r
X
i
v
:
1
1
0
7
.
2
2
2
4
v
1
[
g
r

q
c
]
1
2
J
u
l
2
0
1
1
An inhomogeneous toymodel of the quantum
gravity
S.L. Cherkas† and V.L. Kalashnikov‡
† Institute for Nuclear Problems, Bobruiskaya 11, Minsk 220050, Belarus
‡ Technische Universit¨at Wien, Gusshausstrasse 27/387, Vienna A1040, Austria
Abstract. We consider an inhomogeneous (1+1)dimensional model of the quantum
gravity, which has a system of constraints (hamiltonian and momentum ones) by
analogy with that of the General Relativity. In the framework of the model, a
classical solution has been found and quantized in the quasiHeisenberg picture. In
the quantization scheme under consideration, the problem of the time is solved by
building of the quasiHeisenberg operators acting in the space of the WheelerDeWitt
equation solutions normalized in the KleinGordon style. The cosmological constant
problem is solved as the quantum oscillations of the scale factor compensate the
quantum oscillations of the matter ﬁelds. Along with such a compensation, a slow
global evolution of a background (i.e. the universe expansion) exists.
PACS numbers: 98.80.Qc, 11.10.z, 11.25.Pm
1. Introduction
A generally covariant canonical quantization of gravity has been proposed in [1, 2]. As
a result, the wellknown WheelerDeWitt (WDW) equation has been obtained from
the Hamiltonian formulation of the general relativity theory (GR). The main problem
preventing a further development of the canonical quantum gravity is an absence of an
explicit evolution that is a consequence of the Hamiltonian constraint (e.g., see [3]).
One of the possible solutions is to ﬁnd a more general theory including the quantum
gravity. A promising theory is the string theory [4] were string vector X
µ
(τ, σ) is
considered in the Minkowski spacetime background. This theory needs extra dimensions
to be consistent. That leads to an extremely rich content including a stringexcitation,
which corresponds to a massless spintwo particle, i.e. the graviton. However, such
a backgrounddependent formulation does not allow including explicitly the GR and
probably needs a generalization to the curved background g
µν
(X(τ, σ)) instead of the
Minkowski one. It turn out to be that perturbative formulation of the string theory
allows quantizing on a ﬁxed background only if the Ricci tensor of a background metric
equals to zero [4] and a backgroundindependent development of the string theory
requires more general approaches [3, 5]. In this context, the twodimensional string
theory is of interest [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] due to mainly its fascinating connections with
An inhomogeneous toymodel of the quantum gravity with explicitly evolvable observables2
the 1Matrix theory. However, it does not admit the graviton background g
µν
(X(τ, σ)),
as well, and only the tachyon one is usually considered [6].
An alternative backgroundindependent approach is the loop quantum gravity [12]
emerging from the study of the WDW equation in terms of the Ashteker variables [13]
and, as a result, inheriting an absence of the evolution (i.e. issue of the time). The
loop quantum gravity attempts to compensate this shortcoming by an evaluation of the
transition amplitudes [12].
Returning to the canonical quantization method, there are the vast approaches to
solution of its fundamental problems (e.g., see [14] for review). It is plausible to assume
that the WDW equation is a true ingredient of an expected quantum theory of gravity.
One may guess, it should be supplemented with only a system of the time dependent
observables.
In the framework of such ideology applied to a minisuperspace quantum gravity,
the quantum evolving observables (quasiHeisenberg operators), which are consistent
with the normalization of the wave function in the KleinGordon style have been build
in our early works [15, 16]. Here, we shall hold the same method and extend the quasi
Heisenberg quantization scheme to an inhomogeneous (1+1)dimensional model of the
quantum gravity. Such an extension allows for weakening the constraint equations for
the quasiHeisenberg operators.
2. Model of an spatially inhomogeneous gravity
We shall follow a heuristic method to obtain an spatially inhomogeneous gravity model
in two spacetime dimensions. Lagrangian of the gravitation and the scalar ﬁeld φ can
be written in the form
S = −
M
2
p
12
_
G
√
−g d
4
x +
1
2
_
_
∂
µ
φ g
µν
∂
ν
φ −m
2
φ
2
_
√
−g d
4
x, (1)
where G = g
αβ
_
Γ
ρ
αν
Γ
ν
βρ
−Γ
ν
αβ
Γ
ρ
νρ
_
[17] and M
p
is the Planck mass, which is chosen as
M
p
=
_
3
4πG
.
If one restricts a metric to the form
ds
2
= a
2
(η, r)(N
2
(η, r)dη
2
−dr
2
),
it results in the following Lagrangian:
L =
1
2
_
_
N
_
−
M
2
p
a
′2
N
2
+ M
2
p
(∇a)
2
−
2M
2
p
3
∇· (a∇a) + a
2
_
φ
′2
N
2
−(∇φ)
2
_
−m
2
a
4
φ
2
_
+
2M
2
p
3
∇· (a∇a N)
_
d
3
r, (2)
where a prime denotes a derivative over the time η.
The last term in Eq. (2) can be omitted as a full divergence. The variation over N
gives the Hamiltonian constraint:
H =
1
2
_
−
M
2
p
a
′2
N
2
−M
2
p
(∇a)
2
+
2M
2
p
3
∇· (a∇a) + a
2
φ
′2
N
2
+ a
2
(∇φ)
2
+ m
2
a
4
φ
2
_
= 0.(3)
An inhomogeneous toymodel of the quantum gravity with explicitly evolvable observables3
Further, let us consider the conformal time gauge N = 1. Then, the term
−
2M
2
p
3
∇· (a∇a) in Eq. (2) does not aﬀect the equations of motion, which have the
form
M
2
p
a
′′
−M
2
p
∇
2
a + a
_
φ
′ 2
−(∇φ)
2
_
−2a
3
m
2
φ
2
= 0, (4)
φ
′′
+ 2
a
′
a
φ
′
−
1
a
2
∇· (a
2
∇φ) + a
2
m
2
φ = 0. (5)
Then, one may express the evolution of the Hamiltonian constraint with the time:
∂
η
H = ∇· P, (6)
where the momentum constraint is P = −M
2
p
a
′
∇a + a
2
φ
′
∇φ. Since the derivative of
the momentum constraint over the conformal time is not expressed through H and P,
this system does not belong to the ﬁst kind one [18] unlike the GR. Nevertheless, the
(1+1)dimensional model described by the Lagrangian
L =
1
2
_
N
_
−
M
2
p
a
′2
N
2
+ M
2
p
_
∂a
∂x
_
2
+ a
2
_
φ
′2
N
2
−
_
∂φ
∂x
_
2
__
dx. (7)
gives a completely selfconsistent system of constraints like that of the GR.
3. Connection with the string theory
Let us write the action for a bosonic string [4] in a background space g
µν
(X(ξ)) :
S =
_
d
2
ξ
√
−h h
αβ
∂
α
X
µ
∂
β
X
ν
g
µν
(X), (8)
where ξ = {η, x}. The metric tensor h
αβ
(ξ) is not dynamical variable, thus the variation
over it leads to the constraint:
δS
δh
αβ
≡ T
αβ
= ∂
α
X
µ
∂
β
X
ν
g
µν
(X) −
1
2
h
αβ
h
ηκ
∂
η
X
µ
∂
κ
X
ν
g
µν
(X) = 0. (9)
If one takes the metric tensor h
µν
in the form
h =
_
−N
2
+ N
2
x
N
x
N
x
1
_
,
and the background metric tensor g
µν
(X) as
g =
_
1 0
0 −a
2
_
, (10)
where X
µ
= {a, φ}, it results in the Lagrangian for the (1+1)dimensional model
L =
_ _
1
2
∂
x
a
2
_
N −
N
x
2
N
_
+
∂
x
a a
′
N
x
N
−
a
′2
2N
−
a
2
N
x
∂
x
φ φ
′
N
+
1
2
∂
x
φ
2
_
a
2
N
x
2
N
−a
2
N
_
+
a
2
φ
′2
2N
_
dx. (11)
Here N
x
and N have to be equated with zero and unity, respectively. It is known,
that the string theory demands X
µ
to have the critical dimension, which is of 26 for a
An inhomogeneous toymodel of the quantum gravity with explicitly evolvable observables4
bosonic string. In our case, one should take 25 scalar ﬁelds besides the scale factor a,
i.e X = {a, φ
1
, φ
2
, . . . φ
25
} and the background metric tensor
g
µν
(X) = diag{1, −a
2
, −a
2
. . .}. (12)
But even in this case, one cannot expect that the string theory gives a satisfactory
quantization of the model considered. The point is that the string theory is able to
quantize the model consistently only if the Ricci tensor of background metric g
µν
(X)
equals to zero [4]. For g
µν
given by (12), it is nonzero (the scalar curvature is constant)
if the dimension of X
µ
is higher than two. It seems that such a disadvantage of the
string theory originates from using the quantization method of the QFT in a ﬂat space
based on formulation of creation and annihilation operators.
4. Classical solution
Let us denote α = ln a, then the equations of motion following from the Lagrangian of
Eq. (7) at N = 1 become
φ
′′
−∂
xx
φ + 2α
′
φ
′
−2∂
x
α∂
x
φ = 0,
M
2
p
α
′′
−M
2
p
∂
xx
α + M
2
p
α
′2
−M
2
p
(∂
x
α)
2
+ φ
′2
−(∂
x
φ)
2
= 0. (13)
The Hamiltonian and the momentum constraints have the form
H = e
2α
_
−M
2
p
α
′2
−M
2
p
(∂
x
α)
2
+ φ
′2
+ (∂
x
φ)
2
_
= 0, (14)
P = e
2α
_
M
2
p
α
′
∂
x
α −φ
′
∂
x
φ
_
= 0. (15)
The constraints algebra looks as
∂
η
H = ∂
x
P,
∂
η
P = ∂
x
H,
and demonstrates that the time derivatives of constraints do not result in new
constraints.
Let us take the initial conditions for (13) in the form
φ(x, 0) = ϕ(x),
α(x, 0) = α
0
= const,
φ
′
(x, 0) = e
−2α
0
π(x),
α
′
(x, 0) = e
−2α
0
π(x), (16)
where ϕ(x) and π(x) are some functions corresponding to the initial ﬁeld and
momentum, respectively. Under this initial conditions, the constraints H and P are
nonzero, but their relative magnitude decreases when α
0
→−∞:
H
e
−2α
0
π
2
(x)
= e
4α
0
(∂
x
ϕ(x))
2
π
2
(x)
→0,
P
e
−2α
0
π
2
(x)
= e
2α
0
∂
x
ϕ(x)
π(x)
→0. (17)
An inhomogeneous toymodel of the quantum gravity with explicitly evolvable observables5
Below, we shall consider such a type of solutions because the quantization scheme
under consideration will use the KleinGordon normalization of wave function on the
hyperplane a
0
= 0, i.e. lna
0
= α
0
→−∞. The explicit form of the solution is
φ(x, η) =
1
2
M
p
_
ln
_
1
2
e
1
Mp
ϕ(x−η)
+
1
2
e
1
Mp
ϕ(x+η)
+
e
−2α
0
2M
p
_
x+η
x−η
(π(ξ) +π(ξ))e
1
Mp
ϕ(ξ)
dξ
_
−ln
_
1
2
e
−
1
Mp
ϕ(x−η)
+
1
2
e
−
1
Mp
ϕ(x+η)
+
e
−2α
0
2M
p
_
x+η
x−η
(π(ξ) −π(ξ))e
−
1
Mp
ϕ(ξ)
dξ
__
,
α(x, η) = α
0
+
1
2
_
ln
_
1
2
e
1
Mp
ϕ(x−η)
+
1
2
e
1
Mp
ϕ(x+η)
+
e
−2α
0
2M
p
_
x+η
x−η
(π(ξ) +π(ξ))e
1
Mp
ϕ(ξ)
dξ
_
+ ln
_
1
2
e
−
1
Mp
ϕ(x−η)
+
1
2
e
−
1
Mp
ϕ(x+η)
+
e
−2α
0
2M
p
_
x+η
x−η
(π(ξ) −π(ξ))e
−
1
Mp
ϕ(ξ)
dξ
__
. (18)
The diﬀerence with the classical solutions of Ref. [11] for the (1+1)dimensional
string theory arises because we have weaken the constraint equations here. Another
diﬀerence is that the X
0
component of the string vector is associated with the time in
[11] and is postulated to be a nondecreasing function. In our paper we interpret X
0
as the scale factor a, which can be collapsing (i.e. decreasing) at some instant, but,
certainly, remains always positive.
5. Quantization
5.1. Minisuperspace model
Let’s begin the quantization procedure with a spatially homogeneous case. Then, the
system (13),(14),(15) is reduced to
−M
2
p
α
′2
+ φ
′2
= 0, (19)
M
2
p
α
′′
+ M
2
p
α
′2
+ φ
′2
= 0, (20)
φ
′′
+ 2α
′
φ
′
= 0. (21)
The quasiHeisenberg quantization scheme [15, 16] consists of two parts. The ﬁrst
one is the wellknow WDW equation
_
1
a
∂
∂a
a
∂
∂a
−
1
a
2
∂
2
∂ϕ
2
_
Ψ(a, ϕ) = 0, (22)
where the particular operator ordering is chosen to obtain a solution in the form of plane
waves
Ψ(a, ϕ) =
_
C(k) a
−ik
e
ikϕ
dk, (23)
where C(k) is some function of k. The wave function is normalized in the KleinGordon
style
< ΨΨ >=
ia
2
_ _
Ψ
∗
(a, ϕ)
∂
∂a
Ψ(a, ϕ) −
_
∂
∂a
Ψ
∗
(a, ϕ)
_
Ψ(a, ϕ)
_
dϕ
¸
¸
¸
a=a
0
, (24)
An inhomogeneous toymodel of the quantum gravity with explicitly evolvable observables6
where the hypersurface a = a
0
is chosen. A location of the hypersurface can be arbitrary,
for instance, a
0
= 0. This deﬁnition is preferred because the universe is “simple” near
its origin that is expressed in simplicity of the WDW asymptotic.
The second part of quantization scheme is a quantization of the equations of motion
(20),(21), which has to be consistent with a choice of the hypersurface a = a
0
→ 0 in
(24). Eqs. (20),(21) are considered as the operator equations with the symmetric
operator ordering ˆ α
′
ˆ
φ
′
+
ˆ
φ
′
ˆ α
′
in (21).
The initial conditions for the operator equations (20), (21) can be chosen in the
form
ˆ α(0) = α
0
,
ˆ
φ(0) = ˆ ϕ,
ˆ
φ
′
(0) = e
−2α
0
ˆ π, ˆ α
′
(0) = e
−2α
0
ˆ π, (25)
where operators ˆ ϕ, ˆ π satisfy the commutator relations [ˆ π, ˆ ϕ] = −i and can be written
as ˆ ϕ = ϕ, ˆ π = −i
∂
∂ϕ
or ˆ π = π, ˆ ϕ = i
∂
∂π
in the momentum representation. The initial
conditions correspond to the Dirac commutation relations for operators (i.e., they are
obtained by using the Dirac brackets) [15, 16] at an initial moment of the time and they
are consistent with the normalization of a wave function at the hyperplane a = a
0
. The
solutions of (20), (21) have the form:
ˆ
φ(η) = ˆ ϕ +
ˆ π
2ˆ π
ln
_
1 + 2e
−2α
0
ˆ πη
_
,
ˆ α(η) = α
0
+
1
2
ln
_
1 + 2e
−2α
0
ˆ πη
_
.
A mean value of an arbitrary operator is given by [15, 16, 19]
< Ψ
ˆ
A(a
0
, ϕ, ˆ π)Ψ >=
ia
2
_ _
Ψ
∗
(a, ϕ)
ˆ
D
1/4
ˆ
A
ˆ
D
−1/4
∂
∂a
Ψ(a, ϕ)
−
_
∂
∂a
Ψ
∗
(a, ϕ)
_
ˆ
D
−1/4
ˆ
A
ˆ
D
1/4
Ψ(a, ϕ)
_
dϕ
¸
¸
¸
a=a
0
→0
, (26)
where
ˆ
D is the operator
ˆ
D = −
∂
2
∂ϕ
2
[19]. Within the framework of this quantization
scheme, evolution of the universe scale factor and other observables are calculated in
[15, 16] for the minisuperspace model.
5.2. (1+1)dimensional quantized model
Let’s pass to the quantization of the (1+1)dimensional model.
The WDW equation in the vicinity of a = 0 is written as
_
1
a(x)
δ
δa(x)
a(x)
δ
δa(x)
−
1
a
2
(x)
δ
2
δϕ
2
(x)
_
Ψ[a, ϕ] = 0, (27)
where the wave function Ψ[a, ϕ] is a functional.
The solution of Eq. (27) can be written as
Ψ[a, ϕ] =
_
C[π] e
(−iMpπ(x) lna(x)+iπ(x)ϕ(x))dx
Dπ. (28)
An inhomogeneous toymodel of the quantum gravity with explicitly evolvable observables7
Here
_
. . . Dπ and
δ
δf(x)
denotes the functional integral and the functional derivative,
respectively.
A mean value of an arbitrary operator can be evaluated as
< Ψ
ˆ
A[a, −i
δ
δϕ
, ϕ]Ψ >= ia(x)
_
_
Ψ
∗
[a, ϕ]
ˆ
D
1/4
ˆ
A
ˆ
D
−1/4
δ
δa(x)
Ψ[a, ϕ]
−
_
δ
δa(x)
Ψ
∗
[a, ϕ]
_
ˆ
D
−1/4
ˆ
A
ˆ
D
1/4
Ψ[a, ϕ]
_
Dϕ
¸
¸
¸
a(x)=a
0
→0
,(29)
where
ˆ
D(x) =
δ
2
δϕ
2
(x)
.
In many cases, it is more convenient to use the momentum representation ˆ π(x) =
π(x), ˆ ϕ(x) = i
δ
δπ(x)
, where the wave function ψ is
ψ[a, π] = C[π]e
−
iπ(x) ln a(x)dx
. (30)
Then, a mean value of an operator becomes
< ψ
ˆ
A[a, π, i
δ
δπ
]ψ >=
_
C
∗
[π]e
−i ln a
0
π(x)dx
ˆ
Ae
i ln a
0
π(x)dx
C[π] Dπ
¸
¸
¸
a(x)=a
0
→0
. (31)
Also, it is convenient to use the Wigner function [20]
℘[π, ϕ, α
0
] =
_
C
∗
[2π −q]C[q]e
(−iα
0
q(x)+iα
0
2π(x)−q(x)+2i(q(x)−π(x))ϕ(x))dx
Dq, (32)
and the Weyl symbol A[π, ϕ] = W[
ˆ
A]. The latter can be calculated by the following
rule:
W[ˆ π(x)] = π(x), W[ ˆ ϕ(x)] = ϕ(x),
W[
1
2
_
ˆ
A
ˆ
B +
ˆ
B
ˆ
A
_
] = cos
_
1
2
_
_
δ
δϕ
1
(x)
δ
δπ
2
(x)
−
δ
δϕ
2
(x)
δ
δπ
1
(x)
_
dx
_
A[π
1
, ϕ
1
]B[π
2
, ϕ
2
]
¸
¸
¸
π
1
(x) = π
2
(x) = π(x)
ϕ
1
(x) = ϕ
2
(x) = ϕ(x)
. (33)
Using the Weyl symbol and the Wigner function allows calculating a mean value of an
operator:
< A >=
_
A[k, ϕ, α
0
]℘[k, ϕ, α
0
] Dk Dϕ
α
0
→−∞
. (34)
The next step is to describe an evolution of observables. The equations of motion
(13) have to be considered as the operator equations with the initial conditions (16),
where the operators in the right hand side satisfy the commutation relation
[ˆ π(x) ˆ ϕ(y)] = −iδ(x −y).
It is worth to note, that ˆ α(η) is cnumber at an initial moment of the time. Solving
the operator equations (13) is a challenging task, hence one has to resort to a heuristic
analysis. As a zeroorder approximation, one may consider the classical solution (18)
of the equations (13) as the Weyl transform of the solution of operator equations. In
the next order, the quantum corrections to the zeroorder Weyl symbols will arise. The
investigation of the minisuperspace model [16] has demonstrated that the quantum
An inhomogeneous toymodel of the quantum gravity with explicitly evolvable observables8
corrections to the Weyl symbols are not substantial and the quantum eﬀects are
contained mainly in the Wigner function.
As the next step, it is required to understand a sense of the limit a
0
→ 0 (i.e.
α
0
→−∞). Let’s consider the mean value of ˆ ϕ(x) = i
δ
δπ(x)
, which can be written as
<  ˆ ϕ(x) >=
_
C
∗
[π]e
−iα
0
π(x)dx
ˆ ϕ(x) e
iα
0
π(x)dx
C[π] Dπ
=
_
C
∗
[π]
_
M
p
α
0
π(x)
π(x)
+ ˆ ϕ(x)
_
C[π] Dπ, (35)
where α
0
dos not tend to −∞ yet, since the result is divergent at this stage. Under
assumption of the same accuracy quasi the expressions (18) are treated as the Weyl
transform of approximate solution of the operator equations (13), one may change e
±
φ(x)
Mp
in (18) with
e
±
ϕ(x)
Mp
→e
±
ϕ(x)
Mp
+α
0
π
π
= e
±
ϕ(x)
Mp
_
1
2
e
±α
0
_
1 +
π
π
_
+
1
2
e
∓α
0
_
1 −
π
π
__
.
The limit α
0
→−∞ in the resulting expressions gives
˜
φ(x, η) =
1
2
M
p
_
ln
_
e
1
Mp
ϕ(x−η)
_
1 −
π(x −η)
π(x −η)
_
+ e
1
Mp
ϕ(x+η)
_
1 −
π(x + η)
π(x + η)
_
+
2
M
p
_
x+η
x−η
(π(ξ) +π(ξ))e
1
Mp
ϕ(ξ)
dξ
_
−ln
_
e
−
1
Mp
ϕ(x−η)
_
1 +
π(x −η)
π(x −η)
_
+ e
−
1
Mp
ϕ(x+η)
_
1 +
π(x + η)
π(x + η)
_
+
2
M
p
_
x+η
x−η
(π(ξ) −π(ξ))e
−
1
Mp
ϕ(ξ)
dξ
__
, (36)
˜ α(x, t) = −ln 4 +
1
2
_
ln
_
e
1
Mp
ϕ(x−η)
_
1 −
π(x −η)
π(x −η)
_
+ e
1
Mp
ϕ(x+η)
_
1 −
π(x + η)
π(x + η)
_
+
2
M
p
_
x+η
x−η
(π(ξ) +π(ξ))e
1
Mp
ϕ(ξ)
dξ
_
+ln
_
e
−
1
Mp
ϕ(x−η)
_
1 +
π(x −η)
π(x −η)
_
+ e
−
1
Mp
ϕ(x+η)
_
1 +
π(x + η)
π(x + η)
_
+
2
M
p
_
x+η
x−η
(π(ξ) −π(ξ))e
−
1
Mp
ϕ(ξ)
dξ
__
. (37)
The “reduced” expressions
˜
φ(x, η), ˜ α(x, η) do not contain α
0
. Also, they satisfy the
equation of motion (36), (13). Now, the mean values of observabales can be evaluated
by the ordinary quantum mechanical Wigner function (compare with (32))
˜ ℘[π, ϕ] =
_
C
∗
[2π −q]C[q]e
(2i(q(x)−π(x))ϕ(x))dx
Dq, (38)
as
< A >=
_
A(˜ α(π, ϕ),
˜
φ(π, ϕ)) ˜ ℘[π, ϕ] Dπ Dϕ. (39)
An inhomogeneous toymodel of the quantum gravity with explicitly evolvable observables9
Eq. (14) for the constraints (15) does not obey the “reduced” solutions (37):
e
2˜ α
_
−M
2
p
˜ α
′2
−M
2
p
(∂
x
˜ α)
2
+
˜
φ
′2
+ (∂
x
˜
φ)
2
_
=
1
2
(π(x + η)ϕ
′
(x + η)
−π(x −η)ϕ
′
(x −η)), (40)
e
2˜ α
(M
2
p
˜ α
′
∂
x
˜ α −
˜
φ
′
∂
x
˜
φ) =
1
2
(π(x + η)ϕ
′
(x + η) + π(x −η)ϕ
′
(x −η)) . (41)
More exactly, the “Friedmann equation” (14) is satisﬁed at η = 0, whereas Eq. (15)
is never satisﬁed. At the same time, the consequence of (17) is that the magnitude of
the constraints (40), (41) becomes negligible at η → 0 relatively the magnitude of the
typical term e
2˜ α
˜
φ
′2
in the Hamiltonian constraint. For the states C[π] possessing an
uniformity “at the mean” such that the mean value of function gradient is zero, the
constraints are satisﬁed “at the mean”, as well.
Unlike (18), the solutions (37) are discontinuous functions: there is a gap in the
vicinity of π(x) = 0. Since it is diﬃcult to deal with the piecewise continuous functions,
it is reasonable to restrict oneself to the functionals C[π] admitting only positive initial
momentums. The instance is
C[π] =
_
exp
__
(−u(x)π
2
(x) −v(x)/π
2
(x)) dx
_
, π(x) > 0
0, π(x) < 1,
where u(x), v(x) are some positivelydeﬁned functions. For a positive π(x), the
expressions (36), (37) result in
˜
φ(x, η) =
1
2
M
p
_
ln
_
2
M
p
_
x+η
x−η
π(ξ)e
1
Mp
ϕ(ξ)
dξ
_
−ln
_
e
−
1
Mp
ϕ(x−η)
+ e
−
1
Mp
ϕ(x+η)
__
, (42)
˜ α(x, η) =
1
2
_
ln
_
1
2M
p
_
x+η
x−η
π(ξ)e
1
Mp
ϕ(ξ)
dξ
_
+ ln
_
e
−
1
Mp
ϕ(x−η)
+ e
−
1
Mp
ϕ(x+η)
__
. (43)
Now, one may calculate the evolution of observables. For C[π], it is possible to
take a squeezed state giving a small initial momentum π(x) and a large initial ﬁeld
ϕ(x) due to the uncertainty principle. However, the numerical calculations including
the functional integration still turn out to be complicated. Thus, one has to come to
the next round of heuristic simpliﬁcations. Let’s replace the quantum averaging by the
spatial integration
< G >=
ω
2π
_
2π/ω
0
G(π(x), ϕ(x)) dx, (44)
and take the initial momentum and ﬁeld in the form
π(x) = p,
ϕ(x) = A cos(ω x), (45)
where p > 0, ω ∼ M
p
and A ≪M
p
are some constants.
First of all, it is of interest to describe a vacuum state. However, a scalar ﬁeld is
strongly “mixed” with a scale factor variable in the system considered. Thus, one may
hardly expect to ﬁnd a state like that of the ordinary QFT. It seems, that obtaining of
such a state needs to consider a number of scalar ﬁelds in the hope that their mutual
An inhomogeneous toymodel of the quantum gravity with explicitly evolvable observables10
eﬀect on the scale factor would result in an analog of the QFT vacuum. But it is
doubtful that an analytical solution exists in the case of multiple scalar ﬁelds. Thus,
we shall explore only a peculiar feature of vacuum state allowing ﬂuctuation with the
frequencies up to the Planck mass.
Let us calculate with the help of (42),(43), (44),(45) the mean values of the following
quantities
< α
′
>≈
1
2η
+ . . .
< α
′2
>≈
1
4η
2
+
A
2
ω
2
16M
2
p
+ . . .
< (∂
x
α)
2
>≈
A
2
ω
2
16M
2
p
+ . . .
1
M
2
p
< ϕ
′2
>≈
1
4η
2
+
A
2
ω
2
16M
2
p
+ . . .
1
M
2
p
< (∂
x
ϕ)
2
>≈
A
2
ω
2
16M
2
p
+ . . . ,
where dots denote the higherorder terms on
1
Mp
. One can see, that < α
′2
> contains a
ﬂuctuating term. On the other hand, the ﬂuctuations do not aﬀect an average evolution
described by < α
′
>. It shold be noted, that the sum
1
M
2
p
< (φ
′
(x, η))
2
+ (∂
x
φ(x, η))
2
>
equals approximately to < (α
′
(x, η))
2
+ (∂
x
α(x, η))
2
>. Thus the ﬂuctuating terms
compensate mutually each other in the mean value of the Hamiltonian constraint H
and this solves a part of the cosmological constant problem. The idea of such a
compensation seems natural and is widely discussed earlier [21, 22, 23] but beyond
a concrete quantization scheme for the gravity. The second part of the cosmological
constant problem is to explain the accelerated universe expansion. The diﬀerence
1
M
2
p
< (φ
′
(x, η))
2
−(∂
x
φ(x, η))
2
>≈< (α
′
(x, η))
2
−(∂
x
α(x, η))
2
>, so that
< α
′′
>≈
2
M
2
p
< (∂
x
φ(x, η))
2
−(φ
′
(x, η))
2
>≈ −
1
2η
2
. (46)
Hence one may conclude, that the acceleration of the universe expansion is determined
by mean value of the diﬀerence of the potential and kinetic energies of the ﬁeld oscillators
[24, 25, 26]. However, there is no accelerated universe expansion in the case considered
in contrast to Ref. [24, 25, 26], where the quantum ﬁelds against a classical background
are analyzed (also, see [27] where the virial theorem for a vacuum state is discussed).
We suppose that the (1+1)dimensional scalar ﬁeld under consideration is mixed too
strongly with the background and, as a result, the states like the vacuum ones do not
appear.
An inhomogeneous toymodel of the quantum gravity with explicitly evolvable observables11
6. Issues of vacuum, mass, nonlinearity, and gravity
Besides the theoretical problem of weakening of the constraint equations for the quasi
Heisenberg operators, here we address some physical issues. The main challenge is to
obtain a state, which is similar to the vacuum state of QFT. As it have been mentioned
above, many scalar ﬁelds should be included into consideration for this aim.
The next issue concerns with a role of the mass. Inclusion of the mass violates
selfconsistency of constraints in the model considered, and we ﬁnd diﬃculty to invent
some simple selfconsistent system including the massive scalar ﬁeld. Analogous question
arises for a classical nonlinear vacuum appearing in theories with the Lagrangians, which
are nonquadratic on the matter ﬁelds. The question is: would do the negative energy of
the scale factor oscillation compensate the energy of the nonlinear vacuums originating
from the spontaneous symmetry breaking? Meanwhile we have not a suitable simple
selfconsistent system to investigate this situation.
One may try to investigate the full GR, which includes nonlinear gravitational
waves and can include selfconsistently a massive matter ﬁeld as a source. However, the
quantization of the GR in the quasiHeisenberg picture requires, at least, the solution
of the general WDW equation in the vicinity of a = 0. Although this problem is much
simpler than the search of a general solution, it requires considerable eﬀorts.
7. Conclusion
We have considered quantization of the (1+1)dimensional quantum gravity in the quasi
Heisenberg picture. An exact quantization scheme has been suggested. In this scheme,
the equation of motion have been quantized consistently with the normalization of the
solution of the WDW equation in the KleinGordon style. One should understand that
if the wave function obeys the WDW equation, there exists no an equivalent Schr¨ odinger
picture for this quantization scheme. The Hamiltonian constraint equation for the
quasiHeisenberg operators is satisﬁed only at the initial instant, and the momentum
constraint is not never satisﬁed. This is a price, which would be payed in order to
describe a quantum evolution.
A further consideration was approximate and based on the heuristic estimations. As
a result, we ﬁnd that the quantum oscillations of scale factor compensate the oscillations
of the scalar ﬁeld. Thus, the cosmological constant problem does not arise because the
scale factor is quantized in a proper way.
It has been shown, that the mean value of the universe acceleration expansion is
proportional to the diﬀerence of the potential and kinetic energies of the ﬁeld oscillators.
For this particular model there is no an accelerated expansion but one may hope that
it will appear with the increase of the scalar ﬁelds.
An inhomogeneous toymodel of the quantum gravity with explicitly evolvable observables12
References
[1] Wheeler J A 1968 Superspace and Nature of Quantum Geometrodynamics Battelle Rencontres ed
C DeWitt and Wheeler J A (New York: Benjamin) pp 242
[2] DeWitt B S 1967 Quantum Theory of Gravity. I. The Canonical Theory Phys. Rev. 160 1113
[3] Ashtekar A, Stachel J (eds) 1991 Conceptual problems of quantum gravity (Birkh¨ auser: Boston)
[4] Green M B, Schwarz J H and Witten E 1987 Superstring Theory (Cambrige: Cambridge University
Press) vol 1
[5] Witten E 1992 On backgroundindependent openstring ﬁeld theory Phys. Rev. D 46 5467
[6] Klebanov I R 1991 String Theory in Two Dimensions arXiv:hepth/9108019
[7] Ginsparg P and Moore G 1993 Lectures on 2D gravity and 2D string theory arXiv:hepth/9304011
[8] Martinec E J 2004 Matrix Models and 2D String Theory arXiv:hepth/0410136
[9] Belavin A and Tarnopolsky G 2010 Two dimensional gravity in genus one in Matrix Models,
Topological and Liouville approaches JETP Lett. 92 257
[10] Alexandrov S Yu and Kostov I K 2004 Timedependent backgrounds of 2D string theory: Non
perturbative eﬀects J. High Energy Phys. JHEP02(2005)
[11] Bars I 1994 Classical Solutions of 2D String Theory in any Curved Spacetime arXiv:hepth/9411217
[12] Rovelli C 2003 Quantum Gravity (Cambridge: Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics)
[13] Abhay Ashtekar A 1986 New Variables for Classical and Quantum Gravity Phys. Rev. Lett. 57
2244
[14] Shestakova T P and Simeone C 2004 The problem of time and gauge invariance in the quantization
of cosmological models. I. Canonical quantization methods Grav. Cosmol. 10 161
[15] Cherkas S L and Kalashnikov V L 2007 Quantum evolution of the Universe from τ = 0 in the
constrained quasiHeisenberg picture Proc. VIIIth International Schoolseminar ”The Actual
Problems of Microworld Physics”, (Gomel, July 25August 5) (Dubna: JINR) vol 1 pp 208
(arXiv:grqc/0502044)
[16] Cherkas S L and Kalashnikov V L 2006 Quantum evolution of the Universe in the constrained
quasiHeisenberg picture: from quanta to classics? Grav.Cosmol. 12 126 (arXiv:grqc/0512107)
[17] Landay L D and Lifshits E M 1982 Field Theory (Oxford: Pergamon Press)
[18] Gitman D M and Tyutin I V 1990 Quantization of Fields with Constraints (Berlin: Springer)
[19] Mostafazadeh A 2004 Quantum Mechanics of KleinGordonType Fields and Quantum Cosmology
Annals Phys. 309 1
[20] de Groot S R and Suttorp L G 1972 Foundations of Electrodynamics (Amsterdam: Noth Holland
Pub. Co.)
[21] Anischenko S V, Kalashnikov V L and Cherkas S L 2008 To the question about vacuum energy in
cosmology Proc. 2nd Congress of Physicists of Belarus (Minsk, November 35) [in Russian]
[22] Wang Charles HT, Bonifacio P M, Bingham R and Mendonca J T 2008 Nonlinear random gravity.
I. Stochastic gravitational waves and spontaneous conformal ﬂuctuations due to the quantum
vacuum arXiv:0806.3042
[23] Bonifacio P M 2009 Spacetime Conformal Fluctuations and Quantum Dephasing PhD thesis
(University of Aberdeen) (arXiv:0906.0463)
[24] Cherkas S L and Kalashnikov V L 2006 Decelerating and accelerating backreaction of vacuum to
the Universe expansion Proc. Int. Conf. BolyaiGaussLobachevsky: Noneuclidian Geometry in
Modern Physics (Minsk, October 1013 ed Yu Kurochkin and V Red’kov (Minsk: B.I. Stepanov
Institute of Physics) pp 188 (arXiv:grqc/0604020)
[25] Cherkas S L and Kalashnikov V L 2007 Determination of the UV cutoﬀ from the observed value of
the Universe acceleration J. Cosm. Astropart. Phys. JCAP01(2007)028 (arXiv: grqc/0610148)
[26] Cherkas S L and Kalashnikov V L 2008 Universe driven by the vacuum of scalar ﬁeld: VFD model
Proc. Int. Conf. ”Problems of Practical Cosmology” (Saint Petersburg, 2327 June) ed Yu V
Baryshev, I N Taganov and P Teerikorpi (Saint Petersburg: Russian Geographical Society) Vol
2 pp 135 (arXiv: astroph/0611795)
An inhomogeneous toymodel of the quantum gravity with explicitly evolvable observables13
[27] Anischenko S V 2008 Violation of the viral theorem for the ground state of the timedependent
oscillator Vestnik Belarus State U. ser. Fiz.Mat. 2 43 [in Russian]