The use of a relational time in quantum mechanics is a framework in which one promotes to quantum operators all variables in a system, and later chooses one of the variables to operate like a 'clock'. Conditional probabilities are computed for variables of the system to take certain values when the 'clock' specifies a certain time. This framework is attractive in contexts where the assumption of usual quantum mechanics of the existence of an external, perfectly classical clock, appears unnatural, as in quantum cosmology. Until recently, there were problems with such constructions in ordinary quantum mechanics with additional difficulties in the context of constrained theories like general relativity. A scheme we recently introduced to consistently discretize general relativity removed such obstacles. Since the clock is now an object subject to quantum fluctuations, the resulting evolution in time is not exactly unitary and pure states decohere into mixed states. Here we work out in detail the type of decoherence generated, and we find it to be of Lindblad type. This is attractive since it implies that one can have loss of coherence without violating the conservation of energy. We apply the framework to a simple cosmological model to illustrate how a quantitative estimate of the effect could be computed. For most quantum systems it appears to be too small to be observed, although certain macroscopic quantum systems could in the future provide a testing ground for experimental observation.
The use of a relational time in quantum mechanics is a framework in which one promotes to quantum operators all variables in a system, and later chooses one of the variables to operate like a 'clock'. Conditional probabilities are computed for variables of the system to take certain values when the 'clock' specifies a certain time. This framework is attractive in contexts where the assumption of usual quantum mechanics of the existence of an external, perfectly classical clock, appears unnatural, as in quantum cosmology. Until recently, there were problems with such constructions in ordinary quantum mechanics with additional difficulties in the context of constrained theories like general relativity. A scheme we recently introduced to consistently discretize general relativity removed such obstacles. Since the clock is now an object subject to quantum fluctuations, the resulting evolution in time is not exactly unitary and pure states decohere into mixed states. Here we work out in detail the type of decoherence generated, and we find it to be of Lindblad type. This is attractive since it implies that one can have loss of coherence without violating the conservation of energy. We apply the framework to a simple cosmological model to illustrate how a quantitative estimate of the effect could be computed. For most quantum systems it appears to be too small to be observed, although certain macroscopic quantum systems could in the future provide a testing ground for experimental observation.
We have recently argued that if one introduces a relational time in quantum mechanics and quantum gravity, the resulting quantum theory is such that pure states evolve into mixed states. The rate at which states decohere depends on the energy of the states. There is therefore the question of how this can be reconciled with Galilean invariance. More generally, since the relational description is based on objects that are not Dirac observables, the issue of covariance is of importance in the formalism as a whole. In this note we work out an explicit example of a totally constrained, generally covariant system of nonrelativistic particles that shows that the formula for the relational conditional probability is a Galilean scalar and therefore the decoherence rate is invariant.
In quantum gravity there is no notion of absolute time. Like all other quantities in the theory, the notion of time has to be introduced "relationally", by studying the behavior of some physical quantities in terms of others chosen as a "clock". We have recently introduced a consistent way of defining time relationally in general relativity. When quantum mechanics is formulated in terms of this new notion of time the resolution of the measurement problem can be implemented via decoherence without the usual pitfalls. The resulting theory has the same experimental results of ordinary quantum mechanics, but every time an event is produced or a measurement happens two alternatives are possible: a) the state collapses; b) the system evolves without changing the state. One therefore has two possible behaviors of the quantum mechanical system and physical observations cannot decide between them, not just as a matter of experimental limitations but as an issue of principle. This first-ever example of fundamental undecidability in physics suggests that nature may behave sometimes as described by one alternative and sometimes as described by another. This in particular may give new vistas on the issue of free will.
We review the Montevideo Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is based on the use of real clocks to describe physics, using the framework that was recently introduced by Höhn, Smith, and Lock to treat the problem of time in generally covariant systems. These new methods, which solve several problems in the introduction of a notion of time in such systems, do not change the main results of the Montevideo Interpretation. The use of the new formalism makes the construction more general and valid for any system in a quantum generally covariant theory. We find that, as in the original formulation, a fundamental mechanism of decoherence emerges that allows for supplementing ordinary environmental decoherence and avoiding its criticisms. The recent results on quantum complexity provide additional support to the type of global protocols that are used to prove that within ordinary—unitary—quantum mechanics, no definite event—an outcome to which a probability can be associated—occurs. In lieu of this, states that start in a coherent superposition of possible outcomes always remain as a superposition. We show that, if one takes into account fundamental inescapable uncertainties in measuring length and time intervals due to general relativity and quantum mechanics, the previously mentioned global protocols no longer allow for distinguishing whether the state is in a superposition or not. One is left with a formulation of quantum mechanics purely defined in quantum mechanical terms without any reference to the classical world and with an intrinsic operational definition of quantum events that does not need external observers.
We review the Montevideo Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is based on the use of real clocks to describe physics, using the framework recently introduced by Hoehn, Smith and Lock to treat the problem of time in generally covariant systems. The use of the new formalism makes the whole construction more accessible to readers without familiarity with totally constrained systems. We find that as in the original formulation, a fundamental mechanism of decoherence emerges that allows to supplement ordinary environmental decoherence and avoid its criticisms. Recent results on quantum complexity provide additional support to the type of global protocols used to prove that within ordinary ---unitary--- quantum mechanics no definite event ---an outcome to which a probability can be associated--- occurs. In lieu of this, states that start in a coherent superposition of possible outcomes always remain as a superposition. We show that, if one takes into account fundamental inescapable uncertainties in measuring length and time intervals due to general relativity and quantum mechanics, the previously mentioned global protocols no longer allow to distinguish whether the state is in a superposition or not. One is left with a formulation of quantum mechanics purely defined in quantum mechanical terms without any reference to the classical world and with an intrinsic operational definition of quantum events that does not need external observers.
The nature of time has long been debated in human history and nowadays is considered of central importance for understanding quantum gravity. We focus on and advocate the relational concept of time, which was put forward in the 17th century in opposition to Newton's absolute time, and only in 1990 explored in a quantum mechanical framework by Carlo Rovelli. After a historical introduction the mathematical models of time are carefully analyzed in chapter 1, followed by a discussion of the role of time played in fundamental theories. Using as an example nonrelativistic mechanics, the process of parametrization is explained, leading to a separation of a 'canonical time coordinate' from an arbitrary evolution parameter. The discussion of the role of time in special and general relativity as well as in quantum mechanics shows that more fundamental theories use less structure of time. This is followed by an exposition of the history of the relational concept of time, which negates the existence of an absolute duration and therefore often is called "timeless". Next it is shown how fundamental theories can be formulated and re-interpreted using this concept. We put emphasis on the hitherto neglected connection between relationalism and non-extensibility, while absolute time is shown to be unproblematic in classical mechanics just because of the possibility to extend the system without changing its nature. We conclude chapter 1 with a new axiomatic basis for the construction of time observables based on a simultaneity relation between 'observations', which are treated as a primitive concept and intuitively correspond to measurement events, but without knowing 'when' these events occur. There is no fundamental time observable; any observable qualifies as a time observable, if it allows to separate all instants. Chapter 2 gives a brief account of three main problems connected with time: a) The problem of the arrow of time. This has to be disentangled from the problem of irreversibility: a solution of the latter essentially excludes cyclic motions and is required for a solution of the former, which consists in showing that a fundamental direction between any two non-identical instants is physically meaningful. We give a formal definition of the arrow of time. This classical analysis is followed by a review of the problem of the arrow of time in quantum theory, where the situation becomes more complicated because of indeterminism. The discussion shows that there is no experimental evidence for a fundamental arrow of time, so that no contradiction with the relational concept of time arises. b) The problem of time measurement, which is of particular importance for the relational approach, in which time has no reality except if measured by a clock. In quantum theory useful time operators seem to be possible only within the more general formalism of positive operator valued measures (POVM). Clocks based on an oscillation mechanism do however require phase measurements; quantum phase operators can be defined as certain POVMs. Phase difference operators do also exist in the traditional Hilbert space formalism, if another quantization is used, as is done with relational quantization. c) The problem of quantum gravity is sketched only briefly. Chapter 3 introduces and discusses a model of Rovelli consisting of two oscillators with no external time. In this model one oscillator is considered as a clock and defines a relational time for the other one. In the first section we introduce this model and generalize it to a free massless scalar field in one dimension. We establish the relation between a single field mode and the infrared behaviour of the field through constants of motion. In the second section after a short review of canonical quantization we review Rovelli's quantization and generalize it to the free field. We could not prove the existence of the quantization map, but calculations using computer algebra indicate that the quantization does exist. For an enlarged algebra we are able to prove the nonexistence of a quantization map similar to a proof by Groenewold and van Hove. In chapter 4 we observe that a clock time always requires infinitely many degrees of freedom, and we make the hypothesis that a time observable is given by the infrared behaviour of quantum fields, leading to a classical notion of time when using algebraic quantum mechanics. This does however not solve the main problem of quantum relationalism: Which conditions determine a particular evolution?
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.