\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}0

{\hspace{8mm}} Cosmology has a rich variety of theories giving rise to different
evolution laws for the Universe. Realistic models for the Universe must
attach with the available observational data. Among them, the
age of Universe and some known transition times must be considered.

From the theoretical point of view, the usual process consists in
matching successives stages having different evolution laws each one.
Particular interest is devoted to works computing the generation of
metric perturbations, since they must handle the transitions among
different evolution stages. Some minimal conditions of continuity
(of scale factor and the perturbations) are required.

Different ways for handling these continuity conditions can
be found (\cite{gk93}-\cite{gv93}). Some of them uses impose
continuity on the cosmic time
evolution although discontinuity in conformal time itself
(\cite{abha},\cite{Sah}), while others make a continuous matching
of the scale factor in conformal time variable
(\cite{gk93},\cite{A},\cite{buon},\cite{bggv},\cite{gv93}).
Both cases would have an imprint in
the successive study of the process of interest like metric
perturbations propagation, since of the parameters involved in the
linking of the different stages from the very early to the
current one. At time of confronting with observations, the
parameters left by the linking process can play a crucial role.

The situation is still confuse when time scales must be fixed
on those minimal models. Some kind of scale factor normalizations
(\cite{abha}) or energy scales at transitions (\cite{gv93})
are usually imposed in order to overcome the loss of predictability
of the temporal variables used.

Our scope is to review this process in constructing the evolution
of these minimal Universe models. Lacking a complete underlying
theory describing the total Universe evolution or at least, the detail
of transitions between stages, one must join these stages in
order to compose an {\it asymptotically} suitable description. The way
how handle each stage and how make the matching among them is
the subject of this paper. We try to apply a different and more
practical treatment which preserves
the level of
{\it predictability} of the minimal models discussed.

From the theoretical point of view, different evolution laws can be
provided for the Universe: inflationary expansion of power law type, De
Sitter type, inverse power type, deccelerated and standard expansion stages.
From the observational side, the Universe appears to be homogeneus
and isotropic at sufficiently large scales, following the distribution of
clusters of galaxies. From the measurements of redshift in the spectra
of galaxies, the Universe has a metric in expansion.
The measurements of
current Hubble factor give us an order of the age of Universe of
${\mathcal{T}}_0 \sim 10^{17} s$, at least as upper limit.
We find ourselves in an
Universe with an expansion rate matter
dominated-type . We know too the previous existence
of a hotter and denser radiation dominated expansion, as can be
assured from the current existence of the Cosmic Microwave
Background Radiation.
The end of radiation
dominated stage is estimated at ${\mathcal{T}}_m \sim 10^{12} s$.

Finally, a mixed theoretical-observational interpretation had led to
suppose the existence of an inflationary stage in the very early
beginning. This is the so called inflationary paradigm, whose exponential
version looks able to solve the cosmological problems on closure and
flatness of Universe, large scale homogeneity and baryon number.
(See for example \cite{kb} and \cite{lin}).

To explain the whole Universe evolution would mean to explain
phenomena at very different energy scales. At the date, we lack of
such a complete theory. Therefore, the tools of theoretical cosmology
are theories with their own ranges of validity. The ideal total
description is substituted by a description made with successive
stages, giving a step-by-step evolution. Thus,
we find the need of joining the different and in principle
discontinuous evolution stages in order to make the most
approximative description.

It leds us to deal with modelized transitions, {\it not necessarily
corresponding to real transitions}. In the minimal models,
these modelized transitions are very limited with respect
to describe and account the real transitions. The logical
choice of a continuous time variable is yet not trivial and
different options are possible. Further computations
as gravitational waves and imprints on CMB
are signed by these transitions and can be
signed by these choices.

We study this problem by applying a more practical
point of view: closer to the observational Universe, better
description. This guideline has suggested us an appropiate
treatment of the temporal variables and transitions involved.

What do we mean by a minimal model? An {\it asymptotically} valuable
description of the scale factor evolution running on a temporal
variable. Real transitions among the different stages, probably discontinuous,
are modelized trough this mathematical temporal-type
variable in a more convenient way. Further linking with observational Universe
information preserves the prediction capability of the descriptive
minimal model thus constructed.
Every theoretical cosmology requires as its basic tool
a scale factor and a temporal variable over which runs. The
minimal observational Universe information is translated on the
theoretical model evolution through such scale factor function $a(t)$
and its transitions (\cite{gksqz}).
Suitable temporal variables for this process of translation are
not a trivial subject. A compromise among the theoretical computational
ability and the observational Universe information contained is required.

We find the particular proper times in each stage not to be
appropiated variables in the matching process,
because their inherent discontinuity in a minimal model.
Computations make desiderable to have a minimal conditions
of continuity of scale factor and temporal variable.
One can ask if real transitions are continuous
at the level of such minimal descriptions. The answer is
probably "not". Now, it makes necessary to reinterpretate
the meaning and role of the temporal variable involved in this
minimal model descriptions and distinguish it from the
physical proper time.

Need of deal with different temporal variables and the
transformations
relating them can be seen at least as the prize to pay for our
lack of knowledge
about the dynamics of real transitions among the cosmological
different evolution stages. With this lacking of
knowledge it would be impossible to construct a continuous, full
model for the scale factor including the transitions. We overcome
this problem by defining auxiliary {\it descriptive}
temporal variables. These variables make a closer mapping of the proper cosmic
time. The freedom in their boundary conditions can
be used in order to make them satisfactorily continuous
through transitions. With the use of such an intermediate tool we must
rewrite the evolution laws in these variables.

A careful handling allows us to maintain a link with the observational
temporal parameters and thus, abilitates our construction to be
worked out in order to further extraction of other observational
cosmological phenomena. The minimal observational Universe information
introduced are the time scales, by taking the well stablished standard
values for beginning of radiation dominated stage (${\mathcal{T}}_r
\sim 10^{-32} s$), the beginning of matter dominated stage
(${\mathcal{T}}_m \sim 10^{12} s$) and the proper scale factor
expansion ratii to be reached in each one of the stages.

In the next, we develop the descriptive cosmic time-type variables
for minimal models with an inverse power inflationary stage. We have
chosen this kind of inflationary behaviours since they appear
typically in the context of String Cosmology.
The simple guidelines here showed
could be easily followed with whatever other inflationary
type behaviour.  The scale factor description obtained reaches
the proper scale factor ratii in each stage. The transitions
among different stages are modelized as sudden, continuous and smooth.
All parameters and variables in the description have been linked with
observational transition times and proper cosmic time evolution.

We analyze also the conformal
time variable and the corresponding scale factor.
This construction is
made over descriptive temporal variables. We elaborate
transformation rules in order to keep the link among the conformal
time variable and observational times. Conditions of continuity
and simplicity can be imposed on the most general construction
of conformal time variables.
The scale factor evolution
thus obtained has sudden, continuous and smooth transitions both in the
cosmic time description and in the conformal time one. This feature of
our treatement is not an usual property for most cosmological minimal models.

We elaborate also another conformal time construction. It is linked to
observational information and proper cosmic times in a more direct
way. The scale factor in this variable can be written with sudden
and instantaneous transitions, but they are not smooth.

In appendixes we report some other related aspects. We apply the
descriptive variables treatment to a minimal model with arbitrary
power law inflationary stage. The possible modelization of
transitions as brief intermediate stages without descriptive variables
is considered also. Finally, an alternative construction of descriptive
variables is included.
\section{The Temporal Coordinate}
\setcounter{equation}0

\hspace{8mm} Solutions  describing an inflationary stage $(I)$, radiation
dominated stage $(II)$ and matter dominated stage $(III)$ can be obtained
from different early Universe theories providing cosmological backgrounds.
We consider them extracted in
the proper cosmic time gauge, where the metric is written as:
\begin{displaymath}
ds^2 = d t^2 - a(t)^2  dx^2
\end{displaymath}
$a(t)$ is the scale factor in cosmic time variable, giving the
expansion rate of the metric. Notice here
$t = c {\mathcal{T}}$. (In natural units, where $\hbar = G
= c = 1$, the equality among variables $t$ and ${\mathcal{T}}$ holds).

 In order to construct a minimal model that describes the
evolution of the scale factor, we will consider these successive three
stages in descriptive cosmic time type variables as having
instantaneous and continuous transitions at times $\bar{t_1}$ and
$\bar{t_2}$.
With full free parameters, we write our model as:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{descr}
\bar{\bar{a_I}}(\bar{\bar{t}}) & = & \bar{\bar{A_{I}}}
{(\bar{\bar{t_I}}-\bar{\bar{t}})}^{-Q} \ \  \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\bar{\bar{t}}}
< \bar{t_1}\\
\bar{a_{II}}(\bar{t}) & = & \bar{A_{II}} {(\bar{t}-\bar
{t_{II}})}^R  \nonumber \ \ \ \ \ \ \  {\bar{t_1}} < {\bar{t}} < {\bar{t_2}} \\
a_{III}(t) & = & A_{III} {(t - t_{III})}^M  \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \  {\bar{t_2}} < t
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here the first stage $(I)$ describes an accelerated expansion provided
${\bar{\bar{t}}}_I>{\bar{t}}_1$ and $Q>0$. This is the inverse power
inflationary stage. In appendixes we consider the case for arbitrary power law
inflationary stages. The behaviours of radiation and matter dominated
stages are identified by power law dependences with exponents
$R=\frac{1}{2}$ and $M=\frac{2}{3}$ in cosmic time gauge.
By imposing the continuous matching of the scale factor and
its first derivative at the transition times $\bar{t_1}$ and $\bar{t_2}$,
give us four
constraints on the six free parameters. We have choose to express the
parameters ${\bar{\bar{t_I}}}$, ${\bar{\bar{A_I}}}$, $t_{III}$, $A_{III}$
in function of ${\bar{t_{II}}}$, ${\bar{A_{II}}}$. We have:
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\bar{t_I}} & = & \bar{t_1} \left(1+{Q \over{R}}\right) - \bar{t_{II}}
{Q \over{R}} \label{match1}\\
\bar{\bar{A_I}} & = & \bar{A_{II}} {\left({Q \over{R}}\right)}^Q {(\bar{t_1} -
\bar{t_{II}})}^{R+Q} \nonumber \\
t_{III} & = & \left(1 - {M \over{R}}\right) \bar{t_2} + {M \over{R}}
\bar{t_{II}} \nonumber \\
A_{III} & = & \bar{A_{II}} {\left({R \over{M}}\right)}^{M} {(\bar{t_2} -
\bar{t_{II}})}^{R-M} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The inflationary stage is described with a time variable
$\bar{\bar{t}}$ and the radiation stage with a variable ${\bar{t}}$.
Notice that these cosmic time-type variables (and $t$ of
the matter dominated stage) are not at priori exactly equal to
the physical proper time coordinate (multiplied by $c$ in no natural
units), but transformations (dilatation plus translation) of it.

We will find relations between these variables and the physical time coordinate
(multiplied by $c$, $t=c {\mathcal{T}}$) which allow to put in contact
this description with the minimal and well stablished observational
Universe information: the scale times (standard transition times) and
the proper scale factor expansion ratii.
We understand that a descriptive temporal
variable can provide a better scale factor description.
The cosmic time type variables here introduced act as intermediate
vehicles in the process of linking observational Universe and
theoretical evolution model. The minimal information about the former
one is imprinted on transformations giving raise such descriptive
variables, while remaining parameters can be fixed in order
to have a suitable scale factor continuity for cosmology purposes.

\section{Link with the Observational Universe}
\setcounter{equation}0

\subsection{The Observational Universe}

\hspace{8mm} We consider now some properties of the observational
Universe evolution. Taking the simplest option, we consider the ``real''
scale factor evolution to have transitions at $t_r$
(beginning of radiation dominated stage) and $t_m$ (beginning  of matter
dominated stage), given by the standard observational values.
 We define a beginning
of inflation at $t_i$ and corresponding current
time $t_0$. Equality in the temporal dependence exponents in the
real and descriptive scale factors is preserved, the other free
parameters are related by transitions.
\pagebreak[3]

In order to have the right temporal dependence (following the real duration
and scale factor expansion of the observational Universe) for a radiation
dominated behaviour and a matter dominated behaviour, we must consider there
a scale factor without additive constants in their proper cosmic time
dependences.
Notice as a consequence, we can not consider continuity in first
derivative of scale factor in the ``real'' transitions. Continuity on
the scale factor itself is supposed by considering real transitions
enoughly briefs and smooths for not requiring be described as
intermediate stages.
\begin{eqnarray} \label{real}
a_I(t) & = & A_I {(t_I - t)}^{-Q} \ \ \ \   t \in (t_i, t_r)  \\
a_{II}(t) & = & A_{II} \: t^R \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \  t \in (t_r, t_m) \nonumber \\
a_{III}(t) & = & A_{III} \: t^M \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ t \in (t_m, t_0) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

Without knowing the dynamics of the real transitions among stages,
this approach still allow us to extract a robust constraint from
the observational knowledge of our Universe: the
scale factor expansion (or scale factor ratii) reached in each one of
the three stages considered. Meanwhile the duration of a stage,
the scale factor will expand, in the inflationary stage:
\begin{equation} \label{rin}
{{a_{I}(t_r)}\over{a_{I}(t_i)}} = {\left({{t_I-t_r}\over{t_I-t_i}}\right)}
^{-Q} \ \ \ \ \ ,
\end{equation}
in the radiation dominated stage:
\begin{equation} \label{rrad}
{{a_{II}(t_m)}\over{a_{II}(t_r)}} = {\left({{t_m}\over{t_r}}\right)}^R
\ \ \ \ \ ,
\end{equation}
and in the matter dominated stage:
\begin{equation} \label{rmat}
{{a_{III}(t_0)}\over{a_{III}(t_m)}} = {\left({{t_0}\over{t_m}}\right)}^M
\end{equation}

We consider the standard observational values for cosmological times.
The radiation-matter transition held at:
\begin{displaymath}
{\mathcal{T}}_m \sim 10^{12} s \ \ \ ,
\end{displaymath}
the beginning of radiation stage at
\begin{displaymath}
{\mathcal{T}}_r \sim 10^{-32} s \ \ \ ,
\end{displaymath}
and the current age of the Universe
\begin{displaymath}
{\mathcal{T}}_0 \sim {H_0}^{-1} \sim 10^{17} s \ \ \ \ \ .
\end{displaymath}
The exact numerical value of ${\mathcal{T}}_0$ turns out not be crucial here.

\subsection{Linking Model and Observations}

\hspace{8mm} We can impose now to our description to satisfy stage by stage the
same right scale factor ratii as the observable evolution.
For the matter dominated stage, it is convenient to have its
descriptive scale factor written in proper cosmic time, since it is
within this stage where observational information must be extracted and
provided.
Then, we fix one of the two still free parameters in matching
eqs.(\ref{match1}) by eliminating
in eq.(\ref{descr}) the additive constant $t_{III}$:
\begin{equation} \label{tiii}
t_{III} \equiv 0
\end{equation}

   Now, in order to have the right scale factor ratio during the whole
matter dominated stage, the beginning $\bar{t_2}$ must coincide exactly
with the beginning of matter dominated stage $t_m$.
\begin{equation} \label{t2}
\bar{t_2} \equiv t_m
\end{equation}

This first link with observation translates immediately on the
radiation dominated stage description.
From eq.(\ref{match1}) and with the obtained conditions
eqs.(\ref{tiii}) and (\ref{t2}), the additive constant $t_{II}$ is fixed.
\begin{equation} \label{tii}
\bar{t_{II}} = \left(1 - {R \over{M}}\right) t_m
\end{equation}

In order to fix the beginning of radiation stage $\bar{t_1}$, we use the
observational value of scale factor expansion during the whole stage
eq.(\ref{rrad}) and make it coincident with the value obtained in
the descriptive scale factor model. By this way:
\begin{displaymath}
{{\bar{a_{II}}(\bar{t_2})}\over{\bar{a_{II}}(\bar{t_1})}} =
{{\bar{A_{II}}{(\bar{t_2} - \bar{t_{II}})}^R}\over{{\bar{A_{II}}}
{(\bar{t_1}-\bar{t_{II}})}^R}} =
 {\left({{t_m}\over{t_r}}\right)}^R
\end{displaymath}
which gives the relation:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\bar{t_1} & = & t_r + \left(1 - {{t_r}\over{t_m}}\right) \bar{t_{II}} \ \ \ .
\end{eqnarray*}
With the condition eq.(\ref{tii}), we obtain the
expression of $\bar{t_1}$ as function of the observational transitions
$t_r$ and $t_m$:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{t1}
\bar{t_1} & = & {R \over{M}} t_r + \left(1 - {R \over{M}}\right) t_m
\end{eqnarray}

We can interpolate this process for every time $t$ belonging to the radiation
dominated stage, and require equally to the model to give the corresponding
scale factor expansion ratio at $\bar{t}$. Thus, it is possible to get a
relation linking the temporal variable ${\bar{t}}$ with the physical
time $t$:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{tbar}
\bar{t} & = & {R \over{M}} t + \left(1 - {R \over{M}}\right) t_m
\end{eqnarray}

The conditions on $\bar{t_1}$ have fixed yet the end of the descriptive
inflationary stage. For fixing the corresponding beginning at
${\bar{\bar{t_i}}}$, the same above guidelines are followed.
The total expansion during the
inflationary stage (\ref{rin}) must be:
\begin{displaymath}
{{\bar{\bar{a_{I}}}(\bar{t_1})}\over{\bar{\bar{a_{I}}}(\bar{\bar{t_i}})}} =
{{\bar{\bar{A_{I}}}{(\bar{t_1} - \bar{\bar{t_{I}}})}^{-Q}}
\over{{\bar{\bar{A_{I}}}}
{(\bar{\bar{t_i}}-\bar{\bar{t_{I}}})}^{-Q}}} =
{\left({{{t_r} - {t_{I}}}}\over{{{t_i}-{t_{I}}}}\right)}^{-Q}
\end{displaymath}
From this we obtain:
\begin{displaymath}
\bar{\bar{t_i}} = {{{\bar{\bar{t_I}}}\:(t_i-t_r) \: + \: \bar{t_1}\:
(t_I-t_i)}\over
{(t_I - t_r)}}
\end{displaymath}
and making use of relations (\ref{t1}), (\ref{t2}) and the matching
equations (\ref{match1})
\begin{equation} \label{ti}
\bar{\bar{t_i}} =
 \left({R \over{M}} + {Q\over{M}}{{t_r-t_i}\over{t_r-t_I}} \right)t_r
+ \left(1 - {R \over{M}}\right) t_m
\end{equation}
Again, we can interpolate this relation for all $t$ in the inflationary
stage and obtain the relation for the temporal variable $\bar{\bar{t}}$ in
terms of the observational transition values $t_r$ and $t_m$:
\begin{equation} \label{tbarbar}
\bar{\bar{t}} =
 \left({R \over{M}} + {Q\over{M}}{{t-t_i}\over{t_r-t_I}} \right)t_r
+ \left(1 - {R \over{M}}\right) t_m
\end{equation}

\begin{figure}
\psfrag{a}{$a_I(t)\sim{\left(t_I-t\right)}^{-Q}$}
\psfrag{b}{$a_{II}(t)\sim{\left(t\right)}^{R}$}
\psfrag{c}{$a_{III}(t)\sim{\left(t\right)}^{M}$}
\psfrag{i}{$\mathbf{{\bar{t_1}}}$}
\psfrag{j}{$\mathbf{{\bar{t_2}}}$}
\psfrag{f}[bl]{${\bar{\bar{a_I}}({\bar{\bar{t}}})}\sim
{\left({\bar{\bar{t}}}_I-
{\bar{\bar{t}}}\right)}^{-Q}$}
\psfrag{g}[B]{${\bar{a_{II}}({\bar{t}})}\sim{\left({\bar{t}}-
{\bar{t}_{II}}\right)}^{R}$}
\psfrag{h}[B]{$a_{III}(t)\sim{\left(t\right)}^{M}$}
\psfrag{d}[t]{$\mathbf{{t_r}}$}
\psfrag{m}[t]{$\mathbf{{t_i}}$}
\psfrag{n}{$\mathbf{\bar{\bar{t_i}}}$}
\psfrag{e}[t]{$\mathbf{{t_m}}$}
\psfrag{A}{{\bf INF.}}
\psfrag{B}{{\bf RAD.}}
\psfrag{C}{{\bf MAT.}}
\includegraphics[width=130mm]{times.eps}
\caption{Linking with observational information by descriptive
variables}
\vspace{5pt}
{\parbox{140mm}{\footnotesize Representation of the linking process with
observational Universe information. The theoretical minimal model is found
in the lower side, running on variables ${\bar{\bar{t}}}$, ${\bar{t}}$, $t$
with sudden and continuous transitions on such variables at ${\bar{t_1}}$ and
${\bar{t_2}}$. The observational Universe information is represented in
the upper side, whose dynamics at transitions $t_r$ and $t_m$ can be considered
nearly sudden but in any case discontinuous which respect to proper cosmic
times. Expressions relating both pieces are given in the text.}}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Summary of Scale Factor Description}

\hspace{8mm} Equations (\ref{rin}-\ref{rmat}) have allowed us
to link the model for the scale factor
eqs.(\ref{descr}-\ref{match1}) with observational Universe
information.
The scale factor written in cosmic time-type variables
have thus the expression: \enlargethispage{5mm}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Descr}
\bar{\bar{a_I}}(\bar{\bar{t}}) & = & \bar{\bar{A_{I}}}
{(\bar{\bar{t_I}}-\bar{\bar{t}})}^{-Q} \ \ \ \ \ \ \
{\bar{\bar{t_i}}}  <  {\bar{\bar{t}}} < {\bar{t_1}}   \\
\bar{a_{II}}(\bar{t}) & = & \bar{A_{II}} {(\bar{t}-\bar{t_{II}})}^R
 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \   \bar{t_1} < \bar{t}  < \bar{t_2}\nonumber \\
a_{III}(t) & = & A_{III} {(t)}^M
\ \ \ \ \ \ \  \ \ \ \ \bar{t_2} <  t < {t_0} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with sudden and continuous transitions at $\bar{t_1}$ and $\bar{t_2}$ for
both the scale factor
and first derivatives with respect to the descriptive cosmic time-type
variables $\bar{\bar{t}}$ eq.(\ref{tbarbar}), $\bar{t}$ eq.(\ref{tbar})
and $t$. In such a way, the parameters in function of transitions
and global scale factor $\bar{A}_{II}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\bar{t_I}} & = & \bar{t_1} \left(1+{Q \over{R}}\right) - \bar{t_2}
\left({Q \over{R}}-{Q \over{M}}\right) \ \ \ \ \ \  , \ \ \ \ \ \
\label{MAtch1}
\bar{t_{II}}  =  \left({1-{R\over{M}}}\right) \bar{t_2}  \\
\bar{\bar{A_I}} & = & \bar{A_{II}} {\left({Q \over{R}}\right)}^Q
{\left(\bar{t_1} - (1-{R\over{M}})\bar{t_2}\right)}^{R+Q} \ \ \ , \ \ \
A_{III}  =  \bar{A_{II}} {\left({R \over{M}}\right)}^{R} {\bar{t_2}}^{R-M}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
We remember that transitions $\bar{t_1}$, $\bar{t_2}$
and the beginning of the inflationary stage description $\bar{\bar{t_i}}$ are
expressed in terms of the standard observational times $t_r$ and $t_m$ as:
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{t_1} & = & {R \over{M}} t_r + \left(1 - {R \over{M}}\right) t_m
\ \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \
\bar{t_2}  =  t_m \label{Ti} \\
\bar{\bar{t_i}} & = &
 \left({R \over{M}} + {Q\over{M}}{{t_r-t_i}\over{t_r-t_I}} \right)t_r
+ \left(1 - {R \over{M}}\right) t_m \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Parameters of scale factor (\ref{Descr}) satisfy also the corresponding
equations (\ref{match1}). With help of
eqs.(\ref{tiii}),(\ref{tii}) and (\ref{Ti}), these parameters can
be written too in terms of
$t_r$, $t_m$ and the global scale factor $\bar{A_{II}}$:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Match1}
\bar{\bar{t_I}} & = & {t_r} {\left({R\over{M}}+{Q\over{M}}\right)} + {t_m}
{\left({1 - {R \over{M}}}\right)} \ \ \ , \ \ \
\bar{t_{II}}  =  \left({1-{R\over{M}}}\right) t_m  \\
\bar{\bar{A_I}} & = & \bar{A_{II}} {\left({Q \over{M}}\right)}^Q
{\left({R \over{M}}\right)}^R {t_r}^{R+Q} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \  \
A_{III}  =  \bar{A_{II}} {\left({R \over{M}}\right)}^{R} {t_m}^{R-M}
\nonumber \end{eqnarray}

The descriptive scale factor eq.(\ref{Descr}) can be expressed
also in the proper cosmic time variables as:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Dest}
\bar{\bar{a_I}}(t) & = & \bar{A_{II}} {\left(\frac{R}{M}\right)}^R
{t_r}^{R+Q} \: {\left(\frac{t_I}{t_r}-1\right)}^Q\:{(t_I-t)}^{-Q} \\
\bar{a_{II}}(t) & = & \bar{A_{II}} {\left(\frac{R}{M}\right)}^R \: t^R
\nonumber \\
a_{III}(t) & = & \bar{A_{II}} {\left(\frac{R}{M}\right)}^R {t_m}^{R-M} \:t^M
\nonumber \end{eqnarray}
but remember that not fully continuity (and not in first derivatives)
helds on proper cosmic time.
It could be considered sudden instantaneous transitions at
$t_r$ and $t_m$ in such a way that the scale factor is continuous:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\bar{\bar{a_I}}(t_r) & = & \bar{a_{II}}(t_r) \\
\bar{a_{II}}(t_m) & = & a_{III}(t_m)
\end{eqnarray*}
but there is not continuity in the first time derivative of the scale factor.
In the inflation-radiation
dominated transition $t_r$, this continuity condition would be satisfied
by models whose inflation scale factor follows:
\begin{equation} \label{conti}
t_I = \left( 1 + \frac{Q}{R} \right) t_r
\end{equation}
and is in anycase impossible to obtain derivative continuity at the radiation
dominated-matter dominated transition $t_m$.
In sake of generality we will
not consider eq.(\ref{conti}) holds in the following.

By the other hand, in the transformed descriptive variables, the
transitions are
much more smooth. In fact, we know that
$\bar{\bar{a_I}}(\bar{t_1}) = \bar{a_{II}}(\bar{t_1})$ and
$\bar{a_{II}}(\bar{t_2}) = a_{III}(\bar{t_2})$.
It holds also:
\begin{displaymath}
\left. {\frac{d{\bar{\bar{a_I}}}(\bar{\bar{t}})}{d{\bar{\bar{t}}}}}
\right|_{{\bar{t_1}}^-} =
\left. {\frac{d{\bar{a_{II}}}(\bar{t})}{d{\bar{t}}}}\right|_{{\bar{t_1}}^+}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \  , \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\left. {\frac{d{\bar{a_{II}}}(\bar{t})}{d{\bar{t}}}} \right|_{{\bar{t_2}}^-}
= \left. {\frac{d{a_{III}}(t)}{d{t}}} \right|_{{\bar{t_2}}^+}
\end{displaymath}
Notice that:
\begin{equation} \label{tat}
\frac{d\bar{\bar{t}}}{dt} = -\frac{Q}{M} \frac{t_r}{t_r-t_I}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \frac{d \bar{t}}{dt} = \frac{R}{M}
\end{equation}
These are the factors absorbing the discontinuity in the derivative with
respect
to proper cosmic time and allowing
continuity in the first derivative of scale
factor in descriptive variables $\bar{\bar{t}}$ and $\bar{t}$ at
transitions $\bar{t_1}$ and $\bar{t_2}$.

The minimal model thus constructed reaches the same expansion ratii
in each stage and with the same evolution laws than extracted from
information about observational Universe.
But differently from that, this model has sudden, continuous and smooth
transitions among the three stages. A feature making possible this effect
is a change in the
duration of stages. When measured in descriptive variables, matter
dominated stage has the same duration than in observational description.
Not the same for radiation dominated  and inflationary stages:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left.{\Delta \bar{t}}\right|_{RAD} & = & \frac{R}{M}
\left.{\Delta t}\right|_{RAD}  \\
\left.{\Delta {\bar{\bar{t}}}}\right|_{INF} & = & \frac{Q}{M}
\frac{t_r}{t_I-t_r} \left.{\Delta t}\right|_{INF}
\end{eqnarray*}
For usual values of  $R$ and $M$, the radiation dominated stage suffers
a contraction in descriptive variables. For inflationary stage, it depends
of involved parameters. Contraction takes place in this stage if
$t_I >  \left(\frac{Q}{M}+1 \right)t_r$.

\section{The Conformal Time Coordinate}
\setcounter{equation}0

\hspace{8mm} In the last Section we have obtained a minimal model for
the scale factor, working with descriptive variables of cosmic time type.
We have  related those with the observational transition times.
It is also convenient to translate it in terms of
the conformal time.
This variable is defined as $d\eta = \frac{dt}{a(t)}$. The metric
in conformal time gauge is expressed as:
\begin{displaymath}
ds^2 = {a(\eta)}^2 \left(d\eta^2 - dx^2\right)
\end{displaymath}
Following our definition of cosmic time type variable $t=c \mathcal{T}$,
the variable $\eta$ will have too dimensions of lenght.

\subsection{The general case}

\hspace{8mm} We construct now the conformal time over the descriptive cosmic time
variables, with which the scale factor is satisfactorily continuous.
That means we will have a particular conformal time variable for each stage,
not only oughted to the different shape of the scale factor but also
as consequence
of the different temporal variables used in its description. Thus, following
eqs.(\ref{Descr}) we define:
\begin{eqnarray}
d \: \bar{\bar{\eta}} & = &  \frac{d{\bar{\bar{t}}}}{\bar{\bar{a_I}}
(\bar{\bar{t}})}
\ \ \ \ \ {\bar{\bar{t_i}}}  <  {\bar{\bar{t}}} < {\bar{t_1}}
\label{etain}  \\
d \: \bar{\eta} & = & \frac{d{\bar{t}}}{\bar{a_{II}}(\bar{t})}
\ \ \ \ \  \bar{t_1} < \bar{t}  < \bar{t_2}  \nonumber \\
d\: \eta & = & \frac{d{t}}{a_{III}(t)}
\ \ \ \ \bar{t_2} <  t < {t_0}   \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
We integrate these equations in order to obtain expressions
for the conformal time variable in each stage.
Let be the parameters $\eta_i$, $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$ the conformal
time values corresponding to the beginning of each stage of the
minimal model at $\bar{\bar{t_i}}$, $\bar{t_1}$ and $\bar{t_2}$.
\begin{displaymath}
\eta_i\: = \: \bar{\bar{\eta}}(\bar{\bar{t_i}}) \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \
\eta_1\: = \: \bar{\eta}(\bar{t_1}) \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \
\eta_2\:  = \: \eta(\bar{t_2})
\end{displaymath}
Now, eq.(\ref{etain}) yields the variable ${\bar{\bar{\eta}}}$
for the inflationary stage
\begin{equation} \label{bbet}
{\bar{\bar{\eta}}} \: = \: \eta_i \: + \: \frac{1}{(Q+1){\bar{\bar{A_{I}}}}}
\left[{(\bar{\bar{t_I}}-\bar{\bar{t_i}})}^{Q+1}-
{(\bar{\bar{t_I}}-\bar{\bar{t}})}^{Q+1}\right] \ \ \ \ \ \
\bar{\bar{t_i}}<\bar{\bar{t}}<\bar{t_1}
\end{equation}
For the radiation dominated stage, the corresponding conformal time variable
$\bar{\eta}$ takes the form
\begin{equation} \label{bet}
\bar{\eta} \: = \: \eta_1 \: + \: \frac{1}{(1-R){\bar{A_{II}}}}
\left[{({\bar{t}}-{\bar{t_{II}}})}^{1-R}-
{({\bar{t_1}-{\bar{t_{II}}})}}^{1-R}\right] \ \ \ \ \ \
\bar{t_1}< \bar{t}<\bar{t_2}
\end{equation}
Finally, the variable $\eta$ in the matter dominated stage is:
\begin{equation} \label{et}
\eta \: = \: \eta_2 \: + \: \frac{1}{(1-M)A_{III}}
\left[t^{1-M} - \bar{t_2}^{1-M}\right] \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \  \bar{t_2}< t<t_0
\end{equation}

By inverting the above relations eqs.(\ref{bbet}-\ref{et})
we obtain in the inflationary stage:
\begin{displaymath}
\bar{\bar{t}} \: = \: \bar{\bar{t_I}} - {\left[{(\bar{\bar{t_I}}-
\bar{\bar{t_i}})}^{Q+1} \: - \: (\bar{\bar{\eta}}-\eta_i)(Q+1)
\bar{\bar{A_{I}}}\right]}^{\frac{1}{Q+1}}
\end{displaymath}
in the radiation stage
\begin{displaymath}
\bar{t} \: = \: \bar{t_{II}} \: + \: {\left[{(\bar{t_1}-\bar{t_{II}})}^{1-R}
\: + \: (\bar{\eta}-\eta_1)(1-R){\bar{A_{II}}}\right]}^{\frac{1}{1-R}}
\end{displaymath}
and in the matter dominated stage
\begin{displaymath}
t \: = \: {\left[{\bar{t_2}}^{1-M} \: + \: (\eta-\eta_2)(1-M){A_{III}}
\right]}^{\frac{1}{1-M}}
\end{displaymath}

With suitable rearrangements of constants, we substitute the above
expressions on scale factor eqs.(\ref{Descr}) and we have the
following minimal model written in conformal time:
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\bar{a_I}}(\bar{\bar{\eta}}) & = & {\alpha_I} {(\eta_I - {\bar{\bar
{\eta}}})}^{-q} \label{etagen1} \\
\bar{a_{II}}(\bar{\eta}) & = & {\alpha_{II}} {(\eta_{II} + \bar{\eta})}^r
\nonumber \\
a_{III}(\eta) & = & {\alpha_{III}} {(\eta_{III} + \eta)}^m \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the exponents of temporal dependences $q$, $r$, $m$
have the following expressions:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{expo}
q & = & {Q\over{Q+1}} \ \ \ \  , \ \ \ \  r = {R \over{1-R}} \ \ \ \ ,
\ \ \ \  m = {M \over{1-M}}
\end{eqnarray}
and the parameters $\alpha_j$, $\eta_j$ $(j=I,II,III)$ are:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{anul}
\alpha_I & = & {\left(\bar{\bar{A_{I}}} {(Q+1)}^{-Q} \right)}^{1\over{Q+1}}
\ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \
\eta_I =  \eta_i + \frac{{(\bar{\bar{t_I}}-\bar{\bar{t_i}})}^{Q+1}}
{(Q+1){\bar{\bar{A_{I}}}}}  \\
\alpha_{II} & = & {\left(\bar{A_{II}} {(1-R)}^{R}\right)}^{1\over{1-R}}
\ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \
\eta_{II} =  \frac{{(\bar{t_1}-\bar{t_{II}})}^{1-R}}{(1-R){\bar{A_{II}}}}
\: - \: \eta_1 \nonumber \\
\alpha_{III} & = & {\left({A_{III}} {(1-M)}^M \right)}^{1\over{1-M}}
\ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \
\eta_{III} =  \frac{{\bar{(t_2)}}^{1-M}}{(1-M)A_{III}} \: - \: \eta_2
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Expressions (\ref{anul}) are the most general relations among
parameters of a scale factor description in conformal time
and the corresponding one in cosmic time. No assumptions and
no use of continuity conditions have been yet made.
When the scale factor in cosmic time description satisfies continuity
conditions, their properties eqs.(\ref{MAtch1})
allow us to write the relations for $\alpha_j$, $\eta_j$ as function
of a more reduced number of parameters and
transition times $\bar{t_1}$ and $\bar{t_2}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_I & = & {\left(\bar{A_{II}}{\left({Q\over {R}}\right)}^Q {(Q+1)}^{-Q}
\ {\left(\bar{t_1}-(1-\frac{R}{M})\bar{t_2}\right)}^{R+Q}
\right)}^{1\over{Q+1}} \label{set1} \\
\eta_I & = & \eta_i + \frac{{\left(\bar{t_1}(1+\frac{Q}{R})-
(\frac{Q}{R}-\frac{Q}{M})\bar{t_2} - \bar{\bar{t_i}} \right)}^{Q+1}}
{(Q+1){\bar{A_{II}}}{(\frac{Q}{R})}^Q{{\left(\bar{t_1}-(1-\frac{R}{M})
\bar{t_2}\right)}^{R+Q}}}  \nonumber  \\
\alpha_{II} & = & {\left(\bar{A_{II}} {(1-R)}^{R} \right)}^{1\over{1-R}}
\ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ \
\alpha_{III} =  {\left(\bar{A_{II}} {(1-M)}^M {\left({R\over M}\right)}^R
\ \ {\bar{t_2}}^{R-M}\right)}^{1\over{1-M}}  \nonumber \\
\eta_{II} & = & \frac{{\left(\bar{t_1}-(1-\frac{R}{M})\bar{t_2}\right)}^{1-R}}
{(1-R){\bar{A_{II}}}} \: - \: \eta_1 \ \ \ , \ \ \
\eta_{III}  =  \frac{{\bar{t_2}}^{1-R}}{(1-M){\bar{A_{II}}}{(\frac{R}{M})}^R}
\: - \: \eta_2 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
meanwhile the conformal time variables (\ref{bbet}-\ref{et}) take the next
expressions:
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\bar{\eta}} & = & \eta_i + \left[\frac{{\left(\bar{t_1}(1+\frac{Q}{R})-
\bar{t_2}(\frac{Q}{R}-\frac{Q}{M})-\bar{\bar{t}}_i\right)}^{Q+1}}
{(Q+1){\left(\frac{Q}{R}\right)}^Q
\bar{A_{II}}{\left(\bar{t_1}-(1-\frac{R}{M})\bar{t_2}\right)}^{R+Q}}\right.
\: + \:  \label{BBEta} \\
& & \ \ \  - \: \left.\frac{{\left(\bar{t_1}(1+\frac{Q}{R})-
\bar{t_2}(\frac{Q}{R}-\frac{Q}{M})-\bar{\bar{t}}\right)}^{Q+1}}
{(Q+1){\left(\frac{Q}{R}\right)}^Q
\bar{A_{II}}{\left(\bar{t_1}-(1-\frac{R}{M})\bar{t_2}\right)}^{R+Q}}\right]
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \bar{\bar{t_i}}<\bar{\bar{t}}<\bar{t_1}
\nonumber \\
\bar{\eta} & = & \eta_1 \; + \; \frac{\left[{\left(\bar{t}-(1-\frac{R}{M})
\bar{t_2}\right)}^{1-R} \; - \;
{\left(\bar{t_1}-(1-\frac{R}{M})\bar{t_2}\right)}^{1-R}\right]}
{(1-R)\bar{A_{II}}} \ \ \ \ \  \bar{t_1} < \bar{t} < \bar{t_2} \nonumber \\
\eta & = & \eta_2 \; + \; \frac{\left[t^{1-M} \; - \; \bar{t_2}^{1-M}\right]}
{(1-M)\bar{A_{II}}{(\frac{R}{M})}^R\;{(\bar{t_2})}^{R-M}}
 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \bar{t_2} < t < t_0
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

At this point, we have not considered whatever or not the conformal time
variable itself is continuous. But as consequence
of the continuity of the scale factor written in cosmic
time-type variables along
$\bar{t_1}$ and $\bar{t_2}$, we have yet:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left. {\frac{d{\bar{\bar{\eta}}}}{d{\bar{\bar{t}}}}}\right|_{{\bar{t_1}}^-}
& = & \left. {\frac{d{\bar{\eta}}}{d{\bar{t}}}}\right|_{{\bar{t_1}}^+} \ = \
\frac{1}{\bar{A_{II}}{\left(\bar{t_1}-(1-\frac{R}{M})\bar{t_2}\right)}^R}
\label{con1}\\
\left. {\frac{d{\bar{\eta}}}{d{\bar{t}}}} \right|_{{\bar{t_2}}^-} & = &
\left. {\frac{d{\eta}}{d{t}}} \right|_{{\bar{t_2}}^+} \ =
\  \frac{{\left(\frac{R}{M}\bar{t_2}\right)}^{-R}}{\bar{A_{II}}} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

\subsection{The continuous $\eta$ case}

\hspace{8mm} Now, we can impose conditions relating the three conformal
time variables eqs.(\ref{BBEta}) since we have the freedom in the
parameters defined as $\eta_i$, $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$.

We will constrain the conformal time to be continuous along the transitions at
$\bar{t_1}$ and $\bar{t_2}$, where the scale factor written in cosmic
time-type variables have fully satisfactories continuity conditions.
In this way, we will have the conformal time
univocally defined at these transitions.
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_1 & = & \bar{\eta}({\bar{t_1}}) \ \ \equiv \ \ \bar{\bar{\eta}}
({\bar{t_1}})  \label{Con1}\\
\eta_2 & = & \eta{({\bar{t_2}})} \ \ \equiv \ \ \bar{\eta}(\bar{t_2})
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

These conditions and eqs.(\ref{bbet}-\ref{et}) give two relations linking
the parameters $\eta_i$ and the two transitions $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_2 & = & \eta_1 \: + \: \frac{1}{(1-R){\bar{A_{II}}}}
\left[{({\bar{t_2}}-{\bar{t_{II}}})}^{1-R}-
{({\bar{t_1}-{\bar{t_{II}}})}}^{1-R}\right] \label{et2in} \\
\eta_1 & = & \eta_i \: + \: \frac{1}{(Q+1){\bar{\bar{A_{I}}}}}
\left[{(\bar{\bar{t_I}}-\bar{\bar{t_i}})}^{Q+1}-
{(\bar{\bar{t_I}}-\bar{{t_1}})}^{Q+1}\right] \label{et1in}
\end{eqnarray}
Making use of the continuity properties of scale factor in cosmic time
description (\ref{match1}) we can write eq.(\ref{et1in}) as:
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_1 & = & \eta_i \: + \: \frac{\frac{Q}{R}{(\bar{t_1}-\bar{t_{II}})}^{1-R}}
{(Q+1)\bar{A_{II}}}{\left[{\left(1+\frac{\bar{t_1}-\bar{\bar{t_i}}}
{\frac{Q}{R}(\bar{t_1}-\bar{t}_{II})}\right)}^{Q+1}\: -\: 1\right]}
\label{Et1in}
\end{eqnarray}
and by using the matching eqs.(\ref{Match1}) and relations (\ref{Ti})
we can express them as functions of the observational
transition times $t_r$ and $t_m$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_2 & = & \eta_1 \: + \: \frac{{(\frac{R}{M})}^{1-R}}{(1-R)\bar{A_{II}}}
({t_m}^{1-R}-{t_r}^{1-R}) \label{et1} \\
\eta_1 & = & \eta_i \: + \: \frac{\frac{Q}{R}
{\left(\frac{R}{M}t_r\right)}^{1-R}}{(Q+1)\bar{A_{II}}}
{\left[{\left(\frac{t_i-t_I}{t_r-t_I}\right)}^{Q+1}\: - \: 1 \right]}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

The remaining freedom is used by convenience to eliminate
the parameter $\eta_{II}$ in order to simplify the expression of the
radiation dominated stage scale factor: $ \eta_{II} = 0 $.
From (\ref{anul}) is immediately obtained:
\begin{equation}
\eta_1 = \frac{{(\bar{t_1}-\bar{t_{II}})}^{1-R}}{(1-R){\bar{A_{II}}}}
\label{et1se}
\end{equation}
thus, we have $\eta_1$ as a parameter univocally fixed in terms of parameters
of the minimal model scale factor. With eq.(\ref{et2in}) and (\ref{et1se}) we
obtain the fixed expression for $\eta_2$:
\begin{equation}
\eta_2 = \frac{{(\bar{t_2}-\bar{t_{II}})}^{1-R}}{(1-R){\bar{A_{II}}}}
\label{et2se}
\end{equation}
and the parameter $\eta_i$ is equally fixed in terms of the cosmic time-type
variables from eqs.(\ref{Et1in}) and (\ref{et1se}).
\begin{equation}
\eta_i = \frac{{(\bar{t_1}-\bar{t_{II}})}^{1-R}}{(Q+1)\bar{A_{II}}}
{\left[\frac{R+Q}{R(1-R)} \: - \: \frac{Q}{R}
{\left(1+\frac{\bar{t_1}-\bar{\bar{t_i}}}
{\frac{Q}{R}(\bar{t_1}-\bar{t_{II}})}\right)}^{Q+1}\right]} \label{etise}
\end{equation}

Using again the matching expressions eqs.(\ref{Match1}) and the
relations (\ref{Ti})
on eqs.(\ref{et1se}-\ref{etise}) we can
finally write the expressions relating the conformal time transitions
$\eta_1$, $\eta_2$ and $\eta_i$ with the observational standard values
for the transitions at the beginning of radiation dominated stage $t_r$,
beginning of matter dominated stage $t_m$ and beginning of inflationary
stage $t_i$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_1 & = & \frac{{\left(\frac{R}{M}\:t_r\right)}^{1-R}}{(1-R){\bar{A_{II}}}}
\label{et1ob} \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ \
\eta_2  = \frac{{\left(\frac{R}{M}\:t_m\right)}^{1-R}}{(1-R){\bar{A_{II}}}} \\
\eta_i & = & \frac{{\left(\frac{R}{M}\:t_r\right)}^{1-R}}{(Q+1){\bar{A_{II}}}}
{\left[\frac{R+Q}{R(1-R)} \: - \: \frac{Q}{R}{\left(\frac{t_i-t_I}
{t_r-t_I}\right)}^{Q+1}\right]}  \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

Eqs.(\ref{et1se}-\ref{etise}) or the corresponding ones
in terms of observational transition times eqs.(\ref{et1ob})
constitute the continuity and simplicity conditions for the
conformal time variable chosen. From eqs.(\ref{BBEta})
with help of eqs.(\ref{Ti}),(\ref{Match1}) and (\ref{et1ob}),
the continuous conformal time as function of transition
times $t_r$ and $t_m$ and proper cosmic time $t$ in each stage is:
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\bar{\eta}} & = & {{{({R\over M} t_r)}^{1-R}}\over{\bar{A_{II}}
(Q+1)}} \left[{{R+Q}\over{R(1-R)}}-{Q\over R}
{\left({{t_I -t}\over{t_I-t_r}}\right)}^{Q+1}\right]
\ \ \ \ \  t_i < t < t_r \label{etcont1} \\
\bar{\eta} & = & {{{({R\over M} t)}^{1-R}}\over{\bar{A_{II}}(1-R)}}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \  \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \  t_r < t < t_m \nonumber \\
\eta & = & {{{({R\over M} t_m)}^{1-R}}\over{\bar{A_{II}}(1-M)}}
\left[{{R-M}\over{R(1-R)}} + {M\over R} {\left({t\over{t_m}}\right)}^{1-M}
\right] \ \ \ \ \ t_m < t < t_0 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

With this continuous conformal time (\ref{etcont1}), the scale factor
takes the form:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{etadef}
\bar{\bar{a_I}}(\bar{\bar{\eta}}) & = & {\alpha_I} {(\eta_I - {\bar{\bar
{\eta}}})}^{-q} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \eta_i < \bar{\bar{\eta}} < \eta_1 \\
\bar{a_{II}}(\bar{\eta}) & = & {\alpha_{II}} {(\bar{\eta})}^r
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \eta_1 < \bar{\eta} < \eta_2  \nonumber  \\
a_{III}(\eta) & = & {\alpha_{III}} {(\eta_{III} + \eta)}^m \ \ \ \ \
\eta_2 < \eta  \nonumber
 \end{eqnarray}
where the parameters $q$, $r$ and $m$ obey again relations (\ref{expo}) and
the coefficients $\alpha_j$ and  $\eta_j$ $(j=I,II,III)$
have these expressions since the continuity conditions (\ref{et1ob}) hold:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{SET1}
\alpha_I & = & {\left(\bar{A_{II}}{\left({R\over {M}}\right)}^R
{\left({Q\over {M}}\right)}^Q
{1 \over{{(Q+1)}^Q}} \; {t_r}^{R+Q} \right)}^{1\over{Q+1}} \\
\eta_I & = & {{R+Q}\over{R(Q+1)(1-R)}} {{{{({R\over M}t_r)}^{1-R}}}\over
{\bar{A_{II}}}} \nonumber \\
\alpha_{II} & = & {\bar{A_{II}}}^{1\over{1-R}} {(1-R)}^{R\over{1-R}}
\ \ \ , \ \ \
\alpha_{III}  =  {\left(\bar{A_{II}} {(1-M)}^M {\left({R\over M}\right)}^R
{t_m}^{R-M}\right)}^{1\over{1-M}} \nonumber \\
\eta_{II} & = & 0 \ \ \ \ \  \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \  \ \
\eta_{III} =  {{M-R}\over{R(1-M)(1-R)}}
{{{({R\over M} t_m)}^{1-R}}\over{\bar{A_{II}}}} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

\subsection{Continuity of the scale factor in conformal time}

\hspace{8mm} The relations (\ref{etadef}) and (\ref{SET1}) have been
obtained by  imposing to the conformal time
variable itself some conditions of simplicity and continuity at transtitions
$\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$. The same results
could be reached by imposing equivalent relations to the scale factor
written in conformal time.

We can take the more general case for the scale factor eqs.(\ref{etagen1}) and
impose it to have transitions at generic parameters $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$
with continuity for the scale factor and its first derivative with respect to
conformal time. This matching led to the next four relations between the six
parameters of the scale factor $\alpha_j$, $\eta_{j}$ $(j = I, II, III)$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_I & = & \alpha_{II} {\left(\frac{q}{r}\right)}^q {(\eta_1 +
\eta_{II})}^{r+q} \label{MATch1}\\
\eta_I & = & \eta_1 \left(1+\frac{q}{r}\right) + \frac{q}{r} \; \eta_{II}
\label{MATch2} \\
\alpha_{III} & = & \alpha_{II} {\left(\frac{m}{r}\right)}^{-m} {(\eta_{II}+
\eta_2)}^{r-m} \label{MATch3} \\
\eta_{III} & = & \eta_2 {\left(\frac{m}{r}-1\right)} + \frac{m}{r} \;
\eta_{II} \label{MATch4}
\end{eqnarray}

Now, we find the conditions to be satisfied by the parameters $\eta_1$ and
$\eta_2$ in order
to satisfy the matching conditions eqs.(\ref{MATch1}-\ref{MATch4}) when the
conformal time
variable has been obtained from a cosmic time-type description with continuous
 and smooth transitions. Thus, we have in principle the general
expressions (\ref{set1}) for $\alpha_j$, $\eta_j$ $(j=I,II,III)$.
It is straightforward to see that
eq.(\ref{MATch1}) is trivially satisfied. From eq.(\ref{MATch2}) we obtain:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{sor1}
\eta_i & = & \eta_1  +  \frac{\frac{Q}{R}{(\bar{t_1}-
(1-\frac{R}{M})\bar{t_2})}^{1-R}}
{(Q+1)\bar{A_{II}}}{\left[1 -  {\left(1+\frac{\bar{t_1}-\bar{\bar{t_i}}}
{\frac{Q}{R}(\bar{t_1}-(1-\frac{R}{M})\bar{t_2})}\right)}^{Q+1}\right]} \ \ \
\end{eqnarray}
Meanwhile, both eqs.(\ref{MATch3}) and (\ref{MATch4}) give the same
condition:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{sor2}
\eta_2 & = & \eta_1 \: + \: \frac{1}{(1-R){\bar{A_{II}}}}
\left[{\left(\frac{R}{M}{\bar{t_2}}\right)}^{1-R} \; - \;
{\left(\bar{t_1}-(1-\frac{R}{M})\bar{t_2}\right)}^{1-R}\right]
\end{eqnarray}
It is easy to see that eqs.(\ref{sor1}) and (\ref{sor2}) are equivalent to
expressions (\ref{Et1in})
and (\ref{et2in}). By making use of expressions (\ref{Match1}) and
(\ref{Ti}) we can write them as function of observational values:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eta_2 \: - \: \eta_1 & = &  \frac{{(\frac{R}{M})}^{1-R}}{(1-R)\bar{A_{II}}}
({t_m}^{1-R}-{t_r}^{1-R})  \\
\eta_i \:  - \: \eta_1 & = & \frac{\frac{Q}{R}
{\left(\frac{R}{M}t_r\right)}^{1-R}}{(Q+1)\bar{A_{II}}}
{\left[1 \: - \: {\left(\frac{t_i-t_I}{t_r-t_I}\right)}^{Q+1} \right]}
\end{eqnarray*}
That means, we have recovered the conditions (\ref{et1})
obtained from imposing
continuity to conformal time variable itself before simplifying  $\eta_{II}=0$.

In fact, the four conditions of continuity of the scale factor written in
conformal time (\ref{MATch1}) are not independent
equations when
the conformal time variable is constructed over a continuous description in
cosmic time. Continuity in the first derivative of the conformal time
scale factor is warranted
from continuity in the first derivative of the cosmic time description
because equality of the
relative derivatives eqs.(\ref{con1}). Thus, the
only two independent
conditions are the equality in the scale factor at the transitions $\eta_1$
and $\eta_2$. Satisfy
them impose not only the continuity in the scale factor written in cosmic
time at $\bar{t_1}$
and $\bar{t_2}$ but also the continuity in the conformal time variable itself
along the
transitions, exactly as made in eqs.(\ref{Con1}) and
remaining always one
freedom that we fix by imposing the simplifying condition $\eta_{II} = 0$.

\subsection{Summary of the scale factor in conformal time}

\hspace{8mm} We have used the scale factor description written in cosmic time-type
variables (See eqs.(\ref{Descr}) and related ones) in order to define a
continuous conformal time variable and also the corresponding
scale factor with suitable continuity and simplicity properties:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{EDescr}
\bar{\bar{a_I}}(\bar{\bar{\eta}}) & = & {\alpha_I} {(\eta_I - {\bar{\bar
{\eta}}})}^{-q} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \eta_i < \bar{\bar{\eta}} < \eta_1 \\
\bar{a_{II}}(\bar{\eta}) & = & {\alpha_{II}} {(\bar{\eta})}^r
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \eta_1 < \bar{\eta} < \eta_2 \nonumber \\
a_{III}(\eta) & = & {\alpha_{III}} {(\eta_{III} + \eta)}^m \ \ \ \ \
\eta_2 < \eta  \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with continuous, sudden and smooth transitions (continuity of scale factor and
first derivative with respect to conformal time) at $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$.
The parameters $\alpha_j$, $\eta_j$ $(j= I,II,III)$ satisfy these
matching relations:
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_I & = & \alpha_{II} {\left(\frac{q}{r}\right)}^q {(\eta_1
)}^{r+q} \label{MAT1} \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \
\eta_I  =  \eta_1 \left(1+\frac{q}{r}\right)  \\
\alpha_{III} & = & \alpha_{II} {\left(\frac{m}{r}\right)}^{-m}
{(\eta_2)}^{r-m} \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \
\eta_{III} =  \eta_2 {\left(\frac{m}{r}-1\right)} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

It must be remembered that all the parameters of this scale factor in
conformal time have complete and univocally translation as functions
of the observational transition times $t_r$, $t_m$, the cosmic time
$t = c {\mathcal{T}}$ and the global scale factor constant $\bar{A_{II}}$.
This dictionary is constituted by the expressions given for the exponents
$q$, $r$ and $m$ in eqs.(\ref{expo}) and the corresponding ones for
$\alpha_j$, $\eta_j$ $(j=I,II,III)$ by eqs.(\ref{SET1}).
Remember also the expressions for conformal time variables eqs.(\ref{etcont1})
and the expressions for the transition parameters $\eta_1$, $\eta_2$ and
$\eta_i$ eqs.(\ref{et1ob}).

In this way, we have obtained a minimal model with continuous, sudden
and smooth transitions in cosmic time description (\ref{Descr}) and also in
conformal time variables (\ref{EDescr}).

\section{Another Conformal Time Construction}
\setcounter{equation}0

\hspace{8mm} We have used above the descriptive cosmic time
variables in order to linking the conformal time variable with
the observational information.  Another alternative arises: it
is possible to link the conformal time variable {\it directly} with
the current cosmic time variable $(t)$ without passing the
descriptive variables.

   This possibility will give us a conformal time description
{\it closer} to cosmic time and observational information. So close
that it will hereditate the lacking of full satisfactory continuity
conditions, as we will see. Differently from the former one,
this conformal time variable satisfies continuity itself in
the proper time derivatives.
Transitions are studied directly on the observational values
$t_r$ and $t_m$ instead of the descriptive ones $\bar{t_1}$,
$\bar{t_2}$ where fully continuity could be introduced.
Scale factor in this conformal time variable is not as continuous
as last case. Their transitions can be made sudden and
continuous, but never smooth. Matching relations for this
scale factor are differents from the above given.
For studies where full continuity of scale factor can be overcome or
closeness to observational information is prioritary, this approach
could result useful.
\pagebreak[4]

Again, we will have a particular conformal time variable for each stage,
oughted to the different shape of the scale factor . We define:
\begin{eqnarray}
d \bar{\bar{\eta}} & = & \frac{ d{t'}}{\bar{\bar{a_I}}(t')} \ \
\ \ \ \ \ {t_i}  <  t' < {t_r}  \label{Etain}  \\
d \bar{\eta} &  =  & \frac{d{t'}}{\bar{a_{II}}(t')}  \ \ \ \ \
{t_r} < {t'}  < {t_m}  \nonumber \\
d \eta & = & \frac{d{t'}}{a_{III}(t')} \ \ \ \
{t_m} <  t' < {t_0}   \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $a_I(t)$, $a_{II}(t)$ and $a_{III}(t)$ are given by
eqs.(\ref{Dest}).
Working as made in the general conformal time case, we integrate the equations
above and obtain expressions
for the conformal time variable in each stage. Thus, we define the variable
${\bar{\bar{\eta}}}$ for the inflationary stage, $\bar{\eta}$ for radiation
dominated stage and $\eta$ for matter dominated stage:
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\bar{\bar{\eta}}} & = & \eta_i + \frac{{\left(\frac{t_I}{t_r}-1\right)}^{-Q}}
{(Q+1){\bar{A_{II}}}{{t_r}^{R+Q}}
{(\frac{R}{M})}^R} \left[{(t_I-t_i)}^{Q+1}-
{(t_I-t)}^{Q+1}\right] \ \ \ \ \ \  t_i<t<t_r \\
\bar{\eta} & = &\eta_1 + \frac{1}{(1-R){\bar{A_{II}}}{(\frac{R}{M})}^R}
(t^{1-R} - {t_r}^{1-R}) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
t_r<t<t_m \\
\eta & = &\eta_2 + \frac{1}{(1-M){\bar{A_{II}}}{{t_m}^{R-M}}
{(\frac{R}{M})}^R}(t^{1-M} - {t_m}^{1-M}) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ t_m<t<t_0
\end{eqnarray*}
where we have defined this time the parameters
$\eta_i =\bar{\bar{\eta}}(t_i)$,
$\eta_1 = \bar{\eta}(t_r) $ and  $\eta_2 = \eta(t_m)$.
By inverting the above relations for $\eta$, ${\bar{\eta}}$ and
$\bar{\bar{\eta}}$ we obtain expressions for $t$ in each one of
the stages:
\begin{eqnarray*}
t_I - t  & = & {\left[{(t_I-t_i)}^{Q+1} - (\bar{\bar{\eta}}-\eta_i)(Q+1)
\bar{A_{II}} {\left(\frac{R}{M}\right)}^R {t_r}^{R+Q}
{\left(\frac{t_I}{t_r}-1\right)}^Q
\right]}^{\frac{1}{Q+1}} \  t_i<t <t_r \\
t & = &{\left[{t_r}^{1-R} + (\bar{\eta}-\eta_1)(1-R){\bar{A_{II}}}
{\left(\frac{R}{M}\right)}^R\right]}^{\frac{1}{1-R}}
\ \ \ \ \ \ t_r < t < t_m \\
t & = &{\left[{t_m}^{1-M} + (\eta-\eta_2)(1-M){\bar{A_{II}}}
{\left(\frac{R}{M}\right)}^R {t_m}^{R-M} \right]}^{\frac{1}{1-M}}
t_m<t<t_0
\end{eqnarray*}

With some straightforward computations
and suitable rearrangements of constants, we obtain expressions for
the scale factor as seen in eqs.(\ref{etagen1}) whose temporal
dependence exponentes are
given again by eqs.(\ref{expo}) and the parameters
$\alpha_j$, $\eta_j$ $(j=I,II,III)$ are: \pagebreak[4]
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_I & = & {\left(\bar{A_{II}}{\left({R\over {M}}\right)}^R
{\left({\frac{t_I}{t_r}-1} \right)}^Q {(Q+1)}^{-Q} \ \ {t_r}^{R+Q}
\right)}^{1\over{Q+1}} \\
\eta_I & = & \eta_i + \frac{1}{(Q+1){\bar{A_{II}}}{{t_r}^{R+Q}}
{(\frac{R}{M})}^R}{\left(\frac{t_I}{t_r}-1\right)}^{-Q} {(t_I-t_i)}^{Q+1}
\nonumber \\
\alpha_{II} & = & {\left(\bar{A_{II}} {(1-R)}^{R}
{\left(\frac{R}{M}\right)}^{R}\right)}^{1\over{1-R}} \ \  , \ \
\alpha_{III}  =  {\left(\bar{A_{II}} {(1-M)}^M {\left({R\over M}\right)}^R
\ \ {t_m}^{R-M}\right)}^{1\over{1-M}} \nonumber \\
\eta_{II} & = & \frac{{t_r}^{1-R}}{(1-R){\bar{A_{II}}}{(\frac{R}{M})}^R}
- \eta_1 \ \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ \
\eta_{III}  =  \frac{{t_m}^{1-R}}{(1-M){\bar{A_{II}}}{(\frac{R}{M})}^R}
- \eta_2 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

Now, we can impose conditions relating the three conformal time variables
in order to eliminate the freedom in the parameters defined as $\eta_i$,
$\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$. We use it for constraining the conformal time to
be continuous along the transitions at $t_m$ and $t_r$ (and, as consequence,
univocally defined at these transitions).
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eta_1 & = & \bar{\eta}({t_r}) \ \ \equiv \ \ \bar{\bar{\eta}}({t_r}) \\
\eta_2 & = & \eta{({t_m})} \ \ \equiv \ \ \bar{\eta}({t_m})
\end{eqnarray*}
and the remaining freedom is used again in eliminate
the parameter $\eta_{II}$, simplifying thus the expression of the
radiation dominated stage scale factor $\eta_{II} = 0$.
Whit these three conditions,
we can fix the parameters $\eta_i$, $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$ as functions
of parameters of the minimal model only. The parameter $\eta_i$ is:
\begin{equation}
\eta_i = \frac{1}{{t_r}^R {\bar{A_{II}}} {(\frac{R}{M})}^R}
\left[{\frac{t_r}{(1-R)}}-{\frac{(t_I-t_r)}{(Q+1)}}\left[{\left({\frac
{t_I-t_i}{t_I-t_r}}\right)}^{Q+1}-1\right]\right]
\end{equation}
and the parameters related to the transitions are:
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_1 & = & {{{t_r}^{1-R}}\over{\bar{A_{II}} (1-R) {({R\over M})}^R}}
 \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ \
\eta_2  =  {{{t_m}^{1-R}}\over{\bar{A_{II}} (1-R) {({R\over M})}^R}}
\end{eqnarray}
In this way, the conformal time variables are continuous and univocally
defined at transitions
$\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$. In terms of minimal model parameters, they are:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Eperf}
\bar{\bar{\eta}} & = & {{ {(t_r)}^{-R}}\over{\bar{A_{II}}
{\left({R\over {M}}\right)}^R}(Q+1)}
\left[{{R+Q}\over{(1-R)}}\ t_r + {t_I} -
{{{(t_I -t)}^{Q+1}\over{(t_I-t_r)}^Q }}\right] \\
\bar{\eta} & = & {{{(t)}^{1-R}}\over{\bar{A_{II}}(1-R)
{\left({R\over M}\right)}^R}} \nonumber \\
\eta & = & {{ {(t_m)}^{1-R}}\over{\bar{A_{II}}(1-M)
{\left({R\over M}\right)}^R}}
\left[{{R-M}\over{1-R}} + {\left({t\over{t_m}}\right)}^{1-M}
\right] \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Notice this conformal time variable enjoys continuity along the
transitions and observational times $t_r$ and $t_m$, not only
on the variable itself but also in their derivative with respect
to proper cosmic time in each stage:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left. {\frac{d{\bar{\bar{\eta}}}}{dt}}\right|_{{t_r}^-} & = &
\left. {\frac{d{\bar{\eta}}}{dt}}\right|_{{t_r}^+} \ = \
\frac{{t_r}^{-R}}{\bar{A_{II}}{\left(\frac{R}{M}\right)}^R}
\label{Econ1}\\
\left. {\frac{d{\bar{\eta}}}{dt}} \right|_{{t_m}^-} & = &
\left. {\frac{d{\eta}}{d{t}}} \right|_{{t_m}^+} \ = \
\frac{{t_m}^{-R}}{\bar{A_{II}}{\left(\frac{R}{M}\right)}^R}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

With these variables, we obtain the model written in continuous
conformal time
as can be seen in eqs.(\ref{etadef}). In this case, its parameters take this
form:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{Eset1}
\alpha_I & = & {\left(\bar{A_{II}}{\left({R\over {M}}\right)}^R
{\left({\frac{t_I}{t_r}-1} \right)}^Q {(Q+1)}^{-Q} \ \ {t_r}^{R+Q}
\right)}^{1\over{Q+1}} \\
\eta_I & = & \frac{{t_r}^{1-R}}{{\bar{A_{II}}}(Q+1){\left(
{R\over M}\right)}^R} \left[\frac{t_I}{t_r}+\frac{Q+R}{1-R}\right]
\nonumber \\
\alpha_{II} & = & {\left(\bar{A_{II}} {(1-R)}^{R}
{\left({R\over M}\right)}^R\right)}^{\frac{1}{1-R}} \ \  ,  \ \
\alpha_{III}  =  {\left(\bar{A_{II}} {(1-M)}^M {\left({R\over M}\right)}^R
{t_m}^{R-M}\right)}^{1\over{1-M}} \nonumber \\
\eta_{II}  & = & 0 \ \ \ \ \  , \  \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\eta_{III} = {{M-R}\over{(1-M)(1-R)}}\:
{{{(t_m)}^{1-R}}\over{\bar{A_{II}}{\left({R\over {M}}\right)}^R}} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that parameters (\ref{Eset1}) do not satisfy eqs.(\ref{MAT1}).
That means, the scale factor  (\ref{EDescr}) does not have
sudden, continuos and smooth transitions among stages when
it runs on this conformal time variables (\ref{Eperf}). Scale factor
is continuous, but not thus its first derivative with respect to conformal
time. In this case, we have sudden and continuous transitions at
$\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$, but they are not smooth.

In fact, we have continuity in the scale factor
$\bar{\bar{a_I}}(\eta_1) = \bar{a_{II}}(\eta_1)$ and
$\bar{a_{II}}(\eta_2) = a_{III}(\eta_2)$. For the first
derivative, instead of  equality among both sides of
transition, we have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left. {\frac{d{\bar{\bar{a_I}}}(\bar{\bar{\eta}})}
{d{\bar{\bar{\eta}}}}}\right|_{{\eta_1}^-} & = &
\frac{R}{Q}\left(\frac{t_I}{t_r}-1\right)
\left. {\frac{d{\bar{a_{II}}}(\bar{\eta})}
{d{\bar{\eta}}}}\right|_{{{\eta_1}}^+} \\
\left. {\frac{d{\bar{a_{II}}}(\bar{\eta})}
{d{\bar{\eta}}}} \right|_{{{\eta_2}}^-} & = &
\frac{M}{R}
\left. {\frac{d{a_{III}}(\eta)}{d{\eta}}} \right|_{{{\eta_2}}^+}
\end{eqnarray*}
Explanation is simple: this conformal time variable maps
very closer the cosmic proper times. So closer that
equality in its derivatives with respect to proper cosmic times
hold along the transitions. But we know there is an inherent
discontinuity in the proper cosmic time derivatives of
scale factor, as discussed above (See eqs.(\ref{Dest}-\ref{conti}) and
comments below). This discontinuity
was absorbed in the descriptive cosmic time variables, as can
be seen from their derivatives eqs.(\ref{tat}).
Lacking of this descriptive variables, this construction of
conformal time is not able to absorb such discontinuity at
transitions $t_r$ and $t_m$ and the related proportionality
factors (\ref{tat})  reappear in the conformal time derivatives of
scale factor.

By arranging in the right way the equality among the right-hand
and left-hand derivatives, the matching equations for the scale
factor (\ref{EDescr}) with conformal time (\ref{Eperf})
take the form:
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_I & = & \alpha_{II}{(\eta_1)}^{r+q}{\left(\frac{q}{r}\right)}^q
{\left(\frac{Q}{R}\frac{t_r}{t_I-t_r }\right)}^{-q} \ \ , \ \
\eta_I  =  \eta_1 \left(1+\frac{q}{r}{\left(\frac{Q}{R}
\frac{t_r}{t_I-t_r}\right)}^{-1}\right) \\
\alpha_{III} & = & \alpha_{II}{\eta_2}^{r-m} {\left(\frac{m}{r}
\frac{R}{M}\right)}^{-m}  \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\eta_{III}  =  \eta_2 {\left(\frac{m}{r}\frac{R}{M}-1 \right)} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

\section{Conclusions}

\hspace{8mm} Our starting point and motivation was to realize that modelized
transitions can not reproduce real transitions.
We point out that in cosmologies dealing with discountinuous
stages describing a step-by-step evolution for the scale factor
without underlying satisfactory description of transitions,
is not enough to match the scale factor. At priori, the
spacetime metric can be discontinuous, leading to
discontinuities in the temporal variables itself.

As the description of different stages come from different coordinate systems,
there exists the possibility of transformations relating them.
We have used this freedom choosing coordinates with satisfactory
continuous matching along transitions and containing the minimal
information about the observational Universe.

The minimal observational information are the transition time scales. It
gives us scale factor ratii reached in each evolution stage as a powerful tool.
All our constructions are constrained to reach the same expansion ratii
in each one of the stages eqs.(\ref{rin}-\ref{rmat}).

The set of parameters relating descriptive scale factor and observational
Universe information is given. This scale factor (\ref{Descr}) runs on
transformed variables ((\ref{tbar}),(\ref{tbarbar}))
and has modified durations on inflationary and radiation dominated stages.
The matter dominated stage is considered untransformed in the
description, since observations must be made from this current stage.
Modelized transitions happen at transformed temporal coordinates,
related with the observational values (\ref{Ti}).

Also, a set of parameters giving satisfactory continuous and predictive
conformal time minimal model is computed. The conformal time
variable (\ref{etcont1}) is constructed on the descriptive model and
constrained
to be continuous along the transformed transitions (\ref{et1ob}).
A remaining
freedom is invested in simplicity for the corresponding scale factor
expressions (\ref{EDescr}).

The minimal model thus obtained have continuous, sudden and
smooth transitions both in cosmic time and in conformal time
descriptions. Minimal information of observational Universe have
been introduced in both cases. Parameters and variables are linked with
observational standard values and current proper cosmic time in a totally
determined way
((\ref{Match1}),(\ref{expo}),(\ref{MAT1}) and related expressions).
It preserves the physical
meaning and predictability of computations made with these constructions
and allows them to be confronted with measurementes and observations.
For instance, gravitational wave generation and related type computations
can benefit of this kind of treatment.

We have included also another conformal
time variable with different continuity and predictive characteristics.
It is constructed on the proper cosmic time directly and maps it
closer than the former one (\ref{Eperf}). This variable is smoothly continuous
along the transitions at observational times.  In opposite way, the
scale factor running on it presents sudden and continuous transitions,
but never smooth. It is oughted to the lack of descriptive intermediate
variables absorbing the inherent discontinuity in the proper time
derivatives of scale factor at real transitions.

Of course, we do not consider this treatment solves the problem of
transitions among the stages for which a full dynamical description is
required. We recall the problem of continuity
of temporal coordinate variable in step-by-step cosmologies
and we suggest some ways in order to overcome it, at least
useful in extraction of some observational consequences.
It is clearly useful in metric perturbations type computations,
and it can be applied in whatever subject involving different
cosmological evolution stges.
It opens the way to new and more exact treatments.

\section*{Appendixes}


\section{Introduction\label{Intro}}

In the past several years Zoltan Szabo \cite{S1,S2} and the authors
\cite{KL4M} have produced examples of simply connected irreducible
4-manifolds which do not admit a
symplectic structure with either orientation. We shall call such manifolds
{\it{nonsymplectic}}. Due to the nature of their construction, these
manifolds have
many basic classes. It is the purpose of this paper to construct families
of examples of
nonsymplectic 4-manifolds which (up to sign) have just one basic class.

The key to detecting that the manifolds of \cite{S1,S2} and of \cite{KL4M}
are not symplectic lies in the theorem of C. Taubes which states that the
Seiberg-Witten
invariant associated to the canonical class of a symplectic $4$-manifold is
$\pm1$.
Recall that the Seiberg-Witten invariant  $\text{SW}_X$ of a smooth closed
oriented $4$-manifold
$X$ with $b ^+>1$ is an integer valued function which is defined on the set of
$spin^{\, c}$ structures over $X$ (cf. \cite{W}). In case $H_1(X;\mathbf{Z})$ has no
2-torsion, there is a natural identification of the
$spin^{\, c}$ structures of
$X$ with the characteristic elements of $H^2(X;\mathbf{Z})$. In this case we view the
Seiberg-Witten invariant as
\[ \text{SW}_X: \lbrace k\in H^2(X,\mathbf{Z})|k\equiv w_2(TX)\pmod2)\rbrace
\rightarrow \mathbf{Z}. \] The Seiberg-Witten invariant $\text{SW}_X$ is a smooth
invariant whose sign depends on an orientation of
$H^0(X;\mathbf{R})\otimes\det H_+^2(X;\mathbf{R})\otimes \det H^1(X;\mathbf{R})$. If $\text{SW}_X(\beta)\neq
0$, then $\beta$ is called a {\it{basic class}} of $X$. It is a fundamental
fact that the
set of basic classes is finite.  If $\beta$ is a basic class, then so is $-\beta$
with
\[\text{SW}_X(-\beta)=(-1)^{(\text{e}+\text{sign})(X)/4}\,\text{SW}_X(\beta)\] where
$\text{e}(X)$ is the Euler number and $\text{sign}(X)$ is the signature of $X$.
Because of this, we shall say that $X$ {\it{has $n$ basic classes}} if the
set $\{\beta\,
|\,\text{SW}_X(\beta)\ne0\}/ \{\pm1\}$ consists of $n$ elements.

There are abundant examples of $4$-manifolds with one basic class. Minimal
nonsingular
algebraic surfaces of general type have one basic class (the canonical class)
\cite{W}. The authors have constructed many examples of minimal symplectic
manifolds
with one basic class and $\chi -3\le {c_1}^2 < 2\chi -6$, where $\chi =
(b^++1)/2$.
(These manifolds cannot admit complex structures due to the geography of
complex
surfaces.) However, the examples produced below are the first nonsymplectic
manifolds
with one basic class.

As in \cite{KL4M} we need to view the Seiberg-Witten invariant as a Laurent
polynomial.
To do this, let
$\{\pm \beta_1,\dots,\pm \beta_n\}$ be the set of nonzero basic classes for $X$.
We may then view the Seiberg-Witten invariant of $X$ as the `symmetric'
Laurent polynomial
\[\mathcal{SW}_X = b_0+\sum_{j=1}^n
b_j(t_j+(-1)^{(\text{e}+\text{sign})(X)/4}\,t_j^{-1})\]
where  $b_0=\text{SW}_X(0)$, $b_j=\text{SW}_X(\beta_j)$ and $t_j=\exp(\beta_j)$.
The examples of \cite{S1,S2} and of \cite{KL4M} are obtained by producing
$4$-manifolds
whose Seiberg-Witten Laurent polynomial $\mathcal{SW}_X$ has as a factor a nonmonic
(symmetrized)
Alexander polynomial of a knot or link. Taubes' result is then used to show
that $X$
cannot have a symplectic structure. It is not difficult to see that any
nonsymplectic
manifold (with $b^+>1$) which can be constructed by the techniques of
\cite{KL4M} (as
explained in \cite{KL4M}, this includes the examples of Szabo) must have
more than one
basic class.

Whereas the examples of \cite{KL4M} are constructed by surgeries on
embedded tori of
self-intersection 0, the examples presented here arise from surgeries on
higher genus
surfaces. These examples are described in the next section.

\medskip

\section{A new family of 4-manifolds\label{family}}

We begin by recalling the construction of \cite{KL4M}. Suppose that we are
given a smooth
simply connected oriented $4$-manifold $X$ containing an essential smoothly
embedded torus
$T$ of self-intersection 0. Suppose further that $\pi_1(X\setminus T)=1$
and that $T$ is
contained in a cusp neighborhood. Let $K\subset S^3$ be a smooth knot and
$M_K$ the
3-manifold obtained from 0-framed surgery on $K$. The meridional loop $m$
to $K$ defines a
1-dimensional homology class $[m]$ both in $S^3\setminus K$ and in $M_K$.
Denote by $T_m$
the torus $S^1\times m\subset S^1\times M_K$. Then $X_K$ is defined to be the fiber
sum
\[ X_K= X\#_{T=T_m} S^1\times M_K = (X\setminus N(T))\cup(S^1\times(S^3\setminus
N(K)), \]
where $N(T)\cong D^2\times T^2$ is a tubular neighborhood of $T$ in $X$ and
$N(K)$ is a
neighborhood of $K$ in $S^3$. If $\lambda$ denotes the longitude of $K$
($\lambda$ bounds a
surface in $S^3\setminus K$) then the gluing of this fiber sum identifies
$\{ {\text{pt}}
\}\times \lambda$ with a normal circle to $T$ in $X$. The main theorem of
\cite{KL4M} asserts
that $X_K$ is homeomorphic to $X$, and
\[ \mathcal{SW}_{X_K}=\mathcal{SW}_X\cdot \Delta_K(t)\]
where $\Delta_K$ is the symmetrized Alexander polynomial of $K$ and
$t=\exp(2[T])$.

To begin our construction, take $X$ to be the $K3$-surface (which has
$\mathcal{SW}_X=1$) and let
the torus $T$ be a smooth fiber of an elliptic fibration on $X$. The pair
$(X,T)$
satisfies the hypotheses of  \cite{KL4M}; so for any knot $K$ we get a homotopy
$K3$-surface $X_K$ whose Seiberg-Witten invariant is $\mathcal{SW}_{X_K}=\Delta_K(t)$. The
$K3$-surface,
$X$, has a section (to the elliptic fibration) which is a smoothly embedded
2-sphere $S$
of self-intersection
$-2$, and $[S]\cdot [T]=1$. The sum $[S]+[T]$ is represented by a smooth
torus $\Sigma$ with
$[\Sigma]^2=0$ and $[\Sigma]\cdot[T]=1$.

Suppose that the knot $K$ has genus $g$. In the construction of
$X_K$ we have replaced a 2-disk in $S$ (normal to $T$) with a punctured
surface of genus
$g$. Thus $X_K$ contains a genus $g$ surface $S'$ satisfying
$[S']\cdot[S']=-2$ and
$[S']\cdot [T] = 1$. Consider another smooth fiber $T'$ of the elliptic
fibration of
$(X\setminus N(T))\subset X_K$. Then $T'+S'$ is a singular curve with one
double point,
which can be smoothed to give an embedded surface $\Sigma'$ of genus $g+1$
representing the
homology class $[\Sigma']=[T']+[S']$. Thus $[\Sigma']^2=0$ and $[\Sigma']\cdot
[T]=1$.

Next, let $K'$ denote the left-handed trefoil knot in $S^3$. Since $K'$ is
a fibered genus 1
knot, the 4-manifold $S^1\times M_{K'}$ is a smooth $T^2$-fiber bundle over
$T^2$. Forming the
fiber sum of $g+1$ copies of $S^1\times M_{K'}$, we obtain
\[ \begin{array}{ccc}
F=T^2 \longrightarrow & Y&\negthickspace =\ S^1\times M_{K'}\#_F\cdots\#_F
S^1\times M_{K'}\\
&\Big\downarrow&\\
& C_0&
\end{array}\]
where $C_0$ is a genus $g+1$ surface. Furthermore, $S^1\times M_{K'}$ is a
symplectic manifold
\cite{Th}.  Notice that there is a section $C\subset Y$ of
the fibration given by the connected sum of the $g+1$ tori $T_{m_i}$.

Generally, suppose that we are given symplectic 4-manifolds $A$ and $B$ and
that
$A\#_NB$ is their symplectic fiber sum along a symplectic torus of
self-intersection
$0$. The adjunction formula implies that the canonical class $K_A$ is
orthogonal to
$[N]$, as is $K_B$. The canonical class of $A\#_NB$ is then
$K_{A\#_NB}=K_A+K_B+2[N]$
({cf.\cite{Gompf}). Apply this fact to $X_{K'}=K3\#_{T=T_m}S^1\times M_{K'}$. Since
$\mathcal{SW}_{X_{K'}}=\Delta_{K'}(t)=t-1+t^{-1}$ (where $t=\exp(2[T_m]$), we see that
$ K_{X_{K'}}= 2T_m = K_{K3}+K_{S^1\times M_{K'}}+2[T_m]=K_{S^1\times M_{K'}}+2[T_m]$.
Hence $K_{S^1\times M_{K'}}=0$ and so $c_1(K_{S^1\times M_{K'}})=0$. Now apply the
fact $g$ more
times, this time fiber-summing along $F$. It follows that $Y$ is a
symplectic 4-manifold
with $c_1(Y)=-2g[F]$.
(Here, we identify $[F]$ with its Poincar\'e dual.)

Our example, corresponding to the genus $g$ knot $K$ is
\[ Z_K=X_K\#_{\Sigma'=C}Y.\]
We perform this fiber sum so that $Z_K$ is a spin 4-manifold \cite{Gompf}.

\begin{prop} The manifold $Z_K$ is simply connected. \end{prop}
\begin{proof} The fundamental group $\pi_1(X_K\setminus\Sigma')$ is normally
generated by a
boundary circle of a normal disk to $\Sigma'$. Since $[\Sigma']\cdot[T]=1$, we
may assume that
this circle lies on a copy $\{\text{pt}\}\times T$ in the boundary $\partial D^2\times
T=\partial N(T)$.
We claim that there are generators $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$, for $\pi_1(T)$ which
bound
vanishing cycles (disks of self-intersection $-1$) in $X\setminus (S\cup
T')$. (Note that
here we are identifying $X\setminus T$ with $X_K\setminus T$.) This claim
can be seen to
be true inside a $K3$ nucleus, i.e. in a regular neighborhood of the union
of $S$ and a
cusp fiber. A Kirby calculus diagram for the nucleus is given in the
Figure~1 below.

The section $S$ is the union of the disk spanned by the circle
labelled `$-2$' and the core of the 2-handle which is attached to it.
The torus $T$ is obtained as follows. The circle labelled `0' bounds a disk
$D$ which is
punctured in two points by one of the dotted circles. Remove a pair of
disks from $D$ at
these intersection points, and connect the boundaries of these disks with
an annulus
which surrounds the path $\gamma$ in the diagram. The torus $T$ is the union of
the
twice-punctured $D$ and this annulus. We can see that the loop $\alpha$ of the
diagram lies
on $T$, and it is easy to deform $\beta$ to also lie on $T$. (When this is
done, $\alpha$ and
$\beta$ will intersect in a point.)
Thus $H_1(T)$ is generated by the classes represented by the loops $\alpha$ and
$\beta$. The vanishing cycles are the cores of the  ($-1$)-framed 2-handles which
are attached to $\alpha$ and $\beta$. This proves the claim.

\centerline{\unitlength 1cm
\begin{picture}(4,6.5)
\put (1,5){\oval(1,1)[l]}
\put (1.2,4.7){\line(0,1){1.15}}
\put (2.9,4.7){\line(0,1){1.15}}
\put (3,5){\oval(1,1)[r]}
\put (1,4.485){\line(1,0){2}}
\put (.71,5.85){\oval(1,1)[t]}
\put (3.41,5.85){\oval(1,1)[t]}
\put (0.2,5.85){\line(0,-1){3.85}}
\put (3.9,5.85){\line(0,-1){4}}
\put (1.2,4.25){\line(0,-1){1.2}}
\put (2.9,4.25){\line(0,-1){.5}}
\put (2.06,2){\oval(3.7,1)[bl]}
\put (1.55,3.035){\oval(.675,.55)[bl]}
\put (1.5,2.75){\line(1,0){.65}}
\put (1.96,2.9){\oval(.5,.75)[t]}
\put (2.2,2.9){\line(0,-1){1.75}}
\put (1.96,1.25){\oval(.5,.75)[b]}
\put (1.7,2.65){\line(0,-1){.6}}
\put (1.7,1.85){\line(0,-1){.3}}
\put (1.7,1.4){\line(0,-1){.2}}
\put (1.7,2.2){\oval(.5,.5)[b]}
\put (1.6,2.2){\oval(.3,.3)[tl]}
\put (1.8,2.2){\oval(.3,.3)[tr]}
\put (2.9,3.85){\oval(.5,.5)[b]}
\put (2.8,3.85){\oval(.3,.3)[tl]}
\put (3,3.85){\oval(.3,.3)[tr]}
\put (3.2,3.75){\footnotesize$-1$}
\put (3.05,3.45){\tiny$\alpha$}
\put (1,2.1){\footnotesize$-1$}
\put (1.35,1.77){\tiny$\beta$}
\put (2.9,3.5){\line(0,-1){.5}}
\put (2.25,2.75){\line(1,0){.35}}
\put (2.57,3.035){\oval(.675,.55)[br]}
\put (2.25,1.87){\oval(3.32,.75)[br]}
\put (2.1,2.1){$\bullet$}
\put (3.8,3.75){$\bullet$}
\put (2,4.2){\footnotesize$0$}
\put (2,5.5){\oval(.5,.75)[r]}
\put (1,5.49){\line(1,0){.1}}
\put (1.3,5.49){\line(1,0){.85}}
\put (2.3,5.49){\line(1,0){.5}}
\put (2,5.625){\oval(.35,.5)[tl]}
\put (2,5.375){\oval(.35,.5)[bl]}
\put (2,5.9){\footnotesize$-2$}
\put (0.95,3.5){\tiny$\gamma$}
\put (1.5,.25){Figure 1}
\end{picture}}

This means that  $\pi_1(\{\text{pt}\}\times T)\to\pi_1(X\setminus\Sigma)$ is the
zero map;
hence $\pi_1(\{\text{pt}\}\times T)\to\pi_1(X_K\setminus\Sigma')$ is also the
zero map.
However, $\pi_1(X_K\setminus\Sigma')$  is normally generated by the image of
this map; so
$X_K\setminus\Sigma'$ is simply connected. Thus
\[ \pi_1(Z_K)=\pi_1(X_K\setminus\Sigma')*_{\pi_1(C\times S^1)}\pi_1(Y\setminus C)
  = \pi_1(Y\setminus C)/\pi_1(C\times S^1). \]

Because $\pi_1(S^3\setminus K')$ is normally generated by the meridian $m$,
$\pi_1(S^1\times (S^3\setminus K'))=\pi_1((S^1\times M_{K'})F)$ is normally
generated by
$\pi_1(S^1\times m)$. An inductive application of Van Kampen's theorem shows
that $\pi_1(Y)$
is normally generated by $\pi_1(S^1\times m \#\cdots\# S^1\times m)=\pi_1(C)$. Thus
$\pi_1(Y\setminus C)$ is normally generated by $\pi_1(C\times S^1)$, and so
$\pi_1(Z_K)=1$.
\end{proof}

\medskip
\section{The Seiberg-Witten invariants of $Z_K$\label{SW}}

Consider first $H_2(Z_K)$. There is an important class $\tau\in H_2(Z_K)$
constructed as
follows. In the construction of $Z_K$, the boundary of a tubular
neighborhood $N(\Sigma')$
of $\Sigma'$ in $X_K$ is identified with the boundary of a tubular
neighborhood $N(C)$
of $C$ in $Y$. Fix a fiber $F$ of $Y$, and let $F_0=F\setminus(F\cap
\text{int} N(C))$.
There is torus $T''$ which is a smooth fiber of the elliptic fibration of
$X\setminus\{ T\cup T'\}\subset X_K$ and such that if
$T''_0=T''\setminus(T''\cap \text{int} N(\Sigma'))$, then $\partial T''_0=\partial F_0$
in $Z_K$. Let
$\tau$ denote the class $\tau= [T''_0\cup F_0]$. Note that $\tau$ is represented
by an
embedded surface of genus 2, $\tau^2=0$, and $\tau\cdot[\Sigma']=1$. Then
$H_2(Z_K)$ is generated
by the image of $H_2(Y\setminus C)$, of $H_2(X_K\setminus\Sigma')$, and the
class $\tau$. The
only other classes which could contribute to $H_2(Z_K)$ are the classes of
rim tori, i.e.
tori lying on $\partial N(\Sigma')=\partial N(C)$ in $Z_K$ which have the form
$\xi\times\partial D^2$ where $D^2$ is a normal disk to $\Sigma'$ (or to $C$). The
next lemma shows
that in fact they are all trivial.

\begin{lem}\label{rim} Each rim torus is homologically trivial in $Z_K$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} A rim torus on $\partial N(C)$ has the form $\xi\times\partial D^2$, for
some loop $\xi$
on $C$. Recall that there is a fiber bundle $\varphi: Y\to C_0$ with fiber
$F$. Let
$Q=\varphi^{-1}(\xi)\subset Y$. We see that $\xi\times\partial D^2$ bounds the
3-chain $Q\setminus
(\xi\times\,\text{int}\,D^2)$ in $Y\setminus N(C)\subset Z_K$.\end{proof}

Before we prove our main theorem, we recall that a 4-manifold $W$ is said
to have
{\it{simple type}} if $\text{SW}_W(k)\ne 0$ implies that
\[ \dim\mathcal M_W(k)= \frac14 (k^2-(3\,\text{sign}+2\,\text{e})(W))=0 \]
where $\mathcal M_W(k)$ is the Seiberg-Witten moduli space. Write the symmetrized
Alexander polynomial of $K$ as
$\Delta_K(t)=a_0+\sum\limits_{n=1}^da_n(t^n+t^{-n})$. We
call $d$ the {\it{degree}} of $\Delta_K(t)$. We are assuming that the genus of
$K$ is $g$; so
$d\le g$. If $K$ is an alternating knot, for example, then $d=g$. Let us
say that the
Alexander polynomial of $K$ has {\it{maximal degree}} if $d=g$.

\begin{thm} Let $K$ be a knot in $S^3$ whose Alexander polynomial has
maximal degree.
Then $Z_K$ is of simple type and has (up to sign) a single basic class,
$k=2g\,\tau+2[\Sigma']$. Furthermore, $|\text{SW}_{Z_K}(k)|=a_d$, the top coefficient of
$\Delta_K(t)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} Let $U$ denote a nucleus in $X=K3$ which contains the fiber
$T$ and section
$S$ from the construction of $X_K$. We see that $(X\setminus U)\subset
(X_K\setminus\Sigma')$. The homology $H_2(X\setminus U)\cong 2\,E_8\oplus
2\,H$, where the
negative definite $E_8$ forms are generated by the classes of embedded
spheres of
self-intersection $-2$, and the two hyperbolic pairs $H$ are each generated
by a torus
$T_i$ of self-intersection 0, and a sphere $S_i$ of self-intersection -2
which meet
transversely in a single point. The homology $H_2(X_K\setminus\Sigma')$ is
generated by the
image of $H_2(X\setminus U)$ together with $[\Sigma']$ and the classes of rim
tori.

Next consider $Y = S^1\times M_{K'}\#_F\cdots\#_F S^1\times M_{K'}$ ($g+1$ copies)
where $F$ is
the torus fiber of the fibration of $S^1\times M_{K'}$ over the torus. Each
$S^1\times M_{K'}$
has the homology of $S^2\times T^2$. Each fiber sum in the construction of $Y$
increases the
first betti number
$b_1$ by $2$ --- the base of the fibration has genus increased by $1$ ---
and $H_2$ is
increased by the addition of two hyperbolic pairs as follows: Choose a
standard basis
$\{ x_1, x_2\}$ for $H_1(F;\mathbf{Z})$. For example, $x_1$ is represented by a
loop as shown in
Figure~2.  Each of the curves $x_i$ bounds a punctured torus $\Gamma_i$ in
$M_K$. In
Figure~3, $x_1$ is isotopic to the pictured curve $x_1'$, and the punctured
torus is composed
of the twice-punctured disk which $x_1'$ bounds, together with a 1-handle
which pipes around
the knot. Let $x_i''$ be a push-off of $x_i$ in $F$. Then the linking
number of $x_i$ and
$x_i''$ is $+1$. (Here we are using the fact that $K'$ is a left-hand
trefoil knot.) This means
that the self-intersection number of $\Gamma_i$ (as a surface in $M_K\times I$,
say), keeping its
boundary in
$F$, is $+1$.

\centerline{\unitlength 1cm
\begin{picture}(12,6)
\put (2,3){\oval(3,4)[l]}
\put (3,3){\oval(3,4)[r]}
\put (2,5){\line(3,-4){1}}
\put (3,3.66){\line(-3,-4){.4}}
\put (3,5){\line(-3,-4){.4}}
\put (2,3.66){\line(3,4){.4}}
\put (2,3.66){\line(3,-4){1}}
\put (2,2.33){\line(3,4){.4}}
\put (2,2.33){\line(3,-4){1}}
\put (3,2.33){\line(-3,-4){.4}}
\put (2,1){\line(3,4){.4}}
\put (2.4,3.66){\oval(1.5,1.4)[l]}
\put (2.6,3.66){\oval(1.5,1.4)[r]}
\put (1.5,4.25){\small{$x_1$}}
\put (4.65,4.4){\small{$0$}}
\put (1.85,.5){Figure 2}
\put (9,3){\oval(3,4)[bl]}
\put (7.49,3){\line(0,1){.125}}
\put (10,3){\oval(3,4)[r]}
\put (9,5){\line(-1,0){.85}}
\qbezier (7.49,4.35)(7.6,4.9)(8.15,5)
\put (9,5){\line(3,-4){1}}
\put (10,3.66){\line(-3,-4){.4}}
\put (10,5){\line(-3,-4){.4}}
\put (9,3.66){\line(3,4){.4}}
\put (9,3.66){\line(3,-4){.265}
\put (9,2.33){\line(3,4){.4}}
\put (9,2.33){\line(3,-4){1}}
\put (10,2.33){\line(-3,-4){.4}}
\put (10,2.33){\line(-3,4){.6}
\put (9,1){\line(3,4){.4}}
\put (7.1,3.2){\line(1,0){2.3}}
\put (7.65,4){\line(1,0){1.5}}
\put (7.1,4){\line(1,0){.25}}
\qbezier (9.4,3.2)(10,3.6)(9.4,4)
\qbezier (7.1,3.2)(6.5,3.6)(7.1,4)
\put (7.49,4.35){\line(0,-1){1}
\put (6.4,3.75){\small{$x_1'$}}
\put (11.65,4.4){\small{$0$}}
\put (8.85,.5){Figure 3}
\end{picture}}

 Thus in
$S^1\times M_{K'}\#_F S^1\times M_{K'}$ one produces genus 2 surfaces $S_1'$,
$S_2'$, of
self-intersection $+2$ which are formed from pairs of these tori. Let $T_1'$,
$T_2'$ be the rim tori corresponding to $x_2$, $x_1$ (reversed on purpose).
Then in
$H_2(S^1\times M_{K'}\#_F S^1\times M_{K'};\mathbf{Z})$ two
hyperbolic pairs are generated by the pairs $\{ [S_i'], [T_i']\}$. Each
further fiber
sum adds two such hyperbolic pairs to $H_2$. It follows that
$H_2(Y\setminus C)$, is generated
by the
$[S_i']$,
$[T_i']$, and the section class $[C]$.

Using our observations above, if $k$ is a basic class of $Z_K$ we can write
\[ k= a\tau+b[\Sigma']+\beta+\sum_{i=1}^2 m_i[T_i]+n_i[S_i] + \sum_{j=1}^{2g} t_j[T_j']+s_j[S_j']\]  where $a>0$ and $\beta\in 2\,E_8\subset H_2(X\setminus U)$.T
he adjunction inequality (see e.g. \cite{MST}) states that if $k$ is a
basic class and
$B$ is an embedded surface of genus $g_B$ and self-intersection $[B]^2\ge
0$ then
\[ 2g_B-2\ge [B]^2 + |k\cdot[B]|. \]
In particular, this implies that if the self-intersection of $B$ is
$[B]^2=2g_B-2$,
then any basic class
$k$ must be orthogonal to it: $k\cdot [B]=0$. Since $T_i$ is a torus of
self-interesection
$0$, it follows that
$n_i=k\cdot [T_i]=0$, and, since $[S_i]+[T_i]$ is also represented by an
embedded torus of
self-intersection
$0$, $m_i+n_i=k\cdot ([T_i]+[S_i])=0$. The same argument applies to show
that $s_j=0=t_j$
for each $j=1,\dots,2g$. Thus
$k= a\tau+b[\Sigma']+\beta$. Apply the adjunction inequality to the genus $g+1$
surface $\Sigma'$
and the genus 2 surface representing $\tau$ to obtain:
\begin{equation}\tag{*} a=k\cdot [\Sigma']\le 2g, \hspace{.5in} |b|=
|k\cdot\tau|\le 2.
\label{*}\end{equation}

Because $k$ is a basic class, $\dim\mathcal M_{Z_K}(k)\ge0$, hence
\[ 0\le k^2-(3\,\text{sign}+2\,\text{e})(Z_K). \]
Since $(3\,\text{sign}+2\,\text{e})(X_K)=0$, and
$(3\,\text{sign}+2\,\text{e})(Y)=0$, it is
easy to check that $(3\,\text{sign}+2\,\text{e})(Z_K)=8g$. Furthermore,
$\beta$ lies in
the negative definite space $2\,E_8$; so if $\beta\ne0$ then
\[ 0\le 2ab+\beta^2-8g<2ab-8g\le 8g-8g =0.\]
This contradiction implies that $\beta=0$; so $k= a\tau+b[\Sigma']$. Any of the
($-2$)-spheres
generating the $E_8$'s is orthogonal to $k$; hence orthogonal to each basic
class of
$Z_K$. It now follows from \cite{FS} that $Z_K$ has simple type;
$\dim\mathcal M_{Z_K}(k)=0$. Thus we have
\[2ab=k^2=(3\,\text{sign}+2\,\text{e})(Z_K)=8g.\]
It now follows from \eqref{*} that $a=2g$ and $b=2$, as claimed.

Finally, we apply a theorem of Morgan, Szabo, and Taubes to calculate
$\text{SW}_{Z_K}(k)$.
Since $k\cdot\Sigma'=2g$, \cite{MST} applies to give
\[\text{SW}_{Z_K}(k) =\sum\text{SW}_{Z_K}(k+2[R])=
\pm\text{SW}_{X_K}(2g\,T)\cdot\text{SW}_Y(2g\,F)\]
where the the sum is taken for all distinct classes $k+2[R]$ for $R$ a rim
torus.
Thus the first equality follows from Lemma \ref{rim} which shows that each
$[R]=0$ in
$H_2(Z_K;\mathbf{Z})$.
Now $Y$ is a symplectic manifold with $c_1(Y)=-2g\,F$; so \cite{T1} implies
that
$\text{SW}_Y(2g\,F)=\pm1$. Since we are assuming that $g=d$, \cite{KL4M}
implies that $\text{SW}_{X_K}(2g\,T)=a_d$, and this completes the proof.
\end{proof}

We remark that in case the Alexander polynomial of the knot $K$ does not
have maximal
degree, the above proof shows that $\mathcal{SW}_{Z_K}=0$; this provides potential
examples of
simply connected irreducible 4-manifolds with trivial Seiberg-Witten
invariants.

\begin{cor} Let $K$ be a knot in $S^3$ whose Alexander polynomial is not
monic and has
maximal degree. Then $Z_K$ is a nonsymplectic 4-manifold with one basic
class.\end{cor}
\begin{proof} The hypothesis implies that the only nontrivial
Seiberg-Witten invariant of
$Z_K$ has value $\pm a_d\ne\pm1$; so \cite{T1} implies that $Z_K$ has no
symplectic
structure. Since $Z_K$ contains an embedded sphere of self-intersection
$-2$, neither does
$Z_K$ with its opposite orientation admit a symplectic structure.
\end{proof}

We close with a comment concerning the geography of our construction. If
the genus of
$K$ is $g$ then $c(Z_K)\equiv(3\,\text{sign}+2\,\text{e})(Z_K)=8g$ and
$\chi(Z_K)\equiv \frac{b^++1}{2}(Z_K)=g+2$; so all these manifolds lie on
the line of
slope $8$ passing through $(2,0)=(\chi(K3),c(K3))$ in the $(\chi,
c)$-plane. We could
similarly perform our construction starting with $X=E(2n)$, the minimal
elliptic surface
without multiple fibers and with $\chi=2n$. We then obtain the same result
for the
lattice points $(3n+g-1, 8(g+n-1))$, i.e. for the lattice points on the
line of slope $8$
through
$(2n,0)=(\chi(E(2n)),c(E(2n)))$.