
pmid: 10012102
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.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 194 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
