Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

The timelessness of quantum gravity: I. The evidence from the classical theory

This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article.

1994 Class. Quantum Grav. 11 2853

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/11/12/005)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:
IP Address: 130.220.71.22
The article was downloaded on 02/07/2012 at 23:21

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

Class. Quantum Grav. 11 (1994) 285K2873. Printed in the UK

The timelessness of quantum gravity: I. The evidence from

the classical theory
Julian B Barbour
College Farm, South Newington, Banbury, Oxfordshire, OX15 UG. U K

Received 4 August 1994

Abstract. The issue of time is addressed It is argued that time as such does not exist but
that instants. defined as complete relative configurations of the universe, do. It is shown how
the classical mechanics (both non-relativistic and generally relativistic) of a complete universe
can be expressed solely in terms of such relative configurations. ‘time is thenfore a redundant
concept. as are external inenial frames of reference (so thaf Machian ideas about the relativity of
motion are fully implemented). Although time plays no role in kinematics, it can be recovered as
an effective concept associated with any classical history of the universe. In the case of classical
mechanics, this operationally defined time is identical CO the astmnomem’ ephemeris tim. In
lhe case of general relativiv it is shown how local proper time is a kind of local ephemeris time.
It is argued that because general relativily is timeless in a deep and precise sense, the standard
representation of the theory as a theory of curved spacetime disguises imponant aspects of its
stmcrure and that just these aspects may be the mosr important for the quantum form of the
theory. This issue and the effective recovery of time from a genuinely timeless quantum theory
are addressed in a following companion paper.

PACS number: 04M)

1. The disappearance of time

Something ‘odd’ happens to time when the attempt is made to quantize gravity [I]: time
disappears. Specifically, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation [2]

HV = 0, 11)
describes a static situation: the ‘wavefunction of the universe’ \I! depends on the possible
three-dimensional relative configurations 40 of the universe and nothing else. There is no
evolution in time.
Despite extensive discussion [3], this problem is seldom addressed with the urgency
that such a profound result-the disappearance of time-would seem to warrant. There
are several reasons for this, the most solid being an argument based on counting of the
number of degrees of freedom, which seems to suggest that time has not disappeared but is
somehow hidden among the other degrees of freedom of the theory. In this paper, I shall
argue against this interpretation.
Quite generally, I believe the precise manner in which time emerges from the dynamical
structure of general relativity has been poorly understood. This applies especially to the
notion of a clock. I think it is wrong to attempt to identify certain degrees of freedom
as a clock and use them to describe the behaviour of the remainder. Any satisfactory
operational definition of time must involve all the degrees of freedom of the universe on an

0261-9381/94/1U853+2I$l9.50@ 1594 IOP Publishing Ud 2853

2854 J B Barbour

equal footing, so any such division into clock and residual measured system is misleadingly
artificial.
It is important for my overall argument to show that not only time but also external
inertial frames of reference are redundant. This is done by constructing Machian theories
of motion, in which the key notion is that of the possible three-dimensional relative
configurations of the universe. Using such configurations, and interpreting dynamical
histories as geodesics in the space of all possible relative configurations, we achieve a
timeless andframeless formulation of classical dynamics.
In the next section, I define the general notion of instant, which is identified with
a possible configuration of the universe, and explain why it is unnecessary to conceive
of instants as being embedded in any kind of external time. I next show, using
Jacobi's principle, how dynamical theories can be formulated as geodesic principles in the
configuration space of all possible instants. Time is thereby eliminated in the kinematics but
is recovered operationally as ephemeris time within any physically realized Jacobi geodesic.
The next step is to show how, following Mach's ideas, external inertial frames of reference
can also be eliminated from the basic kinematics and recovered operationally (together with
time) from what may be called a Jacobi-Mach geodesic in a configuration space of relative
instants.
This is all done first for non-relativistic theories with fixed geometry of space. As a
next step one can consider the general structure of theories in which geometry is not fixed
but dynamical. Comparison of the basic form of the Lagrangian of any such theory with
the Lagrangian of general relativity in the form found by Baierlein, Sharp and Wheeler
(BSW) [4] shows that Einstein's theory is a perfect implementation of such theories, since
its action is ultimately derived from the intrinsic difference of three-dimensional relative
configurations and nothing else.
The important thing about this fact in the present context-the search for the basic
form of the quantum theory of the universe-is that it suggests the ontological primacy
of three-dimensional relative configurations even though general relativity does exhibit a
remarkable four-dimensional symmetry. Thus, the classical theory of general relativity is
interpreted here as a theory of extrema1 stlllctures in superspace, the space of all possible
three-dimensional configurations the universe could have. I call this the three representation
of the theory, contrasting it with the standard spacetime picture, which I call the four
representation. Although the four representation is more useful for classical physics, I
argue in the companion paper [ 5 ] that it is the features of the theory that are brought out
more clearly in the three representation that may be the most important for the quantum
form of the theory.

2. The notion of instants

The notion of instant is central to the view of the world I wish to present here.
In non-relativistic physics, the objects in the universe are in any instant in some definite
configuration relative to each other. We may call this the concrete confent of the instant. It
seems arbitrary to suppose that only the objects out to some particular distance define the
content of the instant, so it is natural to extend it to the complete universe, whether finite
or infinite. AI1 instants considered here will be universal in this sense.
I shall call an instant that is characterized by a relative configuration of the complete
universe a relative configurational instant.
We may suppose that instantaneous motions also belong to the concrete content of the
instant. I shall call an instant characterized by both the relative configuration and all the
 'limeiessness of quantum graviry: I 2855

instantaneous relative velocities a relative phase instant (since a point in the phase space of
a system with many degrees of freedom represents both positions and velocities).
Now in Newtonian dynamics it turns out that relative configurations and relative
velocities do not suffice to characterize initial states, which have to be defined relative to
absolute space or, in more modem terms, an inertial frame of reference. The corresponding
instants may be called absolute (conjigurational and phose) instants.
Before the discovery of the special theory of relativity, no one doubted that, in its
history, the universe passes through a unique sequence of instants. Thus, instants were not
only universal but also absolu!e (the same for all different observers).
The final property that we need to characterize time and instants in prerelativistic physics
is duration. In Newtonian theory, any two instants are separated by a definite amount of
time. Time is not merely a succession of instants, it also has a metric. In Newtonian (and
Lorentzian) kinematics the separation in time between any two instants is quite independent
of their content.
Among the properties of instants listed above, the only one irretrievably lost in relativity
theory is absoluteness. Although it is customary to downgrade the physical significance of
universal instants, since they correspond to special choices of spacelike hyperplanes (in
special relativity) and hypersurfaces (in general relativity) in spacetime (which is regarded
as the truly fundamental concept), they reassea themselves as physically significant concepts
whenever one attempts to describe dynamical evolution, since the essence of dynamics is to
specify data on such hyperplanes or hypersurfaces and then establish how the data evolve
in order to determine a complete history.
My position is that instants exist but time does not. By this I mean that the entire
content of classical dynamics (prerelativistic and specially and generally relativistic) can be
built up using only relative configurational instants and the intrinsic differences between
their concrete contents. Physics does not need a time dimension; in particular, the a priori
notion of duration is redundant.
Indeed, time as pure duration is most elusive. We never see it; all we ever see are things,
and our notion of time should be derived from the phenomena of change and motion, which
come first. Time must be reduced to change, to differences. It will then be concrete and
real. This can be done.

3. Dynamics without time: Jacobi's principle

Most physicists regard dynamics, first classical and then quantum, as the deepest description
of reality. I shall therefore seek a satisfactory notion of time in the framework of dynamics.
Newton originally formulated dynamics in absolute space, but analytical mechanics uses
the configuration space Q , augmented by T ,the one-dimensional space of absolute times t :
the history of any system is a continuous curve in its extended configuration space QT 161.
Now for a system in itself T is redundant, since the curve in QT projects down to
a Q curve which represents faithfully all the successive configurations through which the
system passes. In fact, for the universe as a whole, the speed of its motion through Q,
which is supposed to be measured in T ,is without content, since any time on which we
can lay our hands must be measured by some actual motion or process. But the curve of
the universe in its Q describes the motions of all the parts of the universe; it is vacuous to
suppose the universe can pass along its Q curve at different possible speeds. For since all
speeds will merely scale, no difference can be observed-the clock will be speeded up as
much as the motion it measures.
2856 J B Barbour

A little reflection shows that an extemal time is only needed to describe subsystem of
the universe; for they can move faster or slower relative to an overall motion: the orbiting
earth has a speed relative to the Hubble expansion that could be different. m e earth would
then move in a different orbit. (By orbit I shall always mean the timeless curve of a system
in its configuration space.)
Indeed, the orbit of a conservative n-particle system in its Q is a geodesic found by
Jacobi’s variational principle [7]

1 ” dxi d r i
FE=E-V, T=-Emj-*- (2)
2 l=1 dh d h ’

where A is any monotonically increasing parameter along the orbit, xi is the position vector
of particle i, V is the potential energy of the system, E is its constant total energy, T is
called the (flat) kinetic metric, and FE is a conformal factor.
In accordance with (2), the complete set of orbits with all possible total energies is
decomposed into subsets labelled by E, i.e. with different conformal factor from a on6
parameter family. The orbits of one subset can be described as timeless geodesics in Q,
but no geodesic principle can describe all orbits at once.
This is the case for subsystems of the universe; for the universe itself the situation is not
so clear. A classical universe has a unique history with orbit fixed by a definite E. Since
potentials are determined only up to a constant. the fixed E which a p p s in (2) can be
subsumed in the potential (conformal factor). One may then argue that the true law of the
universe is the timeless geodesic principle (2) on Q with the corresponding FE. This line
of argument will be particularly convincing if independent considerations suggest a unique
form of Fc. For it is the presence of the arbitrary constant E in this conformal factor in
classical dynamics that provides the real evidence for external time.
Even if the objective content of history is merely a timeless geodesic, we still feel there
is more to time than a mere succession of configurations. Is there no durarion, or mefric
of time? The answer is yes, but it emerges from the dynamics. It does not preexist in the
kinematics.
As yet the geodesics of (2) are simply curves in Q with points labelled by the arbitrary
parameter h . The equations of these geodesics are

A unique and obvious choice of A reduces (3) to the simplest possible form. We take
it such that the kinetic term T is exactly equal to the conformal factor FE:

T = FE or T+V=E, since FE = E - V . (4)

Then the equations of motion are
(mi%) = -G
av

and are identical to Newton’s second law if the special A is identified with absolute time t.
However, the recovery is subject to an important condition: only the solutions for one
energy are obtained, since (4) must hold.
 7Emelessness of quantum gravity: I 2857

Now the condition (4) is usually interpreted as the energy conservation law. Indeed,
when dynamical problems are solved using Jacobi's principle. the condition (4) is exploited,
once the orbit for given E has been found, to determine how 'fast' the system moves along
the orbit. Writing the kinetic metric as

we obtain the energy theorem in the form

ds
-=dZ-v.
dt

Integration gives the path Iength s along the orbit as function of the time:

But this is in the context of an extemal time. In the context of timeless kinematics, the
condition (4) does not determine the 'speed' of the univene-it &@es time. If there is no
external time, we must invert (5) to give t as a function of s:

Note that the distinguished time t is not the affine parameter sa of the geodesic, which is
given by

The utility of imposing (4) and defining time by (6)goes well beyond the simplicity of
equations: it is the unique choice for which clocks will tell a common rime. The fact is that
the universe contains many subsystems with effectively no interaction between them. Each
can be described by a Jacobi principle of the form (2) in which E can, in principle, have any
value. From each subsystem one can recover a distinguished time metric by imposing the
condition (4). Now because of the overall structure of Jacobi's principle for the universe,
all the times obtained from the subsystems will be synchronized-the times will all march
in step, i.e. the clock rates will differ at most by constants of proportionality. This crucial
property hinges on the condition (4). If any other choice is made, clocks based on different
systems will not keep time with each other. Such clocks are useless. The theo~yof time is
unique.
It is equally important that a useful time metric can only be obtained from an isolated
system, and that ultimately the only isolated system is the universe. Therefore, there is only
one clock. In principle, to determine time it is necessary to monitor the entire universe.
The universe is its own clock.
2858 J B Barbour
4. The operational time of the astronomers: ephemeris time

Historically, astronomers have adopted three different ways to define time. The first time
standard was the Earth’s rotation. However, as observational accuracy improved, it became
clear that the Earth could not provide a reliable clock, the tidal effects of the Moon on
the interior of the Earth being unpredictable. The astronomers found a better standard by
assuming the motions of all the dynamcially significant bodies in the solar system, treated
as an isolated system, to be governed by Newton’s laws (with very small corrections to
take account of general relativity) and choosing the time parameter in such a way that all
the bodies do satisfy those laws. With such a parameter, which is called ephemeris time
[SI,the total energy of the solar system is clearly conserved. Thus, ephemeris time is the
concrete operational time defined by (6).
More recently, the astronomers have gone over to a time determined from a network
of atomic clocks distributed over the Earth. This is not the place for a detailed account,
but two points need to be made. First, time is still determined by dynamical processes
and is chosen in the manner that makes the equations which describe these processes take
the simplest form possible. This is completely analogous to imposing (4), so atomic time
is also a kind of ephemeris time. Second, and very important, a useful time can only be
extracted from the six or seven physical atomic clocks in the international network after their
environment has been described in a parametrized model, which must embrace all relevant
factors. These include not only the dynamics of the Earth (continental drift, Chandler
wobble of the Earth’s rotation axis, even weather patterns in principle) but also the solar
system and even the Galaxy and distant quasars. Thus, to confirm that the binary pulsar is
emitting gravitational waves exactly as predicted by general relativity, it is now necessary to
model the Galaxy in order to establish the differential acceleration of the Sun and the binary
pulsar in the galactic gravitational field, which mimics emission of gravitational waves by
the binary pulsar with 100% correlation [9]. Even the intrinsic variations of quasars, which
are used in certain astronomical frames of reference, must be modelled,
Thus, the conclusion that ultimately the universe is the only clock is confirmed by
current practice. Indeed, according to the aslronomer Clemence 181: ‘. .. a clock must be
defined as a mechanism for measuring time that is continually synchronized as nearly as
may be with ephemeris time’. At the time this was written (1957). Clemence was referring
to ephemeris time obtained from the solar system. The environment from which ephemeris
time is now obtained is much larger, but the principle is the same.
Ephemeris time is, of course, a secondary concept (the configuration space and geodesics
are the primary concepts), and I see the way in which the astronomem were forced into its
adoption as confirmation of the timelessness of physics. Note too that the imposition of
(4) makes the duration of ephemeris time between any two realized instants into an explicit
function of the concrete contents of the two instants.

5. Reparametrization invariance and parametrized Newtonian dynamics

If the law of the universe is a geodesic principle in its configuration space, there is no
need for time. This is reflected in a characteristic way in Jacobi’s principle (2), which is
quadratic in the velocities of the dynamical variables, which nlf contribute democratically
on an equal footing to the kinetic energy. However, the integrand itself is a radical, so that
the Lagrangian is homogeneous of degree one in the velocities, making the action principle
reparametrization invariant.
 i'7melessnessof quantum gravity: I 2859

This reparametrization invariance is a necessary but not sufficient condition of genuine

timelessness. For consider so-called parametrized particle dynamics [7], in which one starts
from standard non-relativistic dynamics formulated in Q T , treats the absolute time f as a
dynamical variable in its own right, parametrizes the possible histories of the system in QT
by some arbitrary monotonic label, and obtains the action principle in the form

Now this action principle is also reparametrization invariant but has a form very different
from (2). namely, unlike (Z), not all the velocities of the dynamical degrees of freedom occur
quadratically in (7), and there is no characteristic radical. in fact, although the time has
purely formally been made into a dynamical degree of freedom, it sticks out, through its
bizarrely positioned 'velocity', like a sore thumb from among the true physical degrees of
freedom. Moreover, whereas they are all more or less directly observable, time, as we have
noted, can never be seen. The difference between (2) and (7) will be important in general
relativity, which is often likened [ 10, 1 I] to parametrized particle dynamics but is actually
like Jacobi's principle.

6. Structure of the eanonieal momenta in timeless theories

The difference between the Hamiltonian forms of (2) and (7) introduces another aspect of
timelessness. Note first that for the principle (2) the initial condition for a geodesic consists
of giving an initial configuration, i.e. an initial point in Q , and an initial direction in Q at
that point. In ordinary dynamics one specifies a direction with an overall initial speed of
the system. But in a timeless theory this has no meaning, so that all which remains in the
initial condition is the direction.
This is reflected in the canonical momenta pi of the coordinates zi in (2):

They are 'direction cosines' with respect to the kinetic metric, multiplied by the square
root of the conformal factor F = E - V . This is what they must be, since at any instant
(of ephemeris time) the momenta define an initial state, which is specified by a direction.
Direction cosines multiplied by any common factor define a direction. Thus, the timeless
theory has 'direction-pointing' momenta with the same denominator f i ,the square root
of a form quadratic in all the velocities.
Therefore, the momenta are not independent but satisfy the quadratic identity

;-$y - F = 0,

the origin of which is obvious: in a space of n dimensions, a direction is specified by n - 1

data, hence the identity (9).
In parametrized particle dynamics, the canonical momenta come in two different forms.
The ordinary momenta are

dt
dh dh
2860 J B Barbour

while the distinguished ‘momentum of time’ is

T

PI = -
(dt/dA)*
- v.
Neither (10) nor (1 1) has the direction-cosine form of a truly timeless theory, though
they do satisfy the identity

which is parabolic, the time momentum occurring linearly.

Because the identities (9) and (12) hold, the Hamiltonians corresponding to the
Lagrangian theories (2) and (7) vanish identically. A first-order variational formalism of
Hamiltonian type can be obtained formally by multiplying the left-hand sides of (9) and
(12) by Lagrangian multipliers and using them as Hamiltonians. Variation with respect to
the multipliers leads to (9) and (12), which become constraints [7.101.

7. The physical interpretation of quadratic constraints

Let us consider the physical significance of the constraints (9) and (12). One says that (12)
arises because not all the variables are true degrees of freedom. This is manifestly true;
time in Newtonian theory is quite different from particle positions.
Now in canonical quantization, in which momenta become operators of differentiation,
(12) simply becomes the time-dependent SchrBdinger equation

The fact that in the quantum theory time, unlike the position operators, is not an operator
confirms that a non-dynamical variable (time) is ‘hidden’ in (12) among the m e degrees of
freedom.
In fact, in canonical quantization it is more or less a dogma that any constraint indicates
the presence of ‘gauge’ degrees of freedom, which have to be treated differently from the
true ones. Besides the argument from paramemzed dynamics, which features prominently
in Duac’s theory of constrained systems [ 101 and in the ADM formalism [ll], support for
such a view is seen in the treatment of the Gauss constraint in electrodynamics and Yang-
Mills theory. However, in all these cases at least one momentum occurs linearly in the
constraint.
Is it so obvious the standard rule must apply to the purely quadratic constraint (9) in
Jacobi’s principle for a timeless universe? Does it tell us that one of the degrees of freedom
in (2) is non-dynamical, different in nature from all the others, and is actually time? In
the light of the discussion of ephemeris time, the answer can only be nu. Time is not
any one variable; it is created by all variables working in concert. Interpretation of (9)
for the solar system in accordance with the standard dogma would lead one to attempt to
identify, say, the longitude of Mars as the direct measure of time. Such a choice would be
entirely arbitrary and lead to non-conservative dynamics. If we had several neighbouring
solar systems in the Galaxy and took one such coordinate in each of them as time, the
resulting times would never ‘keep in step’. The only sensible time one can choose is the
 Timelessness of quantum gravity: I 2861

unique parameter that conserves energy for an isolated system; such a time cannot be any
one degree of freedom. All degrees of freedom must be treated on an equal footing and all
are manifestly as true as any other.
I believe this shows that the standard dogma (any constraint implies a ‘gauge’ degree
of freedom) cannot be universally true. Each case, including general relativiiy (to which
we shall come), must be considered on its merits.
How should we quantize the Jacobi-principle constraint (9)? It seems to me that, in
this case at least, only one quantization is possible [12]. One must treat all variables on an
equal footing and obtain

H $ = E$., (14)

which has the form of a time-independent Schradinger equation for one fixed energy. The
wave equation is then static and simply takes values, given once and for all, on the possible
configurations of the universe.
Startling as this may seem, it is actually natural if one has once begun to take
timelessness seriously. In classical physics, a dynamical system traces a unique curve
in its configuration space Q, but its quantum wavefunction @ is spread out in principle over
the entire Q. This I) varies in time t . But if there is no t, I) cannot vary in t and must
be static. The challenge of recovering our experience of time from a static wavefunction
will be taken up in the companion paper [5]. Before then we need to consider the basic
dynamical structure of general relativity.

8. Maehiao particle dynamics

Let us first see how motion can be made relative, i.e. Machian, in classical dynamics, since
this, in conjunction with Jacobi’s principle (a Machian treatment of timet), illuminates the
dynamical structure of general relativity.
In Jacobi‘s principle, we pass from dynamics in QT to dynamics in Q alone. We
recover Newtonian solutions, but only those with one fixed E. However, we can do more.
In standard theory, the instantaneous configuration of a system is defined by inkinsic relative
variables (the n(n - 1)/2 relative distances between the particles of the n-body problem),
together with three centreof-mass coordinates in some inertial system and three more that
specify the orientation of the system. The standard Q has 3n dimensions. However, one
can factor out the six frame variables and pass to the dative configurationspace (RCS) Qo,
which has 3n - 6 dimensions.
Many people, including Huygens, Leibniz, Berkeley and Mach [13], wanted to formulate
dynamics in Qo,not Q, but, as Poincark noted (141, the complicated expression of angular
momentum in relative variables makes it impossible to do this in any natural way for standard
dynamics. However, this treats subsystems of the universe, so, following the example of
the elimination of time, we should pass to consideration of the universe, treated as a single
dynamical system.
Relational theories can be formulated in at least two ways, but in one [lS] anisotropic
mass= conflict with observation, so I shall describe the second [la], which is free of this
difficulty and has a basic structure very like that of general relativity.

t ‘It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the wntrary, time is an
abstraction,at which we arrive by means of the changes of things’ [13].
2862 J B Barbour

Its basis is an action defined between any two neighbouring points of the RCS Qo.One
takes the two corresponding configurations, imagines them placed ‘on top of each other’,
and then supposes them moved relative to each other into the position of best matching in
which their intrinsic difference, measured by a least-squares fit, is least. This is clearly a
process which depends only on the intrinsic differences between the two configurations.
Represent configuration 1 by Cartesian coordinates z;.chosen once and for all, for
particle i, i = I , 2, .. . ,n. DO the same for configuration 2, obtaining coordinates Z;+&si
in some Cartesian coordinate system. Because this is arbitrary, the Szi do not measure the
true intrinsic difference of the configurations. However, if

is calculated for every choice of the coordinates on configuration 2 and its minimum found,
the resulting 6zi will be meaningful, since (15) will then represent a minimal intrinsic
least-squares difference between the two configurations.
This process is represented by the variational principle

.
where 0,, (Y = 1.2, . .,6, are the generators of Euclidean displacements and rotations and
E. are auxiliary variables (summation over (Y is understood). By varying E., we change the
coordinate system on configuration 2 (passive interpretation), or we move configuration 2
around on top of configuration 1 (active interpretation). Minimization of (16) with respect
to E, leads to the position of best match. The extremum of (16) is the action (‘distance’)
between the two configurations and defines a metric on the RCS Qo.
Introducing a conformal factor in (16) to obtain a non-trivial theory, we have

dh

which is identical to the Jacobi principle (2) except that the Machian ‘correction terms’
CT = &.(h)OCx;give a theory in Qo rather than Q. Each geodesic of (17) is a timeless
and frameless history-an extremal sequence of relative configurations of the universe.
To find the geodesic between two configurations q: and qi in Qo.one takes a trial
path between them, which is a sequence of relative configurations labelled by a monotonic
parameter h. The infinitesimal action between each pair of successive configurations is
found by minimizing with respect to the auxiliary variables E, at each step. Adding up
all the contributions, one finds the action for the trial path, The square root ensures
reparametrization invariance of the action. The trial path which itself extremalizes the
action is the required history.
As Bertotti and the author have shown [16], the successive configurations in the extremal
paths a e identical to the successive relative configurations obtained in Newtonian theory for
 Timelessness of quantum graviry: I 2863

one fixed E (the Jacobi-principle result) and for zero angular momentum of the universe in
its rest frame. This is the non-trivial effect of making motion relative. Moreover, absolute
space and time are recovered as operational concepts from the relative configurations by
‘placing’ the configurations on top of each other in the best-matching positions (horizontal
stacking, which gives the positions in the Newtonian CMS system) and ‘spacing them apart’
(vertical stacking) in accordance with their ephemeris time differences. Thus, time and
frame are obtained from a timeless and frameless ‘heap’ of relative configurations, in which
all that is concrete resides.

9. The canonical momenta of timeless and frameless theories

The vanishing of the angular momentum of the Machian universe arises because the E&.)
in (17) are Lagrangian multipliers. Variation with respect to them leads to the constraints

CPi = 0,
cxixpi=o,

If, as described above, we represent the configurations of extrema1 histones in

coordinates that give the best match, Le. minimize (16), then (18) and (19) state that the
universe has vanishing momentum and angular momentum. (Just as in the case of the
energy, subsystems of the universe can have all values of the angular momentum.) Because
of Galilean invariance, (18) is no limitation of Newtonian theory, but (19) is non-trivial.
There is also the non-trivial Jacobi-principle identity.
The canonical momenta (20) express all the essential relational properties of the theory
(17): the ‘correction term’ CT ‘Machianizes’ motion, while the

(direction cosine)dconfonnal factor

structure of the momenta is timeless. In contrast, in parametrized dynamics

where the Newtonian ‘lapse’

dr
N=-
dk
is the ‘velocity of absolute time with respect to the label time’.
2864 J B Burbour

The Machian canonical momenta can also be written in the form

where the Machian lapse is

(24)

The two differences between parametrized dynamics and Machian dynamics are the
correction term CT in (23) and the explicit expression (24) for the lapse in terms of the
configurational variables. The Machian lapse (24) is concrete and fully explicated, the
Newtonian lapse (22) is simply defined in terms of the absolute time f .

10. Timeless Machian geometrodynamics

After this preparation in non-relativistic theory, we can discuss the dynamical structure
of general relativity. There are close parallels, though general relativity is a much more
sophisticated theory. I shall discuss pure geometrodynamics, since the addition of matter
does not change the basic ideas.
The notion of relative configuration is very general. So far, we have only considered
'island' configurations of n particles in Euclidean space. These were our instants of
time. Among numerous other possibilities, compact three-dimensional Riemannian (or even
pseudo-Riemannian) spaces may constitute the points of a relative configuration space of the
universe. If we can define a metric between the three-geometries of this RCS, the geodesics
will be extrema1 histones. Since the configurations are themselves defined by a metric (the
Riemannian three-metric), I shall call the metric on the RCS the dynamical supemrric (not
the DeWitt supermetric, which we encounter later). The RCS is itself DeWitt's superspace
I2, 171.
Geometrcdynamics on superspace was developed decades after the discovery of general
relativity in four-dimensional form. This has obscured the remarkable way in which general
relativity is frameless and timeless. To counter this effect, and show that general relativity is
but one special case of a large class of timeless and frameless geometrodynamical theories,
let us consider the construction of timeless Machian theories on superspace. We need a
dynamical supermetric of the type of (17).
Note first that the best-matching principle (16) establishes an equilocufiryrelufion [U]
between configurations 1 and 2 each point in 1 is paired with one point in 2; one can say the
paired points are at 'the same position'. (It was precisely the need for equilocality, without
which change of position and velocity cannot be defined, that led Newton to absolute space
1191; intrinsic best matching is a Machian alternative.) Because the n-body configurations
in sections 3-9 are of particles in Euclidean space, the trial matchings can be set up by
Euclidean shifts and rotations, i.e. by transformations of a global 'gauge group'. Since
3-geometries generically have no isometries, we shall have to go over to a local 'gauge
group' to set up trial equilocality matchings.
Take intrinsically slightly different 3-geometries g' and g2 and fix coodinates on g'.
giving a metric tensor gjj. Choose coordinates on g2 arbitrarily except that the resulting
metric tensors at the same coordinate values differ little:

g$ = gij + Sg, where 6gjj is small. (3)

 Timelessness of quantum gravity: I 2865

If points with the same coordinates are said to be 'at the same position', this gives
a trial equilocality relation, and Ggjj measures the change of the metric at such paired
points. To avoid arbitrariness, we must extremalize a trial action with respect to all trial
equilocality relations, the systematic generation of which must generalize the Euclidean
shifts and rotations in non-relativistic mechanics.
The procedure we need is obvious. Changing systematically the coordinates on gz. we
say that points in ga having the same coordinates as points in g' are equilocal with them.
Now coordinate transformations are generated by an arbitrary 3-vector field ti in accordance
with the well-known formula

g:j = g i j +ki;j). (26)

which gives the new values of the metric coefficients at the old values of the coordinates (the
round brackets denote symmetrization and the semicolon denotes the covariant derivative
with respect to g i j ) . We may call the 3-vector field ti an equilocality shufler, since it
generates new trial equilocality pairings.
The dynamical supermetric, complete with conformal factor, will have the form

where the integration is over the 3-manifold on which g' and g2 are defined. In (27), the
supermetric Gijw(not to be confused with the dynamical supermetric found by extremalizing
(27)) is a functional of g i j , and the equilocality shuffler ti is an auxiliary variable (three
in fact) which must be varied to find an extremum of (27). The conformal factor F is
a functional of gij and must be a scalar under coordinate transformations. The three-
dimensional scalar curvature R is an obvious choice for F . The supermetric Gijkl must be
such that the action obtained by extremalizing (27) is independent of the coordinates on g'
[2, 171. The supermetric must also have the appropriate density to make the integration
over space meaningful.

11. Local directions and local reparametrization

It is here worth pausing to reflect. Because we changed our notion of relative configuration,
we have been forced, willy-nilly, to pass from a global 'gauge group' to a local one involving
arbitrary functions. This will lead to infinitely many 'momentum' constraints, one at each
point. However, the reparametrization invariance in (27) is global (the square root is taken
after the integration over space). This results in a single quadratic identity or Hamiltonian
constraint. There is a mismatch.
Let us consider what we mean by direction. If we are in an ordinary n-dimensional
space at some point and want to specify some neighbouring point, we can given - 1 data to
determine its direction and one further number to determine its distance. (Jacobi's principle
is reparametrization invariant because orbits are determined by directions, the distances to
neighbouring points on the orbit are superthous.)
Now superspace is a special space. Besides having infinitely many dimensions, its points
(the 3-geometries) are best characterized by the metric tensor g i j . This has six components,
but the coordinate freedom introduces three arbitrary functions, so there are actually only
three true geometrical variables in the six components. Thus, the degrees of freedom divide
2866 J B Barbour

up naturally into triplets, one at each space point. In fact, we can consider an intrinsic
change of the geometry concentrated around a single space point and defined in the limit
by a &function variation of just one triplet. Such variations move the geometry around in
a three-dimensional local space. To go to a neighbouring point in that local space, we can
specify its local direction by two numbers and its local distance by one more.
Now suppose we want to make two localized changes at once at separated points. We
will need to specify six data, three at each point. If we use the notion of direction in
ordinary finite-dimensional spaces, we will specify a direction by five data and a distance
by one more. However, because the variations at the two separate points are independent,
it seems unnatural to mix them up in a fiveparameter direction. It seems more natural to
specify two local directions and two corresponding local distances. Do we give the six
+ + + +
required data in the form 5 1 or (2 I ) (2 l)? If we opt for the latter, then we
can have local reparametrization invariance7 with local directions (and the local distances
along them) specified independently.
This is a large generalization (and needs rigorous definition), but it is suggested by
the structure of 3-geometries. In the actual imptementation, it is much more convenient
to work with all six components of the metric and take into account the three coordinate
degrees of freedom by a gaugeinvariant formalism, as in fact we have done. Then a local
direction will be specified by five (and not two) numbers, while the local distance will still
be specified by one number. Then all we have to do is take the square-root sign in (27)
inside the sign of the integration over space and consider the following full form of the
action for frameless and timeless geometrodynamics:

It is worth reviewing the steps that lead IO the characteristic structure of (28). The
idea of defining an intrinsic 'action' or 'distance' between 3-geometries by a best-matching
equilocality relation leads unambiguously to the appearance of the equilocality shuffler t1 in
(28). The desire to construct a timeless theory dictates the square root, and if the argument
for local specification of directions is accepted, then its position in (28) is also fixed. A
non-trivial dynamics needs the conformal factor F ; in a local theory this will be a local
functional of the 3-metric, as will the supermetric G f j k f .
What our general arguments cannot do is fix the actual form of either Gijkf or F .
However, more or less everything else is determined.

12. Canonical momenta of timeless Machian geometrodynamics

Differentiating the Lagrangian with respect to the velocities we obtain

where

t The crucial importance of local reparametrimtion invariance for the eventual recovery of general relativily was
pointed out lo me by Kuchaf. See also [MI.
 ‘lhelessness of quantum gravity: I 2867

These canonical momenta a e local analogues of the non-relativistic momenta (20). The
denominator that makes them into ratios of velocities is the square root of the quadratic
form Tg(30), to which all the velocities mntrjbute, though now it is only the local degrees
of freedom at the considered space point which occur. The canonical momenta are thus
‘local direction cosines’ multiplied by the square root of the local conformal factor F. Once
again, the momenta contain Machian correction terms cr because of the need to establish
an equilocality relation when the action is found. Note that the correction terms depend
on what is happening over the whole of space, since they are found by solving a global
extremalization. Thus, the canonical momenta are a subtle mixture of local and non-local
elements.
As before, there is a Jacobi-principle identity:
..
~ ” ~-j F j = 0. (31)

which has the same form as (10) but involves only local variables. The ‘momentum’
constraints are
..
n”:j = 0, (32)

where the semicolon denotes the covariant derivative with respect to gij (in (31) and (32)
the summation convention is understood). These identities are again linear in the canonical
momenta, but now they are differential rather than algebraic because they derive from a
‘local gauge group’ involving derivatives of arbitrary functions. Moreover, because we
have local gauge groups for both the equilocality shumer and the reparametrization, (31)
and (32) are local-they must hold at each space point.
To find an extremal history, one supposes a trial sequence of 3-geomehies in superspace
connecting two given 3-geometries and successively calculates the action along the sequence,
finding in each case the action between pairs of 3-geometries with slightIy differing gij and
g;j+&;j. This involves solving the variational principle for the equilocality shuffler &. This
problem is now much more difficult, since it is no longer algebraic but involves differential
equations. If (and it is a big ‘if t) they can be solved, for arbitrary g;j and gij Ggij, then +
the equilocality problem is solved; for if ti is the solution, then the space points in the
second 3-geomehy with the ‘corrected’ form

of the metric tensor (giving the same 3-geometry in different coordinates) having the same
coordinates as points in the first 3-geometry are in a well-defined sense equilocal with those
points.
Given the solution to our problem for any hial sequence of 3-geometries, we can
constrwt from them a four-dimensional space. We make the successive 3-geometries into
hypersurfaces embedded in a four-dimensional metric space in such a way that the normal
orthogonal to one hypersurface at a given point pierces a neighbouring hypersurface at the
point in it equilocal with the first point. Distances in the four-dimensional space within any

t In this paper, I do not discuss at all the difficult issues of the solution of the variational problem for finding the
equilocality shufler, which in general relativity turns out to be the shift. This is Wheeler’s famous Ihin-sandwich
problem, first formulated in 141 and recently discussed in [ZO]. I will merely remark that I believe Ihe p h y s i d y
most significant formulation of the thin-sandwich conjecture has no4 yet teen given. I hope to r e m to rhis
question.
2868 J B Burbour

one hypersurface are simply the distances in that hypersurf&e that it has as 3-geometry.
Distances in the 'orthogonal direction', between equilocal points, are fixed by introducing a
local analogue of ephemeris time. In the model of non-relativistic particles, the ephemeris
time metric is measured by the special label parameter . Ifor which the denominator f i
of the canonical momenta (20) is equal to the square root of the conformal factor F in the
numerator. In geometrodynamics we have a local ephemeris time obtained by choosing the
time label locally in such a way that the local 'kinetic term' Tgequals the local conformal
factor F. Alternatively, by analogy with (24) we can define a local lapse N by the equation

N=
E-. (34)

This lapse measures the rate of change of the local ephemeris time with respect to the
local label time.

13. General relativity as a special case of limeless Machian geometrodynamics: the

Baierlein-Sharp-Wheeler Lagrangian

To show that general relativity is a special theory of the type (27), we ask this question.
Suppose we have such a theory, take an extremal sequence of 3-geometries (i.e. a solution
of the problem), and construct the four-dimensional metric space as above. In it there is a
distinguished foliation: the sequence of 3-geometries that solved the problem. But there is
nothing to stop us foliating the space in a different way and obtaining a new one-parameter
family of 3-geometries in superspace. Will this family too he an extremal sequence of the
problem?
Many years ago Hojman, Kuchai: and Titlelboim [21] showed that essentially only one
theory meets this condition. It is general relativity. It has the property of foliation invariance:
arbitrary foliations of the four-dimensional space constructed from an extremal family of
3-geometries yield other extremal families.
To see this why this is so. we recall the paper [4] of Baierlein, Sharp and Wheeler (Bsw).
Starting from the ADM formalism [ll], they performed a reduction that eliminated the lapse
and arrived at a reduced variational principle, expressed solely in terms of 3-geometries (or,
rather, their metric tensors) and a shift vector Ni:

where R is the three-dimensional scalar curvature of gij, the DeWitt superme!& Gijkihas
the ultralocal form
@U = 4g(girgV + gikgU - gi j g1111. (36)

in which g is the determinant of gij, and the lapse N , not present in (33, is given by

Comparison with (28) and (34) shows that the variational principle (35) is exactly of
the timeless equilocality type. The shift vector Ni of the ADM formalism is the equilocality
 Emeiessness of quantum graviry: I 2869

shuffler &,and local reparametrization invariance is implemented by the radical. Special

details of the BSW principle (35) are the three-dimensional scalar curvature as the conformal
factor and the ultralocal DeWitt supermetric (36). (An ultralocal supermetric still leaves the
coefficient of the thiid term undetermined.)
Tho thiigs should be noted especially. First, in general relativity the lapse N (37)
measures the rate of change of the local proper time with respect to the local label time.
We see that local proper time is a local ephemeris time. Thus, the astronomers' operational
definition of time, adopted by sheer necessity, had already been incorporated years earlier
in the deep mathematical structure of general relativity! It is built into the Hilbert action.
Second, the BSW Lagrangian is clearly analogous to the timeless Jacobi's principle (2). not
the hidden-time parametrized particle dynamics (7). I believe all attempts to explain the
dynamical structure of general relativity by analogy with parametrized theories are deeply
misleading.
It must also be emphasized that the special foliation invariance makes general relativity
into a degenerate theory of geodesics in superspace, since two 3-geometries in superspace
will not be connected by a unique geodesic but rather by a whole sheuf of geodesics [2,
171 corresponding to all possible different ways of foliating a given spacetime.

14. Three representation or four representation?

This special nature of general relativity raises the question, crucial for the quantization
problem, of what property of the classical theory we regard as most fundamental. Is it to be
regarded in the first place as a theory of four-dimensional spacetime or as a frameless and
timeless theory of the relationships of 3-geometries? It seems to me that hitherto, despite all
the work on the Hamiltonian 3+ 1 formulation of Einstein's theory (above all by Dirac 110,
221 and Amowitt, Deser, and Misner [ 111) and Wheeler's advocacy of geommdynamics
[23],the former view has prevailed. Geometrodynamics is interpreted as the theory of the
deformations of hypersurfaces assumed U priori to be embedded in a Riemannian spacetime
P11.
I feel this may not be the best way to view the theory. At the least, we get new insights
in what I call the three represenfation, as opposed to the standard four representation, in
which four-dimensionality of spacetime is seen as the essence.
First, it has often been claimed that the name general relativity is a misnomer, since
spacetime has the properties of an absolute space. But this is disproved by the dynamical
structure of the BSW Lagrangian. Newton introduced absolute space and time to have
a framework to describe the evolution of fhree-dimensional structures (configurations of
mass points in Euclidean space). He needed an equilocality relation to define displacements
and a metric of time to define speeds. To compare general relativity with Newtonian theory,
we must compare like with Me-we need to see how the evolution of three-dimensional
strucfures is described in Einstein's theory.
In general relativity, the only possible analogues of Newton's instantaneous configu-
rations are three-dimensional hypersurfaces and configurational data on them (the inbinsic
metric and any matter fields that are present). But we have seen that their evolution in gen-
eral relativity is described in purely relative terms, both as regards the spatial equilocality
problem and the timeless kinematics. For this reason alone, general relativity deserves its
name. General relativity is perfectly Machian [24].
But this is not all. The accomodation of Galilean relativity in general relativity makes its
name even more appropriate. Machian relativity of motion is often confused with Galilean
2870 J B Burbour

relativity, but there is only a weak connection between them. According to Mach, only
relative motions of the universe are physically relevant. According to Galilean relativity,
uniform relative motion of two subsystems of the universe is not detectable in the physical
processes that unfold in them. This is not at all a consequence of Mach’s demand. Indeed,
if relative motions are so all important, one might have expected any motion of a subsystem
relative to the universe as a whole to have an influencet. But Galilean relativity shows that
uniform motion has no effect; only accelerated motion does.
Galilean relativity is accomodated in special relativity through tilt invariance: a Lorentz
transformation tilts the hyperplanes of simultaneity in spacetime. In general relativity,
this is generalized to foliation invuriunce: instead of tilting hyperplanes, one can now
bend hypersurfaces arbitrarily. But foliation invariance is precisely the additional property
that takes us from the general class of timeless geometrodynamic theories with intrinsic
equilocality to the more or less unique theory that is general relativity. Einstein’s theory
is relative in both senses of the word. Indeed, if one wished to create a timeless
geometrodynamics with intrinsic equilocality that simultaneously incorporates Galilean
relativity, one would necessarily anive at general relativity, which I therefore regard as
truly timeless.
However, this is not the interpretation that has hitherto been given to the ADM-
Dirac formalism. It has been largely determined by the belief that all constraints must
indicate the presence of non-dynamical degrees of freedom and by the apparent support
for this that comes from counting degrees of freedom. For in the linearized theory the
gravitational field has two degrees of freedom per space point like other massless fields.
But geometrodynamics has three once the coordinate degrees of freedom have been factored
out by the constraints (32) from the six components of the 3-metnc. This is clear, and all
agree. How then is the two-three mismatch to be resolved?
It seems that this is done perfectly by the additional Hamiltonian constraint (31). This
is said to indicate that in fact there are only two true degrees of freedom per space point
in geometrodynamics, in agreement with the linearized theory. What then is the remaining
degree of freedom in geometrodynamics? The answer prompted long ago by the example
of parametrized particle dynamics was that it must be a local many-ftngered rime. This
thought lay behind the somewhat enigmatic title of the BSW paper [4]: ‘Three-dimensional
geometry as carrier of information about time’.
This idea was at first fruitful. Kuchai [26] implemented it in a non-trivial midispace
(midi as opposed to mini’) model, and it was also an important stimulus and guide to York
[27] in his solution of the Hamiltonian initial-value problem of general relativity. However,
since these initial successes, it has proved hard to make progress on the idea that time must
be separated from the geometrodynamic degrees of freedom and treated differently. Two
recent reviews [3] show how fraught with difficulties this idea is.
This issue does not affect the essential content of the classical theory. It is what it is.
But time plays a distinguished role in quantum theory, so what is done about time must
have consequences for quantum gravity. Is it timeless or not?
The argument for time from the degrees-of-freedom count appears to be strong. Can
the massless gravitational field have three? Also, in geometrodynamics there is some
weakening of the democracy among the degrees of freedom that is such a strong argument
for timelessness in the model of non-relativistic particles. The fact is that the Dewin
supermetric (36) is indefinite, so that some degrees of freedom occur in the Hamiltonian
constraint (31) with negative sign, unlike the Jacobi-principleconstraint (10). They are not
quite on an equal footing.
t The point has recently been re-emphasized by Bondi [251.
 Timelessness of quanfum gravity: I 2871

Putting now the opposite argument for timelessness, I suggest the two degrees of
freedom of linearized gravity may be an artefact of that special approximation. All
the essential features of geometrodynamics find natural expression in three-dimensional
language in superspace. The construction of spacetime is an option that solution of the
dynamical problem permits but does not impose. The circumstances under which a nearly
flat spacetime will arise from an extrema1 sequence of 3-geometries are very special and
may give misleading hints about the full theory. Above all, linearized gravity is interpreted
in the conceptual framework of a fixed external Minkowski space. But we have seen how
this external frame, including time itself, can be built up out of more primitive elements.
Must results natural in the rigid framework of Minkowski space hold automatically in the
less structured world of superspace?
Moreover, the indefiniteness of the DeWitt metric in no way alters the fact that all
degrees of freedom still contribute quadratically both to the solution of the equilocality
problem (27) and to the definition of the initial condition of the theory (in the form of a
set of local directions, one at each space point) and, equivalently, to the definition of a
many-fingered ephemeris time, which is, as we have seen, simply the local proper time
of standard general relativity. These are properties that belong to the deepest dynamical
foundations of the theory and are manifestly not tied to special approximations of the theory.
Finally, proper time is a good time in the sense that clocks which measure it will keep in
step mutually. Any other choice of time based on the use of the Hamiltonian constraint to
divide the three geometric degrees of freedom into ‘time’ and two ‘true’ degrees of freedom
will violate this condition. Must we look for a bad time when we already have a good one?
The usual argument for treating the Hamiltonian constraint in the Dirac-ADM formalism
on an equal footing with the momentum constraints is that both seem to arise, in essentially
the same fashion, from four-dimensional general covariance. In this view, they appear to
be so different in the Hamiltonian formulation merely because the ADM formalism is non-
covariant. This is the orthodox view (281, which has been cogently argued in recent papers
by Rovelli [29]. It is natural in the four representation, in which the ADM formalism looks
like an improper rewriting of general relativity made to force it into the Hamiltonian mould.
However, from the standpoint of the three representation, ADM 11I] did not introduce
a formalism but made a discovery, especially in the light of the BSW paper [4]: four-
dimensional Einsteinian spacetime can be constructed from 3-geometries using only the
shucture already present in the 3-geometries, nothing else. Moreover, the ADM constraints
reflect the essential elements of that conshuction-the intrinsic comparison of 3-geometries
(leading to the momentum constraints) and the selection of a direction in superspace (leading
to the Jacobi-type identity normally called the Hamiltonian constraint). In this view, both
constraints play vital dynamical roles, but the two roles are as different as chalk and cheese.
Only whcn spacetime has been constructed can one talk about four-dimensional coordinate
transformations, and they tell one nothing about the dynamical structure of spacetime and
how it arises.
Changing coordinates is like changing clothes, which neither change the body not
tell us why it has the structure that it does. The ADM-BSW constraints tell us how
the body, spacetime, gets its structure. Moreover, there is a big difference between
change of coordinates on a single given spacetime (mere redescription of the same thing,
which leads one to regard all constraints in the same way) and the use of coordinate
transformations (generated by the equilocality shuffler) in the variational principle (28).
Despite superficial similarity, they are not made to redescribe one 3-geometry but to establish
trial connections between fwo different 3-geometries. Thus, in the three representation of
general relativity, based consistently on the configuration space, the constraints acquire
2872 J B Barbour

a very different significance from the one hitherto given them in the ADM phase space,
which is still intimately related to the four representation. In the phase space, both
constraints seem to reflect the mere kinematics of redescription of one given spacetime
(even though the Hamiltonian constraint simultaneously'generates the dynamics), but in
the configuration space the momentum constraint reflects the dynamical core of the theory
(intrinsic comparison of 3-geometries), and the Hamiltonian constraint is not in fact a
constraint but an identity reflecting the 'direction-pointing' nature of the initial condition of
a timeless theory.
Although the discussion of the implications of the BSW stnrcture (35) of the dynamical
Lagrangian of general relativity will be continued at the beginning of the companion paper
[ 5 ] , that further discussion already looks forward to quantization of the theory, so that
this is perhaps an appropriate place to end this first paper, in which I have attempted
to make explicit the evidence for a completely timeless and frameless interpretation of
general relativity. Readers may wonder if so many words were needed in the exercise.
Indeed, the BSW Lagrangian has been known for over 30 years 141, and the basic dynamical
structure of general relativity was intensively discussed from the fifties to the early seventies.
No essentially new equations have been presented here. Nevertheless, careful reading of
the literature of that period has convinced me that radical elimination of time was not
contemplated-it was much more a matter of trying to catch the slippery fellow. If the
non-existence of time is taken seriously, this must change the way we look at quantum
gravity. In addition, I feel that the precise manner in which general relativity is relational
has not been recognized and that this too must affect our approach to quantum gravity.

Acknowledgments

I am especially grateful to Bruno Bertotti for our collaboration lasting several years on
Machian models of motion and to Karel Kuchaf and Lee SmoIin for numerous discussions
over many years on the topics covered in this paper. I am also very grateful to Jim York
for several most helpful discussions on the initial-value problem in general relativity.

References

[I] For a renew. see KucM K 1981 Canonical methods of quantization Quantum Gravify: A Second O&rd
Symposium ed C J Isham, R Penmse and D W Sciama (Oxford. Clarendon)
[2] DeWitt B S 1967 Pkys. Rev. 160 11 13
[3] Kucha? K 1992 rime and interpretations of quantum gravity Proc. 4fhC m CO$ on G e n e 4 Reldivify Md
Rclufivistic Asfmpkysics (Singapore: World Scientific)
Isham C J 1993 Canonical quantum gravity and the problem of time Infegmble Sysfem, Q w t u m Gmups,
and QuanIum Field Throrics ed L A Iten and M A Rodriguez (Amsterdam: Kluwer)
[4] Baierlein R P. Sharp D H and wheeler J A 1962 Pkys. Rev. 126 1864
151 Barbour J B 1994 ClaFs. QuanfumGrav. 11 2815-97
[6] Synge J L 1950 Hondbuch der Physik vol 311 (Berlin: Springer)
[7] For a lucid mount. see Lancws C 1949 7he Variational Principles of Meckonics (Tonnuo: Toronto
University Press)
[8] Clemence G M 1957 Rev. Mod. Phys. 29 2
[9] Damour T and Taylor J 1991 Astrophys, L 366 501
[ 101 Dirac P A M 1964 Lectures on QuanfumMcchnnics (New York Yeshiva University)
[ l I] Amowitt R. Deser S and Misncr C W 1962 The dynamics of general relativity Gmvimrion: An Introduction
to Current Resench ed L Winen (New York Wiley)
1121 Barbour J B 1986 Leibnizian time, Machian dynamics, and quantum gravity Quantum Conceprs in Spacc
Md 7imime ed R Fenmse and C J Isham (Oxford: Clmdon)
 Timelessness of q m t u m gravity: I 2873

I131 Mach E 1883 D i e M e c h i k in ihrer Enwicklung, kistorisch-kririsch dargestellt (Leipzig: Bmkhaus). (Engl.
uansl. 1960 The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Hisroricd Account of ir# Devcbpmnt (la Salle.
Illinois: Open Court) p 273)
1141 P o i n d J H 1902 Science el Hypothese (Paris). (Engl. Vansl. 1905 Science and Hypothesis (London: Walter
SCOU))
1151 Reissner H 1914 Phys. 2 15 371; 1915 16 179
Schrbdinger E 1925 Ann. Phys.. 4 7,79 325
Barbour I B and BeRotti B 1971 Nuovo Cimento B 38 1
[I61 Barbour J B and Bertoni B 1982 Proc. R. Soc. A 382 295
1111 DeWiP B S 1970 Spacedm as a sheafof geodesics in superspace Relntiviry ed M Carmeli. S I Fickler and
L WXten (New York: Plenum)
Fischer A E 1970 'me theory of superspace ibid
[IS] Ehlers 1 1995 Machian ideas and general relativity Mach's Principle: From Newrods Bucker 10 Quonrum
Cmviry, Tiibingen,July 1993 (Proceedings), Einstein Studies Series ed I B Barbour and H pfister (Boston:
Birlihauser) to be published
1191 See the discussion in Chapter 11 of Barbour J B 1989 Absolute or Relorive Morion? Vol I The Discovery of
Dynamics (Cambridge Cambridge University P m s )
[20] B m i k R and Fodor G 1993 Phys. Rev. D 48 35%
1211 Hojman S A, Kuchaf K and Teitelboim C 1976 Ann Pkys. 96 88
[221 Dirac P A M 1958 Prm. R. Soc. A 246 326,333
1231 wheeler J A 1964 Mach's principle as boundary condition for Einstein's equations Gravitation andRelativlry
ed H-Y Chiu and W F Hoffman (New York Benjamin); 1964 Geomehodynamics and the issue of the final
state Refatlvlry, Groups, and Topology: 1963 Les Houches Lectures ed C M DeWin and B DeWin (New
York Gordon and Breach); 1968 Superspace and the nature of quantum geomewdynamics Bonefie
Rencontres: 1967 Lectures in Mmhemics and Physics ed B DeWiu and J A Wheeler (New York:
Benjamin)
1241 Barbour J B I995 General relativity as a perfecIly Machian theory Moch'r Principle: From Newton's Bucket
ro Quantum Gravity, Tubingen. July 1993 (Proceedings), Einstein Studies Series ed J B Barbour and H
Pfister (Boston: Birkhauuser) to be published
1251 Bondi H 1995 Reflections on Mach's Principle Mach's Principle: Fmm Newton's Buckel to Quantum
Gravity, Tiilngen. July 1993 (Proceedings), Enstein Studies Series ed 1B Barbour and H Pfister (Boston:
Bidchiuser) to be published
[261 K u c M K 1911 Phys. Rev. D 4 955
I211 York 1 W 1971 Phys. Rev. Lett. 26 1656: 1972 28 1082; 1973 J, Moth Pkys. 14 456
[ZS] Newman E and Bergmann P G 1957 Rev. Mod. P h y . 29 443
1291 Rovelli C 1991 Class. Quaarum Gmv. 8 297.317