One of the problems of quantum cosmology follows from the fact that the Hamiltonian H of classical general relativity equals zero. Quantizing canonically in the Schrodinger picture, the Schrodinger equation for the wave function Ψ of the universe is therefore the so-called Wheeler-DeWitt equation (where Ĥ is the operator version of H) and we have no quantum dynamics. In particular, it follows directly that, if Ȓ is the operator representing the radius of the universe, where <Ȓ>ψ = Ψ<|Ȓ|>Ψ, for every Ψ. The universe described by (1) does not expand. But worse still is the fact that there is no time development, contrary to our experience. Like a particle in an eigenstate of zero energy, the state of the universe does not change. The still universe resulting from (1) is a manifestation of the more general “problem of time” afflicting canonical quantum gravity. Despite rare claims to the contrary, most consider it to be a serious difficulty for quantum cosmology.
One of the problems of quantum cosmology follows from the fact that the Hamiltonian H of classical general relativity equals zero. Quantizing canonically in the Schrodinger picture, the Schrodinger equation for the wave function Ψ of the universe is therefore the so-called Wheeler-DeWitt equation (where Ĥ is the operator version of H) and we have no quantum dynamics. In particular, it follows directly that, if Ȓ is the operator representing the radius of the universe, where <Ȓ>ψ = Ψ<|Ȓ|>Ψ, for every Ψ. The universe described by (1) does not expand. But worse still is the fact that there is no time development, contrary to our experience. Like a particle in an eigenstate of zero energy, the state of the universe does not change. The still universe resulting from (1) is a manifestation of the more general “problem of time” afflicting canonical quantum gravity. Despite rare claims to the contrary, most consider it to be a serious difficulty for quantum cosmology.
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.
We argue that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics cannot be applied to quantum cosmology. Among the alternative interpretations, we choose to apply the Bohm-de Broglie interpretation of quantum mechanics to canonical quantum cosmology. For minisuperspace models, we show that there is no problem of time in this interpretation, and that quantum effects can avoid the initial singularity, create inflation and isotropize the Universe. For the general case, it is shown that, irrespective of any regularization or choice of factor ordering of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, the unique relevant quantum effect which does not break spacetime is the change of its signature from lorentzian to euclidean. The other quantum effects are either trivial or break the four-geometry of spacetime. A Bohm-de Broglie picture of a quantum geometrodynamics is constructed, which allows the investigation of these latter structures.
Canonical quantization applied to closed systems leads to static equations, the Wheeler-deWitt equation in Quantum Gravity and the time independent Schrödinger equation in Quantum Mechanics. How to restore time is the Problem of Time(s). Integrating developments are: a) entanglement of a microscopic system with its classical environment accords it a time evolution description, the time dependent Schrödinger equation, where t is the laboratory time measured by clocks; b) canonical quantization of Special Relativity yields both the Dirac Hamiltonian and a self adjoint "time" operator, restoring to position and time the equivalent footing accorded to energy and momentum in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics. It introduces an intrinsic time property τ associated with the mass of the system, and a basis additional to the usual configuration, momentum and energy basis. As a generator of momentum displacements and consequently of energy, it invalidates Pauli's objection to the existence of a time operator. It furthermore complies with the requirements to condition the other observables in the conditional interpretation of QG. As Pauli's objection figures explicit or implicitly in most current developments of QM and QG, its invalidation opens to research the effect of this new two times perspective on such developments.
To the existing list of alternative formulations of quantum mechanics, a new version of the non-Hermitian interaction picture is added. What is new is that, in contrast to the more conventional non-Hermitian model-building recipes, the primary information about the observable phenomena is provided not only by the Hamiltonian but also by an additional operator with a real spectrum (say, R(t)) representing another observable. In the language of physics, the information carried by R(t)≠R†(t) opens the possibility of reaching the exceptional-point degeneracy of the real eigenvalues, i.e., a specific quantum phase transition. In parallel, the unitarity of the system remains guaranteed, as usual, via a time-dependent inner-product metric Θ(t). From the point of view of mathematics, the control of evolution is provided by a pair of conjugate Schrödiner equations. This opens the possibility od an innovative dyadic representation of pure states, by which the direct use of Θ(t) is made redundant. The implementation of the formalism is illustrated via a schematic cosmological toy model in which the canonical quantization leads to the necessity of working with two conjugate Wheeler-DeWitt equations. From the point of view of physics, the “kinematical input” operator R(t) may represent either the radius of a homogeneous and isotropic expanding empty Universe or, if you wish, its Hubble radius, or the scale factor a(t) emerging in the popular Lemaitre-Friedmann-Robertson-Walker classical solutions, with the exceptional-point singularity of the spectrum of R(t) mimicking the birth of the Universe (“Big Bang”) at t=0.
The unsatisfactory status of the interpretation of the wave function of the Universe in canonical quantum gravity is reviewed. The ``naive interpretation'' obtained by straightforwardly applying the standard interpretive rules to the canonical quantization of general relativity is manifestly unacceptable; the ``WKB interpretation'' has only a limited domain of applicability; and the ``conditional probability interpretation'' requires one to pick out a ``preferred time variable'' (or preferred class of such variables) from among the dynamical variables. Evidence against the possibility of using a dynamical variable to play the role of ``time'' in the conditional probability interpretation is provided by the fact (proven here) that in ordinary Schr\"odinger quantum mechanics for a system with a Hamiltonian bounded from below, no dynamical variable can correlate monotonically with the Schr\"odinger time parameter t, and thus the role of t in the interpretation of Schr\"odinger quantum mechanics cannot be replaced by that of a dynamical variable. We also argue that the interpretive problems of quantum gravity are not alleviated by the incorporation of observers into the theory. Faced with these difficulties, we seek a formulation of canonical quantum gravity in which an appropriate nondynamical time parameter is present. By analogy with a parametrized form of ordinary Schr\"odinger quantum mechanics, we make a proposal for such a formulation. A specific proposal considered in detail yields a theory which corresponds at the classical level to general relativity with an arbitrary, unspecified cosmological constant. In minisuperspace models, this proposal yields a quantum theory with satisfactory interpretive properties, although it is unlikely that this theory will admit sufficiently many observables for general spacetimes. Nevertheless, we feel that the approach suggested here is worthy of further investigation.
The problem of time is a deep paradox in our physical description of the world. According to Aristotle's relational theory, time is a measure of change and does not exist on its own. In contrast, quantum mechanics, just like Newtonian mechanics, is equipped with a master clock that dictates the evolution of a system. This clock is infinitely precise and tacitly supplied free of charge from outside physics. Not only does this absolute time make it notoriously difficult to make a consistent theory of quantum gravity, it is also the underlying problem in establishing the second law. Indeed, contrary to our experience, the Wheeler-deWitt equation --a canonical quantization of general relativity-- predicts a static universe. Similarly, when simply concerned with the dynamics of a closed quantum system, there is no second law because the Von Neumann entropy is invariant under unitary transformations. Here we are mainly concerned with the latter problem and we show that it can be resolved by attributing a minimal amount of resources to the measurement of time. Although there is an absolute time in quantum mechanics, an observer can only establish a time by measuring a clock. For a local measurement, the minimal entropy production is equal to the number of ticks. This lower bound is attained by a black hole.