Quantum theory plays an increasingly significant role in contemporary early-universe cosmology, most notably in the inflationary origins of the fluctuation spectrum of the microwave background radiation. I consider the two main strategies for interpreting (as opposed to modifying or supplementing) standard quantum mechanics in the light of cosmology. I argue that the conceptual difficulties of the approaches based around an irreducible role for measurement - already very severe - become intolerable in a cosmological context, whereas the approach based around Everett's original idea of treating quantum systems as closed systems handles cosmological quantum theory satisfactorily. Contemporary cosmology, which indeed applies standard quantum theory without supplementation or modification, is thus committed - tacitly or explicitly - to the Everett interpretation.
Quantum theory plays an increasingly significant role in contemporary early-universe cosmology, most notably in the inflationary origins of the fluctuation spectrum of the microwave background radiation. I consider the two main strategies for interpreting (as opposed to modifying or supplementing) standard quantum mechanics in the light of cosmology. I argue that the conceptual difficulties of the approaches based around an irreducible role for measurement - already very severe - become intolerable in a cosmological context, whereas the approach based around Everett's original idea of treating quantum systems as closed systems handles cosmological quantum theory satisfactorily. Contemporary cosmology, which indeed applies standard quantum theory without supplementation or modification, is thus committed - tacitly or explicitly - to the Everett interpretation.
When quantum mechanics was developed in the '20s of the last century another revolution in physics was just starting. It began with the discovery that the universe is expanding. For a long time quantum mechanics and cosmology developed independently of one another. Yet the very discovery of the expansion would eventually draw the two subjects together because it implied the big bang where quantum mechanics wasimportant for cosmology and for understanding and predicting our observations of the universe today. Textbook (Copenhagen) formulations of quantum mechanics are inadequate for cosmology for at least four reasons: 1) They predict the outcomes of measurements made by observers. But in the very early universe no measurements were being made and no observers were around to make them. 2) Observers were outside of the system being measured. But we are interested in a theory of the whole universe where everything, including observers, are inside. 3) Copenhagen quantum mechanics could not retrodict the past. But retrodicting the past to understand how the universe began is the main task of cosmology. 4) Copenhagen quantum mechanics required a fixed classical spacetime geometry not least to give meaning to the time in the Schrödinger equation. But in the very early universe spacetime is fluctuating quantum mechanically (quantum gravity) and without definite value. A formulation of quantum mechanics general enough for cosmology was started by Everett and developed by many. That effort has given us a more general framework that is adequate for cosmology --- decoherent (or consistent) histories quantum theory in the context of semiclassical quantum gravity. Copenhagen quantum theory is an approximation to this more general quantum framework that is appropriate for measurement situations. We discuss whether further generalization may still be required.
The difficult issues related to the interpretation of quantum mechanics and, in particular, the "measurement problem" are revisited using as motivation the process of generation of structure from quantum fluctuations in inflationary cosmology. The unessential mathematical complexity of the particular problem is bypassed, facilitating the discussion of the conceptual issues, by considering, within the paradigm set up by the cosmological problem, another problem where symmetry serves as a focal point: a simplified version of Mott's problem.
Introduction Contemporary cosmology includes inflation as one of its central components. It corresponds to a period of accelerated expansion thought to have occurred very early in cosmic history, which takes the universe from relatively generic post Planckian era conditions to a stage where it is well described (with exponential accuracy in the number of e-folds) by a flat Robertson–Walker space-time (which describes a homogeneous and isotropic cosmology). It was initially proposed to resolve various naturalness problems: flatness, horizons, and the excess of massive relic objects, such as topological defects, that were expected to populate the universe according to grand unified theories (GUT). Nowadays, it is lauded because it predicts that the universe's mean density should be essentially identical to the critical value, a very peculiar situation which corresponds to a spatially flat universe. The existing data support this prediction. However, its biggest success is claimed to be the natural account for the emergence of the seeds of cosmic structure in terms of primordial quantum fluctuations, and the correct estimate of the corresponding microwave spectrum. This represents, thus, a situation which requires the combined application of general relativity (GR) and quantum theory, and that, moreover, is tied with observable imprints left from the early universe, in both the radiation in cosmic microwave background (CMB), and in the large scale cosmological structure we can observe today. It should not be surprising that, when dealing with attempts to apply our theories to the universe as a whole, we should come face to face with some of the most profound conceptual problems facing our current physical ideas. In fact, J. Hartle had noted long ago [28] that serious difficulties must be faced when attempting to apply quantum theory to cosmology, although the situations that were envisioned in those early works corresponded to the even more daunting problem of full quantum cosmology, and not the limited use of quantum theory to consider perturbative aspects, which is what is required in the treatment of the inflationary origin of the seeds of cosmic structure. This led him and his collaborators to consider the Consistent Histories framework, which is claimed to offer a version of quantum theory that does not rely on any fundamental notion of measurements, as the favored approach to use in such contexts. We will have a bit more to say about this shortly.
One of the most challenging problems in modern physics is the application of quantum theory to the universe as a whole. Progress in this area has been plagued by two types of problem: conceptual and technical. The conceptual problems arise from the old difficulties of interpreting quantum theory. The standard interpretations require that the measuring instruments and observers are outside the quantum system described by the wavefunction. In the late 1950s, however, Hugh Everett proposed an interpretation of quantum theory that might apply to systems that include the observers and measuring instruments, but the adequacy of such interpretations has remained controversial to this day.
We study the quantum measurement problem in the context of an infinite, statistically uniform space, as could be generated by eternal inflation. It has recently been argued that when identical copies of a quantum measurement system exist, the standard projection operators and Born rule method for calculating probabilities must be supplemented by estimates of relative frequencies of observers. We argue that an infinite space actually renders the Born rule redundant, by physically realizing all outcomes of a quantum measurement in different regions, with relative frequencies given by the square of the wave-function amplitudes. Our formal argument hinges on properties of what we term the quantum confusion operator, which projects onto the Hilbert subspace where the Born rule fails, and we comment on its relation to the oft-discussed quantum frequency operator. This analysis unifies the classical and quantum levels of parallel universes that have been discussed in the literature, and has implications for several issues in quantum measurement theory. Replacing the standard hypothetical ensemble of measurements repeated ad infinitum by a concrete decohered spatial collection of experiments carried out in different distant regions of space provides a natural context for a statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics. It also shows how, even for a single measurement, probabilities may be interpreted as relative frequencies in unitary (Everettian) quantum mechanics. We also argue that after discarding a zero-norm part of the wave function, the remainder consists of a superposition of indistinguishable terms, so that arguably ``collapse'' of the wave function is irrelevant, and the ``many worlds'' of Everett's interpretation are unified into one. Finally, the analysis suggests a ``cosmological interpretation'' of quantum theory in which the wave function describes the actual spatial collection of identical quantum systems, and quantum uncertainty is attributable to the observer's inability to self-locate in this collection.
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.