4.4 Article

Chimera: a hybrid approach to numerical loop quantum cosmology

期刊

CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM GRAVITY
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0264-9381/31/2/025013

关键词

quantum cosmology; numerical methods; loop quantum gravity

资金

  1. John Templeton Foundation
  2. NSF [PHYS1068743]
  3. Coates Scholar Research Award of Louisiana State University
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  5. Division Of Physics [1068743] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The existence of a quantum bounce in isotropic spacetimes is a key result in loop quantum cosmology (LQC), which has been demonstrated to arise in all the models studied so far. In most of the models, the bounce has been studied using numerical simulations involving states which are sharply peaked and which bounce at volumes much larger than the Planck volume. An important issue is to confirm the existence of the bounce for states which have a wide spread, or which bounce closer to the Planck volume. Numerical simulations with such states demand large computational domains, making them very expensive and practically infeasible with the techniques which have been implemented so far. To overcome these difficulties, we present an efficient hybrid numerical scheme using the property that at the small spacetime curvature, the quantum Hamiltonian constraint in LQC, which is a difference equation with uniform discretization in volume, can be approximated by a Wheeler-DeWitt differential equation. By carefully choosing a hybrid spatial grid allowing the use of partial differential equations at large volumes, and with a simple change of geometrical coordinate, we obtain a surprising reduction in the computational cost. This scheme enables us to explore regimes which were so far unachievable for the isotropic model in LQC. Our approach also promises to significantly reduce the computational cost for numerical simulations in anisotropic LQC using high performance computing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据