Dynamical stability and phase space analysis of an Emergent Universe with

non-interacting and interacting fluids

Bikash Chandra Roy 1 ,∗ Anirban Chanda 1 ,† and Bikash Chandra Paul 1‡
1
Department of Physics, University of North Bengal, Raja Rammohunpur, 734013, India
(Dated: 19/11/2023)
We investigate evolution of a flat Emergent Universe (EU) obtained with a non-linear equation of
state (nEoS) in Einstein’s general theory of Relativity. The nEoS is equivalent to three different
types of barotropic cosmic fluid, which is known from the nEoS parameter. The EU began expanding
initially with no interaction among the cosmic fluids. Assuming an interaction that sets in at a
time t > ti among the fluid components, we study the evolution of the EU that leads to the present
observed universe. A dynamical system analysis is performed to characterize the cosmological
evolution and the stable behavior of the critical points of the autonomous system for an EU with or
without interaction. The autonomous system of ordinary differential equations of the field equations
are used to derive the evolution using dimensionless parameters. We determine critical points, and we
analyze the stability of the critical points, drawing the phase portraits. The density parameters and
arXiv:2401.00782v1 [gr-qc] 1 Jan 2024

the corresponding cosmological parameters are obtained for both the non-interacting and interacting
phases to explore the dynamics of evolution.
Key Words : Emergent Universe, Dynamical analysis, Cosmological Parameters

I. INTRODUCTION models beyond the ΛCDM model [33–47], that aim to

Cosmology has transitioned from speculative science
to experimental science with the advent of precision mea-
surements from different cosmological missions over the
last few decades. The present-day cosmological observa-
tions made it clear that the observed universe is not only
expanding but is accelerating [1–6]. It is known that the
most successful theory to describe gravitational interac-
tion is Einstein’s theory of General Relativity (GR) and
based on GR, the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM)
model is the most acceptable cosmological model. It ac-
commodates the accelerating expansion of the universe
and matches well with astronomical observations. Al-
though the standard model agrees with most of the re-
cent cosmological observations, it is plagued with several
problems, namely, the horizon problem, flatness problem,
singularity problem, etc. [7, 8]. To resolve several of
these early universe issues, the idea of cosmic inflation
is proposed in the literature, where a rapid expansion
of space in the early universe engulfed the entire space
in the universe in a very short interval of time. Guth,
Linde and others show that a homogeneous scalar field
in the framework of standard cosmology permits such
inflation [9–11]. Furthermore, it was shown that inflation
can describe the large-scale structure formation of the
universe. It is known that the ΛCDM model also suffers
from some conceptual issues, namely, the cosmological
constant problem, the coincidence problem, the Hubble
tension, the σ8 tension, etc. [12–20]. Consequently a num-
ber of papers [21–32] came up to resolve the above issues
with a modified theories of gravity and several GR-based
∗ bcroy.bcr25@gmail.com
† aniphys93@nbu.ac.in
‡ bcpaul@nbu.ac.in
resolve the above issues.
Later modifications beyond ΛCDM lead to different
dynamical dark energy (DE) models, namely, Chaplygin
gas [33] and its variations [34], [35], models consisting of
one or more scalar fields namely, quintessence [36], [37],
[38], etc. are considered. A detailed review of different
DE models having fluids with non-linear equations of
state which includes quintessence, K-essence, Tachyon,
Phantom, etc., can be found in the Refs. [39–47]. The
modified theories of gravity were employed to explore the
connection between modification of the early inflationary
phase with the late time acceleration phase [48]. In the
literature, different modified gravitational theories are
considered to explain several astrophysical and cosmolog-
ical phenomena and the viabilities of these models are
also tested using astronomical observations [49], [50], [51],
[52].
In the standard model, the existence of the initial Big
Bang singularity is a crucial issue in constructing a cos-
mological model since it can be probed to know whether
our universe originated from a singularity at the begin-
ning or has always existed. The lack of a solution to this
fundamental issue in the setting of inflationary cosmol-
ogy motivated several authors to develop pre-inflationary
scenarios or initially an emergent universe (EU) with no
singularity[53, 54] and cyclic scenarios[55], which are typ-
ically non-singular, a signature of the past eternal. Some
alternative singularity-free cosmological models are found
in the literature inspired by the generally accepted theory
that incorporating quantum gravity (QG) phenomena at
a very low scale leads to the natural disappearance of
singularities [56, 57].
The EU scenario is one of the prominent possibilities
that has been given careful consideration by various au-
thors which originated from a non-singular state. It is
known that the EU scenario was first proposed by Ellis
and Maartens to avoid the singularity problem of Big

Bang cosmology [53]. In an EU, the universe emerges as
an Einstein static universe in the infinite past (t → −∞)
and avoids the initial singularity by staying large at all
times. The universe gradually expands slowly to attain
a Big Bang phase of expansion. In the EU model, an
inflationary universe emerges from a static phase and
eventually leads to a macroscopic universe that occupies
the present observed universe. Once inflation starts, it
remains in that phase, explaining the present acceleration.
Ellis et al. [54] obtained an EU scenario for a closed
(k = 1, k being the curvature parameter) universe consid-
ering a minimally coupled scalar field (ϕ) with a special
choice of potential where the universe exits from its in-
flationary phase and gradually reheats as the scalar field
starts oscillating around the minimum of the potential.
Later, it was shown that such a potential occurs naturally
by the conformal transformation of the Einstein-Hilbert
action with αR2 term, where α is a coupling constant.
Present observations indicate that the universe is almost
flat (k = 0) with a negligible spatial curvature. EU sce-
nario in a flat universe can be obtained in a semi-classical
theory of gravity. In the Starobinsky model, Mukherjee et
al. obtained an EU with all its features in a flat Robert-
son–Walker (RW) spacetime geometry [58]. Mukherjee et
al. [59] proposed another interesting class of EU model
considering a non-linear equation of state (nEoS) in a flat
universe. In this framework, the cosmic fluid is equivalent
to a mixture of three different types of fluid, described by
the nEoS given by:
√ density and pressure are determined for non-interacting
p = Aρ − B ρ, (1)
where A and B are constant parameters. The composition
of the cosmic fluid is determined for a given value of
the EoS parameter A. Various theories of gravity, such
as the Brans–Dicke theory [60], brane world cosmology
[61], Gauss-Bonnet modified gravity [62], Loop quantum
cosmology [63], Energy-momentum squared gravity [64],
f (R, T ) gravity [65], etc. are among the theories of gravity
where EU models are explored. A non-linear sigma model
was used to study the EU [66]. An EU model with particle
creation and irreversible matter creation is also studied
by Ghosh and Gangopadhyay using a thermodynamical
approach [67]. The validity of EU models is studied using
recent cosmological observations with the estimation of
the observational constraints on the model parameters
[68–70]. Recently [71] studied the EU scenario described
by a nEoS in addition to viscosity. The observational
bounds of the model parameters are determined.
The objective of the paper is to study the EU with or
without interacting fluids and to analyze the dynamical
systems obtained from the field equations. In a non-
interacting case for the EU, the cosmic fluids are fixed for
a given EoS parameter A. However, for a fluid where in-
teraction sets in after time t ≥ ti , the interaction strength
plays a crucial role in the evolution of the late universe.
The above idea incorporated in the EU model is realistic
because there are cosmological models where the cosmic
fluid components interact with one another via energy ex-
2
change from one sector of the fluid to the other. Recently,
different cosmological models with interaction among the
dark sectors gained popularity [72–76]. It is interesting
to note that although the individual fluid components
violate the energy conservation equation in the case of
interacting cosmology, the total energy density remains
conserved. In this case, we consider that the universe
evolved from a radiation-dominated epoch to begin with
enter into a matter and DE-dominated era when the in-
teraction sets in at late times. As the field equations
are highly complex here we adopt the dynamical system
analysis technique [77] to investigate the behaviour of
the cosmological dynamics of the EU in the presence of
non-interaction or interaction. We use the dynamical
system analysis to study the behaviour of a cosmological
model under small perturbations, which can provide some
crucial insights into the model’s viability. Besides this, it
contributes to understanding the structure as well as the
evolution of the universe. The implications of dynamical
system analysis in a cosmological model are studied in
the literature [78, 79]. In the literature, dynamical sys-
tem analysis in modified theories of gravity is employed
for understanding the features of the universe [80–84].
In the paper, we study both the interacting as well as
non-interacting cosmic fluids in a flat EU, considering a
system of autonomous differential equations.
The paper is organized as follows: In sec. (II), the
basic field equations for the EU are obtained in a homoge-
neous, isotropic and spatially flat space-time. The energy
and interacting cases differently in subsections (II A) and
(II B), respectively. Assuming an epoch when interaction
sets in say t > ti , the cosmic fluids and the conservation
equations for the fluid’s components are rewritten. The
effective EoS parameters in the presence of interaction
are determined by the strength of the interaction. In sec.
(III), The field equations are rewritten as differential equa-
tions and the dynamical system analysis methodology is
adopted for the study of the autonomous system with the
interacting or non-interacting fluids. The evolutionary
behaviour of the EU is presented. Cosmological implica-
tions of the critical points are also discussed. Finally, we
summarize the result obtained here in sec. (IV).
II. FIELD EQUATIONS FOR EMERGENT
UNIVERSE
The Einstein field equation (EFE) is
1
Rµν − gµν R = Tµν , (2)
2
where, Rµν is the Ricci tensor, R is the Ricci scalar, gµν
is the metric tensor and Tµν is the energy-momentum
tensor of the cosmic fluid. We work in natural units,
c2 = 8πG = 1.
We assume a homogeneous, isotropic and spatially flat
spacetime described by the Robertson-Walker (RW) met-
 3

2BK 1 K2 1
ric, which is (1+A)2 a 32 (1+A) and ρ3 = (1+A)2 a3(1+A) ). Now, using the
h i energy density in Eq. (1) we determine the pressure,
ds2 = −dt2 + a2 (t) dr2 + r2 (dθ2 + sin2 θ dϕ2 ) , (3) which is

where a(t) is the scale factor of the universe and r, θ, and B2 BK(A − 1) 1
p=− 2
+ 2 3
ϕ are the comoving coordinates. (1 + A) (1 + A) a 2 (1+A)

Using the metric given by Eq. (3) in EFE and the

Energy momentum tensor Tνµ = (ρ, −p, −p, −p) where ρ
AK 2 1
denotes the energy density and p denotes the pressure of + , (10)
2
(1 + A) a3(1+A)
the cosmic fluid we get

3H 2 = ρ, (4) it contains three different terms that correspond to

B2
three different types of fluids, namely, p1 = − (1+A)2,
2

2
p2 = BK(A−1) 1 AK 1
(1+A)2 a 23 (1+A) and p3 = (1+A)2 a3(1+A) are iden-
2Ḣ + 3H = −p, (5)
tified with different barotropic fluids depending on A.
here, H = ȧa being the Hubble parameter. The energy Comparing with the barotropic EoS given by pi = ωi ρi
conservation equation for the cosmic fluids is given by we get ω1 = −1, ω2 = A−1 2 and ω3 = A. The first term
can be interpreted as a cosmological constant that accom-
ρ̇ + 3H(ρ + p) = 0. (6) modates the DE sector of the universe. The parameter A
plays an important role in determining the composition
Using Eqs. (4) and (5) and the nEoS given in Eq. (1), of the fluids in the universe. In Table (I), the composition
one obtains a second-order differential equation for the of the cosmic fluids is shown for different values of A
scale factor, parameter (see also [59]). So, for a specific value of A,
 2 the composition of the cosmic fluid is fixed in the case of
ä ȧ √ ȧ non-interaction.
2 + (3A + 1) − 3B = 0. (7) Thus, there is a limitation in the case of noninteracting
a a a
fluids. Once A is fixed, the types of fluids in the universe
On integrating the above equation twice, we obtain the are fixed. However, in the presence of interacting fluids,
scale factor (a(t)) given by, the evolution of the universe will be interesting. When
i 2 interaction sets in with a given strength of interaction at
h 3K(1 + A)  √
2 3Bt 3(1+A) a later epoch, it is possible to transform a universe with
a(t) = K1 + √ e 2 , (8)
2 3B a composition of flids to another which encompass the
present universe.
where K and K1 are the two integration constants. It is
evident that it leads to a singular universe if B < 0, but
one gets a nonsingular solution in the case B > 0 and B. Interacting fluids
A > −1. The latter solution is interesting, which leads to
an emergent universe (EU) that emerges from an initial In this subsection, we explore the effect of interaction
Einstein static phase. The scale factor a(t) remains finite among the cosmic fluids. It is known that in the early
even at an infinite past (t → −∞). universe, interactions may have originated among the
cosmic fluids because of different reasons. The matter-
energy content of the universe is fixed throughout the
A. Non-interacting fluids universe’s evolution in the non-interacting case of EU for
a fixed value of A [59]. The composition of cosmic matter
To begin with, we consider that the cosmic fluid de- changes and different components dominate at different
scribed by the nEoS is not interacting. Consequently, the epochs of the universe which is shown in an interacting
conservation equation given by Eq.(6) and Eq. (1) yields fluid scenario [85] earlier.
the energy density as follows: We assume the interaction among the fluids that sets
in at t > ti , where ti is the time when interaction began.
B2 2BK 1 We start with A = 13 , which corresponds to a universe
ρ= +
(1 + A)2 (1 + A)2 a 32 (1+A) with DE, cosmic string, and radiation with no interaction.
In this subsection, for exploring the dynamical evolution
of an EU we assume an interaction that may originated
K2 1 between the DE and cosmic string (CS) sectors and ra-
+ , (9)
(1 + A)2 a3(1+A) diation at t ≥ ti . The energy densities of DE and CS
satisfied the following conservation equations [72–75],
Therefore we find that the energy density is equivalent
B2
to three different fluids given by : (ρ1 = (1+A)2 , ρ2 = ρ̇1 + 3H(ρ1 + p1 ) = Q, (11)
 4

TABLE I: Composition of universal matter for various values of A

ρ2 ρ3
A Λ
ω2 Λ
ω3 Fluid Compositions
in unit K
B
in unit ( K
B
)2
1 9
3 8a2
− 13 9
8a4
1
3
dark energy,
cosmic string (CS) and radiation
- 31 9
2a
− 23 9
4a4
- 31 dark energy,
domain wall (DW) and cosmic string
1 1
1 2a3
0 4a6
1 dark energy,
dust and stiff matter (SM)
2
0 8a3/2
− 12 1
a3
0 dark energy,
exotic matter (EM) and dust

ρ̇2 + 3H(ρ2 + p2 ) = −Q, (12) Using Eqs. (9), (13) and (14), the total energy density
for the cosmic fluid was obtained, which yields
where ρ1 , p1 are the energy density and pressure of the
DE and ρ2 , p2 are the energy density and pressure of ρ = ρ10 a−3(1+ω1
ef f
) ef f
+ ρ20 a−3(1+ω2 )
+ ρ30 a−3(1+A) , (17)
CS sectors. Q represents the strength of interaction,
which may assume arbitrary forms. There are no strict B 2
2BK K2
where ρ10 = (1+A) 2 , ρ20 = (1+A)2 and ρ30 = (1+A)2 , and
constraints on the sign of Q and depending on its sign,
energy may flow from one sector of fluid to the other. In the effective EoS parameters are,
this case, Q > 0 corresponds to an energy transfer from
the cosmic string sector to the dark energy sector, and ω1ef f = −1 − η, ω2ef f = ω2 + ηα, (18)
Q < 0 corresponds to an energy transfer from the DE ρ1
sector to CS. From Eqs. (11) and (12) it demonstrates where α = ρ2 is a positive quantity and ω2 = − 13 . In
that the individual fluids violate the conservation equation this paper, we consider ω2ef f = 0 for getting a matter-
while the total energy density of the cosmic fluids however dominated universe. Hence, the value of η must be > 0,
satisfy the usual form of conservation equation which is corresponding to an increasing DE density. For η > 0,
[85], the effective EoS of DE deviates from the non-interacting
case and lies in the phantom region.
ρ̇1 + 3H(1 + ω1ef f )ρ1 = 0 (13) Finally, the expression for the pressure in an interacting
universe can be determined which are
ρ̇2 + 3H(1 + ω2ef f )ρ3 = 0 (14) (1 + η)B 2 1 2BK(ω2 + ηα) 1
p=− 2 ef f + 2 ef f
(1 + A) a 3(1+ω ) (1 + A) a3(1+ω )
where ω1ef f and ω3ef f are the effective EoS parameters 1 2

defined as,
Q Q AK 2 1
ω1ef f = ω1 − , ω2ef f = ω2 + , (15) + 2
(1 + A) a3(1+A)
. (19)
3Hρ1 3Hρ2
where it is evident that the effective EoS parameter now
depends on the interaction strength. Different functional III. DYNAMICAL ANALYSIS OF THE MODEL
forms of interactions were taken up in the literature.
There are no strict rules to assume a particular form
The dynamical system analysis is based on differential
of interaction. Some phenomenological choices are made
equations associated with the time derivatives. There is
initially, which are then verified using astronomical obser-
no unique theory for exploring dynamic systems. The evo-
vations. Several authors have considered different forms
lution rule governing the dynamical system should thus
of Q such as Q ∝ ρ1 [86], Q ∝ ρ̇1 [87], Q ∝ ρ2 [88, 89].
be examined in various ways to determine its different
Cosmological models obtained using several of these in-
features. Thus, instead of solving the nonlinear differ-
teractions are found consistent with the observational
ential equations which are highly nonlinear, we adopt a
results [90, 91]. Thus, any new interaction form must
technique to represent the dynamical equations to an-
be constrained using observations to construct a stable
alyze the stability of the system. The stability can be
cosmological model. In this paper, we consider a linear
examined using various methods, including Jacobi stabil-
form of interaction given by,
ity, Kosambi-Cartan-Chern (KCC) theory, and Lyapunov
Q = 3Hηρ1 , (16) methods. In the paper, we shall use the Jacobi stability
analysis to perform the dynamical system analysis of the
where η is a coupling parameter that denotes the interac- background equations of EU model with non-interacting
tion strength. and interacting cases.
 5

A. Non-interacting case 2

For the study of the EU model with the non-interacting

case, we consider below 2 dynamical variables, x and
1
y, which transform the field equations in terms of the P
dynamical variables as,
2BK 1
x= , (20) 0
(1 + A)2 3H 2 a 32 (1+A) R Q

K2 1
y= 2 2 3(1+A)
. (21) -1
(1 + A) 3H a

Using the above dynamical variables, the field Eq. (9)

reduces to, -2

-2 -1 0 1 2
ΩDE = 1 − x − y, (22)
FIG. 1: The figure shows 2D phase portrait of the
B2 1
where ΩDE = (1+A)2 3H 2 and from Eq. (10), we get autonomous system for the EU with non-interacting
fluids
Ḣ 3 x 
= − (1 + A) + y . (23)
H2 2 2
This behaviour of the critical point leads to the de-
Then we can differentiate x and y with respect to N = celerating phase of the Universe. The corresponding
ln a which can be rewritten as two differential equations: eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix: {4, 2}, i.e., they
are all positive hence the point is an unstable node.
3 Ḣ The point P (0, 1) also describes the CS-dominated,
x′ = − (1 + A)x − 2x 2 , (24)
2 H stiff matter-dominated and dust-dominated universe
for A = − 13 , A = 1 and A = 0, respectively. The
solution corresponds to an unstable node.
Ḣ
y ′ = −3(1 + A)y − 2y . (25)
H2 • Critical point Q(1, 0): We obtain a CS dominated
universe with Ωcs = 1 for A = 13 at this point.
Now, we can redefine deceleration parameter q and the
The EoS parameter and deceleration parameter are
total EoS state parameter ωtotal as follows:
ωtotal = − 31 and q = 0 respectively. This behaviour
of the critical point leads to the critical phase of
Ḣ 3 x 
q = −1 − = −1 + (1 + A) + y (26) the Universe. At the point Q, the eigenvalues of the
H2 2 2 Jacobian matrix: {−2, 2}, they are opposite in sign
and it corresponds to a saddle. This point Q is also a
saddle point for A = − 13 , A = 1 and A = 0.
Ḣ x 
ωtotal = −1 − = −1 + (1 + A) + y . (27) • Critical point R(0, 0): At the point, it corresponds
H2 2
to solution of the DE-dominated phase of the uni-
We use the 2D autonomous system of differential equations verse with ΩDE = 1. For A = 13 , the EoS parameter
(24) - (25) to explore the different features, determining and deceleration parameters are ωef f = −1 and
the critical points and carrying out the local stability q = −1, respectively. Therefore, this critical point
of these points. The critical points for the systems are: leads to the accelerated phase of expansion of the
P (0, 1), Q(1, 0) and R(0, 0). Table II provides the criti- Universe. The eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix
cal points and the cosmological behavior. The detailed are {−4, −2}, i.e., they are all negative in sign, giv-
description of each critical point has been narrated below ing the point R is a stable node.
for different values of model parameter A:
In Fig. 1, the 2D phase portrait has been given. This
• Critical point P (0, 1): For the case A = 13 , this shows the trajectory behaviour, first going from the re-
point corresponds to the density parameters are, peller point P to the saddle point Q and subsequently
ΩDE = 0, Ωcs = 0 and Ωr = 1. This implies from Q to the stable point R. Further, the evolution plot
that the critical point becomes absolutely radiation- for cosmological parameters has been given in Fig. 2.
dominated. The EoS parameter and deceleration From the evolution curve, it is shown that the universe
parameter are ωtotal = 13 and q = 1 respectively. is accelerating at the present epoch. The present value
 6

TABLE II: Critical Points and the corresponding cosmology with non-interacting fluids for different values A

A critical point ΩDE Ω2 Ω3 Phase of Universe ωtotal q Eigenvalues Stability

1
(0, 1) 0 0 1 Radiation dominated 3
1 {4, 2} Unstable node
1
3
(1, 0) 0 1 0 CS dominated − 13 0 {−2, 2} saddle
(0, 0) 1 0 0 DE dominated −1 −1 {−4, −2} Stable node
(0, 1) 0 0 1 CS dominated − 13 0 {2, 1} Unstable node
− 13 (1, 0) 0 1 0 Domain Wall dominated − 23 − 12 {−1, 1} saddle
(0, 0) 1 0 0 DE dominated −1 −1 {−2, −1} Stable node
(0, 1) 0 0 1 stiff matter dominated 1 2 {6, 3} Unstable node
1
1 (1, 0) 0 1 0 dust dominated 0 2
{−3, 3} saddle
(0, 0) 1 0 0 DE dominated −1 −1 {−6, 3} Stable node
1
(0, 1) 0 0 1 Dust dominated 0 2
{3, 32 } Unstable node
0 (1, 0) 0 1 0 Exotic matter dominated − 12 − 4 {− 32 , 32 }
1
saddle
(0, 0) 1 0 0 DE dominated −1 −1 {−3, − 23 } Stable node

of the effective EoS parameter is −1 < ωtotal < − 13 for Ḣ

w′ = −3(1 + A)w − 2w . (35)
all possible values of A in the case of non-interaction. H2
Hence, the Universe shows a quintessence behaviour at
the present accelerating phase. The evolution of the dynamical variables x, y and w corre-
sponding to the variation of the cosmological parameters
ΩDE , Ωm and Ωr , respectively. Finally, we can redefine
B. Interacting case the deceleration parameter q and the total equation of
state parameter ωtotal as
For interacting cases, we consider 3 - parameters, x, y
Ḣ 3 ef f ef f

and w, which are dimensionless and the field equations q = −1− = −1+ 1 + ω1 x + ω 2 y + Aw (36)
can be expressed in terms of the dynamical variables as H2 2
follows: and
2
B 1 −3(1+ω1ef f ) 2 Ḣ  
x= a , (28) ωtotal = −1 − = −1 + 1 + ω ef f
x + ω ef f
y + Aw .
(1 + A) 3H 2
2
3 H2 1 2
(37)
2BK 1 −3(1+ω2ef f ) Similar to the non-interacting case, we shall determine
y= a , (29) the critical points from 3D autonomous system and carry
(1 + A)2 3H 2
out the local stability of the EU with interacting fluids.
We determine the critical points for the autonomous sys-
K2 1 −3(1+A) tems (33-35) with P1 (0, 0, 1), P2 (0, 1, 0) and P3 (1, 0, 0).
w= a . (30) Table III provides these critical points and the cosmologi-
(1 + A)2 3H 2
cal behavior at these points. The detailed description of
Therefore, Eq. (17) reduces to, each critical point is narrated below.

x + y + w = 1, (31) • Critical point P1 (0, 0, 1): For the point the corre-
sponding density parameters are, ΩDE = 0, Ωm = 0
and subsequently, from Eq. (19), we get and Ωr = 1. This implies that the critical point be-
comes absolutely radiation-dominated. The EoS pa-
Ḣ 3 
rameter and deceleration parameter are ωtotal = 13
2
=− 1 + ω1ef f x + ω2ef f y + Aw . (32)
H 2 and q = 1 respectively. This behavior of the critical
As we are concerned here with the asymptotic behavior point leads to the decelerating phase of the Universe.
of evolution, we take derivatives of x, y and w with respect At the point, eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix:
to the number of e-folding N = ln a. The following system {4.6, 1, 1}, i.e., they are all positive hence the point
of ordinary differential equations is obtained in terms of is an unstable node.
dynamical variables: • Critical point P2 (0, 1, 0): Corresponding density
parameters are, ΩDE = 0, Ωm = 1 and Ωr = 0.
Ḣ
x′ = −3(1 + ω1ef f )x − 2x , (33) This implies that the critical point becomes ab-
H2 solutely CS-dominated. The EoS parameter and
deceleration parameter are ωtotal = 0 and q = 12
Ḣ respectively. This behaviour of the critical point
y ′ = −3(1 + ω2ef f )y − 2y , (34) leads to the critical phase of the Universe. At point
H2
 7
1.0 1.0

0.5
0.5

0.0
0.0

ΩΛ
Ωcs ΩΛ
-0.5
-0.5 ΩDW
Ωr
ΩCS
q q
ωtotal
ωtotal
-1.0
-15 -10 -5 0 -1.0
-15 -10 -5 0
N N

1
(a) A = 3
(b) A = − 31
2.0
1.0

1.5

0.5

1.0

0.0
0.5

ΩΛ
0.0
ΩΛ ΩEM
-0.5
Ωdust
Ωdust
ΩSM
-0.5
q q
ωtotal
ωtotal
-1.0
-1.0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
-15 -10 -5 0
N N

(c) A = 1 (d) A = 0

FIG. 2: The evolution of cosmological parameters for the non-interacting case. Panel (a) for A = 13 , (b) for A = − 13 ,
(c) for A = 1 and (d) for A = 0. The red dot is the present value of DE density parameter (ΩDE ∼ 0.7).

TABLE III: Critical Points and the corresponding cosmology for interaction with model parameter A = 31 ,
ω1ef f = −1.2 and ω2ef f = 0

Name critical point ΩDE Ωm Ωr Phase of Universe Eigenvalues Stability

P1 (0,0,1) 0 0 1 Radiation dominated [4.6, 1, 1] Unstable node
P2 (0,1,0) 0 1 0 matter dominated [3.6, -1, 0] saddle
P3 (1,0,0) 1 0 0 DE dominated [-4.6, -3.6, -3.6] Stable node

P2 , eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix: {3.6, −1, 0},
i.e., they are opposite in sign hence the point is a
saddle.
• Critical point P3 (1, 0, 0): The density parame-
ters are: ΩDE = 1, Ωm = 0 and Ωr = 0, which
corresponds to the fact that this critical point is ab-
solutely DE-dominated phase. The EoS parameter
and deceleration parameter are ωtotal = −1 − η and
q = −1 − 32 η respectively. Therefore, this critical
point leads to the accelerated DE-dominated phase
of the Universe for η > 0. The eigenvalues of the
Jacobian matrix at the point C: {−4.6, −3.6, −3.6},
i.e., they are all negative in sign hence the point is
a stable node.
absorbing all incoming trajectories, and P3 acts as the
repeller, repelling all incoming trajectories. As P2 is a
saddle, it repels trajectories that originate from itself and
absorbs trajectories from P1 . Hence, the critical point P1
is an unstable node, whereas P3 is a stable node. The
P2 is an unstable saddle point. Further, the evolution of
cosmological parameters has been given in Fig. 4 for two
different interaction strengths. It is demonstrated that
for the strengths 0.05 and 0.2, the current values of the
effective EoS parameter are −0.75 and −0.84, respectively.
IV. CONCLUSIONS

In Fig. 3, the 2D phase portrait is drawn to understand In the present work, we present a general framework of
the stability of the points. The panels display the trajec- the emergent universe scenario with a non-linear equation
tories for critical points, where P1 acts as the attractor, of state in the general theory of relativity. The scale factor
 8

2 2

1 P2 (0, 1, 0) 1
P1 (0, 0, 1)

0 0
P3 (1, 0, 0) P2 (0, 1, 0)

-1 -1

-2 -2

-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2

(a) (b)

1
P1 (0, 0, 1)

0
P3 (1, 0, 0)

-1

-2

-2 -1 0 1 2

(c)

FIG. 3: Shows the 2D phase portrait of the autonomous system for interacting fluids. The phase planes for the values
of ω1ef f = −1.2, ω2ef f = 0, A = 13 and η = 0.2. Panel (a) the portrait on the x − y plane, (b) the portrait on the y − z
plane and (c) the portrait on the x − z plane.

is finite at infinite past for this emergent universe model.
In this case, the Emergent universe is effectively composed
of three types of fluids to compare the importance, we
consider both the interacting and non-interacting fluids
to understand the observed universe. For A = 13 , the
dark energy, cosmic string and radiation are the cosmic
fluids components of the universe without interaction.
When interaction sets in, depending on the strength of
interaction, the cosmic fluids are found to transform into
three other types, say, dark energy, pressureless matter,
and radiation, which can describe the present observed
universe.
Here we adopt a dynamical autonomous system analysis
for the EU with and without interaction among the cosmic
fluids. In the case of non-interaction, we first transform
the background evolution equations into an autonomous
system considering two dynamical parameters. For this
case, the critical points are found at P (0, 1), Q(1, 0) and
R(0, 0). For A = 13 , the point P is an unstable node with
all eigenvalues for the Jacobian matrix positive where Q
represents an unstable saddle point with all eigenvalues
opposite in sign for the Jacobian matrix. The point R with
all the eigenvalues for the Jacobian matrix are negative
in the sign, giving the stable node behaviour. In table II,
we study in detail the characteristics of each critical point
for all possible values of the model parameter for a given

1.0
0.8
0.6
ΩDE
0.4 Ωm
Ωr
ΩDE
0.2 Ωm
Ωr
0.0
-15 -10 -5 0 -15
N N
(a)
FIG. 4: The figure shows the evolution of cosmological parameters with interaction. In panels (a) and (b), the dashed
and solid curves correspond to the interaction strength η = 0.05 and η = 0.2, respectively. In panel (a), the red dot is
the present value of DE density parameter (ΩDE ∼ 0.7).
A. The 2D phase portrait has been shown in Fig. 1, from
which the nature of the critical points can be ascertained
clearly. It is found that a transition from an unstable node
to a stable node followed by a saddle point is permitted.
The evolutionary behaviour of the cosmological parameter
in the case of non-interacting fluid is shown in Fig. 2.
For each case, the evolutionary curve of the dark energy
density parameter crosses the present observed value. We
find a stable point in the future when the universe will
be determined completely by dark energy.
Similar to the non-interacting case, we get more in-
teresting results if the interaction is considered. In the
interacting case in the EU, the critical points correspond-
ing to the autonomous systems are P1 (0, 0, 1), P2 (0, 1, 0)
and P3 (1, 0, 0). The characteristic of each critical point is
discussed in the table III. The point P1 with all eigenval-
ues positive gives a radiation-dominated unstable node.
A mater-dominated saddle point P2 is also found in this
model, which is followed by the transition to a stable
dark energy-dominated universe. In Fig. 4, one can see
that the total EoS parameter is close to the observational
value for interaction strength η = 0.2. The variation of
the deceleration parameter shows an accelerating phase
[1] A. G. Riess et al., AJ 116, 1009 (1998).
[2] S. Perlmutter et al., ApJ 517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro-
ph/9812133 [astro-ph].
[3] C. L. Bennett et al., ApJS 148, 1 (2003).
[4] A. G. Riess et al., ApJ 607, 665 (2004).
[5] D. J. Eisenstein et al., ApJ 633, 560 (2005), publisher:
IOP Publishing.
[6] C. L. Bennett et al., ApJS 208, 20 (2013), publisher: The
American Astronomical Society.
[7] R. H. Brandenberger, “Inflationary cosmology: Progress
and problems,” (1999), hep-ph/9910410.
9
1.0
0.5
0.0
q
-0.5 ωtotal
q
ωtotal
-1.0
-10 -5 0
(b)
of the universe, which is followed by a transition from the
deceleration phase.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
BCR, AC, and BCP would like to thank the IU-
CAA Centre for Astronomy Research and Development
(ICARD), NBU, for extending research facilities. BCR
and BCP gratefully acknowledge IUCAA, Pune, for its
invaluable support and provision of research facilities,
which significantly contributed to this study. BCR also
thanks the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,
Govt. of India, and the University Grants Commission
(UGC), India, for their financial support. BCP would like
to thank SERB DST Govt. of India for a project grant(F.
No. CRG/2021/000183).
DATA AVAILABILITY
There is no new data associated with this article.
[8] E. Kolb, The Early Universe (CRC Press, 2019).
[9] A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981).
[10] K. Sato, MNRAS 195, 467 (1981), ADS Bibcode:
1981MNRAS.195..467S.
[11] A. Linde, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 17, 89 (2002).
[12] V. Sahni and A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 09,
373 (2000), publisher: World Scientific Publishing Co.
[13] S. M. Carroll, Living Rev. Relativ. 4, 1 (2001).
[14] T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept. 380, 235 (2003).
[15] P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559
(2003), publisher: American Physical Society.

[16] W. L. Freedman et al., ApJ 882, 34 (2019), publisher:
The American Astronomical Society.
[17] W. Yuan et al., ApJ 886, 61 (2019), publisher: The
American Astronomical Society.
[18] W. L. Freedman, ApJ 919, 16 (2021), publisher: The
American Astronomical Society.
[19] A. G. Riess et al., ApJL 908, L6 (2021), publisher: The
American Astronomical Society.
[20] J. Soltis, S. Casertano, and A. G. Riess, ApJL 908, L5
(2021), publisher: The American Astronomical Society.
[21] T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 451
(2010), publisher: American Physical Society.
[22] A. D. Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Living Rev. Relativ. 13
(2010), 10.12942/lrr-2010-3.
[23] S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rep. 505, 59 (2011).
[24] S. Nojiri, S. Odintsov, and V. Oikonomou, Phys. Rep.
692, 1 (2017).
[25] T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov,
Phys. Rev. D 84, 024020 (2011).
[26] S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B 631, 1 (2005).
[27] R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini, Phys. Rev. D 75, 084031 (2007),
publisher: American Physical Society.
[28] R. Ferraro and F. Fiorini, Phys. Rev. D 78, 124019 (2008),
publisher: American Physical Society.
[29] G. R. Bengochea and R. Ferraro, Phys. Rev. D 79, 124019
(2009), publisher: American Physical Society.
[30] J. B. Jiménez, L. Heisenberg, and T. Koivisto, Physical
Review D 98 (2018), 10.1103/physrevd.98.044048.
[31] R. Maartens and K. Koyama, Living Rev. Relativ. 13
(2010), 10.12942/lrr-2010-5.
[32] A. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 26, 1730014 (2017), pub-
lisher: World Scientific Publishing Co.
[33] A. Kamenshchik, U. Moschella, and V. Pasquier, Phys.
Lett. B 511, 265 (2001).
[34] M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami, and A. A. Sen, Phys. Rev.
D 66 (2002), 10.1103/physrevd.66.043507.
[35] H. Benaoum, Universe 8, 340 (2002).
[36] T. Chiba, Phys. Rev. D 60, 083508 (1999), publisher:
American Physical Society.
[37] L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D 62, 043511 (2000), publisher:
American Physical Society.
[38] J. Martin, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 23, 1252 (2008), publisher:
World Scientific Publishing Co.
[39] S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004),
10.1103/physrevd.70.103522.
[40] S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005),
10.1103/physrevd.72.023003.
[41] E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod.
Phys. D 15, 1753 (2006).
[42] S. Capozziello, V. F. Cardone, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, and
S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006), 10.1103/phys-
revd.73.043512.
[43] S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri, and S. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B
634, 93 (2006).
[44] R. Durrer and R. Maartens, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 40, 301
(2007).
[45] K. Bamba, S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov,
Astrophysics and Space Science 342, 155 (2012).
[46] S. Odintsov, V. Oikonomou, and P. V. Tretyakov, Phys.
Rev. D 96 (2017), 10.1103/physrevd.96.044022.
[47] S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, D. S.-C. Gómez, and G. S.
Sharov, Physics of the Dark Universe 32, 100837 (2021).
[48] S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 74, 086005
(2006), publisher: American Physical Society.
10
[49] A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 99 (1980).
[50] P. Rudra and K. Giri, Nuclear Physics B 967, 115428
(2021).
[51] B. Li, J. D. Barrow, and D. F. Mota, Phys. Rev. D 76,
044027 (2007).
[52] S. Mandal, D. Wang, and P. Sahoo, Physical Review D
102, 124029 (2020).
[53] G. F. R. Ellis and R. Maartens, Class. Quantum Grav.
21, 223 (2003).
[54] G. F. R. Ellis, J. Murugan, and C. G. Tsagas, Class.
Quantum Grav. 21, 233 (2003).
[55] P. J. Steinhardt and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D 65, 126003
(2002).
[56] M. Bojowald, Physical Review Letters 86, 5227–5230
(2001).
[57] G. M. Hossain, V. Husain, and S. S. Seahra, Physical
Review D 81 (2010), 10.1103/physrevd.81.024005.
[58] S. Mukherjee, B. Paul, S. Maharaj, and A. Beesham,
arXiv preprint gr-qc/0505103 (2005).
[59] S. Mukherjee, B. C. Paul, N. K. Dadhich, S. D. Maharaj,
and A. Beesham, Class. Quantum Grav. 23, 6927 (2006).
[60] S. Del Campo, R. Herrera, and P. Labrana, JCAP 2007,
030 (2007).
[61] A. Banerjee, T. Bandyopadhyay, and S. Chakraborty,
Gen. Relativ. Grav. 40, 1603–1607 (2008).
[62] B. C. Paul and S. Ghose, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 42, 795
(2010).
[63] D. J. Mulryne, R. Tavakol, J. E. Lidsey, and G. F. Ellis,
Physical Review D 71, 123512 (2005).
[64] M. Khodadi, A. Allahyari, and S. Capozziello, Physics
of the Dark Universe 36, 101013 (2022).
[65] P. S. Debnath and B. C. Paul, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod.
Phys. 17, 2050102 (2020), publisher: World Scientific
Publishing Co.
[66] A. Beesham, S. V. Chervon, and S. D. Maharaj, Class.
Quantum Grav. 26, 075017 (2009).
[67] S. Ghosh and S. Gangopadhyay, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 32,
1750089 (2017).
[68] B. C. Paul, P. Thakur, and S. Ghose, MNRAS 407, 415
(2010).
[69] B. C. Paul, S. Ghose, and P. Thakur, MNRAS 413, 686
(2011).
[70] S. Ghose, P. Thakur, and B. C. Paul, MNRAS 421, 20
(2012).
[71] B. C. Paul and A. Chanda, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 51, 71
(2019).
[72] J. D. Barrow and T. Clifton, Phys. Rev. D 73, 103520
(2006).
[73] L. P. Chimento, Phys. Rev. D 81, 043525 (2010).
[74] M. Jamil, E. N. Saridakis, and M. R. Setare, Phys. Rev.
D 81, 023007 (2010).
[75] S. Z. W. Lip, Phys. Rev. D 83, 023528 (2011).
[76] F. E. M. Costa, J. S. Alcaniz, and D. Jain, Phys. Rev.
D 85, 107302 (2012).
[77] C. G. Boehmer, T. Harko, and S. V. Sabau, “Jacobi
stability analysis of dynamical systems – applications
in gravitation and cosmology,” (2010), arXiv:1010.5464
[math-ph].
[78] C. G. Böhmer and N. Chan, “Dynamical systems in cos-
mology,” in Dynamical and Complex Systems (WORLD
SCIENTIFIC (EUROPE), 2016) p. 121–156.
[79] S. Bhanja, G. Mandal, A. Al Mamon, and S. Kr. Biswas,
Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2023,
050 (2023).

[80] V. Faraoni and S. Nadeau, Physical Review D 72 (2005),
10.1103/physrevd.72.124005.
[81] J.-Q. Guo and A. V. Frolov, Physical Review D 88 (2013),
10.1103/physrevd.88.124036.
[82] T. B. Gonçalves, J. L. Rosa, and F. S. N. Lobo, “Cosmo-
logical dynamical systems analysis of scalar-tensor f (r, t)
gravity,” (2023), arXiv:2305.05337 [gr-qc].
[83] W. Khyllep, J. Dutta, E. N. Saridakis, and
K. Yesmakhanova, Physical Review D 107 (2023),
10.1103/physrevd.107.044022.
[84] S. Narawade, S. P. Singh, and B. Mishra, Physics of the
Dark Universe 42, 101282 (2023).
[85] B. C. Paul and A. Majumdar, Class. Quantum Grav. 32,
115001 (2015).
11
[86] T. Clemson, K. Koyama, G.-B. Zhao, R. Maartens, and
J. Väliviita, Phys. Rev. D 85, 043007 (2012).
[87] J. Väliviita, E. Majerotto, and R. Maartens, JCAP 2008,
020 (2008).
[88] J. Väliviita, R. Maartens, and E. Majerotto, MNRAS
402, 2355 (2010).
[89] E. Di Valentino, A. Melchiorri, and O. Mena, Phys.
Rev. D 96, 043503 (2017), publisher: American Physical
Society.
[90] W. Yang, S. Pan, and D. F. Mota, Phys. Rev. D 96,
123508 (2017).
[91] W. Yang, S. Pan, and J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. D 97,
043529 (2018).