Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Cambridge University Press eBooks

Quantum spacetime without observers: Ontological clarity and the conceptual foundations of quantum gravity

Sheldon Goldstein, Stefan Teufel

Published Jan 29, 2001• 59 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Introduction ‘The term “3-geometry” makes sense as well in quantum geometrodynamics as in classical theory. So does superspace. But space-time does not. Give a 3-geometry, and give its time rate of change. That is enough, under typical circumstances to fix the whole time-evolution of the geometry; enough in other words, to determine the entire four-dimensional space-time geometry, provided one is considering the problem in the context of classical physics. In the real world of quantum physics, however, one cannot give both a dynamic variable and its time-rate of change. The principle of complementarity forbids. Given the precise 3-geometry at one instant, one cannot also know at that instant the time-rate of change of the 3-geometry. … The uncertainty principle thus deprives one of any way whatsoever to predict, or even to give meaning to, “the deterministic classical history of space evolving in time”. No prediction of spacetime, therefore no meaning for spacetime , is the verdict of the quantum principle’. (Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler 1973) One of the few propositions about quantum gravity that most physicists in the field would agree upon, that our notion of spacetime must, at best, be altered considerably in any theory conjoining the basic principles of quantum mechanics with those of general relativity, will be questioned in this chapter. We will argue, in fact, that most, if not all, of the conceptual problems in quantum gravity arise from the sort of thinking on display in the preceding quotation.

DOI
10.1017/cbo9780511612909.013

Related papers

Time and causality in quantum gravity

Charis Anastopoulos

The problem of time in quantum gravity is often presented as a consequence of applying quantum theory to general relativity. These notes adopt a broader perspective. We first examine how time enters classical mechanics, relativity, quantum theory, and quantum field theory, distinguishing three principal aspects: causal order, temporal duration, and the present. This analysis shows that the conceptual difficulties associated with time do not arise only when gravity is quantised. Tensions between causal structure, clocks, observables, and measurement are already present in the theories from which quantum gravity is constructed. We then survey responses to the problem of time across the principal approaches to quantum gravity. These include canonical and Wheeler-DeWitt quantisation, path-integral and histories formulations, perturbative and background-dependent approaches, causal sets, and twistor theory. The programmes are compared according to whether they retain an external time, render time problematic through quantisation, or incorporate causal or temporal structure into their foundations. Particular emphasis is placed on questions arising from quantum foundations and relativistic quantum information. We conclude by examining linearised gravity and weak-gravity quantum systems. This regime shows that the problem of time is not confined to Planck-scale physics, but arises already in attempts to provide a predictive and operationally meaningful quantum description of spacetime near flat geometry.

gr-qcCross-listedarXiv:2609.22890•Sep 22, 2026

Relational Quantum Cosmology

Francesca Vidotto

Conceptual Problems in Quantum Cosmology The application of quantum theory to cosmology raises a number of conceptual questions, such as the role of the quantum-mechanical notion of “observer” or the absence of a time variable in the Wheeler–DeWitt equation. I point out that a relational formulation of quantum mechanics, and more in general the observation that evolution is always relational, provides a coherent solution to this tangle of problems. A number of confusing issues appear when we try to apply quantum mechanics to cosmology. Quantum mechanics, for instance, is generally formulated in terms of an observer making measurements on a system. In a laboratory experiment, it is easy to identify the system and the observer: but what is the observer in quantum cosmology? Is it part of the same universe described by the cosmological theory, or should we think of it as external to the universe? Furthermore, the basic quantum dynamical equation describing a system including gravity is not the Schrödinger equation, but rather the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, which has no time parameter: is this related to the absence of an observer external to the universe? How do we describe the quantum dynamics of the universe without a time variable in the dynamical equation and without an observer external to the universe? I suggest that clarity on these issues can be obtained by simply recognizing the relational nature of quantum mechanics and more in general the relational nature of physical evolution. In the context of quantum theory, this nature is emphasized by the so-called relational interpretation of quantum mechanics (Rovelli, 1996). The relational nature of evolution, on the other hand, has been pointed out by the partial-observable formulation of general covariant dynamics (Rovelli, 2002). A central observation is that there is a common confusion between two different meanings of the expression “cosmology”. This is discussed below, in Section 15.1.1. A considerable amount of the difficulties mentioned above stems, I argue, from this confusion. The discussion clarifies on the role of the quantum mechanical observer in cosmology, which is considered in Section 15.1.2. In Section 15.2, I briefly describe the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics and some related aspects of quantum theory.

arXiv:1508.05543•Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 1, 2017•14 citations

Logic is to the quantum as geometry is to gravity

Rafael D. Sorkin

I will propose that the reality to which the quantum formalism implicitly refers is a kind of generalized history, the word history having here the same meaning as in the phrase sum-over-histories. This proposal confers a certain independence on the concept of event, and it modifies the rules of inference concerning events in order to resolve a contradiction between the idea of reality as a single history and the principle that events of zero measure cannot happen (the Kochen-Specker paradox being a classic expression of this contradiction). The so-called measurement problem is then solved if macroscopic events satisfy classical rules of inference, and this can in principle be decided by a calculation. The resulting conception of reality involves neither multiple worlds nor external observers. It is therefore suitable for quantum gravity in general and causal sets in particular. Quantum gravity and quantal reality Why, in our attempts to unify our theories of gravity and the quantum, has progress been so slow? One reason, no doubt, is that it's simply a very hard problem. Another is that we lack clear guidance from experiments or astronomical observations. But I believe that a third thing holding us back is that we haven't learned how to think clearly about the quantum world in itself, without reference to “observers” and other external agents. Because of this we don't really know how to think about the Planckian regime where quantum gravity is expected to be most relevant. We don’t know how to think about the vacuum on small scales, or about the inside of a black hole, or about the early universe. Nor do we have a way to pose questions about relativistic causality in such situations.

arXiv:1004.1226•Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jul 19, 2012•23 citations

Generalizing Quantum Mechanics for Quantum Spacetime

James B. Hartle

Familiar textbook quantum mechanics assumes a fixed background spacetime to define states on spacelike surfaces and their unitary evolution between them. Quantum theory has changed as our conceptions of space and time have evolved. But quantum mechanics needs to be generalized further for quantum gravity where spacetime geometry is fluctuating and without definite value. This paper reviews a fully four-dimensional, sum-over-histories, generalized quantum mechanics of cosmological spacetime geometry. This generalization is constructed within the framework of generalized quantum theory. This is a minimal set of principles for quantum theory abstracted from the modern quantum mechanics of closed systems, most generally the universe. In this generalization, states of fields on spacelike surfaces and their unitary evolution are emergent properties appropriate when spacetime geometry behaves approximately classically. The principles of generalized quantum theory allow for the further generalization that would be necessary were spacetime not fundamental. Emergent spacetime phenomena are discussed in general and illustrated with the example of the classical spacetime geometries with large spacelike surfaces that emerge from the `no-boundary' wave function of the universe. These must be Lorentzian with one, and only one, time direction. The essay concludes by raising the question of whether quantum mechanics itself is emergent.

•Apr 19, 2006•0 citations

Generalizing Quantum Mechanics for Quantum Spacetime

James B. Hartle

Familiar textbook quantum mechanics assumes a fixed background spacetime to define states on spacelike surfaces and their unitary evolution between them. Quantum theory has changed as our conceptions of space and time have evolved. But quantum mechanics needs to be generalized further for quantum gravity where spacetime geometry is fluctuating and without definite value. This paper reviews a fully four-dimensional, sum-over-histories, generalized quantum mechanics of cosmological spacetime geometry. This generalization is constructed within the framework of generalized quantum theory. This is a minimal set of principles for quantum theory abstracted from the modern quantum mechanics of closed systems, most generally the universe. In this generalization, states of fields on spacelike surfaces and their unitary evolution are emergent properties appropriate when spacetime geometry behaves approximately classically. The principles of generalized quantum theory allow for the further generalization that would be necessary were spacetime not fundamental. Emergent spacetime phenomena are discussed in general and illustrated with the example of the classical spacetime geometries with large spacelike surfaces that emerge from the `no-boundary' wave function of the universe. These must be Lorentzian with one, and only one, time direction. The essay concludes by raising the question of whether quantum mechanics itself is emergent.

arXiv:gr-qc/0602013•Feb 2, 2006•20 citations

Quantum spacetime without observers: ontological clarity and the conceptual foundations of quantum gravity

Sheldon Goldstein, Stefan Teufel

We explore the possibility of a Bohmian approach to the problem of finding a quantum theory incorporating gravitational phenomena. The major conceptual problems of canonical quantum gravity are the problem of time and the problem of diffeomorphism invariant observables. We find that these problems are artifacts of the subjectivity and vagueness inherent in the framework of orthodox quantum theory. When we insist upon ontological clarity---the distinguishing characteristic of a Bohmian approach---these conceptual problems vanish. We shall also discuss the implications of a Bohmian perspective for the significance of the wave function, concluding with unbridled speculation as to why the universe should be governed by laws so apparently bizarre as those of quantum mechanics.

arXiv:quant-ph/9902018•Feb 5, 1999•9 citations
Introduction ‘The term “3-geometry” makes sense as well in quantum geometrodynamics as in classical theory. So does superspace. But space-time does not. Give a 3-geometry, and give its time rate of change. That is enough, under typical circumstances to fix the whole time-evolution of the geometry; enough in other words, to determine the entire four-dimensional space-time geometry, provided one is considering the problem in the context of classical physics. In the real world of quantum physics, however, one cannot give both a dynamic variable and its time-rate of change. The principle of complementarity forbids. Given the precise 3-geometry at one instant, one cannot also know at that instant the time-rate of change of the 3-geometry. … The uncertainty principle thus deprives one of any way whatsoever to predict, or even to give meaning to, “the deterministic classical history of space evolving in time”. No prediction of spacetime, therefore no meaning for spacetime , is the verdict of the quantum principle’. (Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler 1973) One of the few propositions about quantum gravity that most physicists in the field would agree upon, that our notion of spacetime must, at best, be altered considerably in any theory conjoining the basic principles of quantum mechanics with those of general relativity, will be questioned in this chapter. We will argue, in fact, that most, if not all, of the conceptual problems in quantum gravity arise from the sort of thinking on display in the preceding quotation.
The problem of time in quantum gravity is often presented as a consequence of applying quantum theory to general relativity. These notes adopt a broader perspective. We first examine how time enters classical mechanics, relativity, quantum theory, and quantum field theory, distinguishing three principal aspects: causal order, temporal duration, and the present. This analysis shows that the conceptual difficulties associated with time do not arise only when gravity is quantised. Tensions between causal structure, clocks, observables, and measurement are already present in the theories from which quantum gravity is constructed. We then survey responses to the problem of time across the principal approaches to quantum gravity. These include canonical and Wheeler-DeWitt quantisation, path-integral and histories formulations, perturbative and background-dependent approaches, causal sets, and twistor theory. The programmes are compared according to whether they retain an external time, render time problematic through quantisation, or incorporate causal or temporal structure into their foundations. Particular emphasis is placed on questions arising from quantum foundations and relativistic quantum information. We conclude by examining linearised gravity and weak-gravity quantum systems. This regime shows that the problem of time is not confined to Planck-scale physics, but arises already in attempts to provide a predictive and operationally meaningful quantum description of spacetime near flat geometry.
Conceptual Problems in Quantum Cosmology The application of quantum theory to cosmology raises a number of conceptual questions, such as the role of the quantum-mechanical notion of “observer” or the absence of a time variable in the Wheeler–DeWitt equation. I point out that a relational formulation of quantum mechanics, and more in general the observation that evolution is always relational, provides a coherent solution to this tangle of problems. A number of confusing issues appear when we try to apply quantum mechanics to cosmology. Quantum mechanics, for instance, is generally formulated in terms of an observer making measurements on a system. In a laboratory experiment, it is easy to identify the system and the observer: but what is the observer in quantum cosmology? Is it part of the same universe described by the cosmological theory, or should we think of it as external to the universe? Furthermore, the basic quantum dynamical equation describing a system including gravity is not the Schrödinger equation, but rather the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, which has no time parameter: is this related to the absence of an observer external to the universe? How do we describe the quantum dynamics of the universe without a time variable in the dynamical equation and without an observer external to the universe? I suggest that clarity on these issues can be obtained by simply recognizing the relational nature of quantum mechanics and more in general the relational nature of physical evolution. In the context of quantum theory, this nature is emphasized by the so-called relational interpretation of quantum mechanics (Rovelli, 1996). The relational nature of evolution, on the other hand, has been pointed out by the partial-observable formulation of general covariant dynamics (Rovelli, 2002). A central observation is that there is a common confusion between two different meanings of the expression “cosmology”. This is discussed below, in Section 15.1.1. A considerable amount of the difficulties mentioned above stems, I argue, from this confusion. The discussion clarifies on the role of the quantum mechanical observer in cosmology, which is considered in Section 15.1.2. In Section 15.2, I briefly describe the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics and some related aspects of quantum theory.
I will propose that the reality to which the quantum formalism implicitly refers is a kind of generalized history, the word history having here the same meaning as in the phrase sum-over-histories. This proposal confers a certain independence on the concept of event, and it modifies the rules of inference concerning events in order to resolve a contradiction between the idea of reality as a single history and the principle that events of zero measure cannot happen (the Kochen-Specker paradox being a classic expression of this contradiction). The so-called measurement problem is then solved if macroscopic events satisfy classical rules of inference, and this can in principle be decided by a calculation. The resulting conception of reality involves neither multiple worlds nor external observers. It is therefore suitable for quantum gravity in general and causal sets in particular. Quantum gravity and quantal reality Why, in our attempts to unify our theories of gravity and the quantum, has progress been so slow? One reason, no doubt, is that it's simply a very hard problem. Another is that we lack clear guidance from experiments or astronomical observations. But I believe that a third thing holding us back is that we haven't learned how to think clearly about the quantum world in itself, without reference to “observers” and other external agents. Because of this we don't really know how to think about the Planckian regime where quantum gravity is expected to be most relevant. We don’t know how to think about the vacuum on small scales, or about the inside of a black hole, or about the early universe. Nor do we have a way to pose questions about relativistic causality in such situations.
Familiar textbook quantum mechanics assumes a fixed background spacetime to define states on spacelike surfaces and their unitary evolution between them. Quantum theory has changed as our conceptions of space and time have evolved. But quantum mechanics needs to be generalized further for quantum gravity where spacetime geometry is fluctuating and without definite value. This paper reviews a fully four-dimensional, sum-over-histories, generalized quantum mechanics of cosmological spacetime geometry. This generalization is constructed within the framework of generalized quantum theory. This is a minimal set of principles for quantum theory abstracted from the modern quantum mechanics of closed systems, most generally the universe. In this generalization, states of fields on spacelike surfaces and their unitary evolution are emergent properties appropriate when spacetime geometry behaves approximately classically. The principles of generalized quantum theory allow for the further generalization that would be necessary were spacetime not fundamental. Emergent spacetime phenomena are discussed in general and illustrated with the example of the classical spacetime geometries with large spacelike surfaces that emerge from the `no-boundary' wave function of the universe. These must be Lorentzian with one, and only one, time direction. The essay concludes by raising the question of whether quantum mechanics itself is emergent.
Familiar textbook quantum mechanics assumes a fixed background spacetime to define states on spacelike surfaces and their unitary evolution between them. Quantum theory has changed as our conceptions of space and time have evolved. But quantum mechanics needs to be generalized further for quantum gravity where spacetime geometry is fluctuating and without definite value. This paper reviews a fully four-dimensional, sum-over-histories, generalized quantum mechanics of cosmological spacetime geometry. This generalization is constructed within the framework of generalized quantum theory. This is a minimal set of principles for quantum theory abstracted from the modern quantum mechanics of closed systems, most generally the universe. In this generalization, states of fields on spacelike surfaces and their unitary evolution are emergent properties appropriate when spacetime geometry behaves approximately classically. The principles of generalized quantum theory allow for the further generalization that would be necessary were spacetime not fundamental. Emergent spacetime phenomena are discussed in general and illustrated with the example of the classical spacetime geometries with large spacelike surfaces that emerge from the `no-boundary' wave function of the universe. These must be Lorentzian with one, and only one, time direction. The essay concludes by raising the question of whether quantum mechanics itself is emergent.
We explore the possibility of a Bohmian approach to the problem of finding a quantum theory incorporating gravitational phenomena. The major conceptual problems of canonical quantum gravity are the problem of time and the problem of diffeomorphism invariant observables. We find that these problems are artifacts of the subjectivity and vagueness inherent in the framework of orthodox quantum theory. When we insist upon ontological clarity---the distinguishing characteristic of a Bohmian approach---these conceptual problems vanish. We shall also discuss the implications of a Bohmian perspective for the significance of the wave function, concluding with unbridled speculation as to why the universe should be governed by laws so apparently bizarre as those of quantum mechanics.