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 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 in the quantization of gravity arises from the fact that time in Schrödinger’s equation is a parameter. This sets time apart from the spatial coordinates, represented by operators in quantum mechanics (QM). Thus “time” in QM and “time” in general relativity (GR) are seen as mutually incompatible notions. The introduction of a dynamical time operator in relativistic quantum mechanics (RQM), that follows from the canonical quantization of special relativity and that in the Heisenberg picture is also a function of the parameter [Formula: see text] (identified as the laboratory time), prompts to examine whether it can help to solve the disfunction referred to above. In particular, its application to the conditional interpretation of time in the canonical quantization approach to quantum gravity is developed.
In its usual presentation, classical mechanics appears to give time a very special role. But it is well known that mechanics can be formulated so as to treat the time variable on the same footing as the other variables in the extended configuration space. Such covariant formulations are natural for relativistic gravitational systems, where general covariance conflicts with the notion of a preferred physical-time variable. The standard presentation of quantum mechanics, in turn, again gives time a very special role, raising well known difficulties for quantum gravity. Is there a covariant form of (canonical) quantum mechanics? We observe that the preferred role of time in quantum theory is the consequence of an idealization: that measurements are instantaneous. Canonical quantum theory can be given a covariant form by dropping this idealization. States prepared by noninstantaneous measurements are described by ``spacetime smeared states.'' The theory can be formulated in terms of these states, without making any reference to a special time variable. The quantum dynamics is expressed in terms of the propagator, an object covariantly defined on the extended configuration space.
Nonrelativistic model quantum cosmologies are studied in which the basic time variable is the position of a clock indicator and the time parameter of the Schr\"odinger equation is an unobservable label. Familiar Schr\"odinger-Heisenberg quantum mechanics emerges if the clock is ideal---arbitrarily accurate for arbitrarily long times. More realistically, however, the usual formulation emerges only as an approximation appropriate to states of this model universe in which part of the system functions approximately as an ideal clock. It is suggested that the quantum kinematics of spacetime theories such as general relativity may be analogous to those of this model. In particular it is suggested that our familiar notion of time in quantum mechanics is not an inevitable property of a general quantum framework but an approximate feature of specific initial conditions.
The problem of time in the quantization of gravity arises from the fact that time in Schroedinger's equation is a parameter. This sets time apart from the spatial coordinates, represented by operators in quantum mechanics (QM). Thus "time" in QM and "time" in General Relativity (GR) are seen as mutually incompatible notions. The introduction of a dy- namical time operator in relativistic quantum mechanics (RQM), that in the Heisenberg representation is also a function of the parameter t (iden- tifed as the laboratory time), prompts to examine whether it can help to solve the disfunction referred to above. In particular, its application to the conditional interpretation of the canonical quantization approach toquantum gravity is developed. 1
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.