Creation of wormholes during the cosmological

bounce
∗1 †2,1
Petar Pavlović and Marko Sossich
arXiv:2210.06142v3 [gr-qc] 1 Mar 2023

1
Institute for Cosmology and Philosophy of Nature, Trg svetog Florijana 16,
Križevci, Croatia
2
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, Department
of Physics, Unska 3, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia

March 2, 2023

Abstract
In this work we demonstrate that wormholes can in principle be nat-
urally created during the cosmological bounce without the need for the
exotic matter or any kind of additional modifications of the gravitational
sector, apart from the one enabling the cosmological bounce. This re-
sult is general and does not depend on the details of the modifications of
gravitational equations needed to support the bounce. To study the possi-
ble existence of wormholes around the cosmological bounce we introduce
general modifications of Einstein’s field equations need to support the
bouncing solutions. In this regime we show that it is possible to construct
a cosmological wormhole solution supported by matter, radiation and vac-
uum energy, satisfying the Weak Energy Condition (WEC), which asymp-
totically approaches the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW)
metric. However, at a specific cosmological time, which depends on the
parameters of the bouncing cosmological model, the WEC describing the
matter needed to support such wormholes is spontaneously violated. This
means that such wormholes could potentially exist in large numbers during
some period around the bounce, significantly changing the causal struc-
ture of space-time, and then vanish afterwards.

1 Introduction
Our current understanding of the cosmological evolution is based on Einstein’s
general theory of relativity, which is one of the most successful physical theories.
∗ [email protected]
† [email protected]

1
General theory of relativity was so far verified by various types of experiments
– from the light deflection and the perihelion advance of Mercury to the recent
detection of gravitational waves [1, 2, 3, 4]. One of the consequences of this
theory is the necessary existence of singularities if the space-time is respecting
some usual causal properties and if the matter is respecting the usual energy
conditions (there are different variants of this result including the Strong, Null
or Weak Energy Condition), as proven by the singularity theorems of Hawking
[5, 6, 7]. One consequence of this result is the necessary existence of singularity
in the evolution of our Universe, called the big bang singularity, if general theory
of relativity is correct. However, the physical relevance of this result is highly
questionable – since it is precisely in such strong gravity regimes that we should
doubt the validity of Einstein’s general relativity as the correct description of
gravity. First of all, for strong gravitational fields both quantum behaviour of
matter fields and space-time itself will probably become important and signifi-
cantly change the field equations for gravity. The proper understanding of such
regimes therefore requires a proper knowledge of quantum theory of gravity,
which is, of course, still currently not available. On the other hand, assum-
ing the actual physical existence of singularities would mean the capitulation
with the respect to the fundamental goal of physics – namely, the complete,
non-divergent and consistent description of reality, including the evolution of
the Universe. For all this reasons, we should view the Hawking singularity theo-
rems more as a signal of incompleteness of Einstein’s general theory of relativity,
than the proof for the actual physical existence of singularities. Furthermore,
we believe that the demand for singularity-free solutions constitutes one of the
most important criteria for the future quantum theory of gravity, and therefore
also for the effective theories which are being investigated in order to overcome
the current gap between the quantum physics and description of gravity as a
geometry of space-time.

Various investigations in the past decades have demonstrated that even simple
modifications of gravitational Lagrangian with respect to the standard Einstein-
Hilbert action, while leaving all other physical assumptions of Einstein’s gen-
eral relativity intact, can prevent the appearance of the big-bang singularity
[8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21]. Also, in higher curvature
gravity theories some important non-singular investigations have been done in
Gauss-Bonnet higher curvature gravity [22, 23, 24] and in f (R) gravity theo-
ries [25, 26, 27]. In such models the big bang singularity is then replaced by
the cosmological bounce, in which the Universe undergoes a transition from
contraction to expansion. It is worth remembering that there are in principle
no real physical reasons for favoring Einstein-Hilbert action in comparison to
higher curvature modifications, such as f (R), f (T ) or higher derivative gravity
theories, as long as they lead to the same observable weak field limit and have
no theoretical pathologies. As a matter of fact, the Einstein-Hilbert action was
historically introduced as the simplest action leading to the Newtonian limit,
out of the infinitely many other equally possible options. The investigation of
possible modifications of gravitational action, and their consequences on the

2
existence of the big bang singularity, are therefore important not just for trying
to overcome the limitations of general relativity - such as the existence of singu-
larities, but also as the path for better understanding the structure of potential
quantum theory of gravity.

There were also numerous works which demonstrated the possibility of the cos-
mological bounce, if some new hypothetical additions to the standard cosmo-
logical model are added, such as specific scalar fields, extra dimensions or new
types of fluids [28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35]. Although such investigations
can lead to some important insights regarding the problem of initial singularity
in the cosmological evolution, we think that, from a methodological point of
view, the approach based on the modification of field equations, assuming no
new ingredients, should be viewed as superior. This is because the addition of
new hypothetical structures and substances should be disfavored with respect
to explanation which assumes no new unobserved and yet unverified forms of
matter-energy or spacetime structure. To put it in different words, it is always
possible to obtain the desired physical goal by increasing the number of param-
eters and invoking various types of ad hoc entities, but by doing so, the physical
theory looses its simplicity, necessity and integrity.

One of the important limitations of the usual strategy of investigating bouncing

cosmologies based on specific constructions (i.e. the specific type of modifica-
tions of Einstein’s general relativity or matter-energy content of the Universe)
is that the obtained results are highly dependent on the specific assumptions
which are taken to derive them. It is thus not easy, and sometimes simply not
possible, to see which of the properties of solutions are general and which are
the result of highly hypothetical and often not properly motivated new modifi-
cations and additions. This problem signifies the need for a model independent
study of bouncing cosmologies. We first tried to contribute to this research pro-
gram by studying the bouncing and cyclic solutions supported by a general type
of higher order curvature corrections [36]. This research was then extended and
generalized by studying the model independent dynamic properties of bouncing
cosmologies and then applying the results to different types of modified gravity
theories [37]. It was also demonstrated that the problem of magnetogenesis has
a simple possible solution in the model-independent approach to bouncing cos-
mology [38]. Recently, we proposed a model-independent approach to bouncing
cosmology in which we proposed a simple solution of the cosmological constant
problem and also studied the effects of quantum fluctuations of the spacetime
geometry [39]. We will use some of the obtained conclusion in the present study
of wormholes created during the cosmological bounce.

There is an obvious technical connection between cosmological bounce and

another type of hypothetical gravitational solutions - wormholes, that comes
from the fact that both types of solutions imply physics beyond standard gen-
eral relativity. Wormholes are solutions of field equations for gravity which
represent a shortcut through spacetime, a tube-like structure which is asymp-

3
totically flat at both ends, and connects two distant parts of the Universe.
While such spacetime configuration is actually a solution of classical Einstein’s
equations, it requires the violation of Weak Energy Condition (WEC) for its
existence in the framework of Einstein’s gravity [40]. However, it is at the
present time not known which kind of substance could lead to the needed vio-
lation of the usual WEC on macroscopic scales. Therefore, if WEC is assumed
to be satisfied then wormholes can be realized only by virtue of modification
of field equations for gravity. Numerous realizations of such wormhole solu-
tions not requiring the WEC violation were extensively studied in the literature
[41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60].
One special case of potential wormhole solutions supported by modified grav-
ity are “small cosmological wormholes”, an approximate type of solution where
for a large enough distance from the wormhole throat the spacetime geometry
can be described by the standard cosmological FLRW metric [61]. Such type
of solutions enable us to simply study wormholes which are contained in the
expanding Universe.

As we discussed, both the bouncing cosmological solutions and wormholes can

be supported by an effective violation of usual energy conditions coming from
the additional terms in equations with respect to Einstein’s gravity, playing
the role of effective pressures and energy densities, while preserving the energy
conditions for the matter content of the Universe. This naturally leads to the
question: what is the relationship between the cosmological bounce and po-
tential existence of wormholes? We address this question in the present paper
where we show that if the conditions for the cosmological bounce are established,
then wormholes can exist without any further modification of field equations or
without introducing any kind of exotic matter. To do this we first present a
simple, very general and model-independent, description of bouncing cosmol-
ogy and then show how cosmological wormholes can be further constructed on
such spacetime. We then demonstrate that there is no violation of WEC in the
matter sector implied for such a kind of solutions.

The paper is organized in the following manner: in Section II we discuss how to

generally represent all possible types of cyclic cosmologies on FLRW spacetime
under the assumption of the stress-energy tensor conservation, in Section III we
discuss the wormhole geometry around the cosmological bounce, in Section IV
we derive field equations for wormholes around the cosmological bounce, obtain
the solutions and discuss the WEC violation, and we finally conclude in V.

2 General approach to bouncing cosmology

In order to study the possibility of wormhole existence during the cosmological
bounce we first need to present a general (i.e. model independent) description
of bouncing cosmological solutions. Here we follow the steps discussed in [39].

4
With this aim we introduce the following action for gravity (c = 1):
√
Z
1
Sef f = −gRd4 x + Smod , (1)
16πG
here Smod is a general type of correction needed to support the cosmological
bounce. We add the action for matter fields and then vary this action with
respect to the metric, thus obtaining the effective field equation for gravity:

Gef f mod rad,mat

µν = Gµν + Gµν = 8πG(Tµν
vac
+ Tµν ), (2)

here Gµν is Einstein’s tensor, Gmod

µν simply denotes the collection of terms which
rad,mat
arise after variation of Smod with respect to the metric, Tµν is stress-energy
vac
tensor for matter and radiation and Tµν , is the stress-energy contribution of
the quantum vacuum. At this point we make no restrictions on the properties of
Gmod
µν , apart from assuming that it is a proper tensor and that the total stress-
energy tensor is conserved, which leads to ∇µ Gef f µ mod
µν = ∇ Gµν = 0. We now
focus on the spherically symmetric and isotropic type of cosmological spacetime,
that is we turn our attention on the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker
(FLRW) spacetime, given by the following form
 
ds2 = −dt2 + a(t)2 dr2 + r2 (dθ2 + sin2 θdφ2 ) . (3)

Although the collection of terms Gmod

µν can in principle be some arbitrary com-
plicated function of the curvature invariants and their combinations (such as
Ricci scalar, contractions of Riemann and Ricci tensors, their higher powers
and derivatives), the only cosmological coordinate on which components of this
collection on terms can depend is - due to the homogeneous and isotropic na-
ture of the considered spacetime – the time coordinate. Therefore, despite the
arbitrary nature of such corrections, on the FLRW spacetime the field equations
must take the following form [39]:
 
3H 2 = 8πG ρ0rad a−4 + ρ0mat a−3 + ρvac + S(t). (4)

Gmod (F LRW ) S(t)

 
ä 4πG
=− ρmat + ρrad + 3prad + ρvac + 3pvac + rr − (5)
a 3 2a2 6
Here S(t) = −Gmod 00 (FLRW), T00
vac
= −ρvac g00 and Tijvac = −pvac gij , while
also using the standard description of matter and radiation modelled by the
ideal fluid with the equation of state w = 0 and w = 1/3 respectively. From
the demand for the conservation of the stress-energy tensor it follows that
∇µ Gmod
µν = 0, and from that we obtain the following identity for Gmod rr on
FLRW spacetime:
3H mod
G (F LRW ) = Ṡ(t) + 3HS(t). (6)
a2 rr

5
It is simple to check that (5) is, under these assumptions, just a time derivative
of (4), and thus we will in further analysis inspect mostly equation (4). Note
that (4) and (5) are the most general form of Friedmann equations coming from
the purely mathematical modification of the action for gravity with respect to
general relativity – limited only by the symmetries of the spacetime and the
total stress-energy conservation. Of course, when additional physical degrees of
freedom are included in the action, such as scalar fields or various forms of non-
minimal coupling, the modified equations will not have the form of equations
(4) and (5), but such theories are beyond our interest here. In other words, in
this paper we are only concerned with type of theories we could call minimally
physically modified with respect to general relativity – i.e. involving only the
mathematical generalizations of the action for gravity and no extra physical
degrees of freedom.

Now we need to fix the correction function S(t) in order that it leads to a
bouncing cosmology. Here also, as we are interested in reaching general conclu-
sions regarding the relationship between wormholes and cosmological bounce,
we do not want to subscribe to some specific bouncing scenario, but to remain
as general as possible. For any bouncing solution it necessarily follows that,
at the time of the bounce, t = tb , where the scale factor reaches its minimal
value, a = amin , we have H = 0 and therefore using (4) we obtain the following
condition:  
0 −4 0 −3
S(tb ) = −8πG ρrad amin + ρmat amin + ρvac . (7)

Furthermore, since t = tb represents the minimum of the scale factor, around

the bounce a(t) ≈ amin + (c/2)(t − tb )2 , where c is a positive constant. From
this, one easily obtains the approximation for H(t) around the bounce valid for
any possible type of bouncing cosmology. This approximate form of S(t) around
the bounce is given by [39]
 2 "  −4
c(t − tb ) 0 2
S(t)bounce ≈ 3 − 8πG ρ rad amin + c(t − tb ) /2
amin + c(t − tb )2 /2

 −3 #
+ρ0mat 2
amin + c(t − tb ) /2 + ρvac .

(8)

In order to describe the general solutions for cosmological wormholes on bounc-

ing spacetime we need to match the geometry of the cosmological spacetime
possessing a bounce with a wormhole geometry. We will do this in the following
section by considering the wormhole geometries which asymptotically approach
the bouncing cosmological solutions.

6
3 The geometry of wormholes around the bounce
Firstly, we introduce the geometry of a static spherically symmetric wormhole
[40]
dr2
ds2 = −e2Φ(r) dt2 + + r2 (dθ2 + sin2 θdϕ2 ), (9)
1 − b(r)
r
where Φ(r) is sometimes called the redshift function and b(r) is the shape func-
tion, respecting the condition 1 − b(r)/r ≥ 0. In order to represent a traversable
wormhole the redshift function must be finite everywhere, therefore there are
no horizons. Also, if (9) is a wormhole geometry then the shape function must
satisfy the flaring-out condition [40]

b(r) − b0 (r)r
> 0. (10)
b(r)2
This condition tells us that there exist a throat of a wormhole which represents
the minimal radius of the geometry given by (9).
In a cosmological setting we are interested in wormholes which evolve in
the cosmological time, whose evolution is governed by the scale factor a(t). In
that case the static spherically symmetric wormhole can be generalised to a
spherically symmetric cosmological wormhole [62]
!
2 2Φ(r,t) 2 2 dr2 2 2 2 2
ds = −e dt + a(t) + r (dθ + sin θdϕ ) , (11)
1 − b(r)
r

where again the shape function is given by b(r), and the redshift is Φ(r, t) but
now it can also be a function of time t, and finally a(t) is the scale factor.

To asymptotically match such type of the solution to the bouncing FLRW cos-
mology we use the considerations presented in [61]. We use the approximation
of a small cosmological wormhole: we suppose that the spacetime geometry of
the wormhole is such that the redshift and shape functions are negligible for
r > rc , where the value of rc is chosen in such a manner that rc H << 1 for all
considered times. Under such approximation we can treat the wormhole as be-
ing effectively confined within the region r < rc with no influence on the global
geometry of FLRW spacetime. In other words, such wormhole can be treated as
if its asymptotical infinity is actually placed at r = rc . We furthermore assume
that all the dynamical properties of such wormholes are determined only by the
expansion of the Universe, so that the dynamics of the scale factor, a(t), for
the wormhole is the same as for the Universe. Thus, considering the case of
bouncing cosmology, the scale factor of the cosmological wormhole appearing in
(11) can be computed from modified Friedmann equations (4)-(5), taking into
account the Taylor expansion of the correction factor around the bounce, given
by (8).

The components of the stress-energy tensor will in general not be the same

7
in the wormhole region, r < rc , and in the cosmological region, r > rc . In the
cosmological region the matter-energy is modelled by the ideal fluid with the
equation of state pcosmo = wρcosmo , with the EOS parameter w = 0 for matter,
w = 1/3 for radiation and w = −1 for quantum vacuum. Here we labeled the
components of the stress-energy tensor in the cosmological region with subscript
“cosmo” to distinguish them from the components in the wormhole region. In the
region r < rc matter supporting the wormhole will be described by anisotropic
fluid, given by
 
T µν = diag − ρ(r, t), pr (r, t), pt (r, t), pt (r, t) , (12)

where the tensor components are density, radial pressure and tangential pressure
respectively. Since the anisotropic fluid supporting the wormhole must approach
the isotropic fluid of the bouncing Universe the following boundary conditions
need to be satisfied:
ρ(rc , t) = ρcosmo (t), (13)
pr (rc , t) = pcosmo (t), (14)
pt (rc , t) = pcosmo (t), (15)
also, at r = rc the relationships between the density and pressure of the fluid
supporting the cosmological wormholes needs to go to the cosmological equation
of state, for matter, radiation and quantum vacuum:

pr (rc , t) = pt (rc , t) = wρ(rc , t). (16)

4 Wormhole solutions and WEC around the bounce

We can proceed by deriving the equations of motion for wormholes around the
bounce. Here we are not interested in supporting the wormhole with some spe-
cific type of modification of gravity crafted in such a way so that the WEC
for matter fields is satisfied on the wormhole spacetime. We rather want to
show that even a minimal modification of gravity, supporting the cosmologi-
cal bounce, can on its own support the wormhole solutions contained in the
FRWL spacetime without the WEC violation. For this reason, while analysing
the wormhole solutions, we consider only the type of modification responsible
for supporting the cosmological bounce and that is S(t). Of course, in general,
modifications of action for gravity will lead to correction functions that will
in the wormhole region show also a radial dependence, i.e. S(t, r). However,
this radial dependence of modifications if not of interest for the analysis pre-
sented here. Adding an extra degree of freedom, coming from the presence of
radially dependent correction terms, just makes it additionally easier to achieve
the absence of WEC violation, while blurring the question of supporting the
wormholes by the existence of the cosmological bounce alone. For this reason,
we work in a setting where we neglect any additional effects of the modification
of gravity on the wormhole, apart from the correction needed to support the

8
bounce. Physically speaking, this assumption corresponds to considering such
theories for which modifications with respect to general relativity appear only
for very high values of curvature reached around the bounce, while leading to
negligible departures with respect to general relativity for the changes on the
spatial scales of the wormhole (thus making S practically constant with respect
to r).

Equations of motions (4) and (5) are valid for the isotropic case, however in
our case the fluid becomes anisotropic as generally pr (r, t) 6= pt (r, t) for the
wormhole geometry. Therefore the modified Einstein’s equations are slightly
different in the anisotropic case. Going back to equation (2) we define Gµν mod =
−8πGT µν mod where
 
T µν mod = diag − ρmod (t), pmod
r (t), pmod
t (t), pmod
t (t) , (17)

S(t)
ρmod (t) = , (18)
8πG
−1  a(t)Ṡ(t) 
pmod
r (t) = + S(t) , (19)
8πG 3ȧ(t)
−1  a(t)Ṡ(t) 
pmod
t (t) = + S(t) , (20)
8πG 3ȧ(t)
where the condition ∇µ Tµνmod
= 0 is satisfied from the definition above. In this
case the field equations are
mod
Hµν = 8πG(Tµν + Tµν ) − Gµν = 0. (21)

By putting the wormhole geometry (11) in field equation (21) we obtain the
following equations of motion
b0 (r)
3ȧ(t)2 e−2Φ(t,r) + r2
Htt = 8πGρ(t, r) + S(t) − = 0, (22)
a(t)2

a(t)Ṡ(t)
Hrr = + S(t)−
3ȧ(t)
r3 ȧ(t)2 e−2Φ(t,r) + 2rb(r)Φ0 (t, r) − 2r2 Φ0 (t, r) + b(r)
−
r3 a(t)2
 
2e−2Φ(t,r) ä(t) − ȧ(t)Φ̇(t, r)
− 8πGpr (t, r) = 0, (23)
a(t)

9
 1 
Hθθ = − 2ȧ(t)2 e−2Φ(t,r) +
2a(t)2
2r rΦ0 (t, r)2 + Φ0 (t, r) + rΦ00 (t, r) − b0 (r) (rΦ0 (t, r) + 1)


−
r2
b(r) 2r2 Φ0 (t, r)2 + 2r2 Φ00 (t, r) + rΦ0 (t, r) − 1  a(t)Ṡ(t)


+ +
r3 3ȧ(t)
 
2e−2Φ(t,r) ä(t) − ȧ(t)Φ̇(t, r)
S(t) − − 8πGpt (t, r) = 0, (24)
a(t)

ȧ(t)e−2Φ(t,r) Φ0 (t, r)
Htr = = 0, (25)
a(t)
where the dot denotes the time derivative and the prime the derivative with
respect to the radial coordinate r. From the off diagonal equation (25) it appears
that either Φ0 (t, r) = 0 or ȧ = 0, we choose the condition Φ0 (t, r) = 0 in order to
support the idea of a cosmological wormhole. Also, for simplicity and in order
to be sure that the wormhole is free from horizons we choose Φ(t, r) = 0.
We rescale the parameters in order to have a dimensionless system of equa-
tions in the following manner
ρ p r
Ω= , p̃ = , t̃ = H0 t, b̃ = H0 b, r̃ = , (26)
ρc ρc r0

where H02 = 8πGρc /3 and r0 is the radius of the throat. In principle H0 and
r0 are independent quantities, however, as mentioned before the critical case is
r0 = 1/H0 . This point represents the upper limit for the dimension of wormholes
(the throat radius is r0 ∼ 1026 m for the current measured H0 ), and in this
regime the assumption of a small cosmological wormhole, H0 r0 << 1, obviously
does not hold anymore. Interestingly, in our calculations there are no significant
qualitative differences for wormholes with throats smaller or bigger than r0 =
1/H0 with 10±10 orders of magnitude due to a highly suppressed radial functions
in the field equations with respect to the scale factor in the early Universe. In
other words, as will be discussed bellow, for the considered realistic values of
parameters the fluid supporting the wormholes approaches the limit of ideal
cosmological fluid very fast away from the throat. This confirms the robustness
of our discussion.
Now we need to inspect the Weak Energy Condition (WEC) at the throat
(r = r0 ) in order to support a wormhole. The WEC in our rescaled quantities
for the stress-energy tensor given by (12) reads [63, 64]

Ω ≥ 0, (27)
Ω + p̃radial ≥ 0, (28)
Ω + p̃tangential ≥ 0. (29)

By combining equations of motion (22)-(24) with the re-scaled quantities (26)

10
we can deduce the following useful expressions for the WEC analysis
˙ 2 + r̃2 a(t)2 S̃(t) − b̃0 (r)
−3r̃2 ã(t)
Ω(r, t) = − , (30)
3r̃2 a(t)2

1 
˙ b̃0 (r) − 3b̃(r)ã(t)+
˙
Ω(r, t) + p̃r (r, t) = 3r̃ã(t)
˙
9r̃3 a(t)2 ã(t)
˙

˙ 3 − 6r̃3 a(t)ã(t)
6r̃3 ã(t) ˙ ã(t)
¨ + r̃3 a(t)3 S̃(t) , (31)

1 
˙ b̃0 (r) + 3b̃(r)ã(t)+
˙
Ω(r, t) + p̃t (r, t) = 3r̃ã(t)
˙
18r̃3 a(t)2 ã(t)
˙

˙ 3 − 12r̃3 a(t)ã(t)
12r̃3 ã(t) ˙ ã(t)
¨ + 2r̃3 a(t)3 S̃(t) , (32)

where S̃(t) = H0−2 S(t), ã˙ = da/dt̃, ã

¨ = da2 /dt̃2 and we set Φ(r, t) = 0, based
on the previously mentioned considerations.
In order to inspect the bouncing region in the cosmological epoch we will use
the approximate form of S(t) given by equation (8) S(t) = S(t)bounce where we
fixed a(t) = amin + c(t − tb )2 /2. In that case we can proceed with an example
of a wormhole, where we choose the shape function as

r03
b(r) = , (33)
r2
which is one of the simplest function to preserve the flaring-out condition and
one of the most common form used in literature [61, 65].
Firstly, we present the time evolution of the throat (r = r0 ) around the
cosmological bounce for the density parameter Ω(r = r0 , t) on Fig. 1

11
Figure 1: Here we present the density parameter, Ω divided by factor 10124 , at
the throat, r = r0 = 10−2 /H0 , for different values of the parameter c̃. We also
assumed Φ(r, t) = 0, b(r) = r03 /r2 , S(t) = S(t)bounce , amin = 10−32 and the
cosmological parameters Ω0vac = 0.692, Ω0mat = 0.308 and Ω0rad = 10−4 .

The other two conditions for the WEC are depicted in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.

12
Figure 2: Here we present the component Ω + pr , divided by factor 10124 , at
the throat, r = r0 = 10−2 /H0 , for different values of the parameter c̃. We also
assumed Φ(r, t) = 0, b(r) = r03 /r2 , S(t) = S(t)bounce , amin = 10−32 and the
cosmological parameters Ω0vac = 0.692, Ω0mat = 0.308 and Ω0rad = 10−4 .

Figure 3: Here we present the component Ω + pt , divided by factor 10123 , at

the throat, r = r0 = 10−2 /H0 , for different values of the parameter c̃. We also
assumed Φ(r, t) = 0, b(r) = r03 /r2 , S(t) = S(t)bounce , amin = 10−32 and the
cosmological parameters Ω0vac = 0.692, Ω0mat = 0.308 and Ω0rad = 10−4 .

13
 It can be seen that at the cosmological bounce the WEC is “maximally”
satisfied at the throat in the sense that the inequalities for the WEC take maxi-
mally positive values. The value of the parameter c dictates how further in time
will the WEC be satisfied. Namely, with the higher value of c the scale factor
more rapidly increases, leading to a higher acceleration of the Universe. This
claim can also be supported by a simple analysis of equation (31). Firstly, the
equation (8) can be rewritten in a more general (and dimensionless) form
 ã˙ 2  
H0−2 S(t)bounce = S̃(t)bounce = 3 − 3 Ω0rad a−4 + Ω0mat a−3 − Ωvac , (34)
a
by taking the time derivative, d/dt̃, of the above equation we obtain

˙ 3ã˙ 0 0 2 ˙2 3¨
S̃(t)bounce = 5 (4Ωrad + 3Ωmat a − 2a ã + 2a ã). (35)
a
˙
Finally, by using S̃(t)bounce from equation (35) and putting it in equation (31)
we get the following, remarkably simple, result:

4 Ω0rad Ω0mat b̃ − r̃b̃0

Ω(r, t) + p̃r (r, t) = + − . (36)
3 a4 a3 3r̃3 a2
The first two positive contributions decrease with the power of a4 and a3 but
the last negative contribution (b − rb0 , which is nothing else than the flaring-
out condition) decrease with the power of a2 . This explains why at the bounce
where a is minimal the WEC is satisfied. Similarly, but in a bit more relaxed
way, the third condition (32) behaves like

4 Ω0rad Ω0mat 4  H 2 b̃ + r̃b̃0 ¨

4 ã
Ω(r, t) + p̃t (r, t) = 4
+ 3
+ + 2
− , (37)
3 a a 9 H0 6a 9a
where the positive acceleration ä dominates at late times.
In our model for S(t) = S(t)bounce it is possible to find at which times the
WEC is broken. The most difficult condition to satisfy is the condition given
by equation (36), by solving it with a(t) = amin + ct2 /2, (tb = 0) we get four
solutions
r  
2amin c̃(r̃b̃0 − b̃) ± c̃2 r̃3 16Ω0rad (b̃ − r̃b̃0 ) + 9r̃3 (Ω0mat )2 + 3c̃r̃3 Ω0mat !1/2
t̃ = ±   ,
c̃2 b̃ − r̃b̃0
(38)
from which the real solutions, in the case b(r) = r03 /r2 , c̃ = 105 with the cosmo-
logical parameters Ω0rad = 10−4 and Ω0mat = 0.308, results in t ∼ ±0.00248/H0 .
Again, the result highly depends on the parameter c̃, on the acceleration of a
around the bounce, where for example with c̃ ∼ 0.617 the time approaches to
1/H0 . However, we should remember that such calculations can be assumed
to be valid only around the bounce, so high values of the time interval for the

14
existence of wormholes, comparable to the age of the Universe, obviously have
no physical interest – since after the bounce is finished the functional forms for
a(t) and S(t) assumed here are no longer valid. We can thus conclude from
this discussion that for proper values of the acceleration of a(t), cosmological
wormholes can exist as long as the bouncing phase. Interestingly, the solutions
do not depend on the constant vacuum energy Ω0vac as only the derivative Ṡ(t)
appears in the equation (31).

We can also analyze the asymptotic, r → ∞, behaviour of the wormhole. Firstly,

it can be seen that from the flaring-out condition b(r) − b0 (r)r > 0 the critical
asymptotic case (b(r) − b0 (r)r = 0) is given by

lim b(r) ∼ r, (39)

r→+∞

therefore, functions b(r) which have the asymptotic behaviour with greater
power in r are not allowed as a representation of a wormhole. By taking this
limit in the field equations (22)-(25) we indeed recover the cosmological equa-
tions given in [39] with the properties given by (16) when r → ∞. Therefore,
the fluid supporting the wormhole for large r approaches the values of pressures
and densities of the cosmological fluid fast, thus confirming the consistency of
the approximation of a small cosmological wormhole set up in a FLRW space-
time and supported by the cosmological bounce. It can also be easily seen that
equations are everywhere regular for all the values of r at and away from the
throat, and that they approach the homogeneous and isotropic limit fast for
r > r0 . Since the plots for r dependence of the fluid densities and pressures
thus do not reveal any new information, while WEC is simply satisfied away
from the throat, and the differences in values with respect to the cosmological
fluid values are minimal, we do not show those plots here.

5 Discussion and conclusion

In this work we have discussed the existence of wormholes during the cosmolog-
ical bounce without the need for additional exotic matter supporting the worm-
hole. We have considered the approximation of a small cosmological wormhole,
whose fluid components needed for supporting its geometry, for large enough
values of r, approach the components of the ideal cosmological fluid and whose
dynamics is dictated by the time evolution of the cosmological scale factor, a(t).
Thus, this geometry can be treated as a dynamical wormhole situated in the
FLRW spacetime. By considering the most general form of modified gravity
on FLRW spacetime coming from the mathematical generalizations of action,
needed for the existence of bounce replacing the big bang singularity, we have
obtained the cosmological wormhole solutions which do not need any additional
exotic matter, that is, which satisfy WEC. This is possible since the same mod-
ification of gravity which supports the bounce can at the same time support the
existence of wormholes, and no additional exotic matter is thus needed. The

15
effect leading to simultaneous support of a bounce and a small wormhole geom-
etry is described by the function S(t), and is arising from the generalization of
action for gravity, while all the matter fields, Ω, are completely standard and do
not contain any new exotic component. We have thus demonstrated that the
cosmological bounce in general represents an ideal environment for the natural
creation of wormholes. Such wormholes could then serve as tunnels through
spacetime in the early Universe, connecting very distant points that would oth-
erwise be causally disconnected. Therefore, the existence of wormholes around
the bounce can further help to solve the horizon problem, relaxing the necessary
duration of the bouncing phase in order to obtain the causal picture implied by
the CMB. We have also demonstrated that such wormholes spontaneously start
to violate WEC after a certain time, which strongly depends on the rate of accel-
eration of the cosmological scale factor during the bounce. This can mean that
after such critical time wormholes can no longer be supported in the Universe
and vanish. This opens an interesting problem of detailed physical description
of “death of a dynamic wormhole”, which is left for future work. Solving this
problem could also be helpful for our better understanding of how to construct
wormholes artificially (which is just the inverse of the mentioned problem in
time).

References
[1] E. Berti et al., Class. Quantum Grav. 32, 243001 (2015), arXiv:1501.07274
[gr-qc]
[2] C. M. Will, Living Rev. Relativity 17 (2014), 4, arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]
[3] S. G. Turyshev, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 58:207-248 (2008),
arXiv:0806.1731 [gr-qc]

[4] The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 116, 221101 (2016), arXiv:1602.03841 [gr-qc]
[5] S. W. Hawking. Roy. Soc. P c. A-Math Phy., 294(1439):511- 521. (1966)
[6] S. W. Hawking. Roy. Soc. II. P c. A-Math Phy., 295(1443):490-493. (1966)

[7] S. W. Hawking. Roy. Soc. III. P c. A-Math Phy., 300(1461):187-201. (1967)

[8] Y. F. Cai, S. H. Chen, J. B. Dent, S. Dutta and E. N. Saridakis,
Class.Quantum Grav. 28, 215011 (2011), arXiv:1104.4349 [astro-ph.CO]
[9] S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rev. D 91, 064036 (2015),
arXiv:1502.06125 [gr-qc]
[10] M. Roshan, F. Shojai, Physical Review D 94, 044002 (2016),
arXiv:1607.06049 [gr-qc]

16
[11] A. Salehi, M. Mahmoudi-Fard, Eur.Phys.J. C78 (2018) no.3, 232,
arXiv:1709.04055 [gr-qc]
[12] S. Pan, Mod.Phys.Lett. A33 (2018) no.01, 1850003, arXiv:1712.01215 [gr-
qc]

[13] R.I. Ivanov, E. M. Prodanov, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A33 (2018) no.03, 1850025,

arXiv:1902.00556 [gr-qc]
[14] S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, E. N. Saridakis, Nucl.Phys. B949 (2019) 114790,
arXiv:1908.00389 [gr-qc]
[15] P. Bari, K. Bhattacharya, S. Chakraborty, Universe 4 (2018) no.10, 105

[16] A. Casalino, B. Sanna, L. Sebastiani, S. Zerbini, Phys. Rev. D 103, 023514

(2021), arXiv:2010.07609 [gr-qc]
[17] Minas, G.; Saridakis, E.N.; Stavrinos, P.C.; Triantafyllopoulos, A.
Bounce Cosmology in Generalized Modified Gravities. Universe 2019, 5, 74,
arXiv:1902.06558 [gr-qc]
[18] J. K. Singh, K. Bamba, R. Nagpal, S. K. J. Pacif Phys. Rev. D 97, 123536
(2018), arXiv:1807.01157 [gr-qc]
[19] Y. Cai, Yun-Song Piao, JHEP 1709 (2017) 027, arXiv:1705.03401 [gr-qc]

[20] Y. Cai, Y. Wan, Hai-Guang Li, T. Qiu, Yun-Song Piao, JHEP01(2017)090,

arXiv:1610.03400 [gr-qc]
[21] Y. Cai, Hai-Guang Li, T. Qiu, Yun-Song Piao, Eur.Phys.J. C77 (2017)
no.6, 369, arXiv:1701.04330 [gr-qc]
[22] S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and T. Paul, Phys. Dark Univ. 35 (2022), 100984
arXiv:2202.02695 [gr-qc]
[23] E. Elizalde, S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and T. Paul, Nucl. Phys. B
954 (2020), 114984 arXiv:2003.04264 [gr-qc]
[24] S.D. Odintsov and T. Paul, Universe 8 (2022) no.5, 292 arXiv:2205.09447
[gr-qc]
[25] S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and T. Paul, Class. Quant. Grav. 37
(2020) no.23, 235005 arXiv:2009.09947 [gr-qc]
[26] S. D. Odintsov, V. K. Oikonomou and T. Paul, Nucl. Phys. B (2020),
115159 arXiv:2008.13201 [gr-qc]

[27] S. D. Odintsov, T. Paul, I. Banerjee, R. Myrzakulov and S. SenGupta,

Phys. Dark Univ. 33 (2021), 100864 arXiv:2109.00345 [gr-qc]
[28] Ph. Brax and D. A. Steer, Phys. Rev. D 66, 061501(R) (2002)

17
[29] Y. Shtanov, V. Sahni, Phys.Lett.B557:1-6 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0208047
[30] R. Myrzakulov, L. Sebastiani, Astrophys.Space Sci. 352 (2014) 281-288,
arXiv:1403.0681 [gr-qc]
[31] I. Brevik, A. Timoshkin, Universe 1 (2015) 1, 24-37, arXiv:1503.02916 [gr-
qc]
[32] F. Finelli, P. Peter, N. Pinto-Neto, Phys. Rev. D 77, 103508 (2008),
arXiv:0709.3074 [gr-qc]
[33] A. Das, Debaprasad Maity, Tanmoy Paul, Soumitra SenGupta,
Eur.Phys.J.C 77 (2017) 12, 813, arXiv:1706.00950 [hep-th]

[34] D. Nandi, Phys.Lett.B 809 (2020) 135695, arXiv:2003.02066 [astro-ph.CO]

[35] B. Vakili, K. Nozari, V. Hosseinzadeh, M. A. Gorji, Mod.Phys.Lett.A 29
(2014) 32, 1450169, arXiv:1408.4535 [gr-qc]
[36] P. Pavlovic, M. Sossich, Phys.Rev.D 95 (2017) 10, 103519,
arXiv:1701.03657 [gr-qc]
[37] P. Pavlovic, M. Sossich, Phys.Rev.D 103 (2021) 2, 023529,
arXiv:2009.03625 [gr-qc]
[38] N. Leite, P. Pavlovic, Class.Quant.Grav. 35 (2018) 21, 215005,
arXiv:1805.06036 [gr-qc]
[39] P. Pavlovic, M. Sossich, Physics of the Dark Universe, vol. 39, (2023)
101161, arXiv:2112.09523 [gr-qc]
[40] M.S. Morris, K.S. Thorne, Am. J. Phys. 56, 395 (1988)

[41] T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, M. K. Mak, S. V. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. D87,

067504 (2013), arXiv:1301.6878 [gr-qc]
[42] F.S.N. Lobo, AIP Conf. Proc. 1458, 447 (2011), arXiv:1112.6333 [gr-qc]
[43] F.S.N. Lobo, M. A. Oliveira, Phys. Rev. D 80, 104012 (2009),
arXiv:0909.5539 [gr-qc]

[44] P. Pavlovic, M. Sossich, Eur.Phys.J. C75 117 (2015), arXiv:1406.2509 [gr-

qc]
[45] Z. Amirabi, M. Halilsoy, S.H. Mazharimousavi, Phys. Rev. D 88, 124023
(2013), arXiv:1103.3019 [gr-qc]

[46] S. Habib Mazharimousavi, M. Halilsoy, Mod.Phys.Lett.A 31 (2016) 37,

1650203, arXiv:1209.2015 [gr-qc]
[47] Z. Yousaf, M. Ilyas, M.Z. Bhatti, Mod.Phys.Lett.A 32 (2017) 30, 1750163

18
[48] P.H.R.S. Moraes, R.A.C. Correa, R.V. Lobato, JCAP 07 (2017) 029,
arXiv:1701.01028 [gr-qc]
[49] N. Godani, New Astron. 94 (2022) 101774
[50] M. Zubair, F. Kousar, R. Saleem, Chin.J.Phys. 65 (2020) 355-366

[51] B. Mishra, A.S. Agrawal, S.K. Tripathy, S. Ray, Int.J.Mod.Phys.D 30

(2021) 08, 2150061, arXiv:2104.05440 [gr-qc]
[52] G. Mustafa, Z. Hassan, P.H.R.S. Moraes, P.K. Sahoo, Physics Letters B,
821 (2021) 136612, arXiv:2108.01446 [gr-qc]

[53] M. R. Mehdizadeh, A. H. Ziaie, Phys.Rev.D 104 (2021) 10, 104050,

arXiv:2111.14828 [gr-qc]
[54] O. Sokoliuk, S. Mandal, P.K. Sahoo, A. Baransky, Eur.Phys.J.C 82 (2022)
4, 280, arXiv:2204.00223 [gr-qc]
[55] R. Ahmed, G. Abbas, Int.J.Geom.Meth.Mod.Phys. 19 (2022) 07, 2250109

[56] K. Jusufi, M. Jamil, M. Rizwan, Gen.Rel.Grav. 51 (2019) 8, 102,

arXiv:1903.01227 [gr-qc]
[57] O. Genc, Eur.Phys.J.Plus 134 (2019) 7, 356
[58] F. Tello-Ortiz, S.K. Maurya, P. Bargueño, Eur.Phys.J.C 81 (2021) 5, 426,
Eur.Phys.J.C 82 (2022) 8, 742 (erratum)
[59] De-Chang Dai, D. Minic, D. Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. D 98, 124026 (2018),
arXiv:1810.03432 [hep-th]
[60] De-Chang Dai, D. Minic, D. Stojkovic, Eur. Phys. J. C (2020) 80:1103,
arXiv:2010.03947 [gr-qc]
[61] S. Bahamonde, M. Jamil, P. Pavlovic, M. Sossich, Phys.Rev.D 94 (2016)
4, 044041, arXiv:1606.05295 [gr-qc]
[62] Sung-Won Kim, Phys. Rev. D 53, 6889 (1996)

[63] M. Visser, Lorentzian Wormholes (Springer, Berlin, 1996)

[64] E. Curiel, Einstein Stud. 13 (2017)
[65] L. Sebastiani, S. Vagnozzi, R. Myrzakulov, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2017
(2017) 3156915, arXiv:1612.08661 [gr-qc]

19