the limit $`A\mathrm{}`$ to obtain the Kasner universe, topological considerations suggest that the lightcone in the “flat” $`(\stackrel{~}{T},\stackrel{~}{X})`$ ought to be identified as *one* point. The geometry of the space $`\gamma =0`$ is no longer globally flat, it is more like that of a cone. This explains perhaps why the “flat space” case $`\gamma =0`$ does not evolve as a flat space through the factorization 15.

## V The Wheeler-DeWitt Equation

In the previous sections we have solved the classical equations for a Bianchi Type $`I`$ universe. We will now quantizise the dynamical degrees of freedom according to the Wheeler-DeWitt procedure. The constraint equation will then turn into an operator equation on the wave function. The resulting equation is the so-called Wheeler-DeWitt (WD) equation. Let us also include a real scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which later will yield interesting back-reaction effects.

The WD equation for a Bianchi Type $`I`$ with a scalar field reads:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(^2+V_E)\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$where

$`^2=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{3\alpha }}{12}}\left(e^{\xi \alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha }}e^{\xi \alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha }}+_\beta ^2+12{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}}\right)`$
$`V_E=`$ $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })e^{3\alpha }+4M`$
Here $`\xi `$ represents some of the factor ordering ambiguity and $`_\beta ^2=\frac{^2}{\beta _+^2}+\frac{^2}{\beta _{}^2}`$ is the usual Laplace operator in $`\beta `$-space. To simplify the expressions we introduce the volume element

$`v=e^{3\alpha }`$ and do the rescaling: $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_\pm =3\beta _\pm `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`\mu =\frac{16}{3}M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }})=\frac{4}{3}V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. We now drop the tildes to avoid unnecessary writing. The WD equation then turns into (with $`\zeta =1\frac{\xi }{3}`$)

$$\left[v^2\frac{^2}{v^2}+\zeta v\frac{}{v}_\beta ^2\frac{^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}+\mu v+V(\mathrm{\Phi })v^2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(v,\beta _\pm ,\mathrm{\Phi },\varphi ,\theta ,\psi )=0$$
(16)
Since the WD equation does not involve any of the Euler angles, the $`SO(3)`$ sector can be treated separately.

### A The $`SO(3)`$-sector

Since $`SO(3)^3`$, this section of superspace is naturally equipped with an elliptic Riemannian structure. Due to the compactness of $`SO(3)`$ as a topological space there exists a complete countable set of orthogonal functions on this space. Thus the conjugated momenta are quantized. We may choose the eigenfunctions in such a way that they are characterized by three quantum numbers: $`(l,m,m^{})`$. These numbers are all integers and obeys: $`lm^{},ml`$ and $`l=0,1,2..`$. The eigenfunctions are not surprisingly the irreducible representation matrices of the group $`SO(3)`$, often written as $`D_{mm^{}}^{(l)}(\varphi ,\theta ,\psi )`$. These functions are given by:

$$D_{mm^{}}^{(l)}(\varphi ,\theta ,\psi )=e^{im\varphi }e^{im^{}\psi }d_{mm^{}}^{(l)}(\theta )$$
(17)
where

$`d_{mm^{}}^{(l)}(\theta )={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^\lambda [(l+m)!(lm)!(l+m^{})!(lm^{})!]^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\lambda !(l+m\lambda )!(lm^{}\lambda )!(\lambda +m^{}m)!}}`$ (18)
$`\times \left(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}\right)^{2l2\lambda m^{}+m}\left(\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}\right)^{2\lambda +m^{}m}`$ (19)
where the sum is only over integer $`\lambda `$ which makes sense. The algebraic properties of these functions now follow from the group theoretical properties of the Lie group $`SO(3)`$. We could for instance create a “Trace wave function”. Every point in $`^3`$ (or element in $`SO(3)`$) may be represented by a unit rotation vector $`\widehat{n}`$ in $`^3`$ and a rotation angle $`\alpha `$. Then the “Trace wave function” may be defined by:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{Tr}^{(l)}(\varphi ,\theta ,\psi )={\displaystyle \underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}}D_{mm}^{(l)}(\varphi ,\theta ,\psi )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(l+\frac{1}{2})\alpha }{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\alpha }{2}}}`$

These functions have their maximum at the unit element, will be zero where $`\alpha =\frac{2\pi n}{2l+1}`$ where $`n`$ is an integer $`1n2l`$. From a classical quantum description if the Bianchi Type $`I`$ universe was in such a state, the fundamental cube would look as if it were “wobbling” around its identity mapping. It might suddenly do a quantum leap to a different orientation. Investigating the “Probability” amplitude $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{Tr}^{(l)}|^2`$ we see that the classical description describes a shell model (fig. 2). There are $`2l`$ regions where the Bianchi universe could be. These regions are separated by forbidden regions. The most probable shell is the one containing the identity element. Let us therefore call this the ground state. This situation becomes even more evident in the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$. It might appear that these wave functions allow a geometry change. If a Bianchi Type $`I`$ universe was born in an “excited” state which is meta-stable, it could suddenly cross the barrier to the ground state. The state in the neighborhood of the identity element would be the most probable. Due to the representation decomposition

$`𝐃^{(l_1)}𝐃^{(l_2)}{\displaystyle \underset{l=|l_1l_2|}{\overset{l_1+l_2}{}}}𝐃^{(l)}`$the following will also be true:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{Tr}^{(l_1l_2)}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{Tr}^{(l_1)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Tr}^{(l_2)}={\displaystyle \underset{l=|l_1l_2|}{\overset{l_1+l_2}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Tr}^{(l)}`$Thus the solution space spanned by these Trace wave functions could be generated by the two generators: $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{Tr}^{(0)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{Tr}^{(1)}`$. These Trace wave functions are of course only a particular set of functions which is by no means complete (although orthogonal) but drawn to attention only because of the algebraic beauty they possess. The famous orthogonality theorem for the matrix elements of irreducible representations will ensure that our functions $`D_{mm^{}}^{(l)}(\varphi ,\theta ,\psi )`$ are orthogonal over the Riemannian space $`^3`$. All of these identities follow from the Lie group properties of $`SO(3)`$ and there are of course a lot more than the ones mentioned here. Thus a lot of the properties of the Bianchi Type $`I`$ are directly related to the structure of the superspace, at least in this description. The fact that the superspace has this Lie group structure provides a lot of information.

### B Exact solutions for a zero-mass scalar field

For a Klein-Gordon field the scalar potential can be written as $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })=\lambda +m^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$, where $`\lambda `$ correspond to a cosmological constant. For this type of potential exact solutions for the WD equation is very difficult if not impossible to obtain. However, if we are dealing with a zero-mass scalar field $`m=0`$, exact solutions are possible to obtain. Firstly we can separate out the $`\beta _\pm `$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ dependent parts by introducing $`\mathrm{\Psi }(v,\beta _\pm ,\mathrm{\Phi })=F(v)e^{i(k_+\beta _++k_{}\beta _{})}e^{in\mathrm{\Phi }}`$. As we see $`k^2k_+^2+k_{}^2`$ corresponds to the classical anisotropy parameter $`A^2`$ i.e. the volume of the fundamental domain. Thus, these particular solutions are planar wave solutions where $`F(v)`$ satisfy the equation:

$$v^2\frac{d^2F}{dv^2}+\zeta v\frac{dF}{dv}+(k^2+n^2+\mu v+\lambda v^2)F=0$$
(20)
This is *Whittaker’s equation* and its solutions can be written as

$$F(v)=v^{a\frac{1}{2}}W_{L,p}(\pm 2i\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}v)$$
(21)
where $`a=\frac{\xi }{6}`$, $`L=\frac{i\mu }{2\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}}`$, $`p^2=a^2(k^2+n^2)`$ and $`W_{L,p}(z)`$ is the Whittaker function. These function have an essential singularity at infinity and have a branch point at the origin. This is due to the fact that the classical solutions have a physical singularity at vanishing 3-volume. In the absence of dust $`\mu =0`$, the equation 20 turn into a Bessel equation. Thus the solution for $`\mu =0`$ can be written as

$`F(v)=v^aZ_p(\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}v)`$where $`Z_p(z)`$ is one of the Bessel functions or a linear combination of them. This can also be seen from the identity

$`W_{0,p}(2z)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2z}{\pi }}}K_p(z)`$The behavior of these solutions are not drasticly altered with the inclusion of a non-zero dust term. For simplicity’s sake we will set $`\mu =0`$ in the rest of this paper. In the further investigations the dust term is not essential and because the properties of the Bessel functions is better known we will simply drop the dust term. The solutions are therefore (a linear combination of) the Bessel functions.

In the case of a classical state that is not allowed, for instance if we have a negative cosmological constant and a large enough $`v`$, we would expect an exponential decrease of the wave function. For negative $`\lambda `$ we can write the solutions as a linear combination of the modified Bessel functions $`K_p(|\lambda |^{\frac{1}{2}}v)`$ and $`I_p(|\lambda |^{\frac{1}{2}}v)`$. However, $`I_p(|\lambda |^{\frac{1}{2}}v)e^{|\lambda |^{\frac{1}{2}}v}`$ for $`|\lambda |^{\frac{1}{2}}v|p|`$, so we have to abandon these solutions if we demand an exponential decrease for $`|\lambda |^{\frac{1}{2}}v|p|`$. The actual linear combination is a matter of boundary condition, which we will leave for another section.

### C A non-zero mass scalar field: Harmonic oscillator expansion

For a non-zero mass scalar field the WD equation is difficult if not impossible to solve exactly.

Let us try to find solutions of the form:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(v,\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n(v)\psi _n(v,\mathrm{\Phi })$$
(22)
where $`\psi _n(v,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ are the eigenfunctions of the harmonic oscillator equation:

$$\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}+\frac{1}{2}m^2v^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right]\psi _n=mv(n+\frac{1}{2})\psi _n$$
(23)
Thus, we can consider the wave equation $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as a path in the Hilbert space which is spanned by the basis $`\{|n\}`$ where $`|n`$ is the usual normalized eigenstate of the one-dimensional harmonic oscillator equation. In a coordinate representation these are given by:

$$\psi _n(v,\mathrm{\Phi })=\left(\frac{mv}{\pi }\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^nn!}}e^{\frac{1}{2}mv\mathrm{\Phi }^2}H_n(\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{mv})$$
(24)
where $`H_n`$ is the $`n`$’th Hermite polynomial. Calculating the derivatives with respect to $`v`$:

$`v{\displaystyle \frac{}{v}}|n=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}mv\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right]|n+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}}\sqrt{mv}\mathrm{\Phi }|n1`$ (25)
$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill v^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{v^2}}|n=& \left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}mv\mathrm{\Phi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}m^2v^2\mathrm{\Phi }^4\right]|n\hfill \\ & \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}}(mv)^{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }^3|n1\hfill \\ & +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{n(n1)}mv\mathrm{\Phi }^2|n2\hfill \end{array}`$ (26)
where we have used the identity:

$`H_n^{}=2nH_{n1}`$Using the annihilation and creation operators $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ defined by:

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a=& \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{mv}{2}}}\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2mv}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\hfill \\ \hfill a^{}=& \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{mv}{2}}}\mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2mv}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\hfill \end{array}`$ (27)
we can write any power of $`\sqrt{mv}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as

$`(mv)^{\frac{k}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }^k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2^k}}}\left(a+a^{}\right)^k`$Inserting eq. 22 into the original WD equation for a non-zero mass scalar field, and using eq. 23, 25, 26 and 27 we can get a differential equation which the coefficients $`c_n(v)`$ shall satisfy. If we instead introduce a new family of functions defined by $`d_n(v)=v^{\frac{\zeta }{2}}c_n(v)`$ the resulting equation may be written as:

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0=& v^2d_n^{\prime \prime }+\left(\lambda v^2+mv(2n+1)+k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{36}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}n(n+1)\right)d_n\hfill \\ & {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v\left(\sqrt{n(n1)}d_{n2}^{}\sqrt{(n+1)(n+2)}d_{n+2}^{}\right)\hfill \\ & +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\sqrt{n(n1)}d_{n2}\sqrt{(n+1)(n+2)}d_{n+2}\right)\hfill \\ & +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\left(\sqrt{n(n1)(n2)(n3)}d_{n4}+\sqrt{(n+1)(n+2)(n+3)(n+4)}d_{n+4}\right)\hfill \end{array}`$ (28)
The infinite set of equations divides into two, one odd set of equations and one even set of equations, which involve respectively odd or even coefficients only. The Hilbert space is therefore divided into two: odd and even states. Now it is time for some approximations. Let us investigate the properties of the solutions in the limit $`v0`$. In the further calculations we will assume that the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(v,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is independent of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the limit $`v0`$ in the following sense:

> Given a compact interval $`I`$ and a $`\delta >0`$. Then there exists a $`ϵ>0`$ so that for $`0<v<ϵ`$, $`|\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(v,\mathrm{\Phi }_0)|<\delta `$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0I`$.

This is exactly the right boundary condition for demanding that $`c_n(v)a_n(v)`$ as $`v0`$ where $`a_n(v)`$ is the coefficients of a function independent of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (constant in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$) in the harmonic oscillator expansion. Using the test function $`f=\left(\frac{mv}{4\pi }\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}`$ we see that:

$`|f={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(2n)!}}{2^nn!}}|2n`$Based on these results we can split the total wave function into an even and an odd part $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_{odd}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{even}`$. We extract the solution for the constant function $`f`$ by defining a new family of coefficients by $`d_{2n}=\frac{\sqrt{(2n)!}}{2^nn!}_n`$. The equation for $`_n`$ will then be

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0=& v^2_n^{\prime \prime }+\left(\lambda v^2+mv(4n+1)+k^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^2}{36}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right)_n\hfill \\ & v\left(n_{n1}^{}(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})_{n+1}^{}\right)\hfill \\ & +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(n_{n1}(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})_{n+1}\right)\hfill \\ & +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(n(n1)_{n2}+(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})(n+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})_{n+2}\right)\hfill \end{array}`$ (29)
This equation can without difficulty be solved to first order in $`v`$. The result is:

$$_n=v^l\left(1\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{1\pm \sqrt{\frac{\xi ^2}{36}k^2}}(4n+1)mv+𝒪(v^2)\right)$$
(30)
where $`l=\frac{1}{4}\pm \sqrt{\frac{\xi ^2}{36}k^2}`$. Assuming $`\xi <6`$ the real value of the first order term will be negative, i.e. to first order the higher exited modes in the expansion will decay compared to the ground state.

### D Backreaction Effects: The massless case

The preceding results describe an even wave function in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The expectation value of the scalar field vanishes, but the expectation value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ diverges as $`v0`$. This will have consequences for the effective Hamiltonian in the theory. Let us try to replace the energy momentum tensor, $`T^{\mu \nu }`$, by its expectation value $`<T^{\mu \nu }>`$ using the obtained results. This effectively means that the scalar field operator is replaced with its expectation value:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}}+m^2v^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }\left|\left[\frac{^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}+m^2v^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right]\right|\mathrm{\Psi }}{\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }}}`$
In the massless case the expectation value of the energy momentum tensor only contributes with a positive constant $`n^2`$. Keeping the volume of the universe fixed (i.e. keeping $`A^2`$ fixed), the term $`n^2`$ will reduce the radius of the Kasner circle (the “radius” in eq. 2). Note also that the equations 3 will still be true. Since the center of the Kasner circle represents an isotropic universe, we see that the inclusion of a massless scalar field effectively reduces the anisotropy of the universe.

### E Backreaction Effects: The Harmonic oscillator expansion

Using the harmonic oscillator expansion we can try to understand the effect of a non-zero mass scalar field on the classical equations. In the harmonic oscillator expansion we can write

$`\mathrm{\Psi }\left|\left[{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}}+m^2v^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right]\right|\mathrm{\Psi }=mv{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|c_n|^2(2n+1)`$ (31)
In our case we shall use only the even part, but unfortuneatly the results obtained can not be used as they stand; every sum will diverge. We have to regularize the result so that the sums may be performed. Let us write:

$`|_n|^2v^{2\text{Re}(l)}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\eta }}\kappa mv\right)^{\eta (n+\frac{1}{4})}`$where $`\kappa =\text{Re}\left(\frac{1}{1\pm \sqrt{\frac{\xi ^2}{36}k^2}}\right)`$ and $`\eta `$ is some unknown parameter which represents the uncertainty in the higher order contribution in the expansion (30). To first order, however, we see that this is exactly the previously obtained results. With this replacement the sums may be performed and the result is to first order in $`v`$:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{even}\left|\left[\frac{^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}+m^2v^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right]\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_{even}}{\mathrm{\Psi }_{even}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{even}}mv\left(\frac{2\eta 1}{\eta }\right)+\frac{1}{\kappa }$$
(32)
Luckily the unknown parameter $`\eta `$ does not contribute to lowest order, so the validity of the regularization procedure which we used is strengthened. If we assume $`\xi =0`$ and we associate $`k^2`$ with the anisotropy parameter $`A^2`$, we see that we get an effective anisotropy parameter $`A_{eff}^2=2A^2+\frac{9}{16}`$. Comparing this to the classical solutions, an increase of the effective anisotropy parameter in the Hamiltonian constraint correspond to an increase of the speed of the volume element by $`\frac{A_{eff}}{A}`$ and a decrease of the anisotropy speed by the same amount.

Even though these considerations were very simple and only approximative, this indicates that the effect of a simple scalar field with mass is that it reduces the effective anisotropy. Comparing with the zero mass solutions, we see that a zero mass scalar field also has the same effect, it increases the anisotropy parameter but reduces the anisotropy. The result in the limit $`v0`$ for a non-zero mass is thus reasonable.

## VI Boundary Conditions

Concerning boundary conditions, quantum cosmology has mostly invoked two different boundary conditions. One is that of Hartle-Hawking, which is stated in terms of the path integral formalism. The Hartle-Hawking wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{HH}`$ for a Bianchi Type $`I`$ universe with a positive cosmological constant has been derived by Duncan and Jensen. Duncan and Jensen also use three-torus as spatial sections, but they do not give any comments concerning the $`SO(3)`$ sector. Apparently the only reason they use compact spatial sections is to make the spatial integration in the action finite. In this paper we will however be more interested in the tunneling boundary proposal by Vilenkin.

### A The Bianchi Type $`I`$ minisuperspace

Essential in this discussion is the description of the Bianchi Type $`I`$ from a minisuperspace point of view. If we exclude a scalar field degree of freedom, the minisuperspace will be 6-dimensional. Topologically we can write the minisuperspace as $`M^3\times ^3`$ where $`^3SO(3)`$ and $`M^3`$ is the 3-dimensional Minkowski space. As the $`SO(3)`$-sector has already been discussed, we will only look at the evolution in the Minkowski sector. We will also choose the lapse to be unity $`N=1`$. The DeWitt metric on the Minkowski sector will then be:

$$ds^2=e^{3\alpha }(d\alpha ^2+d\beta _+^2+d\beta _{}^2)$$
(33)
Doing a conformal transformation we can map this metric onto a Penrose-Carter diagram.

Mapping the classical solutions (with no dust) into this conformal diagram we get a picture like figure 3. Notice that all the three different cases start off at past light-like infinity $`^{}`$. They all start off as a Kasner universe (straight line). They end up however, at different places. For a positive-valued cosmological constant the universe ends as a deSitter universe: moving along the $`t`$-axis to the time-like future $`i^+`$. The Kasner universe ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$) ends at the future light-like infinity $`^+`$, while the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ the universe collapses again in past light-like infinity $`^{}`$. The whole boundary *except* past time-like infinity $`i^{}`$ represents singular space-time geometries, and thus according to the tunneling boundary condition, is not allowed. However, from the calculations done in the previous chapters, there may be indications that the starting point $`^{}`$ is somewhat unstable concerning inclusion of a scalar field. Even a rather modestly behaved scalar field effectively reduces the speed of the universe near the initial singularity to below “the speed of light”. The reduction of the speed of a Kasner universe is shown in figure 4. This effectively changes the path’s end-points, so that the universe starts off at $`i^{}`$. It ought to be emphasized that this is not enough to ensure regularity of the universe at the starting point, but this may indicate that there exists a homotopy of time-like paths connecting the Kasner universe with the deSitter solution. These different solutions will be universes with different speeds in superspace. One might say that we have given the Kasner universe a mass, and the homotopy can be defined by the action of the 3-dimensional Lorentz group.

In the light of this discussion we change the formulation of the tunneling proposal *to include all universes which may be connected to universes which satisfy the regularity condition, by the action of the Lorentz group in superspace.*

### B The tunneling wave function

The tunneling wave function will have a current in superspace which points outwards at the singular boundaries of superspace. The conserved current

$`J={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{})`$which is analogous to the conserved Klein-Gordon current, states that its zero- component $`J^0`$ is a conserved entity. The zeroth component of the Klein-Gordon current can be interpreted as a charge, which locally can obtain both negative and positive values. Also the zeroth component superspace current can be both negative and positive. In light of the tunneling proposal, these correspond to expanding and contracting solutions.

Using the solutions to the WD-equation for a zero-mass scalar field, we get the “space” components of the superspace current to be:

$$J^\pm =\frac{i}{2}v^{\frac{2\xi }{3}}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_\pm \mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm \mathrm{\Psi }^{})=v^{\frac{2\xi }{3}}k_\pm |\mathrm{\Psi }|^2$$
(34)
At the singular boundary $`v\mathrm{}`$, we use the solutions for a positive cosmological constant in the big geometry limit. The two possible solutions are the Hankel functions $`H_p^{(1)/(2)}(v)\frac{1}{\sqrt{v}}e^{\pm iv}`$. The zero-component then becomes:

$$J^0|\lambda |^{\frac{1}{2}}v^{2(1\frac{\xi }{3})}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2$$
(35)
The outgoing modes are therefore the second Hankel function $`H_p^{(2)}(v)`$ and the tunneling wave functions are are a linear combinations of the functions

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(v,\beta _\pm ,\mathrm{\Phi })=v^{\frac{\xi }{6}}H_p^{(2)}(\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}v)e^{i(k_+\beta _++k_{}\beta _{})}e^{in\mathrm{\Phi }}$$
(36)
The solution space of the WD equation will therefore be spanned by the solutions (36) multiplied by the solutions from the $`SO(3)`$-sector $`D_{mm^{}}^{(l)}`$.

### C Does the Tunneling boundary proposal predict an isotropic universe?

As we have constructed the Tunneling wave function we might wonder if the wave function predict an isotropic or an anisotropic universe. In the classical case we had trouble with reconstructing the FRW universe in the limit $`A0`$. The FRW universe appeared as if it was disconnected from the Bianchi Type $`I`$ solutions. This picture is drastically improved in the Quantum case. If we hold $`v`$ constant, that is keeping the volume of the universe constant, and let $`A`$ approach zero from a classical point of view we have to let the function $`V(t)`$ approach infinity. For a positive cosmological constant the limit $`V\mathrm{}`$ is indeed a isotropic FRW limit with finite spatial volume. As $`v`$ and $`A`$ are independent variables we could interpret the $`A0`$ a FRW limit. Inserting a scalar field we saw that it also reduced the anisotropy. The anisotropy was reduced as the ratio $`\frac{k^2}{k^2+n^2}`$. These two mechanisms for reducing the anisotropy affect the classical solutions in two different ways. Whereas the reduction of $`A`$ isotropize the universe through the modular and evolutionary degrees of freedom, the inclusion of a scalar field reduces the Kasner circle. Thus a scalar field could also work for isotropy reduction for the Kasner universe (with infinite spatial sections). $`A0`$ for the Kasner universe is however more subtle because apparently we do not have any clear geometric meaning of the entity $`A`$ in that case.

The $`k^2`$ enters the wave functions through the order of the Hankel function. The order $`p`$ is given by $`p^2=\frac{\xi ^2}{36}k^2n^2`$. The factor ordering parameter is assumed to be small, so we assume that $`p`$ is purely imaginary: $`p=ir`$ where $`r0`$. A small $`r`$ means an isotropic universe. From the integral representation of the Hankel functions we can write

$`H_{ir}^{(2)}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{ie^{\frac{r\pi }{2}}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{iz\mathrm{cosh}tirt}𝑑t`$Apparently the wave functions are suppressed by an exponential factor as $`r`$ grows. Thus the probability amplitude is exponentially damped in $`r`$: $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2e^{r\pi }`$. We do have to be a bit careful however because any linear combination of these wave functions is a solution. We might imagine that it had an exponentially growing prefactor in $`r`$. Let us try to estimate a reasonable prefactor by “normalizing” the wave functions over superspace. Since the variable $`v`$ will behave as a time variable in superspace we could also say that we divide by the “time average” of the particular solution. The “normalizing” integrals $`𝑑v|\mathrm{\Psi }(v)|^2`$ diverge for the Hankel functions. We will therefore do the following: we Wick-rotate the volume element, $`viv`$ so that the Hankel functions $`H_p^{(2)}`$ are “rotated” to the Bessel functions $`K_p`$. This function will under reasonable conditions be square integrable. We estimate the prefactor by demanding that the wave function is normalized after a Wick-rotation of the volume element. The Bessel functions are related through the following equations

$`K_p(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}ie^{\frac{\pi }{2}pi}H_p^{(1)}(iz)`$ (37)
$`\overline{H_p^{(2)}}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`H_p^{(1)}(\overline{z})`$ (38)
We also introduce the integration measure $`\sqrt{|G|}`$ which reflects the geometry of minisuperspace. The DeWitt metric (eq. 33) will yield $`\sqrt{|G|}=v^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ but if we assume\**\**\**Thus these two integration measures coincide iff $`\xi =\frac{3}{2}`$. We would also mention that the integral is manageable for any power of $`v`$ (provided that the integral converges). $`\sqrt{|G|}=v^{1\frac{\xi }{3}}`$ the resulting integral become surprisingly simple:

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^i\mathrm{}}𝑑v\sqrt{|G|}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi ^2}}e^{\pi r}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑vv\left|K_{ir}(\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}v)\right|^2`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda \pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi r}{1e^{2\pi r}}}`$ (40)
Using these wave functions after “normalization” the probability amplitude decays as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\pi r}}{2\pi r}}\left(1e^{2\pi r}\right)`$ (41)
These wave functions will peak for $`r=0`$ so they predict an isotropic universe. They will exponentially decay for larger values of $`r`$. Whether this “normalizing” function is the right weight function is so far only speculation, but if these functions are reasonable the wave functions predict an isotropic universe.

## VII Conclusion and Summary

In this paper we have discussed the Bianchi Type $`I`$ minisuperspace model with compact spatial sections. In the classical case this removed some pathologies. The classical solutions were all written down in a way so that the solution space was manifestly factorized into three parts: a topological sector, a Kasner sector and a matter sector. The Kasner solutions were obtained in the limit $`A\mathrm{}`$ where one easily could see that the modular sector becomes degenerate. Choosing compact spatial sections also gave a better understanding of the topology of the 4-space. For instance the apparently flat case $`\gamma =0=T^{\mu \nu }`$ of the Kasner universe was shown to have a conical singularity at $`t=0`$.

In the quantum mechanical case since the (true) phase space has a dimension equal to the dimension of the solution space, it is easier to give a precise meaning to the WD equation. This paper has also shown the necessity of introducing compact spatial sections when one wants to quantize the model, and provides a solution to the WD equation for $`T^3`$ spatial sections. Also a set of solutions in the $`SO(3)`$ sector have been given which had particularly nice algebraic properties. These solutions have a structure which describes a shell structure in the $`SO(3)`$ sector. It was also indicated how these solutions allow geometry changing solutions.

Inserting various matter configurations in general showed isotropization of the universe. The resulting tunneling wave functions appeared as if they peaked at small anisotropy. Under reasonable considerations we constructed a wave function which had an exponentially decaying probability amplitude for increasing anisotropy. This seems to agree with other authors.

It is quite clear that universe models with compact spatial sections will yield many interesting and surprising results. Since these possibilities only recently have come to physicist’s and cosmologist’s attention there is a *lot* of work still to be done. What we have shown in this paper is that even at the classical level, this may reveal interesting properties of cosmological models.

## Acknowledgments

First of all I would like to thank Ø. Grøn for great inspiration and for encouraging me to write this paper. I am also very grateful to Ø. Grøn and B. Steffensen for reading through the manuscript and making useful comments. Helpful conversations with J.M. Leinaas are also gratefully acknowledged.