Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

The timelessness of quantum gravity: II. The appearance of dynamics in static configurations

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

1994 Class. Quantum Grav. 11 2875

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/11/12/006)

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

Download details:
IP Address: 128.104.1.219
The article was downloaded on 02/07/2012 at 23:23

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

Class. Quantum Gnv. 11(1994)2875-2897. Printed in the UK

The timelessness of quantum gravity: II.The appearance of

dynamics in static configurations
Julian B Barbour
College Farm,South Newington, Banbury, Oxfordshire, OX15 4JG, UK

Received 4 August 1994

Abstract A slrategy for quantization of general relativity is considered in the context of the
'timelessness' of classical general relativity discussed in the preceding companion paper. The
Wheeler-DeWkl equation (WOE) of canonical quantum gravity is interpreted as being like a time-
independent Schr6dinger equation for one fixed energy, the solution of which simply gives, once
and for all, relative probabilities for each possible static relative configuration of the complele
universe. Each such configuration is identified with a possible instant of experienced time. These
instants are not embedded in any kind of external or internal time and, if experienced. exist in
their own right. The central question is then: Whence comes the appearance of the passage of
time, dynamics. and history? The m w e r proposed here is that these must all be 'coded', in the
form of what appear to be mutually consistent 'records', in the individual static configusations
of the universe that are actually experienced. Such configurations are d e d time capsules and
suggest a new, m y - i n s l a n l ~interpretation
, of quantum mechanics. MoU's explanation of why
ar-particles make straight tracks in Wtlson cloud chambers shows that the time-independent
Schmdinger equation can concentrate its solution on time capsules. This demonstrates how
the appearance of dynamics and history can arise in a stltic situation. If it cm be shown that
solutions of the Wheeler-DeWiU equation are spontaneously and generically concentrated OD
time capsules, this opens up the possibility of an explanation of time at a very deep level: the
timeless wavefunction of the universe concentrates the quantum mechanical probability on static
- configdons that are time capsules. so that the siluations which have the highest probability of
being experienced carry within them the appearance of time and history. It is suggested that the
inescapable asymmetry of the configuration space of the universe could play an important mle
in bringing about such concentration on time capsules and be the ullimate origin of the m o w
of time.

PACS number. 0460

1. Introduction

In the preceding companion paper [I], I have demonstrated that there is a precise sense in
which classical general relativity (GR) is timeless and frameless. In this paper I wish to
consider the implications of this fact for the quantum form of the thmry. In particular, I
want to propose a specific explanation of how a timeless quantum universe can nevertheless
be observed to be thoroughly temporal. I suggest that this happens through the actualization
of time capsules, which are static configurations that give the appearance of having been
created in time by dynamical processes.
As preparation for this, in the following section I consider a strategy for the reconciliation
of GR with quantum theory (QT). This is based on an analysis of the essential structure of the
two theories and a consideration of what remains of this structure if, as argued in [I], time

0264-9381/94/122875C19.50 @ 1994 IOP Publishing Ltd 2875

2816 J B Barbour

is truly non-existent in the kinematic foundations of both theories. I suggest that quantum
gravity is static and simply gives relative probabilities for all the different possible three
dimensional configurations the universe could have. In section 3, I outline an interpretative
scheme of such a theory. It is bascially of the Everett type but modified to take account
of the absence of time. Rather than being a theory of many worlds, it is a theory of many
instants. Section 4 introduces the notion of time capsules, which must bridge the gap
between the timeless formulation of the theory and temporal experience.
Time capsules are a step further in the programme to make time concrete and explicit.
In classical theory, with its notion of a unique history. time is made concrete in the form
of ephemeris time, which is an explicit function of the concrete contents of two relative
configurations in the history of a classical universe ([l], sections 4 and 9). In quantum
gravity, in which there is simply a static wavefunction on configurations, time is made
concrete through the structure of one configuration: a time capsule seems to contain records
of many processes that took place in time, and from these apparent records many ephemeris-
time durations of processes can be deduced (just as many dates in the history of the Earth
can be deduced from the geological record).
Section 5 shows how the notion of time capsule can in principle bridge the remarkable
gap between classical theory, in which the instantaneous state of a system with n degrees
of freedom is defined by n canonical cooordinates and n canonical momenta, and quantum
theory, in which the wavefunction can depend on at most hdfof these 2n variables.
The final three sections consider the famous paper in which Mott showed how it is that a-
particles make straight tracks in cloud chambers. This paper shows clearly that solutions of
the time-independent Schrtidinger equation for a system with many degrees of freedom can
be concentrated on time capsules. However, Mott's solution is rather special, being selected
under conditions which ensure that the results of timeindependent scattering theory mimic
the results of time-dependent scattering theory with wavepackets. The viability of the overall
proposal made here hinges on the conjecture that in quantum gravity the Wheeler-DeWitt
equation concentrates its solutions on time capsules spontaneously. In' this connection, I
draw attention to the pronounced and inescapable asymmetry of any relative configuration
space of the universe. I believe this could play a role in concentrating solutions of the WDE
on time capsules and be the ultimate origin of the arrow of time.

2. A strategy for quantization of general relativity

The reconciliation of OR and QT is widely held to be the outstanding problem of theoretical

physics. In the superstring approach it is argued that the attempt at a direct solution-
quantization of GR as it stands-is futile, since GR is seen as the low-energy manifestation
of a deeper theory which one must first seek and then quantize.
However, there is a sense in which GR as it already exists is a very deep theory: as
shown in [I], it can be formulated without external framework The search for such a
frameless theory has been an urgent matter ever since Newton provocatively declared, in
his famous Scholium, that dynamics could no? dispense with a rigid external framework
of space and time. This problem on the agenda of theoretical physics will not go away.
General relativity solves it. Any successor theory must do the same. Therefore, I believe
it is still worth persisting with the attempt to quantize OR itself, since it is the only non-
trivial example we possess of a frameless theory. This fact alone will almost certainly
enforce radical changes in the structure of quantum theory 121, which we may need to
understand before the attempt to quantize (or even formulate) a unified theory. Specifically,
 Timelessness of quantum gravig: I1 2877

resolution of the measurement problem of quantum mechanics could be an essential element

of quantized GR, not something to be undertaken after quantization. Here I differ from [3],
[41.
Moreover, I think that the problem of quantizing GR may already have been solved in its
essentials by DeWitt [5]. For if one asks why DeWitt found a quantum theory with a static
wavefunction of the universe defined on the possible relative configurations of the universe,
the answer is simple and unambiguous: the classical form of the theory is formulated
without time and without external inertial frames of reference [l]. The correspondence with
a static wavefunction on a relative configuration space is perfect.
However, many people do not regard DeWitt's work as a complete quantization since
(quite apart from unresolved regularization problems and the absence of actual solutions of
the WDE) it does not provide Hilbert spaces, unitary transformations, etc [4], 161. But if we
are attempting the reconciliation of GR and QT, does everything we suppose belongs to QT
(or GR)have to survive? I doubt it. Let us first seek the deepest layers of each theory. If
we can find them, we shall certainly want them in quantum gavity, especially if they are
common to both theories; for then we shall have a non-trivial intersecfion of the two, on
which we can attempt our construction. We may be able to jettison the other features and
recover them in certain limits.
Let us begin this process with GR. In [I]. I say nothing about the signature of s p a c e h e
and its connection with time. Most theoretical physicists regard time as a dimension of
spacetime distinguished by occurring with the opposite sign to spatial displacements in the
line element of GR. However, Einstein's field equations say nothing about the signahwe. It
can be quite arbitrary: + + ++, + ++, - or - - + +.
In the ADM formalism it is usual to foliate only by spacelike hypersurfaces, which
resticts the formalism to globally hyperbolic spacetimes. If one nevertheless takes any four-
dimensional metric space of any signature that satisfies Einstein's equations and foliates
quite arbritarily, all the basic equations of geometrodynamics still hold if superspace
is extended to include pseudo-Riemannian as well as Riemannian 3-geometries. Where
troubles come is in initial-value problems for the classical theory, which can be improperly
posed. However, this need not be a problem for the quantum theory: for wavefunctions can
penetrate into classically forbidden regions.
In [ 11 I try to show that time should not be conceived as an extra dimension with negative
signature. Indeed, it can be present, as a generalized ephemeris time, in circumstances not
normally associated with time. Timeless geometrodynamics contains two metrics [I]: the
first is the supermetric on superspace formed by a kinetic term and a conformal factor,
the combination of which determines geodesic histories. Given such a history, one can
construct from its 3-geometries a four-dimensional space. Withii the 3-geomehies, its
metric is their 3-metric. In the constructed fourth dimension, the metric is obtained by
choosing the label parameter of the histories in such a way that the kinetic part of the
supermetric has numerical value equal to its conformalfactor. This is a local generalization
of the astronomers' ephemeris time.
If the constructed Ricci-flat 4-space is Lorentzian and the 3-geometries are spacelike
hypersurfaces, the generalized ephemeris time will be local proper time. But if we obtain
an arbitrary Ricci-flat 4-space (Lorentzian, Euclidean, or - - ++) or have foliated a
Lorentzian spactime through the light cone, the local ephemeris time will simply measure
the four-dimensional interval orthogonal to the hypersurfaces of the foliation. This is whar
Ipmpose to call time. Such a time not only reflects astronomical practice; it also matches
the ancient philosophical view that time is simply change. It is a deeper notion of time than
Minkowski's, with which it coincides in special cases.
2878 J B Barbour

Incidentally, the constraints (31) and (32) of [I], which I call a Jacobi-principle identity
and the equilocality constraints, become, in the special case of GR, the Gauss-Codazzi
embedding relations, which tell us that a considered hypersurface is embedded in a Ricci-
flat 4-space. Moreover, the canonical momenta of the 3-metric are essentially the extrinsic
curvature of the hypersurface as embedded in spacetime. This is, of course, a very beautiful
result [6],but, if the true arena of quantum gravity is timeless superspace and spacetime
has only ail effective semiclassical existence, it may be more significant that the canonical
momenta are local directions in superspace.
Indeed, the dilemma in quantum gravity is to decide whether classical GR’S remarkable
four-dimensionality (hitherto regarded as its defining characteristic) is more fundamental
than the structure of geometrodynamics as a timeless theory in a relative configuration
space ([I], section 14). General relativity is l i e a Shakespearian drama with subplot so
prominent one might confuse it with the main plot. Is Gloucester more than Lear? Is
foliation invariance, the substance of spacetime, more than ephemeris time and intrinsic
equilocality?
My answer is the BSW Lagrangian (35) of [I]. I believe this is a deeper expression of
what GR is about than the original Hilbert-Einstein 4-action, since it is so economic with
basic variables: no lapse, the shift is an auxiliary equilocality shuffler, and three of the
remaining variables are manifestly gauge. We are down to three-and the action is still
beautifully local and hansparent. Any attempt to peel off a local time from two residual
degrees of freedom destroys the locality and indroduces a time without utility since clocks
set by it could never keep step.
The BSW Lagrangian exhibits a structural hierarchy: without the square root and the
equilocality shuffler it all dissolves. They are the dynamical framework of GR. Within
that framework, foliation invariance can be accomodated by particular choices of adjustable
functions and coefficients; it is part of the dynamics but could be omitted without destruction
of the whole scheme. Foliation invariance is the subplot.
I therefore regard the identity (31) and the constraints (32) of [I], whose basic form is
barely altered by fine tuning to foliation invariance, as the dynamical guts of GR. If they
are in the quantum theory, they will still code foliation invariance through their specific
structure. Finally, the contingent signature must come out of the contingent quantum state.
Now QT has a structure that can be married with these bare essentials of GR. First, its
equations (as opposed to wave-function collapse) can accomodate timelessness-me simply
omits the terms with time derivatives. At the first glance, this might seem impossible in
the light of special relativity-what looks like variation in space in one frame can become
variation in time in another.
However, the dynamical core of GR turns this upsidedown. In Minkoswki’s picture,
configurations of physical systems are defined in inertial frames of reference, but we
have recovered [I] the frames from the configurations. They come first. It is also
worth mentioning the Tomonaga-khwinger functional Schradinger equation in relativistic
quantum field theory, which is a non-covariant wave equation that treats time (represented
by a first derivative) quite differently from space. For technical reasons to do with
renormalization, this approach has not been nearly so popular as Feynman’s covariant
approach, though Jackiw [7] argues that this historical accident no longer invalidates such
an approach, which can encompass Fermi as well as Bose fields.
Thus, even standard quantum field theory can be done in configuration space and the
time derivative can be omitted without leaving the theory devoid of content. There is still a
wave equation defined on configurations. Since the message of the BSW Lagrangian is that
 Tin2elessness of quantum gravity: II 2879

intrinsic difference of relative configurations is all that counts, let us take configurations as
primary and time as absent.
Now recall that the Schrodinger wavefunction of any system is defined on its possible
configurations. Surely all other differences between classical and quantum physics pale by
comparison with this! Instead of the unique classical curve in the configuration space, the
quantum wavefunction explores all configurations.
Here 1 see the most sniking convergence between QT and the dynamical core of OR:
both work on three-dimensional configurations. T i e can go. All that remains is to restrict
the definition of the wavefunction of the universe from configurations defined in a frame of
reference to relative Configurations. Conceptually, there is little difficulty in passing from Q
to Qo.Dmc [SI and DeWitt [5] did it long ago. The wavefunction is defined on Q but its
value must not change in Q on different representations of the same intrinsic configuration.
The exploration of such different representations is precisely what the equilocality shuffler
achieves in (35) or (27) of [l]. In more normal parlance, it is the generator of three-
dimensional diffeomorphisms, and it must not change the value of the wavefunction. In
both the classical and quantum theories, this generator distinguishes 3-geomehies as the
physically significant entities.
Thus, there do not seem to be irreconcilable differences between OR and QT. Both treat
three-dimensional configurations, and their relative nature, obligated by GR, presents no
problem for QT. Where difficulties have been seen is in the different roles allegedly played
by time in the two theories. It may seem facile, but these difficulties disappear if there is
no time.
What about Hilbert space and transformation theory? Must they be part of quantum
gavify, or is it sufficient to recover them as effective constructs in certain regimes?
It is, of course, a fact that any quantum system exhibits different properties if it interacts
with instruments in different arrangements. In the Copenhagen approach to measurement,
with its collapse-inducing instruments outside the quantum domain, it is impossible to shed
transformation theory and Hilbert space. But the very structure of canonical gravity, with
its absence of extemal frames, forces us to treat the entire universe quantum mechanicallyt.
But then there cannot be a deity outside the universe that sets up different measurement
arrangements. The context in which Hilbert space is inescapable is absent.
Moreover, all Hilbert-space structures that have been established rely on fixed kinematic
structures: absolute space and time or absolute Minkowski spacetime. Since this is exactly
what is not present in OR, it seems doubtful whether a Hilbert-space structure can be created
in quantum gravity.
The other important role of Hilbert space in standard QT is to describe time evolution
by unitary transformations. In a timeless theory this need falls away.
If time and Hilbert space do not belong to quantum gravity, this will eliminate many of
the technical difficulties described so clearly in [4], [6].
Indeed, Schradinger’s first paper on wave mechanics [9], in which he derived his time-
independent equation on a Q. may already contain almost the complete framework for
quantum gravity. Without time, we cannot go on to time dependence. To treat the universe,
rather than microscopic systems, we simply extend the microscopic Q defined in some
frame to the relative configuration space Qo of the universe.

t It is often argued that one could have graviton-graviton scattering experiments that should be describable in
quantum gravity without having to set up a quantum theory of the complete universe. This m a y be so, but because
the consvaints in general relativity hold 10ca11y the timeless and frameless nature of the theory can never be
eliminated even in such experiments.
2880 J B Barbour

This is a natural arena for the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. There is just a static W on
relative configurations. Period. To the quantum cosmologist, the universe 'in time' must
be like a huge molccule in a stationary state was to Schrodinger. All physics and history
must be recovered from these bare bones.

3. A basic interpretative framework

The first step to this is an interpretative scheme, which, like Everett's [IO], must be 'intemal',
that is, deduce the theory of measurement from the bare structure of the theory. But Everett
still worked with external time and inertial frames, within which his universal wavefunction
was defined, whereas we must extract both from the quantum picture.
I do not see how this can be done without two significant changes.
First, Everett could consider many quantum systems coexisting in his external
framework, each with their own Hilbert spaces. These systems could then interact and
form a larger quantum system described by a product Hilbert space. This picture, with a
complete panoply of operators, is the heart of Everett's relative-states formalism. It cannot
be sustained in a quantum universe. Consider position. Given a framework, the position of
a particle, regarded as a subsystem of the universe, is defined. But in the Machian context
the position is defined relative to the other parts of the universe. The notion of preexisting
Hilbert spaces for interacting subsystems of a universe that one is not allowed to describe
in an extemal framework is a myth.
In fact, not even subsystems exist. If we consider a quantum experiment being made
in a laboratory and attempt to divide what we see into system and apparatus, this must
do violence to the unity of the world. Quantum indistinguishability adds strength to this
observation. Electrons don't belong to systems.
There is just one system, the universe. Localized regions of some of its configurations
may look like instruments used to make quantum measurements, but they do not exist as
autonomous quantum systems. I believe that many of the residual difficulties of the Everett
approach derive from the prominent role given to subsystems and that a scheme based on
a single holistic system has a better chance of success.
Now I come to the second main difference from Everett. His central tenet is that a
quantum measurement does not collapse the wavefunction but tells us where we are, i.e. in
which branch of the post-measurement wavefunction we are actualized. This idea, together
with the dynamical explanation of the projection postulate (why an immediately repeated
measurement of some observable gives the same eigenvalue as the first measurement), seems
to me a solid, undoubted, and most suggestive achievement. I believe it will also work in
the modification I am proposing.
However, Everett's resolution of the collapse problem faces the preferred basis problem:
because a given composite state can be represented in many different ways, it is difficult
to maintain that an instrument makes any definite measurement at all. This is the problem
which Zurek seeks to resolve by environment-induced superselection rules [lll. But this
presupposes subsystems though we only have the universe.
I therefore propose to cut this Gordian knot by basing everything on relative
configurations of the universe. They are the real thiigs. I know many physicists regard
Hilbert space and phase space as more fundamental than configuration. Perhaps they are,
but both are at once more abstract and structured than configurations. For myself, I cannot
see how we can form a satisfactory concrete notion of time or understand the origin of
inertial frames of reference if we do not start with configuration or something like iL (I
 Tunelessness of quantum graviiy: II 2881

look to represent particles with spin andjnternal degrees of freedom as the excitations of
multicomponent fields.)
Further, I distinguish cleanly the roles of the configurations and the wavefunction. Like
Everett, I assume observations tell us where we are, though not in what branch of the
wavefunction but (in principle and imperfectly) in what configuration. This is close to
Everett's scheme if made exclusively in the configuration representation for the universe.
(This is why I believe it will be possible, even without time and subsystems, to retain
Everett's best results: the explanation of the projection postulate and the demonstration that
collapse is unnecessary.)
As for the wavefunction, its sole role, as in Bom's probability interpretation, is to say
how likely the experiencing, or actualizing, of given configurations is. This is not so different
from the Copenhagen interpretation in the position representation if one were to attempt, in
the face of Bohr's objections, to set up a quantum theory for a timeless universe. By this
I mean that, as in the Copenhagen interpretation, the wavefunction gives probabilities for
different eventualities to be actualized. However, these are not timedependent probabilities
conditioned on prior knowledge and tied to measurement setups. They are probabilites
given once and for all for the possible configurations the universe could be in. In fact, I
am not sure how sensible it is to try and establish to what extent the scheme matches many
worlds or Copenhagen. I rather suspect that, modified under the exigencies of timelessness
and the absence of extemal frames, the Copenhagen and Everett interpretations will turn
out to be identical.
To see this, let us contrast an imagined external view of the universe with the reality,
which is that we experience the universe from within. The extemal view might be as
follows.
There is a heap ofpossibilifies consisting of all possible configurations of the universe,
which for closed-universe quantum gravity will be compact 3-geometries with matter fields
defined on them. It is just the relative configuration space of the universe, but I use the word
heap to emphasize that its points are very different from points of an ordinary manifold
on which, say, a metric has been defined. For the points of such a manifold have no
individuality of their own. They can only be individuated by the metric relationships which
hold around them. If one were to remove such a point from the manifold, to 'pick it up', so
to speak, it would lose all its individuality. In contrast, any relative configuration takes with
it all its defining attributes. Each thing in a heap is a self-contained unity, can be picked
up, examined in its own right, and inferences drawn from the structures found within i t
This will be crucial in my attempt to make sense of timeless quantum gravity.
Now suppose we have a solution rlr of the WDE.Let us avoid the problems of definition
of norms and the existence of normalizable solutions that arise in quantum systems with
infinitely many dimensions (and indefinite kinetic energy) by pretending that this is the
solution of a time-independent Schrodinger equation for a quantum system having a finite
number of degrees of freedom. This will also avoid for the moment the infinities of field
theory. We are trying to understand the appearance of time from timelessness, not solve
these very difficult mathematical issues. Therefore, I suppose that it is possible, using the
kinetic metric, to divide up superspace into infinitesimal hypercubes of equal side length.
We can then take the value of rlr in that hypercube, calculate rlrrlr't, and put a number

t In &ng the srandard Schrodinger norm. I avoid all problems wiih negative probabilities. This is the so-called
naive Schriidingerrepresentation [I21 (see also [13]). I should point out that the existing WDE is 4, and it is not at
all clear to me thal one should give it complex solutions [141. However, apart from the issue discussed in section 7
of the representarion of expansion or conhaction of the universe by means of complex phases, the issues addnssed
in this paper are independent of the question of the reality m complexity of thc wavefunction of the universe.
2882 J B Barbour

proportional to YY* of identical copies of a representative configuration of that hypercube

into a second heap, called the heap of actualities. Having done this for all hypercubes, we
have an ensemble.
We may now suppose that one configuration is drawn at random from the heap of
actualities. We may say it is actualized. Obviously, we are more likely to draw a
configuration that is quantum-mechanically probable according to the wavefunction of
the universe than one that is not. This is very like the Copenhagen collapse postulate,
except we have no external measurement setup and therefore no possibility of enforcing
the measurement of one quantum observable rather than another. All we get is a complete
configuration of the universe.
However, if we step back from the conviction that, using free will, we set up experiments
to enforce a certain kind of outcome at a certain time, getting a configuration of the universe
is not unlike what does happen in quantum measurement For if we suppose some quantum
experiment being made with instruments in certain positions and take a photograph of the
laboratory just as a quantum measurement is being registered (through the position of a
pointer), we get a photograph showing an extensive configuration, which defines an instant
of time and in which both the measuring instruments and the measurement outcome are
embedded. The measurement outcome, the measuring instruments, our record of setting
up an experiment, and the complete environment, all of which define an instant, are all
actualized at once.
Even if some non-positional quantum observable such as spin or momentum is being
measured, all the data recorded are positional in nature. Feynman [15] comments '. a ..
theory formulated in terms of position measurements is complete enough in principle to
describe all phenomena'. Bell 1161 always insisted that all measurements are ultimately
made through observations of positions.
Moreover (as Bohr always insisted), it is the arrangement of the instruments that tells
us what kind of measurement is being made, Any competent experimentalist shown the
photograph considered above could deduce what measurement had been made and its
outcome. Indeed, Zuek [I I] comments that 'everyday experience convinces us that the
choice of "what has this apparatus measured" cannot be made arbitrarily'. The preferred-
basis problems Zurek seeks to resolve could be an artefact of the assumption that quantum
subsystems, each with their own Hilbert spaces, do exist. For if that is the case, the
subsystems (both the measured and the measuring system) can be 'actualized' in some
instant in many different ways, i.e. in different bases. This problem disappears if there is
only one system and it is invariably in the Schrodinger basis. The Mott example (sections
6-8) shows explicitly how individual configurations of a large quantum system can, even
in a timeless situation, represent macroscopic instruments and quantum measurements they
have made.
So far, I have supposed we examine configurations of the universe from outside. In
reality, we experience them from within.
Here it is impossible not to say something about consciousness, since there must be some
connection between direct experience and our theoretical constructs. Both von Neumann
[17] and Everett [IO] adopt a postulate ofpsychophysical parallelism. This is even more
important in the present case, since we somehow have to get fiom a timeless scenario to
actual experiences permeated by what we call time.
A physicist in the nineteenth century asked for the correlate of direct experience in the
formalism of physics would probably have said that we somehow get awareness of both the
positions and velocities of bodies, these being coded in the positions and motions of the
atoms in our brain. Thus, the physical correlate of a conscious instant is part of a point of
 Timelessness of quanrum graviry: I1 2883

phase space (a phase instant in the terminology of section 2 of [l]). But this is difficult if
there is neither time nor motion. An alternative is that our direct experience, including that
of seeing motion, is correlated with only configuration in our brains: the correlate of the
conscious instant is part of a point of configuration space,' not phase space (configurational
instant in section 2 of [I]). Our seeing motion at some instant is correlated with a single
configuration of our brain that contains, so to speak, several stills of a movie that we are
aware of at once and interpret as motion.
Such a brain configuration is a time capsule, the general definition of which follows
shortly. For the moment, I merely wish to connect the 'internal' and 'external'
interpretations of a timeless universal wavefunction. In the latter, we suppose a divine
mathematician who actualizes (by random selection) one configuration of the universe and
can then examine it in its entirety. In the former, it is as if we are inside part of that
configuration and have direct awareness of that part as an experienced instant. The instant
is actualized for us; we are powerless to bring it into being. However, experiencing it, we
are effectively in the same position as the divine mathematician except that we can only see
part of the configuration. The nature of what we see must be of the same kind, for otherwise
experience could never give any reliable information about the conjectured external world.
Incidentally, I believe that the division quantum mechanics is alleged to make between
the measurer and the measured, or the observer and the observed, is nonexistent. When
the moment of hvth is there (in each and every actualized instant), we do not measure, we
experience, and what we experience is an indivisible whole.
The great debate in quantum measurement theory is about the many situations allowed
by quantum theory that do not'seem to be actualized. Are they as real as the ones actually
experienced? This dilemma is extreme in timeless quantum gravity, since one even has
to ask whether events of which we have vivid memories are actually experienced. This is
because everything we experience in any instant, including the memories themselves, must
be coded in our instantaneous brain configuration. Records of apparent past events are in
fact details in the present configuration. And all the timeless theory tells us is that each
such configuration has a certain probability.
By analogy with Descartes's Cogito ergo sum, we know that the present instant is
actualized. However, because we can never step out of the present instant, we can never
know if any other instant is actually experienced. This is why the distinction between Everett
and Copenhagen may dissolve in timeless quantum gravity-along with personal identity
and all permanence. For we shall never know whether other possible instants, including
what we take to be our own past, are actual or whether the present instant is unique. This
dilemma has been present at least since Descartes, but timeless quantum gravity brings the
issue to a head?.
Is quantum gravity good for anything? Even though it does seem to come perilously
close to solipsism of the. instant,, it nevertheless has considerable potential. The aim
of science is to find rational explanations for observed phenomena. Hitherto all such
explanations have been partial (since many of the most shtking features of the universe,
especially its highly non-equilibrium state, have to be attributed to special initial conditions),
but quantum gravity opens up the possibility of something like total explanation. For
suppose we solve the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, find that QQ* is very highly concentrated

t If we hust our memorics and say they correspond to actual experiences, then we may conclude that many different
conhgurations-dl those corresponding to our memorieoare experienced. But configurations containing whai
we call our past ue no different in kind from c o n f i g d o n s that Seem to belong to classical worlds different from
our own, so it seems difficult to deny the possibility of their being experienced. "his is more l i e many worlds
than Copenhagen.
2884 J B Barbour

on a few very special configurations, and that we are in one of them. Then we have a rational
explanation of the most direct kind we observe a configuration, and that configuration is
predicted to be probable. The prediction will be especially remarkable if configurations of
the type to be discussed later occur.
The words ‘total explanation’ are justified for this reason: if we can determine the nature
of the relative configurations, then the domain on which the wavefunction Q of the universe
takes its values is something fixed. Suppose also that the WDE, or some generalization of it,
is also fixed. All that remains to be considered are the boundary conditions to be satisfied
by Q.
But here werecall the difference between the conditions that are appropriately imposed
on the time-dependent (arbitrary initial condition) and time-independent Schriidinger
equations. For the latter no initial or boundary condition is imposed: initial conditions
cannot exist for a timeless theory and, as SchrLidinger [9] noted, conventional boundary
conditions are not appropriate for his time-independent equation. All one imposes are
general conditions: Q must be suitably continuous, single valued, and bounded. In a very
suggestive phrase. Schrkiinger called the simple requirement that his wavefunction remain
bounded the natural boundary condition. He believed that it unlocked the quantum secret.
All the great early results that SchrtMinger and Born [IS] obtained from wave mechanics
were deduced from such conditions. Contrary to widespread belief, Schrkiinger did not
require normalizability, and Born in fact deduced his important results in scattering theory
from bounded but not normalizable stationary states.
Therefore, if quantum gravity is like time-independent quantum theory in the
configuration basis, the predictions it makes will be very nearly unconditional. Solutions
of the W E will be selected by general, purely mathematical requirements. For this reason,
I believe Hawking I191 may have been premature in trying to set up a theory of initial
conditions. We may not need any!
There still remains the possible multiplicity of solutions and the ambiguity associated
with linear superposition of them. However, I shall argue later (end of section 7) that thii
problem may not be nearly so severe in the quantum mechanics of the universe as it appears
to be in ordinary quantum mechanics.

4. Time capsules

Even if these ideas are correct, we are still a long way from understanding why the world
looks like it does. In particular, if the theory is fundamentally timeless, why is experience so
marked by time? As first step to an answer, I introduce the theoretical notion of time capsule,
which is a static configuration that exhibits evidence of evolution in time. As a second step
(sections 6 and 7), I use a solution found by Mott [ZO] to show that wavefunctions satisfying
timeless wave equations can be concentrated on time capsules and that there are rather deep
reasons within wave mechanics that make this possible. The third and most difficult step
(section 8) concerns the fypicaZiiy of such solutions: are solutions of the W E generically
concentrated on time capsules?
By a time capsule I mean a static confrguration of part or all the universe containing
structures which suggest they are mutually consistent records of processes that took place in
a past in accordance with certain laws.
The reader may find this vague and unsatisfactory, but a rigorous mathematical definition
may not be possible, since smcture defies definition and is usually approached via
complexity theory 1211 (a more direct attempt to define structure is made in [ZZ]):given a
 Timelessness of quantum gravity: II 2885

non-random structure, what is the shortest computer program that could yield it? I should
like to formulate this basic idea in a quantum-mechanical form: given some manifestly
non-random configuration of a very large system, which in principle may be in any relative
configuration 40, is there a static wave equation defined on the space QO of all the 40’s
whose solutions Q have a large value of WP* on that configuration, or at least on non-
random configurations of the same basic kind? If this is in principle possible, what kind of
static non-random structures are likely to be ‘sought out’ by the wavefunction. The static
Mott wavefunction which we shall consider in sections 6-8 hints at some very interesting
answers to these questions. Before then I should like to make some general comments.
As bare possibility, time capsules exist. Any large Qo contains them. However, they
have negligible measure in the set of all qo’s. How does this fact match what we find in
the world?
Now it is very striking that in our universe physical time capsules abound. There is
overwhelming evidence of a long evolutionary history in rocks, plants, and animals 1231.
Viually all the detailed evidence that has now been accumulated about the history of
the world through geological and even cosmological time spans actually resides in almost
perfectly static form in its rocks. Time capsules of striking mutual consistency are ubiqitous.
They all proclaim a profusion of dates to those that can read them. In fact, to some degree,
all matter (even gas in stars) carries evidence of time and evolution. The most remarkable
thing is the mutual consistency of the overaIl picture of the history of the h t h , solar
system, and universe that can be built up from the most disparate sources.
The normal interpretation of this fact has two main parts. First, it is assumed that time
does exist and the universe does evolve. However, since the discovery of thermodynamics
it has been evident that these instinctive assumptions are inadequate to explain the actual
universe, which is smctured in a manner that is hugely improbable on the basis of bare
combination of the laws of dynamics with statistical considerations. Therefore, one has
been forced to assume that in the distant past the universe was, inexplicably, in a state
of exceptionally low entropy. Then, using the known laws of physics, one can make
considerable progress in explaining the subsequent emergence of structure, as Prigogine
and his Brussels school, among others, have demonstrated [24]. However, the very special
initial state worries many people; Penrose has written very cogently about this [25] and it
is also a central concern of Hawking 1191.
I am proposing a radical reformulation of the problem in terms of direct timeless ‘seeking
out’ of time-capsule configurations by a wavefunction of the universe that satisfies some
wave equation of the Wheeler-DeWitt type. This will not only change the way the problem
of structure in the world is posed; if successful, it will also show that some of our most
deeply held views about the framework of existence are simply false.
My suggestion is: Time is not a framework in which the configurations of the world
evolve. lime exists only so far as concrete configurations express it in fheir structure. The
instant is not in time; time is in the instant.
Quantum cosmology has already been likened to geology [26]. However, the present
proposal is more radical: every notion of time and motion must come from pure
configuration in single instants.
The psychological element may be important. MI our experiences, so rich in memories,
are perfect time capsules. Could it be we involuntarily project into the external world a
time and motions that are not there at all? W~thhis beautifully simple explanation of the
retrogression loops of the planets through motion of the observer (on the Earth), Copemicus
taught us to be careful not to attribute to the heavens what is really in the observer 1271.
It may be helpful to sketch the recovery of standard classical kinematics.
2886 J B Barbour

5. On p’s and q’s

The Laplacian raw data of classical physics, in Hamiltonian form, are absolute positions
and absolute momenta at an absolute time, i.e. all the q’s and all the p’s of the universe. (In
this section, q is a position variable, not a configuration.) Because of the time-translation
invariance of classical physics, the value of the absolute time has no physical significance,
and the concrete content of an instant is exactly characterized by a complete set of q’s and
an accompanying set of p’s. In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, q’s
and p’s are treated in a bewildering heterogeneous manner. %ere is a classical world, for
which the instant is characterized as above. There is also the wavefunction of the considered
quantum system, which at most can depend on halfthe complete set of p’s and q’s. Both
the classical world and the quantum system evolve in a common external time. At the
instants at which quantum measuremens are supposed to occur, the quantum distribution
is supposed (in the case of a complete position measurement) to collapse down to definite
q’s, which are ‘embedded‘ in the corresponding classical instant described by both q ’ s and
p’s.
Given our conviction that the complete universe must be quantum mechanical, the
quantum-classical duality of this picture is intolerable. In particular, if the entire universe
becomes a quantum system, a realized instant can hardly be characterized by complete sets
of both q ’ s and p’s. Evolution of a wavefunction in time is also out.
I suggest the raw data are simply relative q’s. The Laplacian coordinate data are slightly
diminished in number by the transition from frame to relative coordinates. The abolition
of time and the p’s is more drastic. How can they possibly be recovered? My proposal is
that the appearance of them is coded in exceptional configurations, which happen to be the
ones made quantum mechanically probable by the wavefunction Y of the universe. In the
following sections I shall consider why Y should be so remarkably selective. Here I wish
to describe, as a bare possibility, how q’s alone can code the appearance of p’s and time.
In a complete set of possible configurations, the vast bulk will be devoid of interesting
structure, but a few will appear to tell a story. It is just such configurations that we find
all around us. Thus, the full set of classical p’s and q’s (so strangely halved in quantum
theory) and time may be an illusion created by our special universe.
Indeed, suppose a solar system like ours but with other planets and orbits. Make a
position measurement of every atom in the system. The measurement would disrupt the
system but is in principle possible.
Now give the data to competent astronomers and physicists. Provided a statistically
typical result was obtained, they should be able to infer Laplacian data for the macroscopic
bodies of the system at the time of the measurement. For example, rotating planets are
oblate, suggesting rotation speeds. Of course, bodies can be oblate for reasons other than
rotation. One would like to see the deduction of rotation from oblateness confirmed by
other observations (as in fact did happen historically in the case of Jupiter and Saturn,
whose oblateness suggested rotation that was then actually observed as motion of cloud
details), and in the timeless context these are not allowed to be direct observation of motion.
However, an oblate object like Jupiter carries numerous self-consistent bits of information
in a single instantaneous configuration that all point to the same rotation speed the precise
profile of the planet as whole, cloud formations on its surface, density distribution of the gas
within its interior. Taken together, all these purely configurational data add up to massive
evidence for rotation. In fact, it would be an interesting exercise to see just how much
dynamical information is coded in the pure configuration of the solar system at one instant.
For example, temperatures are coded in the average spatial separations of the atoms in
 Timelessness of quantum gravity: II 2887

planetary atmospheres, from which, since the planets are heated by the central star, their
direction of rotation follows. The speeds and directions of the planets may be deduced from
the ‘shadows’ they leave in the interplanetary medium.
Thus, such q ’ s suggest p’s, time, and history. Of course, given such q data, one
immediately says they have the appearance of recording history because there was a history.
But if some alternative scheme can explain just as well why such q data are encountered,
there may be no need to cling onto the notions of time and motion. Indeed, apart from
memories and perception of motion, the only evidence for time and motion is the economic
account of phenomena in terms of time, q ’ s and p’s, laws of motion, and initial states.
The Wheeler-DeWitt equation hints at an even more economic account using just the most
probable configurations of a static quantum universe.
Let us now see how this could happen.

6. Alpha-particle tracks

In 1929, Mott 1201 explained a-particle tracks. His paper casts much light on the,
interpretation of quantum mechanics (Bell’s discussion 1281 is strongly’recommended).
But it also illustrates the notion of time capsule, showing how many different ‘instants’,
belonging apparently to many different classical worlds, can coexist without interference in
a single static wavefunction.
In Gamow’s theory of radioactive decay, a spherical a-particle wavefunction leaks out
of an Ra nucleus, and one might expect the a-particle to ionize atoms at random all around
the Ra atoms. Nothing like this happens.
The excited atoms always lie near straight lines that pass near the Ra source. Mott
comments: ‘The difficulty that we have in picturing how it is that a spherical wave can
produce a straight track arises from our tendency to picture the wave as existing in ordinary
three-dimensional space, whereas we are really dealing with wavefunctions in the multispace
formed by the co-ordinates both of the a-particle and of every atom in the Wilson chamber’.
To save space and encourage the reader to consult Mott [20] and Bell [28] at first hand,
I shall merely comment on some aspects of Mott’s paper.
First, Matt used the time-independent Schriidinger equation (TISE) even though he
envisaged a dynamic process. However, we can take the calculation at its static face
value.
His zeroth approximation for the a-particle wavefunction is a complex outgoing
spherical wave of the form

edR/R. (1)
The complex numbers ensure that the perturbative solution mimics a process in time:
not only (1) but all scattered waves must be pure outgoing waves. Thus, they all contain
a factor of the form (l), but with an angle dependence and, in each successive order,
successively smaller Ikl to match energy loss by the a.
In $e absence of a time factor, it is, of course, pure convention to say (1) is an outgoing
wave. One could just as well choose e-jkR/R. The important thing is to make one choice and
then stick to it. If this is done, then the stationary TISE mimics a dynamic TDSE calculation
with wavepackets.
Mott’s zeroth solution has all atoms in the ground state and the a-particle described by
(1). It is a, product of (1) and the wavefunctions of the atoms. In each term of the first-
order correction, just one atom is excited. The a-particle scattered wave is concentrated
2888 J B Barbour

in a narrow beam emanating from the excited atom and pointing away from the Ra atom
(high-energy scattering).
In each term of the second correction, two atoms are excited. The cy-particle scattered
wave is markedly non-zero only if the two atoms are more or less collinear with the Ra
source, and it is concentrated in a narrow outward pointing beam emanating from the outer
atom.
This pattern continues until the a has lost its energy.

7. The Mott solution as a wavefunction of the universe

In Mott’s calculation, the nuclei of all atom are fixed, so the configuration space of the
complete system he describes is defined by the coordinates of the cy-particle and all the
electrons. A configuration of the system having a nucleus without neighbouring electron
can be interpreted as corresponding to excitation of that nucleus.
The complete configuration space has a very small proportion of configurations in which
there are significant alignments of hydrogen nuclei without electrons, but nevertheless the
Moa solution is highly concentrated on them. Each of these configurations is a perfect time
capsule. for the tracks in them seem to record the passage of a nearly classical particle. If
such a track were self-aware, it would feel itself to be the instant at which the a-particle came
to a stop. An external observer examining the track would come to the same conclusion.
All stages of many different histories are present at once in Mott’s solution. If we find
in it a configuration with a track of say 100 ionized atoms, then we shall also find tracks in
the same position but with 99 and 101 ionized atoms. Thus, the ‘earlier’ and ‘later’ instants
are there toot. Each time capsule also carries hints of the laws (both classical and quantum
mechanical and even wavefunction collapse) that produced it 1281.
Note that complex conjugation of the solution (all e’”/R changed to e-*R/R) produces
exactly the same probabilities of the individual configurations, i.e. exactly the same time
capsules. Thus, the evidence for a direction of motion is in the individual configurations,
not in the wavefunction. The phase relations in the complex numbers are irrelevant.
It may be worth mentioning here that I was led to the notion of time capsule by
dissatisfaction with the manner in which many authors seem to suppose expansion and
contraction of the universe to be coded in solutions of the W E . Indeed, numerous papers
I301 give the impression expansion or contraction of the universe is coded in the complex
phases of timeless WKB solutions of the form

where #* is the complex conjugate of 4, and the real Hamilton-Jacobi function S depends
on certain semiclassical (WKB)variables. The ‘quantum’ function $ depends both on the
WKB variables (though weakly) and on the remaining variables, which remain quantum.
The physical interpretation very often put on and \Ir* is that they represent congruences
of classical solutions in which the universe moves in opposite directions along the classical
orbits normal to the level suffaccs ofS. One may represent expanding, the other contracting
universes.
t A comprehensive sNdy of the Mott problem with full allowance for quantum statistics and combinatorial factors.
which must ultimafely determine the actual probabilities for finding tracks of different lengths, would be very
interesting. For a recent study of the Molt problem. see 1291.
 Timelessness of quantum gravity: XI 2889

Thus, the phases of complex wavefunctions are expected to permit definition of a sense
of motion. Although I believe wKB wavefunctions of the form (2) do play an important role
in creating the impression we have of the passage of time (see below and [14]), I think it is
quite wrong to suppose that expansion or contraction of the universe is coded in the t\?cB
phases in (2).
Let us first of all consider classical theory. An orbit in configuration space is simply a
curve that defines no sense of direction. That requires access to an external time, which is
certainly not available for the universe. An Einstein spacetime that terminates in singularities
has no intrinsic property identifying the beginning and enq of time. Hawking [31] seeks
to distinguish between expansion and contraction by means of the sign of the face of the
extrinsic curvature, but this is only possible if an external time does exist, since otherwise
the sign is arbitrary, as Zeh has noted [32].
It is no different in the quantum case. For suppose one of (2) does represent expansion
and the other contraction. Then which is which? The question cannot be answered. The
two forms differ only in a sign convention, not in any observational content.
For suppose e’% does represent a congruence of expanding universes, one of which
contains a computer that records, in a certain configuration of atoms, observations which
prove expansion. However, the phases being irrelevant, exactly the same data are stored in
ebiS@’. Its computer will record the same facts. The distinction cannot lie here.
Further evidence that the expression of motion in a timeless quantum context has nothing
to do with complex numbers is that the real and imaginary parts are independent solutions
of the real TEE and are separately concentrated on time capsules. Moreover, it is the
overall structure of each configuration which suggests the a-particle moved away from the
Ra source. The alternative, requiring implausible initial conditions, is rejected.
It was considerations like this that led me to the conviction that the appearance of
motion cannot be coded in phases in static wavefunctions but rather must be sought in the
individual configurations that are selected with high probability by the wavefunction.
Indeed, the Mott solution gives a wonderfully intuitive picture of what happens when
a WKB system (here the a-particle) undergoes continuous measurement [33] (by interacting
with the chamber atoms). If for the Wilson chamber we substitute the universe, I believe we
have the beginnings of an interpretation of quantum mechanics that combines the best parts
of both the Copenhagen and Everett [IO]interpretations (classical framework and universal
wavefunction). I say ‘beginnings’ because Mod’s treatment is still only partly quantum.
This is because the nuclei of the hydrogen atoms of the cloud chamber are treated classically.
In a fully quanmm treatment one would have to show how the wavefunction could become
concentrated on configurations of the nuclei representing the cloud chamber and, indeed. its
environs. However, my only aim here is to establish the possibility of time capsules and
the appearance of classical history in what seem to be frozen records.
In the Mott solution, a classical history takes shape before our eyes. I think it is
important to see just how this does happen, since I suspect most accounts of this are
misleading, to say the least. Following Scmdinger’s (and Hamilton’s) great insight into the
formal relationship between a wave theory and classical trajectories as the rays orthogonal
to wave surfaces of constant phase, most commentators, following SchrWnger himself [9],
have seen classical behaviour as being brought about by constructive mutual inferference
of many WKB solutionsjudiciously chosen so as to give a narrow wavepacket concentrated
around a single classical trajectory. However, this does not seem satisfactory, for it remains
miraculous that such a superposition should exist (there is nothiig in the formalism to
bring it into existence). I think such accounts of the emergence of classical behaviour are
unsatisfactory because the system that is to become classical is treated all on its own. This
2890 J B Barbour

is why many slightly differing wKB solutions have to be superimposed to produce a wave
tube concentrated around a single classical trajectory.
What Mott shows is that one WKB solution can force other degrees of freedom into
time capsules, each of which carries evidence of a different world (or the same world at
different times); for each classical history in the complete WKB congruence of trajectories is
‘recorded’ in corresponding time capsules. Thus, instead of many different WKB solutions,
miraculously superimposed, producing one (slightly fuzzy) classical world, we see that
quantum mechanics is immensely more protean: one WKB solution creates the apparent
records of m y different classical histories, at, moreover, many different stages of their
histories. In the Moa solution, interference of different WKB solutions plays no role at
all in producing the appearance of classical behaviour. There simply is no ‘wave tube‘
concentrated around a unique classical trajectory. What, however, is vital is the presence
of the additional quantum variables.
Note also a curious and important inversion: The ‘classicality’ is coded in the ‘quantum’
variables, not the WKB variables (eiS gives a uniform probability). This inversion and the
fact that both WKB variables and purely quantum variables are needed in order that they
may together form time capsules seem to me of great potential importance for an ultimately
satisfactory understanding of quantum theory. In particular, I think that the decoherence
approach (see, for example, the last paper of [30])may be slightly misleading in its account
of the origin of ‘classicality’. For in it, the ‘quantum’ variables, which carry the evidence
of ‘classicality’, are traced out.
I believe there is another potential strength of the timecapsule explanation of the
appearance of classicality as compared with the explanation by pure interference. In the
latter, all that one gets out is, so to speak, the classical trajectory by itself. The framework
and time in which that classical trajectory unfolds have to be presupposed as external
elements. However, in the Mott solution, these are simultaneously coded in each of the time
capsules on which the solution is concentrated. For the track of any particle necessarily
contains much dynamical information (if it is in a magnetic field, this is given by the
curvature; if the particle is losing energy through inelastic scattering, the information is
coded in the successively larger scattering angles along the track; Bell’s discussion [28] of
this is very interesting). In particular, the track contains information about time; in principle,
one can mark out equal intervals of an ‘ephemeris time’ along any such track.
I believe also that another great problem of quantum mechanics, the superposition
principle, must be seen in a quite different light in the context of timeless quantum gravity.
Suppose it is the case that soiutions of the WDE are generically concentrated on time capsules
through the wKB-Mott mechanism but that many different such solutions exist, so that they
can be superimposed. However, the resulting quantum interference presents little or no
threat to time capsules and their evidence of classical worlds. Any realistic configuration
space Qo of the world is huge, and the time capsules corresponding to a given wKB solution
will occupy a tiny fraction of Qo.Moreover, the time capsules for a different WKB-based
solution will also occupy a tiny fraction of Qo and will be located in differentplaces in a.
They must, since they carry evidence of different classical behaviour. This simply means
they are different 40’s. Each such 40 tells its own story quite independently of whatever
other 40’s may be present in a solution obtained by superposition. In Qo,two such solutions
will be almost orthogonal; they will have nearly disjunct support. Even if there is overlap,
this will merely change the number of 40’s that go into what I have called the heap of
actualities (section 3). The structure within each 40, i.e. what is observed, remains the
same.
Interference normally seem such a problem in interpreting quantum mechanics because
 Timelessness of quantum graviq: II 2891

we instinctively suppose that superposed quantum states for a subsystem of the universe
are all present together with the observer in the suine spacerime framework. Therefore the
observer should see superpositions of macroscopic objects. But in quantum gravity this
is all changed. There is no spacetime framework; there are simply different qo’s, and the
superposition difficulties dissolve if each experienced instant is actualized in one given 40.
The superposition principle will not make us see two Moons at once or experience
Wednesday and Thursday simultaneously, but it might mean that Wednesday is not
experienced at allt.

8. Is the Mott solution generic? The structure of relative configuration spaces

The Mott solution illustrates the time-capsule idea. However, will a realistic wDE generically
possess solutions that are concentrated on time capsules? This is a very difficult and large
question, and in this final section I can do no more than outline some of the factors that
seem relevant to the discussion.
We may start by noting that the Mott solution is in fact a rather special solution. So far
as I’can see, three factors create the Mott solution: (1) The special initial approximation
with the 01 particle in a perfectly spherical outgoing wave and all atoms in the ground states.
(2) The distinguished role and definite position of the Ra atom. (3) The consistent use of
outgoing waves in all the scattering corrections.
Let me say straight away that factor 1 does seem to be special, and as yet I see no reason
why an analogous factor should be at work spontaneously in quantum gravity. However, I
see more hope for finding analogues of the other two factors.
Before considering them, I should like to make some general observations. First, the
WDE that we presently possess differs in some important respects from a normal time-
independent Schrodinger equation. Quite apart from its infinite dimensionality, it has an
indefrite metric and the relationship between allowed and forbidden regions for the WDE is
much more subtle than for the TISE. In addition, it is obvious that the characteristic nature
of the solutions of wave equations is to a very large degree determined by the structure
of the equations themselves, above all by the structure of the potential. Finally, it is also
obvious that time capsules can only arise in systems with many degrees of freedom, so that
exact solutions, which are generally only known for systems of low dimension, are hardly
likely to give much guidance.
However, there is one very general property of relative configuration spaces that does
Seem to me relevant to this discussion. This is their remarkably asymmeaic structure.
Figure 1 is a photograph of a model I have had made of the relative configuration space for
three particles in Euclidean space. The axes give the three sides of the triangle formed by
the particles, and the possible relative configurations are represented by all the points in the
positive octant within the volume bounded by the loops of string (the three struts on which
they are spanned should extend out to infinity on the right). This volume represents the
relative configuration space Qo.Points outside this volume violate the triangle inequality.
Points on the triangular boundary faces of Qo represent configurationswith all three particles

f This is exactly what happens in the case of wavefunctions of the form (2) if Y (4)Y‘(9) (= BB in the real case)
is taken as the ‘probability of occwence’ of 9 . Many g’s (i.e. instants of the univene) present in either of the
two WKS components are then obliterated (not experienced) in their superposition, even though the surviving q ’ s
may Contain records of the oblitezated 9’s. Thus, we may remember Wednesday even though it never happened!
To that extent dgaherence cextaiainly works. We are unaware that half our life‘s experiences has been taken from
US.,’
2892 J B Barbour

on a straight line. The ribs that bound these faces represent configurations in which two
particles coincide. Finally, the three ribs meet at the singular point on the left corresponding
to coincidence of all three particles. As I have said, to the right, Qo extends all the way
to infinity. A timeless classical Machian dynamical history of the three-body problem is
completely represented by a geodesic within this space.
This is a model of a non-trivial relative configuration space. For a higher number
of dimensions, the corresponding structure must become vastly more complicated, but the
model already shows the most characteristic properties of relative configuration spaces,
which are stratifred [5], [34]. That is, they possess a hierarchical structure of boundaries,
or strata, the points of which are intrinsically different from generic points of the space and
from boundaries of higher dimension. Thus, generic points in the interior of the Qo shown
in figure 1 have neighbourhoods of dimension three; points on the flat triangular faces have
neighbourhoods of dimension two; points in the ribs have neighbourhoods of dimension
one: finally, there is the distinguished point of dimension zero where the three ribs meet.

Figure 1. The three-body relative configuration space.

Simple as this example is, it does seem to me most suggestive.

In particular, I wonder if the very structured form that relative configuration spaces of
necessity have, their inherent asymmetry, is the ultimate origin of the arrow of time. I have
not yet mentioned this issue, but it cannot be ducked in a discussion of time capsules, since
they must reflect the arrow we associate with time-its striking apparent unidirectionality
 Tmelessness of quanfum gravity: 11 2893

must be coded in them. Moreover, it does seem to me that the timeless WDE completely
changes the way we must think about the problem of the origin of the arrow of time.
The old spacetime arena can never explain the arrow of time except by an implausible
initial condition. But in the framework of timeless quantum gravity that I have attempted
to outline here, spacetime and initial conditions are irrelevant. The wavefunction of the
universe is created by a static balance between the possible relative configurations. The
proper question that we have to ask to solve the problem of the arrow of time is: what sort
of configurations will a w t large values of the quantum-mechanical probability? If some
natural boundary condition of the type used by Schrijdinger is appropriate, then apart from
the specjfic form of the wave equation, the only other factor that can influence the answer to
this question is the structure of the configuration space. Moreover, since interactions seem
invariably to be local in the configuration representation, the structure of the configuration
space must leave an imprint in the structure of the wave equation and whatever potential
it possesses. Potentials are habitually conceived as hills, valleys, ridges, barriers, etc. In
the Qo of the universe, these cannot but give rise to an intricate and inherently asymmetric
topography.
Superimposed on this rich topography there must also be a pervasive trend such as we
see in figure 1-from the point at which everything ends on the left all the way out to infinity
on the right. The singular point on the left at which everything sits on everything else is a
natural origin of any Qo.Surely this point must play some very special role in establishing
how and where the quantum-mechanical probability is concentrated, especially since it sits
at the centre of a hierarchically expanding frontier, which bounds the confguration space
Qo on one sidet. The static waves in Qo must somehow reflect off this one-sided frontier,
whereas in the direction away from the frontier they encounter no impediment.
Let me now consider the second special feature of the Mott solution mentioned at the
start of this section. This is the distinguished role of the radioactive atom, which is put there,
so to speak, by hand. In the quantum gravity context, the structure of the configuration space
is fixed in advance, and the wavefunction of the universe must dispose itself accordingly. It
is an obvious conjecture that the natural origin of the configuration space will function as a
special centre from which a congruence of WKB trajectories will emanate. Such trajectories
will look like classical histories that either begin or end at the natural origin. In this
connection, it is very striking that, in accordance with the standard cosmological model.
OUT own universe gives the impression of having emerged from a tightly compressed state
of very high density at a finite time in the past. In a timeless context, the Big Bang is not
in the past, it is a special configuration in Qo. It seems almost inevitable that the natural
origin will play the role of the special configuration.
It also seems to me most suggestive that any representative point in the model shown in
figure 1, as in any relative configuration space, is of necessity at a ‘finite distance’ from an
absolute frontier, which lies, so to speak, to one side (in figure I, on the left), while there is
no frontier at all in the opposite direction (to the right). It is then very tempting to suppose
that this is the ultimate reason why we currently believe time began some finite duration
ago even through the universe may well have an infinite future. For, at least in principle,
the absolute frontier on the left in figure 1 (suitably generalized to a very high number
of dimensions) could have the effect of concentrating the wavefunction of the universe on
configurations that seem to contain records (or ‘pictures’-memories are essentially stored
pictures) of configurations that lie between the recording configurations and the absolute

t Zeh PSI has independently suggested that the intrinsic dynamical asymmetry of quantum gravity ‘offers the
possibility of &riving an m o w of time (perhaps even without imposing any special conditions)’.
2894 J B Barbour

frontier but none of configurations that lie ‘beyond‘ the recording configurations, i.e. on the
right side extending to infinity, which I tentatively identify with the ‘future’.
Let us now consider the thud factor that creates the Mott solution, the consistent use of
outgoing waves in all pertubation orders. This factor is very important. Its absence would
destroy the ‘beaming’ effect. In accordance with Born’s scattering theory [IS],the scattered
waves are collimated at high energies, but it is not clear they must all lie outside the last
scattering centre.
For each perturbation must satisfy an inhomogeneous Helmholtz equation, and, at
least in the immediate vicinity of the scattering centre, the general solution of this is an
arbitrary linear combination of incoming and outgoing waves. Depending on the kernel
chosen, the perturbation can be distributed on either side of the scattering centre in arbitrary
proportions. Mott’s consistent choice is exactly analogous to taking purely retarded solutions
in electromagnetism. (This issue also has a bearing on the semiclassical recovery of the
time-dependent Schrodinger equation (TDSE) from the WDE; see appendix 1.)
In the Mott solution, it is the consistent use of olitgoing waves in all perturbation orders
that creates the sharply focused time capsules (just as the same choice makes it possible to
use the TlSE to describe dynamic processes).
However, had Mott chosen any incoming component, this would have beamed the
perturbation onto the Ra atom, and then the necessary condition of regularity there must
be considered. Indeed, the natural origin of any cosmological Qo, sitting as it does at the
centre of a hierarchical system of frontiers, is likely to impose strong regularity reshictions
on \v. If they force perturbations like the scattered waves in the Mott solution to be beamed
outward, this could be significant for the creation of time capsules.
To summarize, it does seem possible that at least two out of the three factors that create
the Mott solution could have analogues in quantum gravity that create the same effect
spontaneously. In the meanwhile, the Mott solution does suggest a kind of two-step process
by which the wavefunction of the universe may be concentrated (‘collect’) on time capsules.
First, part of the complete system of the universe gets into wfe! regimes corresponding to
congruences of classical trajectories emanating from the distinguished origin of the Qo of
the universe. Next, the remaining (‘quantum’) degrees of freedom become correlated with
the wKB variables. As a result, they seem to record evidence of classical histories. Finally,
the ‘recorded evidence’ must suggest histories that unfold in a definite direction. Given the
pronounced asymmetry of the putative eo’s of the universe, it is at least possible that this
may happen.
I should like to close with some general comments on structure and the aims of science.
The single most striking thing about the universe we see around us is its rich structure, which
is so difficult to understand on a priori statistical grounds. Until the modern scientific age,
all thinkers saw the first task of science as being the direct description and explanation
of this structure. This natural impulse is reflected in the Pythagorean notion of the well
ordered cosmos. It was still very strong in both Kepler and Galileo. However, when
Newton demonstrated the supreme importance ofaccelerations in dynamics, the perspective
of science changed, for the world at the present instant became the mere consequence of
its initial conditions. Instead of asking directly how structure is fashioned, science turned
to asking how it is refashioned.
It seems to me that the abolition of time in quantum gravity must bring us back to
a more Pythagorean perspective, though with a quantum slant, for now we must simply
ask: what structures are probable? Moreover, it seems to me that the first decisive step
in this direction was the discovery by Schrijdinger of his time-independent wave equation,
with its all-important natural boundary condition, and Born’s probability interpretation of
 ‘limelessness of quantum gravity: I1 2895

quantum mechanics. For we know that these two basic elements of quantum mechanics
work together to bring forth exquisite structures in great profusion, doing so moreover
without any boundary or initial conditions and with total disregard for what might seem
statistically likely. That is the story of atomic, molecular, and solid-state physics. I think it
may even be the story of the universe.

Acknowledgments

Besides those thanked at the end of [l], I am indebted for discussions to Abhay Ashtekar,
Harvey Brown, Domenico Giulini, Jim Hartle, Chris Isham, Claus Kiefer, Carlo Rovelli,
and Dieter Zeh. This list could be greatly extended and I apologize for omissions. I thank
Piero and Joan Giannasi for making and painting the model shown in figure 1 and Sydney
Railton for taking the photograph. I should also like to thank the unknown referee of a first,
much shorter version of this paper for a detailed and most helpful report. That first version
was written while at the Department of Physics of the University of Utah and some financial
support through NSF grant PHY-9207225 to the University of Utah and hospitality in Utah
are much appreciated. A brief account of the ideas presented in this and the previous paper
has appeared in [36].

Appendix

The conditions under which the Mott solution is obtained may bear on the WKB recovery
of the time-dependent SchrMinger equation (TDSE) from the WDE [13], [301, [14].
The TDSE is recovered only approximately, since it also contains a second ‘time’
derivative (the ‘time’ is a parameter along the WKB orbits). In the literature, this second
‘time’ derivative is mostly ignored.
However, neglect is not justified by the mere existence of the WKB regime, for we are
concemed with the rates of variation in the ‘quantum function’ (6 in equation (2)). not
between it and the WKB factor?.
Further. the conditions assumed for WKB recovery of the TDSE are met in the Mott
solution simply by the presence of (2). However, time capsules only arise under the
conditioh of outgoing waves in all orders. No condition like this is usedin the semiciassical
programme. Other solutions not satisfying it will formally appear to be solutions of the TDSE
but will not give the behaviour imposed by the TDSE. What is the origin of the discrepancy?
It is clearly the neglect of the second ‘time’ derivative. Second-order equations have
many more solutions than first-order equations. None of these are eliminated merely because
a wKB regime existst. Most will have bizarre, acausal behaviour in which scattered waves
come to meet the a-particle before it is scattered. This is ruled out by the TDSE. for
which the future is uniquely determined by 4 at any given instant. In the WDE context, the
second derivative is still there and, even when small, can have qualitative effects, spoiling
everything.
This appears to be a problem for the semiclassical programme.
t Most discussions of the semiclassical programme are made within the framework of a complete series expansion
with respect to some formal small parameter. In such a formal scheme, the second ‘time’ derivative does appear
to be smaller than the first by the same amount as the variation in c$ is smaller than the variation in the WKB factor.
However. such a WKB expansion is very special compared with the general WKB state, and 1 see no reason why it
should be assumed. It merely means that, by assuming the troublesome terms are sufficiently small, one does not
address the question of why the wavefunction alone determines the future through the SE. But that is a really
key property of time and the SE and any derivation that does not achieve it seems to me purely formal.
2896 J B Barbour

References
Barbour J B 1994 Clms, Quonfum Grav. 11 2853-73
Smolin L 1991 Space and time in the quantum universe ConceptuaIPmblems of Quantum Gravity, Einstein
Studies vol 2 ed A Ashtekar and J Stachel (Boston: Birkhsuser)
Rovelli C 1991 Is there incompatibility between the ways time h treated in general relativity and in slandard
quantum mechanics? ConceptualPmbiem of Q w t u m Gmvity, Einstein Studies vol2 ed A Ashtekar and
J Sfachel (Boston: Birkhduser) section 7, p 134
Ashteku A 1991 Lecfums on Non.Perturbative Canonical Gravity (Singapore: World Scientific)
DeWitt B S 1967 Phys. Rev. 160 1113
Kuchaf K 1993 Canonical quanlum gravity Proc. 13th lnl. Con5 on General Relativity and Gravitation ed
C K m e h (Bristol: lnstiute of Physics)
Jackiw R 1988 Analysis on infinite-dimensional manifolMchriidinger representation for quantized fields
Sdminairc de Marhimtiprres Supdrieurcs MontrLal. 1988
Floremini R and Jackiw R 1988 Phys. Rev. D 37 2206
Jackiw R 1988 Functional representations for quantized fields Proc. 1st Asia Pac& W o r k h p on High
Energy Physim: Conform1 FicldTheoty. AnomaliesandSupersf,ings,Shgnpore, 1987 (Singapore: World
Scientific)
Dinc P A M 1964 lectures on Quantum Mechanics (New York Yeshiva University)
Schradinger E 1982 CollccfedPapers on Wove Mechanics (New York: Chelsea)
Everen H 111 1957 Rev. Mod,Phys. 29 454
DeWin B S and Graham N (ed)1973 The Many.Worlds Inlerpmfation of Quanfum Mechanics (Princeton.
NI: Princeton University Press)
Zurek W 1981 Phys. Rev. D 24 1516
Unruh W G and Wald R M 1989 Phys. Rev. D 40 2598
Kuchai K 1992 Time and interpretations of quantum gavity Pmc. 4th Can. ConJ on General Relativity and
Relativistic As frophysics (Singapore: World Scientific)
Barbour J B 1993 Phys. Rev. D 47 5422
Feynman R P and Hibbs A R 1965 Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals (New York McGraw-Hill) Ch
5
Bell J S 1988 Speakable Md Unspeakble in QuantumMcchanics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
von Neumann J 1932 Mathemrisehe Grundlagen der Quantemchanik, vanslation 1955 Mafhematical
Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton: Princeton University Press)
Bom M 1926 Z Phys. 37 863; 38 803
H a l e J E and Hawking S W 1983 Phys. Rev. D 28 1983
Hawking S W 1984 Nucl. Phys. B 239 257
Mon N 1929Proc. R. Soc. A 124 79; reprinted in Wheeler 1 A and Zurek W H (ed)1983 Quantum Thcoty
and Measurement (Princeton: Princeton University Press)
See. for example: Bennett C 1994 Complexity in the universe Phy8icnl Origins of h i m e &-fry,
Pmceedings of Workshop. Hueivo, October 1991 ed J Halliwell J Perez-Mmader and W Zurek
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Barbour 1 B and Smolin L 1992 Extremal variety as the foundation of a cosmological quantum theory
(unpublished)
Guuld S J 1987 ' J i m ' s A r m . 'Jim's Cycle; Myfh M d Mefaphor in tbe Dircovcry of Geological 'Jim
(Cambridge, M A Hatvard University Press)
Darwin C ISM) The Origin of lhe Species by Natural Selection
See. for example, Pfigogine I 1980 From Being to Becoming (San Francisco: Freeman)
Penrose R 1989 The Emperor's New Mind (Oxford: Oxford University Press) ch 7
Hmtle J 1986 F'rcdiction and observation in quantum cosmology Gravitation and Asfrophysics, Cargese,
1986 (New York Plenum)
Copemicus N 1543 De Revolutionibus, Book I
Bell J S 1981 Quantum mechanics for cosmologisa Q u a " Gravity 2.A Second 0.doni Symposium ed C
J Isham, R Penrose. D W Sciama (Oxford: Clamdon); reprinted in 11-51
Broyles A A 1993 Phys. Rev. A 48 1055
For example, see Banks T 1985 Nuel. Phyx B249 332
Halliwell 1 and Hawking S W 1985 Phys. Rev. D 31 1777
Bmut R 1987 Found Phys. 17 603
Bmut R, Honvitz G. Weil D 1987 Phys. left.192B 318
Vilenkin A 1989 Phys. Rev. D 39 1 I16
 limelessness of quantum gravity: I1 2897

Halliwell J 1989 Phys Rev. D 39 2912

I311 Hawking S W 1985 Phys. Rev. D 32 2489
[321 Zeh H.D 1986 Pkys. Len. 116A 9; see also Zeh H-D 1992 The Physical Basis offheDirection of7ime. 2nd
edn (Berlin: Springer) pp 154, 156
1331 loos E and Zeh H-D 1985 2 Phys. B 59 223
I341 DeWiU B S 1970 Spacetime as a sheaf of geodesics in supenpace Relniiviry ed M Carmeli, S I Fickler and
L Witten (New York: Plenum)
Fischer A E 1970 The theory of supeixpace ibid
1351 Zeh H D 1992 The PhpicaI Baris o f i k Dimciiion of lime 2nd edn (Berlin: Springer)
[36] Barbour 1 B 1994 The emergence of time and its armw from timelessness Physical Originr of lime
Asymmetv, Proceedings of WorkFhop, Hueiva, October 1991 ed J Halliwell, J Perez-Mercader and W
Z w k (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)