Arxiv:2101.00432V2 [Gr-Qc] 1 Feb 2021

Home , Geometrodynamics, Teleparallelism

Noether Symmetries and Quantum Cosmology in Extended Teleparallel Gravity

Francesco Bajardi1, 2, ∗ and Salvatore Capozziello1, 2, 3, 4, † 1Department of Physics “E. Pancini”, University of Naples “Federico II”, Naples, Italy. 2INFN Sez. di Napoli, Compl. Univ. di Monte S. Angelo, Edificio G, Via Cinthia, I-80126, Naples, Italy. 3Scuola Superiore Meridionale, Largo San Marcellino 10, I-80138, Naples, Italy. 4Tomsk State Pedagogical University, ul. Kievskaya, 60, 634061 Tomsk, Russia. (Dated: February 2, 2021) We apply the Noether Symmetry Approach to point-like teleparallel Lagrangians in view to derive minisuperspaces suitable for Quantum Cosmology. Adopting the Arnowitt–Deser–Misner formalism, we find out related Wave Functions of the Universe. Specifically, by means of appropriate changes of variables suggested by the existence of Noether symmetries, it is possible to obtain the cosmological Hamiltonians whose solutions are classical trajectories interpretable as observable universes. Keywords: Teleparallel gravity; quantum cosmology; Noether symmetries.

I. INTRODUCTION infinite-dimensional superspace constructed on the 3D- spatial metrics. Once a Super-Hamiltonian is defined on it, it is General Relativity (GR) is considered the best accepted the- possible to define a geometrodynamics to fix the evolution of ory describing gravity. Despite its successes, related to the re- these 3-metrics. cent observational discovery of gravitational waves and black The problem is extremely difficult to be handled from a holes, after more than one hundred years from its formula- mathematical point of view, nevertheless, in 1983 J.B. Har- tion, the theory presents many theoretical and experimental tle [13], using the Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin approximation, issues, both at low and high energy scales, which need to be showed that it is possible to restrict the superspace to finite- addressed. At infrared scales, there are problems related to dimensional minisuperspaces where the SuperHamiltonian the standard cosmological model and the lack of explanation, can be quantized and a Wave Function of the Universe can at fundamental scales, of dark energy and dark matter. At ul- be analytically found as the solution of the Wheeler-De Witt traviolet scales, GR cannot be renormalized as the other field (WdW) equation. In particular, Hartle formulated a criterion theories, and in general its formalism cannot be adapted to by which the Wave Function of the Universe, showing corre- Quantum Field Theory. Quantum theories of fields, in fact, lations and oscillating behaviors in the minisuperspace, gives deal with a standard Minkowskian background and fields can rise to classical trajectories representing observable universes. be treated separately from spacetime. In GR, the field turns The Wave Function of the Universe is only related to the out to be the background itself, and this represents a severe probability amplitude to obtain given configurations (see, e.g. obstacle towards the construction of a self-consistent Quan- [14]) but it does not give the full information on probability. tum Gravity. The impossibility of fixing the ultraviolet diver- The interpretation of the Wave Function has been discussed gences is also due to the fact that GR is a diffeomorphism- for many years and it is still not completely clear. For in- invariant, covariant theory which cannot be treated under the stance, in its pioneering work, Everett proposed the so called standard Yang-Mills formalism on a fixed background. Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics [15]. In Considering this state of art, effective theories have been this framework, the Wave Function of the Universe acquires a proposed to cure GR shortcomings at large and microscopic probabilistic meaning. According to such an interpretation, scales. For example, at astrophysical and cosmological scales, all possible results of quantum measurements are simulta- extending the Einstein-Hilbert action through functions of the neously realized in different universes without, therefore, a Ricci scalar - f(R) theory - or through other curvature invari- Wave Function collapse. In other words, all the information is ants might be a good starting point in order to address dark brought by the Schrödinger equation (in this case by the WdW side problems, as shown e.g. in [1–8]. equation) and the wave function collapse giving real values of On the other hand, in order to consider gravity under the the observables (as in the Copenhagen picture) is not required. same standard as other interactions, it is necessary to pro- The weak point of the approach is understanding the role of arXiv:2101.00432v2 [gr-qc] 1 Feb 2021 pose a quantization approach and describe gravitation by a experiments which would be able to verify the consistency of gauge formalism. One of the first quantization schemes was measurements. introduced by Arnowitt, Deser and Misner (ADM) which con- Another interpretation was provided by Hawking, who structed a formalism leading to a canonical quantization. Fur- stated that the Wave Function is related to the probability am- ther details and applications of the ADM formalism can be plitude for the early universe to develop towards our classical found in [9–12]. This procedure is based on the concept of an universe. Despite these difficulties on the interpretation, the canonical quantization scheme is useful in Quantum Cosmology since, thanks to the Wave Function, it is possible to recover ∗ [email protected] classical trajectories representing observable universes. In † [email protected] other words, the Quantum Cosmology application revealed 2 more useful than the full theory. of Renormalization procedure. This latter, however, cannot be However, the canonical quantization procedure does not al- applied to GR, whose divergences cannot be straightforwardly low to obtain a full renormalizable theory of gravity to be regularized. dealt under the standard of Quantum Field Theory. A first Also for these reasons, it is possible to consider alternative step aimed at solving such a problem, is to treat gravity as a theories dealing with gravity as a gauge theory of the transla- gauge theory. As pointed out in Sec. (II), it turns out that tion group and describing the spacetime structure by torsion the gravitational interaction can be seen as a gauge theory of instead of curvature (see [18] for a conceptual discussion on the local translation group and the corresponding Lagrangian this point). In what follows we recall some useful features turns out to be equivalent to that of GR up to a boundary term related to TEGR, considering results reported in [35–39]. a [16–19]. This theory is the so called Teleparallel Equivalent Let us start by introducing the tetrad fields hµ, used to lo- of General Relativity (TEGR) proposed by Einstein himself cally link the four-dimensional spacetime manifold with its some years later the publication of GR [20]. According to tangent space, by means of the relation 1 some authors, quantizing TEGR [21] should be a realistic ap- a b proach to realize a full Quantum Gravity theory. gµν = hµhν ηab . (1) In this perspective, Quantum Cosmology related to TEGR By means of the above relation, diffeomorphism transforma- and its extensions could be a useful exercise towards a com- tions can be thought as translations in the locally flat tangent prehensive quantum theory of gravity. This paper is devoted spacetime. In this way, the covariant derivative of a generic to this aim. In particular we want to show that quantizing vector field φb can be written as: minisuperspaces derived from TEGR and its extensions gives realistic cosmological models. The main role in this study is b b b c Daφ = ∂aφ + ω acφ , (2) played by the symmetries that, if exist for these minisuperspaces, give a selection rule related to the Hartle criterion for where ω is the spin connection. For a tensor field with mixed classical trajectories, as formerly demonstrated in [22, 23]. indexes, both the spin connection and the Levi-Civita connec- In the next sections we briefly overview some basic as- tion are involved, so that the covariant derivative of a rank-2 a pects of TEGR and its applications. Then we apply the tensor Vν turns out to be Noether symmetry approach (see e.g. [23–33] ) to some ex- a a a b α a tended teleparallel Lagrangians containing functions of tor- ∇µVν = ∂µVν + ωbµVν + Γµν Vα . (3) sion scalar, teleparallel equivalent Gauss-Bonnet topological ∇ ha = 0 invariant, and higher-order torsion terms. The purpose is By requiring tetrads to satisfy the relation µ ν and ne- to show that extended teleparallel models naturally exhibit glecting the spin connection, the so called Weitzenböck con- Noether symmetries allowing a straightforward quantization nection arises: of the related minisuperspace models and then the possibility p p a Γ = h ∂µh . (4) to recover observable universes. µν a ν The paper is organized as follows: in Sec.II, we discuss This assumption selects the class of frames with vanishing the main features and the basic foundations of Teleparallel spin connection, though generally by means of "good tetrads" Gravity (for reviews on the topic, see [18, 20, 34]). In Secs. criteria it is possible to deal with both tetrads and spin connec- III,IV,V andVI, we apply the Noether approach to differ- tions [40]. The connection (4) is not symmetric with respect ent cosmological point-like Lagrangians. Then, thanks to an to the lowest indexes and the antisymmetric part, that is appropriate change of variables suggested by Noether’s Theo- p p rem, we quantize the cosmological Hamiltonians and find the Tµν := 2Γ[µν] , (5) corresponding Wave Function of the Universe, solution of the WdW-Schrödinger-like equation. In Sec. VII, we discuss re- defines the torsion tensor. The contraction of the torsion ten- µν sults and future perspectives. sor with a potential S p defines the torsion scalar: pµν pµν µνp pν σµ pµ σν T = Tpµν S S = K − g T σ + g T σ, 1 II. TELEPARALLEL GRAVITY Kν = T ν + T ν − T ν . (6) pµ 2 p µ µ p pµ Canonical quantization of GR, reported in AppendixA, TEGR postulates the action does not fully address the problem of dealing with GR un- Z der the standard of Quantum Field Theory. Even assuming S = h T d4x , (7) the ADM formalism, it is not possible to treat GR as a uni- tary gauge field theory like Electroweak interaction or Quan- to describe the gravitational interaction, where h is the de- tum Chromo Dynamics. Several shortcomings arise in the at- terminant of the tetrad fields. It is possible to show that the tempt to quantize a tensor field which is also the background of the theory. As said above, Quantum Field Theory instead, dealing with a fixed background, allows to handle a quantum formalism by imposing canonical commutation relations. In 1 Latin indexes label the tangent spacetime, while greek indexes are the co- this picture, many ultraviolet divergences cancel out by means ordinates labeling the standard spacetime. 3 above action differs from the Einstein-Hilbert one only for a so that the correspondence (1) is respected. Notice that the di- boundary term. Specifically, the relation agonal set of tetrads (13) is not the only one leading to a cosmological spatially flat line element. In fact, while in GR the 2 νµ R − ∂µ(hT ν ) = −T, (8) metric is uniquely determined once given the interval, in the h teleparallel context, different tetrad fields can yield the same holds. This means that the action (7) automatically yields the line element. same field equations as GR. The field equations can be ob- In order to find a suitable point-like Lagrangian, we use the tained by varying the action with respect to the tetrad fields, Lagrange multipliers method with the constraint given by Eq. and read as (12), i.e. T = −6H2, with H being the Hubble parameter.

pσ λ νp µ In this way, all dynamical variables depend only on the cos- ∂σ(h Sa ) + h haS µT νλ = 0. (9) mic time and the three-dimensional surface term can be easily Similarly to GR extensions, TEGR action can be modiﬁed integrated. The action therefore reads: with the aim of solving the large-scale structure issues [18]. Z The simplest extension is given by the action containing a S = 2π2 {a3f(T ) − λ(T + 6H2)}dt . (14) function of the torsion scalar, namely: Z 4 By varying the action with respect to the torsion, we get the S = hf(T )d x . (10) form of the Lagrange Multiplier λ

As showed in [41–43], some particular functions are able to ∂f(T ) λ = a3 (15) explain the cosmic accelerated expansion and the structure ∂T formation without introducing dark energy and dark matter. It is worth noticing that while teleparallel ﬁeld equations are and the point-like Lagrangian turns out to be equivalent to those of GR, f(R) and f(T ) theories are quite different. For instance, as the former leads to fourth-order L = a3[f(T ) − T f 0(T )] − 6aa˙ 2f 0(T ) , (16) equations of motion, the latter provides second-order equations. This difference, besides simplifying the dynamics of where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to T . The the f(T ) theory, has several implications in the cosmological Euler-Lagrange equations and the energy condition for the framework. As an example, the further polarization modes two variables {a, T } are, respectively carried by f(R) gravitational waves, vanish in the f(T ) formalism, whose modes are the same as in standard TEGR [44– d ∂L ∂L d ∂L ∂L = = (17) 48]. Extended TEGR ﬁeld equations read: dt ∂a˙ ∂a dt ∂T˙ ∂T

1 p µν λ p νµ ∂µ(h haSp )fT (T ) − haT µλSp fT (T ) + h ∂L ∂L 1 EC → a˙ + T˙ − L = 0 , (18) +hpS µν (∂ T )f (T ) + hν f(T ) = 0; (11) ∂a˙ ∂T˙ a p µ TT 4 a In a Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) spa- and can be solved only after selecting the form of the function. tially ﬂat spacetime, the torsion scalar takes the form Note that the Lagrangian is independent of T˙ , so that the second Euler Lagrange equation provides the constraint imposed 2 a˙ on the torsion scalar: T = −6 , (12) a a˙ 2 and, unlike the cosmological expression of the Ricci scalar, it a2T + 6˙a2 = 0 → T = −6 . (19) a does not contain second derivatives. This permits to write the cosmological point-like Lagrangian of extended TEGR with- The Euler-Lagrange equation with respect to a and the energy out integrating higher–order terms. condition lead to the following system of differential equations:

III. f(T ) COSMOLOGY  a˙ 2 f 00(T ) 1 T f 0(T ) − f(T ) a¨ + +a ˙T˙ − a = 0 2a f 0(T ) 4 f 0(T ) (20) Let us start by applying the Noether Symmetry Approach to a2[f(T ) − T f 0(T )] + 6˙a2f 0(T ) = 0 . f(T ) cosmology, the simplest extension of TEGR. The corresponding action is given by Eq. (10). In the FLRW universe, Let us now apply the approach outlined in AppendixB to tetrad ﬁelds can be chosen as: the Lagrangian (16). It is worth noticing that the conﬁgura- 1 0 0 0 tion space is Q ≡ {a, T } and the related tangent space is 0 a 0 0 T Q ≡ {a, a,˙ T, T˙ }. According to the discussion in the In- ha =   → h = a3 , (13) µ 0 0 a 0 troduction, Q is the minisuperspace on which we can develop 0 0 0 a our Quantum Cosmology. 4

A. Noether symmetries in f(T ) cosmology B. The Hamiltonian formalism and the Wave Function of the Universe Following AppendixB, the Noether vector in the minisuperspace Q ≡ {a, T } reads as Relations (B13) allow to introduce a cyclic variable into the system, passing from the minisperspace Q = {a, T } to ˙ 0 X = α∂a + β∂T +α∂ ˙ a˙ + β∂T˙ (21) Q = {z, w} with z being a cyclic variable, that is: ( with α = α(a, T ), β = β(a, T ) being the components of the α∂az + β∂T z = 1 i (29) inﬁnitesimal generator η . α∂ w + β∂ w = 0 . In order to select symmetries, we impose the vanishing Lie a T derivative of the Lagrangian (16), that is By replacing the expressions of β and α in Eq. (29), a possible solution of the above system is LX L = 0 . (22)  3 n This procedure yields the following system of three partial w = a T 2n 3 (30) differential equations: z = a 2n ,  3α  0 αf 0(T ) + 2af 0(T )(∂ α) + βaf 00(T ) = 0  a ∂T α = 0 (23) or, equivalently  2 2 0 3 00 3αa f(T ) − 3αa T f (T ) − βa T f (T ) = 0 .  2n 3  3α0z a = After some simple manipulations, from the above system it is  2n −2 (31) possible to get the inﬁnitesimal generators α and β as well as  1 3α0z T = w n , the form of the functions:  2n

1− 3 −3α0 − 3 α = α0a 2n β = T a 2n , (24) so that the Lagrangian written in terms of the new variables n reads

2 2 n−1 n L = w(1 − n) − 6nα z˙ w n , f(T ) = f0T . (25) 0 (32)

n Therefore, f(T ) = f0T is the only function admitting Noether symmetries [49]. Replacing into the equations of mo- where z is a cyclic variable. It is worth noticing that, once tion (20), we have changed the minisuperspace coordinates, the equations of mo- √ tion coming from Lagrangian (32) are simpler than those in f(T ) = f0 T, (26) Eq. (17); they take the form: in agreement with the results provided in Ref. [50]. This z → nwz¨ +w ˙ z˙(n − 1) = 0 (33) n 2n 2n means that the equations of motion further constrain the free w → w = −6 α0 z˙ . (34) parameter n to n = 1/2. Notice that a linear combination of the Euler-Lagrange equations gives the vacuum field equa- From Lagrangian (32), with a straightforward Legendre trans- tions formation, we get the Hamiltonian: 2 ( 2 2 3π 12˙a fT (T ) + a f(T ) = 0 H = w(n − 1) + z . (35) (27) n−1 2 2 2 n 12˙a fTT (T ) − a fT (T ) = 0. 24nα0w The canonical quantization procedure can be pursued by re- Considering the cosmological expression of torsion, the above placing the operator i∂ to the momentum π and, by applying equations become z z the relation (A13) to the Hamiltonian (35), we get the system ( 2T f (T ) − f(T ) = 0 ( T (28) Hψ = 0 2fTT (T ) + fT (T ) = 0, (36) i∂zψ = Σ0ψ √ which are identically satisfied for f(T ) = T . where the first is Wheeler-DeWitt equation and the second is Let us now discuss the Hamiltonian formalism and the pos- the conserved momentum. Explicitly, we have sible applications to Quantum Cosmology. Finding the generators α and β, with the help of eq. (B13), we can pass from " 2 #  3∂z the minisuperspace of the initial variable to the reduced space  w(n − 1) − n−1 ψ = 0 2 n (37) containing a cyclic variable. This will allow an exact integra- 24nα0w  tion of the field equations. i∂zψ = Σ0ψ . 5

The solution of the second equation is level [27, 51, 52]. In general, higher-order terms arise by considering quantum corrections to GR, as shown in [53, 54] and iΣ0z ψ = ψ0e , (38) then it is worth studying their effects also in TEGR. In principle, the expression of the operator is different which, combined with the first, yields the Wave Function of from the one in GR, due to the different form of connections. the Universe, that is: In this case, the Weitzenböck connection introduced in Sec.II n h 2n−1 p i o yields: ψ ∼ exp i 2α0w 2n 2n(n − 1) z . (39) µ µ µ p µ T = ∇µ∇ T = ∇µ∂ T = ∂µ∂ T + Γµp∂ T = This wave function is oscillating so, according to the Hartle a˙ criterion, permits to select classical trajectories (see [22] for a = T¨ + Γp T˙ = T¨ + 3 T.˙ (44) 0p a detailed discussion). By recasting ψ in terms of the action S0 as Note that despite the different form of the connection, the d’Alembert operator has the same expression as in GR. ψ ∼ exp {iS } , (40) 0 Thanks to Eq. (44), we can use the Lagrange multipliers and identifying the action with the quantity method in order to get the point-like Lagrangian; to develop the approach, we treat the torsion T and its d’Alembertian T h 2n−1 p i as separated fields, although they are related through Eq.(44). S = 2α w 2n 2n(n − 1) z, 0 0 Let us start by writing the general action the Hamilton-Jacobi equations give: Z 4 S = hF (T, T ) d x (45) ∂S  0 = π = Σ  z 0  ∂z so that, after integrating the three-dimensional hyper-surface, (41) considering the Lagrange multiplier gives: ∂S0  = πw = 0 . ∂w Z 2 2 3 a˙ S = 2π a F (T, T ) − λ1 T + 6 + Note that the above equations are nothing but the Euler- a2 Lagrange equations for the new variables defined in Eqs. (33) a˙ − λ T − T¨ − 3 T˙ dt . (46) and (34). The general solution is 2 a z(t) = z t w = −6nα2nz2n. 0 0 0 (42) with λ1 and λ2 being the two Lagrange multipliers. By varying the action with respect to T and T we find: Coming back to the old variables, the scale factor and the torsion scalar can be written as functions of time 3 ∂F (T, T ) λ1 = a (47) 2 2n 8n 1 ∂T 3 a(t) = a0t T (t) = − 2 (43) 3 t and for any f(T ) = T n except for n = 1/2. Once merged with 3 ∂F (T, T ) the energy condition (z∂ ˙ z˙ +w∂ ˙ w˙ − 1) L = 0, the equations λ2 = a . (48) are further constrained to the subcase n = 1/2, which turns ∂T out to be a trivial case, as pointed out at the beginning of this Replacing Eqs.(47) and (48) into the action (46) and integrat- section. In summary, the existence of the Noether symme- ing the second-order time derivatives, we finally get try allowed to integrate exactly the dynamical system and, furthermore, it allows to find out classical trajectories in the 3 ∂F ∂F minisuperspace which can be interpreted as observable uni- L = a F − T − T + ∂T ∂T verse. In the specific case of (43), depending on the value ∂F ∂2F ∂2F of n, we can achieve Friedmann decelerating solutions (for 2 3 ˙ ˙ 3 ˙ 2 − 6aa˙ − a T T 2 − a T . (49) 0 < n < 3/2) or power-law inflationary solutions. ∂T ∂T ∂T ∂T ∂F Note that by setting = 0 we recover the Lagrangian ∂T IV. F (T, T ) COSMOLOGY (16), discussed in Sec. III. The Euler-Lagrange equation with respect to T provides the cosmological expressions of T A further extension of TEGR can come considering higher- and T , while the Euler-Lagrange equation related to the T f = 0 order derivative terms in the torsion scalar as , being torsion gives the constraint T . The equation with µ the d’Alembert operator = DµD [48]. It represents a respect to the scale factor, together with the energy condi- case of particular interest, since the corresponding metric the- tion, provide the dynamics of the variables in the minisu- ory F (R, R) is renormalizable at one-loop and higher-loop perspace Q ≡ {a, T, T } whose tangent space is T Q ≡ 6

˙ ˙ {a, a,˙ T, T, T, T }. The complete system of differential we get a system of seven differential equations: equations reads as ∂F ∂F ∂2F 3α F − T − T − βaT + ∂T ∂T ∂T 2 ∂2F ∂2F ∂2F − βaT − γaT − γaT = 0 ∂T ∂T ∂T ∂T ∂T 2 4aaF¨ (T, T ) + 4aa˙ ˙TF (T, T ) + 2 T T T ∂α ∂F ∂ F ˙ 2 α + 2a + βa + +4aa˙TFTT (T, T ) + 2˙a FT (T, T ) + ∂a ∂T ∂T 2 −a2 ˙T TF˙ (T, T ) − a2T˙ 2F (T, T ) + ∂2F T T T T + γa = 0 −a2 TF (T, T ) − a2TF (T, T ) + ∂T ∂ T T T 2 ∂γ ∂β ∂2F ∂3F +a F (T, T ) = 0 3α + a + a + βa + ∂T ∂T ∂T 2 ∂T ∂T 2 3 f = 0 ∂ F T + γa = 0 ∂T 3 2 3 2 ∂β ∂ F ∂ F ∂ F (T, T ) a˙ ˙ ¨ 3α + 2a + βa + T − 3 T − T + ∂T ∂T ∂ T ∂T 2∂ T ∂T 2 a 3 2 2 2 ∂ F ∂γ ∂ F ∂ F (T, T ) a˙ + γa + a = 0 + T + 6 = 0 ∂T ∂ T 2 ∂T ∂ T 2 ∂T ∂T a2 ∂α ∂F ∂γ ∂2F ∂β ∂2F 12 + a2 + 2a2 = 0 6˙a2F (T, T ) + a2 ˙T TF˙ (T, T ) + ∂T ∂T ∂a ∂ T 2 ∂a ∂T ∂ T T T T 2 2 ˙ 2 2 ∂α ∂F ∂β ∂ F +a T FT T (T, T ) − a TF T (T, T ) + 12 + a2 = 0 ∂T ∂T ∂a ∂ T 2 −a2TF (T, T ) + a2F (T, T ) = 0 . (50) T ∂β = 0 , ∂T (52) whose non trivial solutions are As before, the above equations cannot be solved until the  1 − 1 function F (T, T ) is selected.  α = − γ0kT a 2 α = 0  3   − 3 β = β0 β = β0a 2 T 2 − 3 γ = γ0( T ) a 2 γ = β0   T  k  1−k k FII (T, T ) = f0(T ) + FI (T, T ) = F0T T  +f1T

  1− 3 1 α = α a 2k α = − γ0kaT χ(a)  0  3  3α0 − 3 A. Noether symmetries for F (T, T ) cosmology  β = − T a 2k β = β0χ(a) k γ = γ ( T )2 γ = γ(a, T, T )  0  F (T, T ) = f ( T )k F (T, T ) = f T k + f T. The application of the condition L L = 0 to the La- III 0 IV 0 1 X (53) grangian (49) allows to find the symmetries of the high-order The first function is the only one made of a product of T and theory F (T, T ). The minisuperspace of configurations con- T ; it is of particular interest, since the product between the tains three variables, so that Noether’s vector has the form: two variables can be seen as a modified f(T ) theory of gravity non-minimally coupled to a scalar field. The infinitesimal generators of the second solution contain a function of ˙ the scale factor; the corresponding function consists in a sum X = α∂a + β∂T + γ∂ T +α∂ ˙ a˙ + β∂ ˙ +γ∂ ˙ ˙ . (51) T T of the two variables T and T , as well as the fourth function. Specifically, this latter leads to the same Lagrangian as f(T ) gravity in Eq. (16). This means that the additive contribution of the higher-order term T does not introduce any With respect to the previous section, the theory contains a new further degrees of freedom; in such a case, also the generator infinitesimal generator γ, related to the presence of the new coefficients are, in turn, the same as those found in Sec. III. variable T . Imposing the condition XL = 0 and equating In what follows, we focus on the first solution of Noether 2 ˙ ˙ ˙ 2 ˙ ˙ ˙ 2 to zero the coefficients of a˙ , T T, T , a˙T, a˙T and T , system, discussing the Hamiltonian dynamics and solving the 7

Wheeler-DeWitt equations in the minisuperspace of the three written as: variables a, T, T . The point-like Lagrangian can be found  ∂L 3 k−2 F (T, T ) πz = = −p0a ω ω˙ by replacing the function I into Eq. (49), obtaining  ∂z˙ ( π = −p a3ωk−2z˙ (61) T k T k−2 1  ω 0 L = F (k − 1) 6aa˙ 2 − ka3T˙ ˙T + π = p aωka˙ 0 T T T a 1 ) and, finally, the Hamiltonian reads T k−1 1 + ka3T˙ 2 . (54) 2 T T 1 2 2 1 πa H = − 3 k−2 πz + πω − πzπω − k . (62) p0a ω 2 p1aω The Euler-Lagrange equations can be analytically solved for The constraints imposed by Eq. (A9) provide the system of k ≥ 2 providing a de Sitter-like cosmological solution of the differential equations form  1 p a2 nt 2  2 2 0 2 a(t) = a0e ,T (t) = −6n , T (t) = 0, (55) ∂z + ∂ω + ∂z∂ω ψ + 2 ∂aψ = 0 2 p1 ω (63)  with n being an arbitrary real number. To find the Hamiltonian −i∂zψ = Σ0ψ . and the corresponding wave function, we use the condition The solution of the former equation is a linear combination of in Eq. (B13), by means of which the minisuperspace Q ≡ 0 Bessel functions, whose asymptotic limit provides an oscillat- {a, T, T } can be transformed to Q ≡ {z, ω, u}, where z is ing wave function of the form a cyclic variable. The change of variables yields the system ( " √ 1 3 π √  ∂z ∂z ∂z ψ ∼ exp i ln ω − Σ0ω − 1 + 4c0 + 1 + α + β + γ = 1 2 2 4  ∂a ∂T ∂ T √   − Σ0z + c0 ln a]} (64)  ∂ω ∂ω ∂ω α + β + γ = 0 (56) Notice that the Hartle criterion is then recovered for large ∂a ∂T ∂ T  scale factors, where the wave function is peaked in the min-  0  isuperspace Q . Moreover, classical trajectories can be recov-  ∂u ∂u ∂u α + β + γ = 0 . ered by identifying the exponential factor of Eq. (64) with S0, ∂a ∂T ∂T namely: whose possible solution is √ 1 3 π √ √ S0 = ln ω− Σ0ω− 1 + 4c0 + 1 −Σ0z+ c0 ln a T T 2 2 4 z = z(T ) = , ω = , u = a , (57) (65) β0 T and the wave function can be recast as ψ ∼ eiS0 . The Hamilton-Jacobi equations coming from the action (65) read from which the variables T and T can be written in terms of the new variables ω and z as: as ∂S  0 = π T = β z, T = β ωz, a = u (58)  a 0 0  ∂a  2  The Lagrangian L(z, ω, u) turns out to be ∂S0 = πz (66) 2 k 3 k−2  ∂z Lnew = F0(k − 1) 6aa˙ ω − kβ0a ω z˙ω˙ . (59)   ∂S As expected, the shape of the Lagrangian suggests that z is  0 = π ,  ∂ω ω now a cyclic variable, so that the constant of motion Σ0 is the conjugate momentum related to the cyclic variable: with √ √ ∂L c0 1 3 Σ = = −F β k(k − 1)a3ωk−2ω˙ . (60) πa = πω = − Σ0 πz = Σ0 , (67) 0 ∂z˙ 0 0 a 2ω 2 from which a system of three differential equations follows: √  B. The Hamiltonian and Wave Function of the Universe k c0  p1aω a˙ =  a √ 3 k−2 3 1 . (68) For the sake of simplicity, we define F0k(k − 1)β0 = p0 p0a ω z˙ = Σ0 −  2 2ω and 12F0(k − 1) = p1, so that the conjugate momenta can be  3 k−2 p0a ω ω˙ = Σ0 . The solutions of the above system are the same as Eq. (55), so that classical trajectories, and then observable universes, are 2 Since u = a we prefer to write Lagrangian depending on a instead of u. immediately recovered. 8

V. TELEPARALLEL GAUSS-BONNET COSMOLOGY The application of the condition LX L = 0 to the point-like Lagrangian Let us consider now the contribution of the Gauss-Bonnet L = a3 (f − T f − T f ) topological invariant among the possible TEGR extensions. In G TG T 3 ˙ 2 four-dimensional metric formalism, the Gauss-Bonnet scalar − 8˙a TGfTG TG + T fTTG − 6fT aa˙ , (73) is a topological invariant which assumes the form: gives rise to the following Noether solutions [61]: 2 µν µνpσ G = R − 4R Rµν + R Rµνpσ . (69) T k 1−k In FLRW cosmology, the square root of the Gauss-Bonnet X = 0; β(a, TG,T ); β(a, TG,T ) , f(T,TG) = f0TG T TG scalar is dynamically equivalent to the Ricci scalar, since the (74) contribution of other second order curvature invariants are and then the point-like Lagrangian reduces to comparable with respect to that of R2. Being a topological h i surface term, in four dimensions, the action containing R + G L = f (k − 1)˙a2T k−2T −k 4ka˙(T T˙ − T T˙ ) + 3aT 2 . provides the same dynamics as the Einstein-Hilbert action; 0 G G G G however, in five dimensions or more the integral of G is not (75) a topological invariant, so that the action S = R (R + G) dnx The solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equations are (with ≥ 5) does not yield the same equations of motion as the (2k + 1)2 2k(2k + 1)3 n-dimensional GR. Another issue which may be solved by in- a(t) = a t2k+1,T = −6 ,T (t) = 24 . 0 t2 G t4 troducing G in the theory, is linked to the treatment of gravity (76) under the gauge formalism, since the Gauss-Bonnet invariant Here k is an arbitrary real number and then the above con- naturally emerges in many gauge theories as Chern-Simons siderations work, i.e. it is possible to recover Friedmann and or Lovelock gravity. The Gauss-Bonnet term is considered inflationary cosmological solutions. as a part of the gravitational action in several works, such as In order to find the Hamiltonian, we perform the change of [55, 56] where a function of R and G is discussed, or [57, 58] variables by means of which we can introduce a cyclic vari- where GR is recovered from f(G) gravity without imposing able z; the system (B13) can be written as: the Einstein-Hilbert action in R a priori. Moreover, it is possible to construct a teleparallel equiva-  T β∂ z + β ∂ z = 1 lent Gauss-Bonnet term as shown in [59–61].  TG T  TG The aim of this section is to apply the formalism of Quan-  T ∂ w + ∂ w = 0 (77) tum Cosmology to a function of the torsion and of the telepar- TG T T  G allel Gauss-Bonnet invariant, finding the Wave Function of  T ∂TG u + ∂T u = 0 the Universe and recovering classical trajectories related to TG observable universes. The cosmological expression of the teleparallel Gauss- and, by assuming β = β0TG, one possible solution is Bonnet term is equivalent to that provided by the corresponding metric theory [62], namely: 1 TG z = ln(TG) w = u = a , (78) β0 T aä˙ 2 G = T = 24 , (70) G a3 from which eβ0z from which it is easy to verify that it represents a total deriva- β0z a = u TG = e T = . (79) tive. Considering that a function of TG is not-trivial even in a w four-dimensional spacetime, we take into account an action of Thanks to these relations, Lagrangian (75) takes the form: the form Z a˙w˙ 4 L = f (k − 1)˙a2wk −4k + 3a . (80) S = |e| f (T,TG) d x, (71) 0 w2 so that TEGR is recovered as soon as f(T,TG) = T . By Notice that the cyclic variable z does not appear in the La- means of Noether’s approach, it is possible to find out the grangian and the minisuperspace is further restricted to the cosmological solutions for a generic function of the telepar- two variables w and a. By means of the conserved quantity allel surface term TG containing symmetries; this approach Σ0 has been performed in [61], therefore in this section we only 1 2−k 3 outline the main results. After this, we consider the ADM for- −w πw = Σ0, (81) malism and find the related Wave Function of the Universe, 4f0k(k − 1) as we did before. In the minisuperspace Q ≡ {a, T, TG}, the symmetry generator is the Hamiltonian can be written as:

k 2 X = α(a, T, TG)∂a +β(a, T, TG)∂T +γ(a, T, TG)∂TG . (72) H = Σ0πa − 3f0k(k − 1)aw Σ0 . (82) 9

From the canonical quantization rules, after writing Hamilto- A. Noether symmetries nian in terms of operators, the Wheeler-De Witt equation takes the form Considering the Noether vector of the two-dimensional minisuperspace Q = {a, φ}, namely k Hˆψ = −i∂aψ − 3f0(k − 1)aw Σ0ψ = 0 , (83) ˙ X = α∂a + β∂φ +α∂ ˙ a˙ + β∂φ˙ (89) whose solution is: and setting the Lie derivative of the Lagrangian (87) along X 3 equal to zero, gives the following system of partial differential ψ = ψ exp i Σ f (k − 1)wk a2 . (84) 0 2 0 0 equations:

 0 The Hartle criterion is recovered and the Hamilton-Jacobi αF (φ) + βaF (φ) + 2F (φ)a∂aα = 0  equations provide the above classical trajectories. 3α + 2a∂ β = 0 φ . (90) a2∂ β − 12F (φ)∂ α = 0  a φ 3αV (φ) + βaV 0(φ) = 0 , VI. NON-MINIMALLY COUPLED SCALAR FIELD whose non trivial solutions are The final case we are going to analyze is teleparallel scalar-   2β0 `+1 − 2` tensor TEGR, whose action reads as: 2 p α = − a φ 2`+3 α = − β0 V0a  2` + 3  3  3  p  ` 2`+3 Z β = β V φ β = β0a φ h ω µ i 4 0 0 6 S = TF (φ) + ∂µφ∂ φ − V (φ) d x (85) 2 V (φ) = V φ 2`+3 2 VI (φ) = V0φ  II 0   2  2  F (φ) = F φ  (2` + 3) 2 I 0 FII (φ) = φ ; being φ a scalar field, F (φ) the non-minimal coupling, and 48 V (φ) the self-interacting potential. We can also take into account more general actions, depending on a general function  qφ 2qβ0 e F (T, φ), however, here we restrict to the case linear in T . The α = √  2 1  3 a α = − a 4 (c2 + 2c3φ) above action is the teleparallel equivalent of the well known   3  qφ  3  e  − 4 2 scalar-tensor action in the metric formalism (see [63, 64]) dis- β = β0 √ β = a (c1 + c2φ + c3φ ) cussed e.g. in [65, 66]. In FLRW cosmology, where the hyper- a3 2 2  2qφ VIV (φ) = V0(c1 + c2φ + c3φ ) surface term can be integrated, we can recast the action as an VIII (φ) = V0e  3   2 integral over the time where variables are only time depen-  3 FIV (φ) = (c1 + c2φ + c3φ ) FIII (φ) = 64c3 dent, namely  16q2 (91) Z 1 Let us focus on the first one, with the aim to investigate both S = 2π2 h F (φ)T + φ˙2 − V (φ) dt , (86) 2 the classical and the quantum cosmological implications. The point-like Lagrangian, which arises once replacing the func- Replacing therefore the cosmological form of the torsion into tions FI (φ) and VI (φ) into Eq. (87), takes the form the action, the Lagrangian reads: 2 2 3 1 ˙2 2 L = −6F0aφ a˙ + a φ − V0φ , (92) 1 2 L = L(a, a,˙ φ, φ˙) = −6F (φ)aa˙ 2 + φ˙2 − V (φ) a3 . 2 so that the conserved quantity is (87) p 2 ˙ In this case, the minisuperspace only consists of the two vari- Σ0 = α∂aL + β∂φL = β0 V0a φ(8F0φa˙ + aφ) . (93) ables a and φ, that is Q ≡ {a, φ}; the torsion does not appear manifestly as a variable, having been replaced by its cos- The equations of motion (88), when F 6= 0,V 6= 0, only mological expression. Starting from the Lagrangian (87), the provide exponential solutions of the form equations of motion and the energy condition EL = 0 yield kt 8F0k(t−t0) the system of differential equations: a(t) = a0e φ = φ0e V (φ) = 2k2F (3 − 16F )φ2 F (φ) = F φ2. (94)  0 0 0 ˙ 2 1 2 ˙2 2 2aa˙φFφ(φ) + 4˙a F (φ) + 4aaF¨ (φ) + a φ − a V (φ) = 0 By neglecting the contribution of the potential, the Euler-  2 ˙ 2 ¨ 2 2 3aa˙φ + a φ + 6˙a Fφ(φ) + a Vφ(φ) = 0 Lagrange equations provide also power-law solutions, which  2 1 2 2 2 further constrain F (φ) to 6F (φ)˙a − a φ˙ − a V (φ) = 0 . 2 k 1 (1−3k) (88) a(t) = a0t φ(t) = φ0t 2 The system can be solved after selecting the form of the cou- (3k − 1)2 F (φ) = φ2 . (95) pling and the potential by Noether’s symmetries. 48k2 10

From the above power-law expressions of the scale factor, we The Wave Function of the Universe is the solution of the sys- can distinguish the three different Friedmann eras tem 1 − 1 Radiation Dominated Era :→ a(t) = a0t 2 φ(t) = φ0t 4  1 2 − ∂ ψ(z, w) − 2∂w∂zψ(z, w)+ 1  2w z Stiff Matter Dominated Era :→ a(t) = a0t 3 φ(t) = φ0   1 f0 2 2 − 1 + w∂wψ(z, w) + V0wψ(z, w) = 0 (101) Dust Matter Dominated Era :→ a(t) = a0t 3 φ(t) = φ0t 2 2 F0  The evolution of the scalar field can be summarized in the   figure below: i∂zψ(z, w) = Σ0ψ(z, w) . The first equation is the Wheeler-De Witt equation, coming from Hˆψ = 0; the second equation is conservation relation provided by the Noether symmetry, namely πz = Σ0. The solution of (101) is a linear combination of Bessel’s functions, which, for large arguments, are peaked in the minisuperspace variables z, w. Therefore the wave function has an asymptotic behavior of the form

i Σ z−ln w+W w−p π − π ψ(z, w) ∼ e ( 0 2 4 ) , (102)

where p, A, B and W are defined as 1p p = −A2 − 2iA − 4B + 1 2 F0 2F0 F0 Fig. 1: Behavior of the scalar field in the three cosmological −4Σ = A; V = W 2; Σ2 = B.(103) 0 f f 0 f 0 eras as functions of time. 0 0 0 Notice that Hartle’s criterion is recovered after imposing the We now apply the relations in Eqs. (29) to find the cyclic change of variables suggested by the Noether symmetry; fur- variable z in the minisuperspace. It yields the system thermore, in the semiclassical limit where the wave function  2 can be recast as ψ ∼ eiS0 , the Hamilton-Jacobi equations − a∂ z + φ∂ z = 1  3 a φ yield a system of two differential equations of the form 2 (96) − a∂aw + φ∂φw = 0 . ( 3 πz = ∂zS0 = Σ0 1 (104) 3 2 πw = ∂wS0 = W − , Assuming w = a φ and ∂az = 0, one of the possible solu- w tion is whose solution is ( ( z = ln φ φ = ez kt `t 3 2 1 − 2 z (97) a(t) ∼ e φ(t) ∼ e . (105) w = a φ a = w 3 e 3 and the new Lagrangian is then Eqs. (104) provide the same exponential solution as the Euler- Lagrange equations, as expected by construction. The power- 2 w˙ 2 8 L = − F + F w˙ z˙ + f wz˙2 − V w , (98) law solution (95) can be recovered for the potential V (φ) = new 3 0 w 3 0 0 0 0. Notice that even in this case Noether symmetry allows to calculate the equations of motion solutions by means of the where we set f0 ≡ 1 − 8/3 F0. Here z is the cyclic variable and the conserved quantity can be written in terms of the semiclassical limit of the ADM formalism. momentum πz as: 8 ∂ L = π = F w˙ + 2f wz˙ = Σ . (99) VII. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS z˙ z 3 0 0 0 The purpose of this paper is to apply the Noether Symme- B. Hamiltonian and Wave Function of the Universe tries Approach to different extended TEGR models in view of Quantum Cosmology applications. In several works [67–70], the Noether Approach has been used to select the Lagrangians The ADM formalism can be pursued by writing the time- depending on functions of curvature invariants, using the sym- derivatives of the cosmological variables as functions of mo- metries and reducing therefore the dynamics. In this paper menta and performing a Legendre transformation; this proce- we found out exact solutions coming from actions contain- dure yields the Hamiltonian : ing functions of torsion scalar T and its related invariants. In 2 πz 1 f0 2 all cases, we dealt with the quantum counterpart by using the H = − wπw + 2πzπw + V0w . (100) 2w 2 F0 ADM formalism. 11

TEGR models have been proposed with the aim to relax the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS strict constraints provided by GR, as well as the strict depen- dence on Equivalence Principle, metricity or Lorentz invari- The Authors acknowledge the support of Istituto Nazionale ance; another assumption of GR concerns the Levi-Civita condi Fisica Nucleare (INFN) (iniziative specifiche GINGER, nection supposed to be torsionless. Relaxing the hypothesis of MOONLIGHT2, QGSKY, and TEONGRAV). This paper torsionless connection, it is possible to construct spacetimes is based upon work from COST action CA15117 (CAN- where affinities have a dynamical role, instead of geodesic TATA), COST Action CA16104 (GWverse), and COST action structure. TEGR is completely equivalent to GR at the level CA18108 (QG-MM), supported by COST (European Cooper- of equations and then of dynamics. This can be easily under- ation in Science and Technology). stood by the fact that TEGR and GR field equations differ only for a 4-divergence. However, though TEGR provides the same results as GR, extending TEGR turns out to be different with Appendix A: The Arnowitt-Dese- Misner formalism and respect to GR extensions, since this latter leads to higher-order Wheeler-DeWitt equation field equations with respect to the metric. Nevertheless, f(R) gravity can be always obtained from f(T ) gravity considering In order to understand the early time behavior of the Uni- the boundary term B: a function f(T,B), under appropriate verse, we should treat it by using Quantum Field Theory, and constraints, allows to recover the f(R) gravity [48, 71–73]. represent its evolution by means of a Wave Function depend- One of the main advantages of studying TEGR and its ex- ing on the space-time variables. This is not fully possible due tensions is that these models can be easily recast as gauge to the lack of a self-consistent theory of Quantum Gravity. theories allowing deep insights in the fundamental structure However, adopting a canonical quantization approach and of gravity. In this perspective, quantizing TEGR and exten- the related ADM formalism allows to obtain the so called sions could be extremely interesting towards the realization of Wheeler-DeWitt equation, which is a Schroedinger-like equa- Quantum Gravity. Therefore, Quantum Cosmology could be tion whose solution, the Wave Function of the Universe, is a useful to achieve results possibly comparable with observa- useful indication of probability amplitude for quantized super- tions. space variables. Specifically, we worked out minisuperspace models by the In order to build up the formalism, let us start by consid- Noether Symmetry Approach. We have also showed, by ering the most general form of the Einstein-Hilbert action, adopting suitable Lagrange multipliers, that Noether symme- namely [74, 75] tries provide constraints on the form of the action that allow to 1 Z √ Z √ simplify the dynamics and to find classical solutions. In par- S = −g[R − 2λ]d4x + hK dx3 , (A1) ticular, the Noether approach allows to select changes of vari- 2 V ∂V ables such that the Wave Function of the Universe turns out to ij be peaked in minisuperspaces containing cyclic variables. In where K = h Kij is the trace of the extrinsic curvature ten- this case, classical trajectories, representing observable uni- sor of the three-dimensional hyper-surface ∂V surrounded in verses can be recovered. However, it is worth remarking that the four-dimensional manifold, and h is the determinant of 3 neither Noether system solutions nor the change of variables the three-dimensional metric . To get the Hamiltonian formu- are unique. This means that a careful choice is often important lation, we perform a (3 + 1)-decomposition of the metric gµν , to recover exact useful solutions capable of describing classi- so that the spatial components turn out to be the dynamical α cal universes. degrees of freedom. Choosing a set of coordinates X , by means of coordinates foliation transformation Xα → X0α, As the Wave Function of the Universe is related to the prob- we can get a family of hypersurfaces x0 = const where xi ability to get observable universes, the existence of Noether are the local coordinates on each surface. symmetries suggests when the Hartle criterion is working. In the four dimensions, to each time-like point x0, it corre- Due to the experimental lack of many copies of the same uni- sponds a space-like hypersurface x0 = k, and the variation of verse, the resulting Wave Function is only related to the prob- x0 provides the required foliation. Moreover, any point of the ability to get a certain configuration, but it does not give the hypersurface is labeled by a three-dimensional vectors basis whole probability amplitude itself. This shortcoming is also Xα, tangent to the surface itself. Since they are orthonormal due to the lack of a self-consistent theory of Quantum Gravity. i to the surface vector nν , the following two conditions hold: In particular, we focused on f(T ), F (T, T ), f(T, G) and µ ν µ ν on non-minimal coupled teleparallel models. The application gµν Xi n = 0 gµν n n = −1 . (A2) of Noether Symmetry Approach to the related point-like La- grangians allows to select the functional form of the models. It is also useful to define the deformation tensor as In all cases, the existence of symmetries permits to integrate α α α 0 i the corresponding dynamical systems and to apply the Hartle N = X˙ = ∂0X (x , x ) (A3) criterion to find out observable universes. In a forthcoming paper, the method will be systematically confronted with observations to link the cosmological param- 3 eters with the Noether symmetries. In this appendix, hij is the spatial component of the spacetime metric gµν 12 and, by decomposing Nα in the previously defined basis of The function ψ is defined on the configuration space of the normal and tangent vectors as 3-metrics, with ψ ≡ ψ[hij(x)] describing the evolution of the gravitational field. The operator ∇2, is defined through the α α i α N = Nn + N Xi , (A4) 3-dimensional metric as the metric tensor takes the form: 2 1 δ δ ∇ = √ (hikhjl + hilhjk − hijhkl) . (A14) 2 i h δhij δhkl −(N − NiN ) Nj gµν = (A5) Nj hij. The space on which the Wave Function is defined is the space of all the possible 3-metrics, called superspace. Since i The scalar N and the vector N are the so-called Lapse and the Superspace is an infinite dimensional space, in order to Shift functions, respectively. With respect to these decompo- solve the Wheeler-De Witt equation, restrictions to finite- sitions, the Lagrangian density turns out to be dimensional minisuperspaces are often needed. In such a way, √ the Wheeler-De Witt equation becomes a partial differential 1 ij 2 (3) L = hN K Kij − K + R + T.D. (A6) equation. It is worth noticing that minisuperspaces represents 2 toy models which preserves some basic aspects of the entire By defining the conjugate momenta as theory, as some symmetry, but neglect others. From this point of view, the strongest hypothesis of Quantum Cosmology is to δL δL π ≡ = 0 πi ≡ = 0 assume that these models are workable approximations of the δN˙ δN˙ complete theory. √ i However, some difficulties in the interpretation of the Wave ij δL h ij ij π ≡ = Kh − K (A7) Function of the Universe arises: in non-relativistic Quan- δh˙ 2 ij tum Mechanics, the dynamics of the system is described by and the Hamiltonian density as the Schrödinger equation, so that the quantity < ψ|ψ >≡ R ψ∗ψ dx3 is always positive and independent of time. The ij ˙ H = π hij − L , (A8) consequence of this fact is that solutions of the Schrödinger equation constitute an infinite dimensional space, and the the commutation relations between the Hamiltonian H and the product ψ∗ψ can be interpreted as the probability density to conjugate momenta π are [23]: localize the particle into a give configuration space. On the contrary, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is similar to the Klein  δH π˙ = −{H, π} = = 0 Gordon equation: it is possible to find a continuity equation, δN (A9) but the scalar product is not always positive-defined and then i i δH π˙ = −{H, π } = = 0 . the probabilistic interpretation is missing. δNi With these definitions in mind, the first step for the canonincal quantization is to transform classical dynamical variables to Appendix B: The Noether Symmetry Approach operators by the appropriate commutation relations: The Noether Symmetry Approach allows to find out sym-  ˆ kl 0 kl 3 0 [hij(x), πˆ (x )] = i δ δ (x − x ) metry transformations and conserved quantities by means it  ij  kl 1 k l l k is possible to reduce and solve dynamical systems. In this δij = 2 (δi δj + δiδj ) ˆ ˆ (A10) appendix, we outline the main properties of the Noether Ap- [hij, hkl] = 0  proach and point out how to use it in Quantum Cosmology. [ˆπij, πˆkl] = 0 , Let L(t, φi, φ˙i) be a non-degenerate Lagrangian describing a dynamical system. An infinitesimal transformation involv- Notice that the conjugate momenta are now promoted to op- i erators, so that the definitions in Eq. (A7) take the form ing the fields φ and the coordinates is

 i i δ i δ ij δ  i ˙i ˙ πˆ = −i πˆ = −i πˆ = −i (A11) L(t, φ φ ) → L(t, φ , φ ) δN δNi δhij t = t + ξ(t, φi) + O(2) (B1)  i Furthermore, from Eq. (A9), it automatically follows that the φ = φi + ηi(t, φi) + O(2) . canonical quantization imposes the constraint The generator of the transformation can be written as: H|ˆ ψ >= 0 (A12) ∂ ∂ ∂ X[1] = ξ + ηi + (η ˙i − φ˙iξ˙) . (B2) which leads to the Wheeler-De Witt equation, namely a ∂t ∂φi ∂φ˙i Schrödinger-like equation of the form: Noether’s first theorem states that if the relation 1√ 2 ∇2 − h (3)R |ψ >= 0 . (A13) 2 X[1]L + ξ˙L =g ˙ (B3) 13 holds, then the quantity According to Eq. (B7), the above relation can be written as: i ∂L ∂L i ˙i ˙i ∂L i ∂L i η = , (B9) I(t, φ , φ ) = ξ φ − L − η + g(t, φ ) , (B4) ˙i ∂z˙ ∂φ˙i ∂φ˙i ∂φ In this way, also the generator of the symmetry must transform is a constant of motion. The function ξ depends on all the vari- accordingly; let X0 be the generator written in terms of the ables of the configuration space and represents the infinitesi- new variables: mal generator related to the change of coordinates; ηi is, in turn, related to the fields variation. The function g(t, φi) is a ∂ ∂ X0 = η0i +η ˙0i (B10) four divergence whose value does not affect the dynamics of i i ∂φ ∂φ˙ the system. This is the general version of Noether’s theorem holding both for internal and external symmetries. A partic- Setting the component η01 of the new infinitesimal generator ular case can be obtained by the condition ξ = 0. In the ap- η0i equal to 1 and η0j (with j 6= 1) equal to zero, the conserved plications to teleparallel Lagrangians discussed in this work, 1 quantity (B7), corresponding to the variable φ , turns out to be we only considered internal symmetries, where the Noether equal to the conjugate momentum π 1 . More formally, let us vector is written as: φ consider the coordinates transformation φi → Φ(φi) and the ∂ ∂ corresponding inner derivative X = ηi +η ˙i (B5) ∂φi ∂φ˙i ∂Φ i dΦ ≡ η˙0i . (B11) X ∂φi and the identity (B3) reduces to XL = 0 after imposing g = 0. This means that, if the transformation does not involve The new generator can be written in terms of the inner deriva- coordinates, internal symmetries arise if the Lie derivative of tive as: the Lagrangian along the flux of X vanishes: 0 k ∂ d k ∂ X = (iX dΦ ) + (iX dΦ ) (B12) ∂Φk dt ∂Φ˙ k i ∂L i ∂L LX L = XL = η +η ˙ (B6) ∂φi ∂φ˙i so that, by setting the first component of the new infinitesimal generator equal to 1 and the others equal to zero, we obtain and phase flux is conserved along X. Therefore, setting to zero 1 j the Lie derivative of Lagrangian it is possible to find the sym- 1 0i ∂Φ j 0i ∂Φ iX dΦ = η = 1 iX dΦ = η = 0 j 6= 1 . metries of the theory and the corresponding conserved quan- ∂φi ∂Φi tity, that is (B13) The conditions (B13) allows to introduce a cyclic variable by means of a methodical procedure. This procedure, after quan- i ∂L Σ0 = η . (B7) tizing the theory and getting the Wave Function of the Uni- ˙i ∂φ verse, points out when the Hartle criterion holds: conserved momenta correspond to oscillating components of the wave Notice that Eq. (B4) reduces to Eq. (B7) when ξ = 0. function. In this case the Hamilton-Jacobi equations can be In Quantum Cosmology, the configuration space is the min- exactly integrated giving classical trajectories. According to isuperspace and, to find the Hamiltonian and to solve the the Hartle criterion, such trajectories correspond to observable Wheeler-DeWitt equation, cyclic variables are identified by universes. The same procedure does not hold for the extended an appropriate change of coordinates. A possible transforma- theorem, whose conserved quantities cannot be replaced by tion is such that the conjugate momentum of the new variable the conjugate momenta of given variables. For this reason, z coincides with the conserved quantity Σ0 provided by the external symmetries have not been taken into account. Noether symmetry, that is: From the Quantum Cosmology point of view, all the variables (and symmetries) are internal to the system and then the πz = Σ0 . (B8) Noether theorem can be restricted only to internal variables.

[1] S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, “Extended Theories of 578 Gravity,” Phys. Rept. 509 (2011), 167-321 [4] S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, “Introduction to modiﬁed gravity [2] S. Capozziello and M. Francaviglia, “Extended Theories of and gravitational alternative for dark energy,” eConf C0602061 Gravity and their Cosmological and Astrophysical Applica- (2006), 06 tions,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 40 (2008), 357-420 [5] S. Basilakos, M. Tsamparlis and A. Paliathanasis, “Using the [3] S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, “The dark matter problem Noether symmetry approach to probe the nature of dark en- from f(R) gravity viewpoint,” Annalen Phys. 524 (2012), 545- ergy,” Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011), 103512 14

[6] S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, O. Luongo and A. Ruggeri, Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 17 (2020) no.14, 2050215 “Cosmographic Constraints and Cosmic Fluids,” Galaxies 1 [30] F. Bajardi, S. Capozziello and D. Vernieri, “Non-Local Curva- (2013), 216-260 ture and Gauss-Bonnet Cosmologies by Noether Symmetries,” [7] S. Capozziello, R. D’Agostino and O. Luongo, “Extended Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135 (2020) no.12, 942 Gravity Cosmography,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28 (2019) no.10, [31] Y. Kucukakca, “Scalar tensor teleparallel dark gravity via 1930016 Noether symmetry,” Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) no.2, 2327 [8] E. A. Novikov, “Ultralight gravitons with tiny electric dipole [32] G. Gecim and Y. Kucukakca, “Scalar–tensor teleparallel grav- moment are seeping from the vacuum,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 31 ity with boundary term by Noether symmetries,” Int. J. Geom. (2016) no.15, 1650092 Meth. Mod. Phys. 15 (2018) no.09, 1850151 [9] F. Bajardi, D. Vernieri and S. Capozziello, “Bouncing Cosmol- [33] Y. Kucukakca, “Teleparallel dark energy model with a ogy in f(Q) Symmetric Teleparallel Gravity,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus fermionic field via Noether symmetry,” Eur. Phys. J. C 74 135 (2020) no.11, 912 (2014) no.10, 3086 [10] S. W. Hawking and G. T. Horowitz, “The Gravitational Hamil- [34] H. I. Arcos and J. G. Pereira, “Torsion gravity: A Reappraisal,” tonian, action, entropy and surface terms,” Class. Quant. Grav. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 13 (2004), 2193-2240 13 (1996), 1487-1498 [35] R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini, “Modified teleparallel gravity: Infla- [11] K. Kuchar, “Geometry of Hyperspace. 1.,” J. Math. Phys. 17 tion without inflaton,” Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 084031 (1976), 777-791 [36] R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini, “On Born-Infeld Gravity in Weitzen- [12] A. Ashtekar, “New Hamiltonian Formulation of General Rela- bock spacetime,” Phys. Rev. D 78, 124019 (2008) tivity,” Phys. Rev. D 36 (1987), 1587-1602 [37] R. T. Hammond, “Torsion gravity,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 65 (2002) [13] J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, “Wave Function of the Uni- 599. verse,” Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cosmol. 3 (1987), 174-189 [38] P. Wu and H. W. Yu, “Observational constraints on f(T ) the- [14] A. Vilenkin, “The Interpretation of the Wave Function of the ory,” Phys. Lett. B 693 (2010) 415 Universe,” Phys. Rev. D 39 (1989), 1116 [39] J. W. Maluf, “The teleparallel equivalent of general relativity,” [15] H. Everett III "Relative State" formulation of Quantum Me- Annalen Phys. 525 (2013) 339 chanics," Rev. Mod Phys. 29 (1957) 454. [40] N. Tamanini and C. G. Böhmer, “Definition of Good Tetrads for [16] P. A. Gonzalez, E. N. Saridakis and Y. Vasquez, “Circularly f(T) Gravity,” doi:10.1142/9789814623995_0148 symmetric solutions in three-dimensional Teleparallel, f(T) and [41] R. Myrzakulov, L. Sebastiani and S. Zerbini, “Some aspects of Maxwell-f(T) gravity,” JHEP 07 (2012), 053 generalized modified gravity models,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 22, [17] M. Jamil, D. Momeni and R. Myrzakulov, “Energy conditions 1330017 (2013) in generalized teleparallel gravity models,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 45 [42] V. Fayaz, H. Hossienkhani, A. Farmany, M. Amirabadi and (2013), 263-273 N. Azimi, “Cosmology of f(T ) gravity in a holographic dark [18] Y. F. Cai, S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis and E. N. Saridakis, energy and nonisotropic background,” Astrophys. Space Sci. “f(T) teleparallel gravity and cosmology,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 79 351 (2014) 299. (2016) no.10, 106901 [43] A. Finch and J. L. Said, “Galactic Rotation Dynamics in f(T) [19] J. W. Maluf, “Hamiltonian formulation of the teleparallel de- gravity,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 560. scription of general relativity,” J. Math. Phys. 35 (1994), 335- [44] S. Capozziello and F. Bajardi, “Gravitational waves in modified 343 gravity,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28 (2019) no.05, 1942002. [20] R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Pereira, “Teleparallelism: A New Way [45] K. Bamba, S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, S. Nojiri and to Think the Gravitational Interaction,” Ciencia Hoje 55 (2015), D. Saez-Gomez, “No further gravitational wave modes in F (T ) 32. gravity,” Phys. Lett. B 727 (2013) 194 [21] K. Ming, Triyanta, and J. S. Kosasih, "Possibility of gravita- [46] H. Abedi and S. Capozziello, “Gravitational waves in modified tional quantization under the teleparallel theory of gravitation", teleparallel theories of gravity,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) no.6, AIP Conf. Proc. 1719 (2016) 030004 474 [22] S. Capozziello and G. Lambiase, “Selection rules in minisuper- [47] S. Capozziello, M. Capriolo and L. Caso, “Gravitational Waves space quantum cosmology,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 32 (2000) 673. in Higher Order Teleparallel Gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 37 [23] S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis and S. D. Odintsov, “Hamil- (2020) 235013 tonian dynamics and Noether symmetries in Extended Gravity [48] S. Capozziello, M. Capriolo and S. Nojiri, “Considerations on Cosmology,” Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012), 2068. gravitational waves in higher-order local and non-local gravity,” [24] S. Capozziello, R. de Ritis and A. A. Marino, “Conformal Phys. Lett. B 810 (2020) 135821. equivalence and Noether symmetries in cosmology,” Class. [49] S. Basilakos, S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, A. Paliathanasis Quant. Grav. 14 (1998), 3259 and M. Tsamparlis, “Noether symmetries and analytical solu- [25] A. Paliathanasis, M. Tsamparlis and S. Basilakos, “Constraints tions in f(T)-cosmology: A complete study,” Phys. Rev. D 88 and analytical solutions of f(R) theories of gravity using (2013) 103526. Noether symmetries,” Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011), 123514 [50] M. A. Skugoreva and A. V. Toporensky, “On Kasner solution [26] S. Capozziello and A. De Felice, “f(R) cosmology by Noether’s in Bianchi I f(T ) cosmology,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) no.5, symmetry,” JCAP 08 (2008), 016 377 [27] S. Capozziello and G. Lambiase, “Higher order corrections to [51] S. Gottloeber, H. J. Schmidt and A. A. Starobinsky, “Sixth the effective gravitational action from Noether symmetry ap- Order Gravity and Conformal Transformations,” Class. Quant. proach,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 32 (2000), 295-311 Grav. 7 (1990), 893 3 [28] F. Bajardi and S. Capozziello, “Equivalence of non-minimally [52] A. L. Berkin and K. i. Maeda, “Effects of R and RR terms coupled cosmologies by Noether symmetries,” Int. J. Mod. on R2 inflation,” Phys. Lett. B 245 (1990), 348. Phys. D 29 (2020) no.14, 2030015 [53] L. Amendola, A. Battaglia Mayer, S. Capozziello, F. Oc- [29] Z. Urban, F. Bajardi and S. Capozziello, “The Noether Bessel chionero, S. Gottlober, V. Muller and H. J. Schmidt, “Gener- Hagen Symmetry Approach for Dynamical Systems,” Int. J. alized sixth order gravity and inflation,” Class. Quant. Grav. 10 15

(1993) L43. 064028 [54] N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, “Quantum Fields in Curved [66] S. Bahamonde, M. Marciu and P. Rudra, “Generalised telepar- Space,” Cambridge Univ. Press. (1982) Cambridge. allel quintom dark energy non-minimally coupled with the [55] M. Farasat Shamir and A. Komal, “Energy Bounds for Static scalar torsion and a boundary term,” JCAP 1804 (2018) no.04, Spherically Symmetric Spacetime in f(R,G) Gravity,” Com- 056 mun. Theor. Phys. 70 (2018) no.2, 190. [67] S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, “Noether symmetries in [56] S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and S. Banerjee, “Dynamics extended gravity quantum cosmology,” Int. J. Geom. Meth. of inflation and dark energy from F (R,G) gravity,” Nucl. Phys. Mod. Phys. 11 (2014), 1460004 B 938 (2019) 935 [68] S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis and R. Myrzakulov, “Noether [57] F. Bajardi and S. Capozziello, “f(G) Noether cosmology,” Eur. symmetry approach for Dirac–Born–Infeld cosmology,” Int. J. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.8, 704 Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 12 (2015) no.05, 1550065 [58] F. Bajardi, K. F. Dialektopoulos and S. Capozziello, “Higher [69] S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis and S. D. Odintsov, “Noether Dimensional Static and Spherically Symmetric Solutions in Ex- Symmetry Approach in Gauss-Bonnet Cosmology,” Mod. Phys. tended Gauss-Bonnet Gravity,” Symmetry 12 (2020) no.3, 372 Lett. A 29 (2014) no.30, 1450164 [59] M. Sharif and K. Nazir, “Study of Static Wormhole Solutions [70] B. Vakili, “Noether symmetry in f(R) cosmology,” Phys. Lett. in F (T,TG ) Gravity,” Annals Phys. 393 (2018) 145 B 664 (2008), 16-20 [60] M. Zubair and A. Jawad, “Generalized Second Law of Ther- [71] S. Bahamonde and M. Wright, “Teleparallel quintessence with modynamics in f(T,TG) gravity,” Astrophys. Space Sci. 360 a nonminimal coupling to a boundary term,” Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 11 (2015) no.8, 084034 Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.10, [61] S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis and K. F. Dialektopoulos, 109901] “Noether symmetries in Gauss–Bonnet-teleparallel cosmol- [72] S. Bahamonde, M. Zubair and G. Abbas, “Thermodynamics ogy,” Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 629. and cosmological reconstruction in f(T,B) gravity,” Phys. [62] G. Kofinas and E. N. Saridakis, “Teleparallel equivalent of Dark Univ. 19 (2018) 78 Gauss-Bonnet gravity and its modifications,” Phys. Rev. D 90 [73] S. Bahamonde and S. Capozziello, “Noether Symmetry Ap- (2014) 084044. proach in f(T,B) teleparallel cosmology,” Eur. Phys. J. C 77 [63] N. Bartolo and M. Pietroni, “Scalar tensor gravity and (2017) no.2, 107 quintessence,” Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 023518 [74] T. Thiemann, “Modern canonical quantum general relativity,” [64] S. Capozziello, S. Nesseris and L. Perivolaropoulos, “Recon- gr-qc/0110034. struction of the Scalar-Tensor Lagrangian from a LCDM Back- [75] B. S. DeWitt, “Quantum Theory of Gravity. 1. The Canonical ground and Noether Symmetry,” JCAP 0712 (2007) 009 Theory,” Phys. Rev. 160 (1967), 1113-1148 [65] H. Mohseni Sadjadi, “Notes on teleparallel cosmology with nonminimally coupled scalar field,” Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013)