text:
# References

## Abstract

A possible causal solution to the problem of providing a spacetime description of the transmission of signals in quantum entangled states is described using a ‘bimetric’ spacetime structure, in which the quantum entanglement measurements alter the structure of spacetime. Possible experimental tests to verify the suggested spacetime interpretation of quantum entangled states are proposed.

Relativistic, Causal Description of Quantum Entanglement
J. W. Moffat
Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S1A7, Canada, and Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, Ontario N2J2W9, Canada.

e-mail: john.moffat@utoronto.ca

One of the most important features of quantum mechanics is the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen  effect, in which strong correlations are observed between presently noninteracting particles that have interacted in the past. The problem of understanding the consequences of the EPR effect is still controversial . Experiments on entangled particle states have verified the ‘nonlocal’ nature of quantum mechanics . One disturbing feature of the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is that the nonlocal nature of the entanglement process has been divorced from our common intuitive ideas about spacetime events and causality. The standard interpretation asserts that for photons (or electrons) positioned at A and B, separated by a spacelike distance, there is no exchange of classical information and superluminal signals between A and B are impossible according to special relativity. With the advent of the possibility of constructing quantum computers and performing ‘teleportation’ experiments, the whole issue of the spacetime reality of the EPR process becomes more problematic.

In the following, we propose a scenario based on a ‘bimetric’ description of spacetime. This kind of construction has been successful in cosmology, in which it provides an alternative to the standard inflationary cosmologies . In the present application of the bimetric description of spacetime to the quantum entanglement problem, we picture that a quantum mechanical metric (QMM) frame is related to a special relativity metric (SRM) frame by the gradients of a scalar field $`\varphi `$. The SRM frame describes a Minkowski light cone with constant speed of light $`c_0`$, while the QMM frame describes a different light cone with an increased speed of light $`c>c_0`$. The scalar field $`\varphi `$ measures the amount of entanglement of a given quantum mechanical state through the density matrix of its von Neumann entropy. For a pure non-entangled state $`\varphi =0`$, and transmitted signals travel with the standard classical, special relativity value $`c_0`$, but for entangled states, $`\varphi 0`$, quantum mechanical superluminal signals can travel in the QMM frame, thereby providing a Lorentz invariant spacetime description of quantum entanglement phenomena. An observer in the SRM frame would see an apparent violation of causality as a superluminal signal is transmitted between two entangled sub-systems, while an observer in the QMM frame would see a causal transmission of information between the two time-like separated sub-systems.

We postulate that four-dimensional spacetime is described locally by the bimetric structure:

$$q_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+\beta _\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi ,$$
(1)
where $`\beta >0`$ is a constant with dimensions of $`[\mathrm{length}]^2`$ and we choose the scalar field $`\varphi `$ to be dimensionless. The metric $`q_{\mu \nu }`$ is called the quantum mechanical metric (QMM), while $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the special relativity metric (SRM) described by the Minkowski metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$. The inverse metric $`q^{\mu \nu }`$ satisfies

$$q^{\mu \alpha }q_{\nu \alpha }=\delta _{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}.$$
(2)
We assume that only non-degenerate values of $`q_{\mu \nu }`$ with $`\mathrm{Det}(q_{\mu \nu })0`$ correspond to physical spacetime. The special relativity metric is given by

$$ds^2\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =c_0^2dt^2(dx^i)^2,$$
(3)
where ($`i,j=1,2,3`$). The quantum mechanical metric is

$$ds_q^2q_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =(\eta _{\mu \nu }+\beta _\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi )dx^\mu dx^\nu .$$
(4)
The latter can be written as

$$ds_q^2=c_0^2\left(1+\frac{\beta }{c_0^2}\dot{\varphi }^2\right)dt^2(\delta _{ij}\beta _i\varphi _j\varphi )dx^idx^j,$$
(5)
where $`\dot{\varphi }=d\varphi /dt`$. We see that the speed of light in the QMM frame is time dependent:

$$c(t)=c_0\left(1+\frac{\beta }{c_0^2}\dot{\varphi }^2\right)^{1/2}.$$
(6)
If we choose $`\dot{\varphi }0`$, then the speed of light has a purely spatial dependence given by

$$c(\stackrel{}{x})|d\stackrel{}{x}/dt|=\frac{c_0}{[1\beta (_i\varphi )^2]^{1/2}},$$
(7)
and we require that $`\beta (_i\varphi )^2<1`$.

The null cone equation $`ds^2=0`$ describes light signals moving with the constant measured speed $`c_0`$, whereas $`ds_q^2`$ cannot be zero along the same null cone lines, but vanishes for an expanded null cone with the speed of light $`c>c_0`$.

Both metrics (3) and (4) are invariant under Lorentz transformations

$$x^{}_{}{}^{}\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}x^\nu ,$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}`$ are constant matrix coeeficients which satisfy the orthogonality condition

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\sigma }=\delta _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\sigma }.$$
(9)
We shall require a relativistic description of quantum mechanics. To this end, we introduce the concept of a general space-like surface in the Minkowski spacetime of the SRM frame, instead of the flat surface $`t=\mathrm{constant}`$. We demand that the normal to the surface at any point $`x`$, $`n_\mu (x)`$ be time-like: $`n_\mu (x)n^\mu (x)>0`$. We shall denote a spacelike surface by $`\sigma `$. A local time $`t(\stackrel{}{x})`$ is assigned, so that in the limit that the surface becomes plane, each point has the same time $`t=\mathrm{constant}`$. We can now define the Lorentz invariant functional derivative operation $`\delta /\delta \sigma (x)`$ and the Tomonaga-Schwinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}c_0\frac{\delta \psi (\sigma )}{\delta \sigma (x)}=(x)\psi (\sigma ),$$
(10)
where

$$H(t)=d^3x(x)$$
(11)
is the Hamiltonian operator and $`(x)`$ is the Lorentz invariant Hamiltonian density. Eq. (10) is a relativistic extension of the Schrödinger equation

$$i\mathrm{}_t\psi (t)=H(t)\psi .$$
(12)
The domain of variation of $`\sigma `$ is restricted by the integrability condition

$$[(x),(x^{})]=0,$$
(13)
for $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ on the space-like surface $`\sigma `$. In quantum field theory, it is usual to work in the interaction picture, so that the invariant commutation rules for the field operators automatically guarantee that (13) is satisfied for all interacting fields with local nonderivative couplings.

We introduce the concept of a Lorentz invariant density matrix:

$$\rho [\sigma (x)]=|\psi (\sigma )\psi (\sigma )|.$$
(14)
In the Heisenberg representation

$$\rho (\sigma )=\mathrm{exp}(i(x)\sigma /\mathrm{}c_0)\rho (0)\mathrm{exp}(i(x)\sigma /\mathrm{}c_0).$$
(15)
Then, the density matrix operator $`\rho (\sigma )`$ satisfies the invariant Heisenberg equations of motion

$$i\mathrm{}c_0\frac{\delta \rho [\sigma (x)]}{\delta \sigma (x)}=[(x),\rho (\sigma )].$$
(16)
We will relate the ‘quantum information’ scalar field $`\varphi `$ to a measure of the entanglement of a pure quantum state by the relativistic definition

$$\varphi [\sigma (x)]=\gamma S(\rho _A)[\sigma (x)]=\gamma S(\rho _B)[\sigma (x)],$$
(17)
where $`\gamma `$ is a constant and

$$S(\rho _m)[\sigma (x)]=\mathrm{Tr}_m\rho [\sigma (x)]\mathrm{log}\rho [\sigma (x)]$$
(18)
is the relativistic scalar entropy of the sub-systems A and B. Moreover, $`\rho _A=\mathrm{Tr}_B|\psi \psi |`$ is the reduced density matrix obtained by tracing the whole system’s pure state density matrix $`\rho _{AB}=|\psi \psi |`$ over A’s degrees of freedom, while $`\rho _B=\mathrm{Tr}_A|\psi \psi |`$ is the partial trace over B’s degrees of freedom. For a non-entangled state for which the $`\psi (\sigma )`$ can be expressed as a tensor product $`\psi _A(\sigma )\psi _B(\sigma )`$, we have $`\varphi (\sigma )=0`$. In the non-relativistic limit, (18) reduces to the pure bi-particle entropy measure of entanglement . For the scalar field $`\varphi `$, we have

$$_\mu \varphi [\sigma (x)]=\frac{\delta \varphi [\sigma (x)]}{\delta \sigma (x)}_\sigma \varphi (x^{})𝑑\sigma _\mu ^{}.$$
(19)
We consider in the following only the simple physical system of two photons (or two electrons). The entanglement measure for a mixed state and a multiparticle state is controversial and no consensus has been reached on how to define it.

We postulate that the scalar field $`\varphi `$ satisfies the equation of motion

$$_\mu ^\mu \varphi +V^{}(\varphi )=0,$$
(20)
where $`V(\varphi )`$ is the potential for the field $`\varphi `$ and $`V^{}(\varphi )=V(\varphi )/\varphi `$. For a free scalar field $`\varphi `$ the potential will be $`V(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2`$, where $`m`$ is the mass of the particle associated with the scalar field $`\varphi `$.

For a pure non-entangled state $`\varphi =0`$ the spacetime metric is described by (3), whereas for an entangled state $`\varphi 0`$ and $`_\mu \varphi 0`$ the spacetime is described by (4). Since the speed of light can become much larger in the QMM spacetime frame, it is now possible to transmit signals at ‘superluminal’ speeds without violating the causality notions that prevail in the familiar SRM spacetime frame. In this way, by introducing a bimetric spacetime, we have incorporated the notions of spacetime events and causality for quantum mechanical entangled states. For an observer who detects a quantum mechanical system with some measuring device and observes a pure non-entangled state, the laws of special relativity in his SRM frame are consistent with the finite measured speed of light $`c_0`$, while an observer who makes a measurement of an entangled quantum mechanical system will cause $`_\mu \varphi `$ to be non-zero, and he will observe in the QMM frame an exchange of information with the spatially distant other component of the entangled state. In the QMM frame the speed of the light signal $`c`$ emitted, say, at a counter at A and received at a distant counter B will be finite but large compared to the measured value of the speed of light $`c_0`$ in the SRM frame, due to the expanded light cone in the QMM frame. In the QMM frame, for a maximal entanglement, A and B may no longer be ‘spacelike’ separated.

When $`\varphi =\mathrm{constant}`$, the speed of light is constant in space and time and a constant entanglement would be associated with the SRM frame. However, it is to be expected that $`S(\rho _m)`$ varies in space and time when a measurement is performed on the entangled state and, therefore, in practice $`\varphi `$ will be spacetime dependent.

We have considered the possibility that state reduction is a well-defined physical process that leads to a localized spacetime causality in the QMM spacetime frame . Before the state reduction, the relativistic Schrödinger equation (10) evolves unitarily in the SRM frame.

The current correlation experiments have a separation distance $``$ 11 kilometres . The results of experiments performed in Geneva  have been analyzed in a preferred frame formalism , choosing the cosmic microwave background radiation as the frame . A lower bound for the speed of superluminal quantum information in this frame is $`1.5\times 10^4c_0`$. Thus, for a fixed time $`t`$ in the QMM frame, a superluminal speed of light signal of order $`10^410^7c_0`$ would be consistent with a finite, causal exchange of information between the two sub-systems A and B.

A possible experiment to verify the bimetric spacetime scenario would be to attempt to measure the space and time dependence of the entanglement field $`\varphi `$. If we assume that the solution of the equation of motion (20) for $`\varphi `$, given a potential $`V(\varphi )`$, falls off with distance and $`V(\varphi )`$ vanishes asymptotically at infinity, then for sufficiently spatially separated sub-systems A and B, we would observe a decrease in the amount of entanglement of the quantum states at A and B and the measured correlation would decrease. Thus, the originally prepared entangled states would show a decreasing violation of Bell’s inequalities .

Another possibility to experimentally verify our interpretation of quantum mechanics is when the entanglement field $`\varphi `$ interacts with matter through the potential $`V(\varphi )`$. If A and B are spatially separated with a large intervening mass, then, for a suitable potential $`V(\varphi )`$, the interaction between $`\varphi `$ and the matter could decrease $`\varphi `$, thereby diminishing the measured correlation, when compared to the same experimental setup without the intervening mass.

Provided that the diminished correlation signature can be distinguished from potential decoherence effects, the consequences of our proposed interpretation of quantum mechanics can be experimentally tested. In the standard picture of quantum mechanics there is, apart from potential decoherence effects, no dynamical spatial or time dependence predicted for the correlation between two entangled states A and B.

We can generalize our theory to include gravitation by replacing $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ in (1) by $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, the pseudo-Riemannian metric of spacetime. Then, the speed of light waves and gravitational waves will both be dynamical and vary in spacetime along the light cone in the QMM frame determined by $`ds_q^2=0`$. Before a measurement is made of the entangled system and the ensuing state reduction occurs, the classical action for the gravitational theory will be given by

$$S=S_g+S_\varphi +S_M,$$
(21)
where

$$S_g[g]=\frac{1}{\kappa }d^4x\sqrt{g}(R[g]+2\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(22)
and

$$S_\varphi [\varphi ,g]=\frac{1}{\kappa }d^4x\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi V(\varphi )\right).$$
(23)
Moreover, the matter stress-energy tensor is

$$T_{\mu \nu }=\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta S_M}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }},$$
(24)
$`\kappa =16\pi G/c_0^4`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant. When a quantum entangled state is detected and $`_\mu \varphi 0`$, then the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is replaced by

$$g_{\mu \nu }=q_{\mu \nu }\beta _\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi .$$
(25)
The consequences that follow from an application of the gravitational QMM theory will be considered elsewhere.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. I thank Dr. Valerio Scarani for providing me with helpful information.


format: text

text:
# Phonon anomalies at the valence transition of SmS : An inelastic X-ray scattering study under pressure.

## Abstract

The phonon dispersion curve of SmS under pressure was studied by inelastic x-ray scattering around the pressure-induced valence transition. A significant softening of the longitudinal acoustic modes propagating along the  direction was observed spanning a wide $`q`$ region from ($`\frac{2\pi }{3a},\frac{2\pi }{3a},\frac{2\pi }{3a}`$) up to the zone boundary as SmS becomes metallic. The largest softening occurs at the zone boundary and stays stable up to the highest measured pressure of 80 kbar while a gradual hardening of the low $`q`$ modes simultaneously appears. This phonon spectrum indicates favorable conditions for the emergence of pressure-induced superconductivity in SmS.

In the past decades, a rich variety of condensed matter phenomena (high temperature superconductivity, giant magnetoresistance, heavy fermion ground state) has been attributed to the interplay between charge, lattice and magnetic degrees of freedom. Pressure is a unique tool to tune the different couplings between these parameters. One spectacular achievement of the past years is the pressure-induced non-conventional superconductivity observed at the quantum critical point of several heavy fermion systems Mathur ; Flouquet . While spin fluctuations are generally believed to be responsible for the Cooper pairing in these compounds, superconductivity is enhanced near the charge instability of some of them Jaccard . This motivated us to reinvestigate intermediate valence compounds where the charge fluctuations are at their strongest and in particular the case of SmS Wachter . At ambient pressure, SmS is a semiconductor which crystallizes in the NaCl structure (black phase) with a divalent Sm2+ ionic configuration (4$`f^6`$). At 6.5 kbar (at room temperature), it undergoes a first order isostructural phase transition Jama  to a metallic state (gold phase). In this phase, the Sm ion has an intermediate valence achieved by promoting a 4$`f`$ electron into the conduction band : Sm2+$``$ Sm3+ \+ $`5d`$. The semiconducting state persists at $`T`$=0 up to $`P_\mathrm{\Delta }`$=20 kbar where the sample ultimately becomes metallic Lapierre . It is expected that, near $`P_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or at still higher pressure, a magnetic quantum critical point will be reached when the Sm ion approaches its trivalent state. The search for the related magnetic order and possible superconductivity in good samples is certainly an experimental challenge. In this paper, we focus on the lattice dynamics of SmS under pressure using inelastic x-ray scattering (IXS). IXS presents several advantages here over inelastic neutron scattering (INS), since it can be carried out on micron-sized samples contained in a diamond anvil cell (DAC), and does not require isotopic substitution. This permitted us to extend previous INS data obtained on the same system Mook1  at the border of the technique to much higher pressure (80 kbar in the present case, while the INS experiments was limited to 7 kbar), while keeping a good crystal quality in the whole pressure range. The present study focuses on the longitudinal acoustic (LA) phonon dispersion curve along the  direction. The IXS measurements show a strong hardening of the LA modes close to the zone center with increasing pressure while for the first time, significant softening is observed at the zone boundary and persists far above the valence transition. This provides indications of favorable conditions for the emergence of superconductivity in SmS at high pressure.

A 150$`\times `$100$`\times `$40 $`\mu `$m3 platelet of SmS was cut in the extensively studied batch Lapierre  grown two decades ago by F. Holtzberg using the Czochralsky method. The direction  was normal to the surface so to have the three principal axis in the surface plane. The sample was then loaded in a rhenium gasket placed in a DAC, using methanol-ethanol 1:4 as pressure transmitting medium. The pressure was measured on-line by conventional ruby fluorescence technique. The IXS measurements were carried out on the undulator beamline ID28 at the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility, Grenoble. The incident beam is monochromatized by a perfect plane Si-crystal working in extreme backscattering geometry at the (9,9,9) reflection (17.794 keV). The monochromatic beam is then focused onto the sample position by a toroidal mirror in a 250$`\times `$80 $`\mu `$m2 spot. The scattered photons are analyzed by a bench of five spherically-bent high-resolution Si analyzers placed on a 7 m long horizontal arm. The analyzers are held one next to the other with a constant angular offset and operate in backscattering geometry at the same reflection order. The energy ($`\omega `$) scans are performed by varying the monochromator temperature while keeping the analyzer crystals at fixed temperature. The instrumental energy resolution achieved in this configuration is 3 meV. The cell was mounted in a vacuum chamber positioned on the sample stage in order to reduce the scattering by air. Measurements were carried out at room temperature in transmission geometry near the $`\tau `$=(2,2,2) and $`\tau `$=(3,3,3) Bragg reflections. This choice is a compromise between the benefit gained by working at the highest momentum transfer ($`𝐐`$) possible because of the essentially $`Q^2`$ dependence of the IXS cross section and the limited angular opening of the pressure cell. Furthermore, these ($`𝐐`$,$`\omega `$) regions were free from contamination by the diamond phonon branches. The measurement of the LA  modes was achieved by having $`𝐪`$ // $`𝐐`$ //  where $`𝐪`$ is the reduced wave-vector $`𝐪=𝐐\tau `$, which will be expressed in the following as $`𝐪`$=$`(q,q,q)`$ with $`q`$ in reciprocal lattice unit (r.l.u.). In fact, the longitudinal condition was only fulfilled by one of the five analyzers, while the four others point to slightly different directions in $`q`$-space leading to a non-negligible transverse component. Transverse components were also observed in the pure longitudinal configuration due to the finite $`q`$-resolution and the crystal mosaicity.

The valence transition of SmS was monitored by the pressure-dependence of the lattice parameter measured on the (2,2,2) Bragg reflection as shown in Fig. 1a. A drastic reduction of about 5 % occurs at the valence transition. The overall behavior is consistent with previously reported measurements using x-ray diffraction in the same pressure range Keller .

The sample mosaicity estimated by the full width at half maximum of the (2,2,2) Bragg reflection rocking curve increases from 0.12 at 0.7 kbar to 0.33 at 80 kbar. This demonstrates that the crystal quality is still good even at high pressure, the volume collapse at the transition being often destructive for SmS samples. The phonon spectra were measured for each pressure point at 2 or 3 different crystal orientations corresponding to 10 or 15 $`q`$-values for the complete set of analyzers. Typical energy scan ($`\pm `$25 meV) took about 5 hours. The data were normalized to the monitor intensity. The high pressure spectra were further normalized to the intensity of the elastic peak (diffuse scattering centered at $`\omega `$=0) at low pressure. Both the Stokes and anti-Stokes parts of the spectra were fitted with Lorenztian weighted by the Bose thermal population factor, after deconvolution by the resolution function. The central contribution was also fitted by a Lorenztian. This is illustrated in Fig. 1b at $`𝐪`$=(0.5,0.5,0.5) for $`P`$=0.7 kbar at $`T`$=300 K. Within the accuracy of our measurement, all the phonon peaks were found to be resolution limited.

The spectra measured on both sides of the valence transition at $`P`$=0.7 and 9.3 kbar at the  zone boundary (ZB) are shown in Fig. 2a. A clear softening from 15.7 to 13.4 meV can be observed. When pressure increases, a subsequent hardening occurs in the low and intermediate $`q`$ regions. This effect is illustrated in Fig. 2b at $`q`$=0.15 r.l.u. for $`P`$=12 and 80 kbar. At this low $`q`$-value, the transverse component (dot-dashed line) is strongly enhanced essentially because of the mosaicity increase after the valence transition.

The overall dispersion curves of the LA  modes as a function of pressure obtained after fitting are summarized in Fig. 3. The IXS data at $`P`$=0 are in complete agreement with the previous measurements made in the black phase Mook1 ; Birgenau  and there is in particular good reproducibility of the sound velocities. The sound velocity deduced from the initial slope of the dispersion changes from 3700 ms-1 at $`P`$=0.7 kbar to 5100 ms-1 at $`P`$=80 kbar. The softening of the phonons frequencies in the upper $`q`$-region occurs from $`q`$ $``$ 1/3 r.l.u. up to the ZB. At the ZB, the softening starts at 9 kbar and does not further evolve, once the valence transition has occurred. The overall behavior of the LA modes is summarized in the pressure variation of the mode Grüneisen parameter $`\gamma _q`$ defined as $`\gamma _q=ln\omega _q/lnV`$ ($`V`$ being the unit cell volume) and shown in the upper part of Fig. 3. At low pressure, $`\gamma _q`$ changes sign halfway to the ZB. It becomes zero at the ZB after the valence transition occurs. Finally it increases for each $`q`$ value at higher pressure.

The softening of the LA  mode at $`P>9`$ kbar is found to extend over a large $`q`$-range up to the ZB. In contrast, the ZB value was not found to soften in the INS study limited to 7 kbar. In order to understand this apparent discrepancy between the INS and IXS data, it is useful to describe the data obtained on a related system, Sm1-xYxS, where a similar valence transition occurs through Y doping at about $`x=x_c=0.15`$. Among this series of compounds, Sm0.75Y0.25S in particular was extensively studied by INS Mook2 ; Mook3 , transport and thermodynamic measurements Wachter  since it allows one to study the intermediate valence state by chemical pressure. At room temperature this compound is equivalent to SmS at $`P`$ $``$ 10 kbar with an intermediate valence state with 30-at.% of Sm2+. On cooling, it undergoes a valence transition at 200 K back into a state similar to the one of SmS at $`P`$=0 remarque . The INS studies performed on this compound show a softening of the LA  modes at 300 K except at the ZB where a hardening is observed, similarly to the INS measurements in SmS at 7 kbar. Nevertheless, the ZB energy is found to decrease upon heating from 100 K to 300 K similarly to SmS under higher pressure as shown by our IXS data. Concerning the low $`q`$ modes, they have a non-monotonic behavior : they are soft at the transition (200 K) and stiffen at low temperature (100 K). When put altogether, the temperature dependence of the phonon spectrum in Sm0.75Y0.25S and the pressure dependence in SmS show distinct features for the mixed valence state, the nearly integer valence state and the transition regions.

In order to sort out the different observed effects, we report in Table 1 the sound velocities and the phonon frequency shifts measured in the  direction by INS on the Sm1-xYxS system along with the IXS results on SmS.

At high pressures, our data exhibit an important hardening at low $`q`$ as expected for a normal metal. Unfortunately no ultrasonic measurements are available in SmS under high pressure due to the formation of microcracks in the samples which prevent the measurement. Detailed ultrasonic measurements are limited to the black phase Hailing  and show a general softening linked to the approach of the phase transition. Nevertheless, the large increase under pressure of the bulk modulus $`B`$ measured by x-ray diffraction up to 70 kbar is a good indication that phonon stiffening is expected Keller . For a cubic system, the bulk modulus expresses as $`B=(c_{11}+c_{12})/3`$ and the sound velocity in the  direction is $`v=\sqrt{(c_{11}+c_{12}+2c_{44})/3\rho }`$ where $`c_{ij}`$ are the elastic constants and $`\rho `$ is the material density. Since $`c_{44}`$ is determined by the TA modes which are not believed to be strongly pressure dependent Mook1 ; Hailing , the bulk modulus and the  sound velocity should exhibit similar pressure dependence. As seen in Table 1, Sm0.75Y0.25S is much more compressive and not a good starting point for a discussion of the sound velocities in SmS under pressure.

The most important result of our study is the softening at the  ZB which is of the same order as the one observed in Sm0.75Y0.25S at $`q`$=0.5 r.l.u. between 100 and 300 K. One possible interpretation of the discrepancy between the INS and IXS data obtained in SmS under pressure is that the INS results were limited to the transition or near-transition region ($`P`$=7 kbar) while the present IXS data were extended well within the metallic phase.

On the theoretical side, several works aimed at calculating the phonon spectrum after the INS measurements performed on Sm0.75Y0.25S either by using microscopic models or more phenomelogical methods Entel ; Benne ; Biltz ; Matsuura . General arguments predict the location of the phonon anomaly Benne  : The valence transition induces a change of volume of the Sm ion that will at first affect the motion of the surrounding next nearest neighbor S atoms. Volume fluctuations occur in the longitudinal channel and in the  direction corresponding to the highest packing. Most of the models reproduce a softening halfway to the ZB since the zone boundary corresponds to Sm only motion. They are clearly not sufficient to explain our new results which show that also the ZB LA mode is soft at high pressure. It is useful to note that the shape of the LA phonon we measured at 80 kbar is qualitatively similar to the one of the superconducting compound YS Roed  (see Table 1). The softening at $`q`$=0.5 r.l.u. in this compound is to be related to a high density of states of $`d`$ electrons at the Fermi level Biltz . Soft phonon modes and high density of states at the Fermi level favorize superconductivity as calculated in the strong coupling theory Mac . Such scenario was already invoked for the other isostructural binary alloy NbC Sinha ; Hanke . In Table 1, the phonon frequency shift for YS is given relatively to a theoretical calculation without electron-phonon coupling. One can formulate the hypothesis that pressure induces in parallel to (or in cooperation with) the change of valence of SmS an increased density of states at the Fermi level which produces the anomaly at $`q`$=0.5 r.l.u. This scenario reinforces the idea that the INS data obtained on SmS under pressure represents phenomena around the transition while the present IXS data characterizes the metallic phase up to high pressure and thus exhibits new anomalies in the phonon spectrum.

Our IXS data obtained under pressure in SmS exhibit a softening of the LA  mode from halfway and up to the ZB as soon as the metallic phase is reached. This softening, maximum at the  ZB is unchanged up to 80 kbar while gradual hardening of the low and intermediate $`q`$ modes occurs in parallel. This latter effect is to be linked to the unusual strong pressure dependence of the bulk modulus of SmS in the metallic phase. The former softening effects are attributed to the electron-phonon interaction occurring at the valence transition of SmS and also to an increasing density of states at the Fermi level at high pressure. Future studies aimed at finding pressure induced superconductivity in SmS are encouraged by the large phonon anomalies which persist up to high pressure where the Sm valence has certainly reached an integer value, and by the probable appearance of a magnetic phase opening the possibility of spin fluctuation mediated pairing.


text:
# Quantum cosmology and eternal inflation

## I Introduction

Stephen and I at times disagreed about minor things, like the sign in the wave function of the universe, $`\psi e^{\pm S}`$. But for me Stephen has always been a major source of inspiration. I will mention just one episode, when I talked to Stephen at a conference and was telling him why I thought my wave function was better than his. To which Stephen replied: “You do not have a wave function.”

Talking to Stephen is a little like talking to the Oracle of Delphi: you are likely to hear something as profound as it is difficult to decipher. But in that particular case I knew immediately what he meant. He was pointing to the lack of a general definition for the tunneling wave function, which at the time was defined only in a simple model. My talk was scheduled for the next morning, so I spent the night working out a general definition and rewriting my transparencies. I ended up giving a very different talk from what was initially intended. I can thus say with some justification that Stephen contributed to the development of the tunneling approach, although he may not be very pleased with the result.

My contribution here will consist of two parts. In the first part, I will review the tunneling approach to quantum cosmology and will briefly comment on the alternative approaches. In the second part, I will discuss the relation between quantum cosmology and eternal inflation. After a brief review of eternal inflation, I will discuss whether or not we need quantum cosmology in the light of eternal inflation, and then whether or not quantum cosmology makes any testable predictions.

## II Quantum cosmology

If the cosmological evolution is followed back in time, we are driven to the initial singularity where the classical equations of general relativity break down. There was initially some hope that the singularity was a pathological feature of the highly symmetric Friedmann solutions, but this hope evaporated when Stephen and Roger Penrose proved their famous singularity theorems. There was no escape, and cosmologists had to face the problem of the origin of the universe.

Many people suspected that in order to understand what actually happened in the beginning, we should treat the universe quantum-mechanically and describe it by a wave function rather than by a classical spacetime. This quantum approach to cosmology was initiated by DeWitt  and Misner , and after a somewhat slow start received wide recognition in the last two decades or so. The picture that has emerged from this line of development  is that a small closed universe can spontaneously nucleate out of nothing, where by ‘nothing’ I mean a state with no classical space and time. The cosmological wave function can be used to calculate the probability distribution for the initial configurations of the nucleating universes. Once the universe nucleates, it is expected to go through a period of inflation, driven by the energy of a false vacuum. The vacuum energy is eventually thermalized, inflation ends, and from then on the universe follows the standard hot cosmological scenario. Inflation is a necessary ingredient in this kind of scheme, since it gives the only way to get from the tiny nucleated universe to the large universe we live in today.

The wave function of the universe $`\psi `$ satisfies the Wheeler-DeWitt equation,

$$\psi =0,$$
(1)
which is analogous to the Schrodinger equation in ordinary quantum mechanics. To solve this equation, one has to specify some boundary conditions for $`\psi `$. In quantum mechanics, the boundary conditions are determined by the physical setup external to the system. But since there is nothing external to the universe, it appears that boundary conditions for the wave function of the universe should be postulated as an independent physical law. The possible form of this law has been debated for nearly 20 years, and one can hope that it will eventually be derived from the fundamental theory.

Presently, there are at least three proposals on the table: the Hartle-Hawking wave function , the Linde wave function , and the tunneling wave function .

## III The tunneling wave function

To introduce the tunneling wave function, let us consider a very simple model of a closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe filled with a vacuum of constant energy density $`\rho _v`$ and some radiation. The total energy density of the universe is given by

$$\rho =\rho _v+ϵ/a^4,$$
(2)
where $`a`$ is the scale factor and $`ϵ`$ is a constant characterizing the amount of radiation. The evolution equation for $`a`$ can be written as

$$p^2+a^2a^4/a_0^2=ϵ.$$
(3)
Here, $`p=a\dot{a}`$ is the momentum conjugate to $`a`$ and $`a_0=(3/4)\rho _v^{1/2}`$.

Eq.(3) is identical to that for a “particle” of energy $`ϵ`$ moving in a potential $`U(a)=a^2a^4/a_0^2`$. For sufficiently small $`ϵ`$, there are two types of classical trajectories. The universe can start at $`a=0`$, expand to a maximum radius $`a_1`$ and then recollapse. Alternatively, it can contract from infinite size, bounce at a minimum radius $`a_2`$ and then re-expand (see Fig. 1). But in quantum cosmology there is yet another possibility. Instead of recollapsing, the universe can tunnel through the potential barrier to the regime of unbounded expansion. The semiclassical tunneling probability can be estimated as

$$𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left(2_{a_1}^{a_2}|p(a)|𝑑a\right).$$
(4)
It is interesting that this probability does not vanish in the limit of $`ϵ0`$, when there is no radiation and the size of the initial universe shrinks to zero. We then have tunneling from nothing to a closed universe of a finite radius $`a_0`$; the corresponding probability is

$$𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left(2_0^{a_0}|p(a)|𝑑a\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{3}{8\rho _v}\right).$$
(5)
The tunneling approach to quantum cosmology assumes that our universe originated in a tunneling event of this kind. Once it nucleates, the universe immediately begins a de Sitter inflationary expansion.

The Wheeler-DeWitt equation for our simple model can be obtained by replacing the momentum $`p`$ in (3) by a differential operator***Here and below I disregard the ambiguity associated with the ordering of non-commuting factors $`a`$ and $`d/da`$. This ambiguity is unimportant in the semiclassical domain, which we shall be mainly concerned with in this paper., $`pid/da`$,

$$\left(\frac{d^2}{da^2}a^2+\frac{a^4}{a_0^2}\right)\psi (a)=0.$$
(6)
This equation has outgoing and ingoing wave solutions corresponding to expanding and contracting universes in the classically allowed range $`a>a_0`$ and exponentially growing and decaying solutions in the classically forbidden range $`0<a<a_0`$. The boundary condition that selects the tunneling wave function requires that $`\psi `$ should include only an outgouing wave at $`a\mathrm{}`$. The under-barrier wave function is then a linear combination of the growing and decaying solutions. The two solutions have comparable magnitudes near the classical turning point, $`a=a_0`$, but the decaying solution dominates in the rest of the under-barrier region.

The tunneling probability can also be expressed in the language of instantons. The nucleated universe after tunneling is described by de Sitter space, and the under-barrier evolution can be semiclassically represented by the Euclideanized de Sitter space. This de Sitter instanton has the geometry of a four-sphere. By matching it with the Lorentzian de Sitter at $`a=a_0`$ we can symbolically represent  the origin of the universe as in Fig.2. For ‘normal’ quantum tunneling (without gravity), the tunneling probability $`𝒫`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}(S_E)`$, where $`S_E`$ is the instanton action. In our case,

$$S_E=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{R}{16\pi G}+\rho _v\right)=2\rho _v\mathrm{\Omega }_4=3/8G^2\rho _v,$$
(7)
where $`R=32\pi G\rho _v`$ is the scalar curvature, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_4=(4\pi ^2/3)a_0^4`$ is the volume of the four-sphere. Hence, I concluded in Ref. that $`𝒫\mathrm{exp}(3/8G^2\rho _v)`$.

I resist the temptation to call this ‘the greatest mistake of my life’, but I did change my mind on this issue . I now believe that the correct answer is given by Eq.(5). In theories with gravity, the Euclidean action is not positive-definite and the naive answer no longer applies. Similar conclusions were reached independently by Linde , Rubakov  and by Zeldovich and Starobinsky . But the story does not end there. Not everybody believes that my first answer was a mistake. In fact, Stephen and his collaborators believe that I got it right the first time around and that it is now that I am making a mistake. I shall return to this ongoing debate later in this paper.

In the general case, the wave function of the universe is defined on superspace, which is the space of all 3-dimensional geometries and matter field configurations, $`\psi [g_{ij}(𝐱),\phi (𝐱)]`$, where $`g_{ij}`$ is the 3-metric, and matter fields are represented by a single field $`\phi `$. The tunneling boundary condition can be extended to full superspace by requiring that $`\psi `$ should include only outgoing waves at the boundary of superspace, except the part of the boundary corresponding to vanishing 3-geometries (see  for more details).

Alternatively, the tunneling wave function can be defined as a path integral

$$\psi _T(g,\phi )=_{\mathrm{}}^{(g,\phi )}e^{iS},$$
(8)
where the integration is over paths interpolating between a vanishing 3-geometry $`\mathrm{}`$ (‘nothing’) and $`(g,\phi )`$. I argued in  that this definition is equivalent to the tunneling boundary condition in a wide class of models.

Note that according to the definition (8), $`\psi _T`$ is strictly not a wave function, but rather a propagator

$$\psi _T(g,\phi )=K(g,\phi |\mathrm{}),$$
(9)
where $`K(g,\phi |g^{},\phi ^{})`$ is given by the path integral (8) taken over Lorentzian histories interpolating between $`(g^{},\phi ^{})`$ and $`(g,\phi )`$. One expects, therefore, that $`\psi _T`$ should generally be singular at $`g=\mathrm{}`$. In simple minisuperspace models this singularity was noted in my paper  and also by Kontoleon and Wiltshire  (who regarded it as an undesirable feature of $`\psi _T`$).

I should also mention an interesting issue raised by Rubakov  who argues that cosmic tunneling of the type illustrated in Fig. 1 results in a catastrophic particle production and in a breakdown of the semiclassical approximation. This conclusion is reached using a Euclidean formalism in which particles are defined by an instantaneous diagonalization of the Hamiltonian. This is a rather unconventional approach and I am not convinced that ‘particles’ defined in this way are the same particles that observers will detect when the universe emerges from under the barrier. If Rubakov is right, then the tunneling wave function cannot be obtained as a limit of tunneling from a small initial universe in a generic quantum state when the size of that universe goes to zero. (There is no dispute that for a particular quantum state, corresponding to the de Sitter invariant Bunch-Davis vacuum, there is no catastrophic particle production and the semiclassical approximation is well justified .) This issue requires further study.

At present, the general definitions of the tunneling wave function remain largely formal, since we do not know how to solve the Wheeler-DeWitt equationNote that the Wheeler-DeWitt equation applies assuming that the topology of the universe is fixed. Possible modification of this equation accounting for topology change have been discussed in . Here, I have disregarded topology change, assuming the simplest $`S_3`$ topology of the universe. For a discussion of topology-changing processes in quantum gravity, see Fay Dowker’s contribution to this volume. or how to calculate the path integral (8), except for simple models (and small perturbations about them), or in the semiclassical limit. A promising recent development is the work by Ambjorn, Jurkiewicz and Loll  who developed a Lorentzian path integral approach to quantum gravity. It would be interesting to see an application of this approach to the tunneling problem.

## IV Alternative proposals for the wave function

I shall now comment on the other proposals for the wave function of the universe.

### A The DeWitt wave function

I should first mention what I believe was the first such proposal, made by DeWitt in his 1967 paper . DeWitt suggested that the wave function should vanish for the vanishing scale factor,

$$\psi _{DW}(a=0)=0.$$
(10)
The motivation for this is that $`a=0`$ corresponds to the cosmological singularity, so (10) says that the probability for the singularity to occur is zero.

The boundary condition (10) is easy to satisfy in a minisuperspace model with a single degree of freedom, but in more general models it tends to give an identically vanishing wave function. No generalizations of the DeWitt boundary condition (10) have yet been proposed.

### B The Hartle-Hawking wave function

The Hartle-Hawking wave function is expressed as a path integral over compact Euclidean geometries bounded by a given 3-geometry $`g`$,

$$\psi _{HH}(g,\phi )=^{(g,\phi )}e^{S_E}.$$
(11)
The Euclidean rotation of the time axis, $`ti\tau `$, is often used in quantum field theory because it improves the convergence of the path integrals. However, in quantum gravity the situation is the opposite. The gravitational part of the Euclidean action $`S_E`$ is unbounded from below, and the integral (11) is badly divergent. One can attempt to fix the problem by additional contour rotations, extending the path integral to complex metrics. However, the space of complex metrics is very large, and no obvious choice of integration contour suggests itself as the preferred one .

In practice, one assumes that the dominant contribution to the path integral is given by the stationary points of the action and evaluates $`\psi _{HH}`$ simply as $`\psi _{HH}e^{S_E}`$. For our simple model, $`S_E=3/8\rho _v`$ and the nucleation probability is $`𝒫\mathrm{exp}(+3/8\rho _v)`$. The wave function $`\psi _{HH}(a)`$ for this model has only the growing solution under the barrier and a superposition of ingoing and outgoing waves with equal amplitudes in the classically allowed region. This wave function appears to describe a contracting and re-expanding universe.

It is sometimes argued  that changing expansion to contraction does not do anything, as long as the directions of all other physical processes are also reversed. So if the ingoing and outgoing waves are CPT conjugates of one another, they may both correspond to expanding universes, provided that the internal direction of time is determined as that in which the entropy increases. I would like to note that this issue is clarified in models where the universe is described by a brane propagating in an infinite higher-dimensional bulk space . The nucleation of the universe then appears as bubble nucleation from the point of view of the bulk observer. In such models, there is an extrinsic bulk time variable, and the interpretation of incoming and outgoing waves is unambiguous . The tunneling wave function appears to be the only correct choice in this case.

### C The Linde wave function

Linde suggested that the wave function of the universe is given by a Euclidean path integral like (11), but with the Euclidean time rotation performed in the opposite sense, $`t+i\tau `$, yielding

$$\psi _L=^{(g,\phi )}e^{+S_E}.$$
(12)
For our simple model, this wave function gives the same nucleation probability (23) as the tunneling wave function.

The problem with this proposal is that the Euclidean action is also unbounded from above and, once again, the path integral is divergent. If one regards Eq.(12) as a general definition that applies beyond the simple model (something that Linde himself never suggested), then the divergence is even more disastrous than in the Hartle-Hawking case, because now all integrations over matter fields and over inhomogeneous modes of the metric are divergent. This problem of the (extended) Linde’s wave function makes it an easy target, and I suspect it is for this reason that Stephen likes to confuse $`\psi _L`$ and $`\psi _T`$ and refers to both of them as “the tunneling wave function”. In fact, the two wave functions are quite different, even in the simplest model . The Linde wave function includes only the decaying solution under the barrier and a superposition of ingoing and outgoing modes with equal amplitudes outside the barrier.

Using Stephen’s expression, I think it would be fair to say that at present none of us “has a wave function”. All four proposals are well defined only in simple minisuperspace models or in the semiclassical approximation. So they are to be regarded only as prototypes for future work in this area, and not as well defined mathematical objects.

## V Semiclassical probabilities

Quantum cosmology is based on quantum gravity and shares all of its problems. In addition, it has some extra problems which arise when one tries to quantize a closed universe. The first problem stems from the fact that $`\psi `$ is independent of time. This can be understood  in the sense that the wave function of the universe should describe everything, including the clocks which show time. In other words, time should be defined intrinsically in terms of the geometric or matter variables. However, no general prescription has yet been found that would give a function $`t(g_{ij},\phi )`$ that would be, in some sense, monotonic.

A related problem is the definition of probability. Given a wave function $`\psi `$, how can we calculate probabilities? There was some debate about this in the 1980’s, but now it seems that the only reasonable definition that we have is in terms of the conserved current of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation . The Wheeler-DeWitt equation can be symbolically written in the form

$$(^2U)\psi =0,$$
(13)
which is similar to the Klein-Gordon equation. Here, $`^2`$ is the superspace Laplacian and the ‘potential’ $`U`$ is a functional of $`g_{ij}`$ and $`\phi `$. (We shall not need explicit forms of $`^2`$ and $`U`$.) This equation has a conserved current

$$J=i(\psi ^{}\psi \psi \psi ^{}),J=0.$$
(14)
The conservation is a useful property, since we want probability to be conserved. But one runs into the same problem as with the Klein-Gordon equation: the probability defined using (14) is not positive-definite. Although we do not know how to solve these problems in general, they can both be solved in the semiclassical domain. In fact, it is possible that this is all we need.

Let us consider the situation when some of the variables $`\{c\}`$ describing the universe behave classically, while the rest of the variables $`\{q\}`$ must be treated quantum-mechanically. Then the wave function of the universe can be written as a superposition

$$\psi =\underset{k}{}A_k(c)e^{iS_k(c)}\chi _k(c,q)\underset{k}{}\psi _k^{(c)}\chi _k,$$
(15)
where the classical variables are described by the WKB wave functions $`\psi _k^{(c)}=A_ke^{iS_k}`$. In the semiclassical regime, $`S`$ is large, and substitution of (15) into the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (13) yields the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for $`S(c)`$,

$$SS+U=0.$$
(16)
The summation in (15) is over different solutions of this equation. Each solution of (16) is a classical action describing a congruence of classical trajectories (which are essentially the gradient curves of $`S`$). Hence, a semiclassical wave function $`\psi _c=Ae^{iS}`$ describes an ensemble of classical universes evolving along the trajectories of $`S(c)`$. A probability distribution for these trajectories can be obtained using the conserved current (14). Since the variables $`c`$ behave classically, these probabilities do not change in the course of evolution and can be thought of as probabilities for various initial conditions. The time variable $`t`$ can be defined as any monotonic parameter along the trajectories, and it can be shown  that in this case the corresponding component of the current $`J`$ is non-negative, $`J_t0`$. Moreover, one finds  that the ‘quantum’ wave function $`\chi `$ satisfies the usual Schrodinger equation,

$$i\chi /t=_\chi \chi $$
(17)
with an appropriate Hamiltonian $`_\chi `$. Hence, all the familiar physics is recovered in the semiclassical regime.

This semiclassical interpretation of the wave function $`\psi `$ is valid to the extent that the WKB approximation for $`\psi _c`$ is justified and the interference between different terms in (15) can be neglected. Otherwise, time and probability cannot be defined, suggesting that the wave function has no meaningful interpretation. In a universe where no object behaves classically (that is, predictably), no clocks can be constructed, no measurements can be made, and there is nothing to interpret. It would be interesting, however, to investigate the effects of small corrections to the WKB form of the wave functions and of non-vanishing interference.

## VI Comparing different wave functions

To see what kind of cosmological predictions can be obtained from different wave functions, one needs to consider an extension of the minisuperspace model (6). Instead of a constant vacuum energy $`\rho _v`$, one introduces an inflaton field $`\phi `$ with a potential $`V(\phi )`$. The Wheeler-DeWitt equation for this two-dimensional model can be approximately solved assuming that $`V(\phi )`$ is a slowly-varying function and is well below the Planck density.

After an appropriate rescaling of the scale factor $`a`$ and the scalar field $`\phi `$, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation can be written as

$$\left[\frac{^2}{a^2}\frac{1}{a^2}\frac{^2}{\phi ^2}U(a,\phi )\right]\psi (a,\phi )=0,$$
(18)
where

$$U(a,\phi )=a^2[1a^2V(\phi )].$$
(19)
With the above assumptions, one finds  that Hartle-Hawking and tunneling solutions of this equation are given essentially by the same expressions as for the simple model (6), but with $`\rho _v`$ replaced by $`V(\phi )`$. The only difference is that the wave function is multiplied by a factor $`C(\phi )`$, such that $`\psi (a,\phi )`$ becomes $`\phi `$-independent in the limit $`a0`$ (with $`|\phi |<\mathrm{}`$).

The initial state of the nucleating universe in this model is characterized by the value of the scalar field $`\phi `$, with the initial value of $`a`$ given by $`a_0(\phi )=V^{1/2}(\phi )`$. The probability distribution for $`\phi `$ can be found using the conserved current (14). For the tunneling wave function one finds

$$𝒫_T(\phi )\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{3}{8G^2V(\phi )}\right),$$
(20)
This is the same as Eq.(5) with $`\rho _v`$ replaced by $`V(\phi )`$.

Eq.(20) can be interpreted as the probability distribution for the initial values of $`\phi `$ in the ensemble of nucleated universes. The highest probability is obtained for the largest values of $`V(\phi )`$ (and smallest initial size). Thus, the tunneling wave function ‘predicts’ that the universe is most likely to nucleate with the largest possible vacuum energy. This is just the right initial condition for inflation. The high vacuum energy drives the inflationary expansion, while the field $`\phi `$ gradually ‘rolls down’ the potential hill, and ends up at the minimum with $`V(\phi )0`$, where we are now.

The Hartle-Hawking wave function gives a similar distribution, but with a crucial difference in sign,

$$𝒫_H(\phi )\mathrm{exp}\left(+\frac{3}{8G^2V(\phi )}\right).$$
(21)
This is peaked at the smallest values of $`V(\phi )`$. Thus the Hartle-Hawking wave function tends to predict initial conditions that disfavor inflation. There has been much discussion of this point in the literature , but as I will explain in Section 8, the eternal nature of inflation makes this distinction between the wave functions rather irrelevant.

## VII Do we need quantum cosmology?

The status of quantum cosmology is closely related to that of eternal inflation, and I am going to discuss this relation in the rest of the paper.

A very generic feature of inflation is its future-eternal character . The evolution of the inflaton field $`\phi `$ is influenced by quantum fluctuations, and as a result thermalization does not occur simultaneously in different parts of the universe. One finds that, at any time, the universe consists of post-inflationary, thermalized regions embedded in an inflating background. Thermalized regions grow by annexing adjacent inflating regions, and new thermalized regions are constantly formed in the midst of the inflating sea. At the same time, the inflating regions expand and their combined volume grows exponentially with time. It can be shown that the inflating regions forms a self-similar fractal of dimension somewhat smaller than 3 .

Given this picture, it is natural to ask if the universe could also be past-eternal. If it could, we would have a model of an infinite, eternally inflating universe without a beginning. We would then need no initial or boundary conditions for the universe, and quantum cosmology would arguably be unnecesary.

This possibility was discussed in the early days of inflation, but it was soon realized  that the idea could not be implemented in the simplest model in which the inflating universe is described by an exact de Sitter space. The reason is that in the full de Sitter space, exponential expansion is preceeded by an exponential contraction. If thermalized regions were allowed to form all the way to the past infinity, they would rapidly fill the space, and the whole universe would be thermalized before the inflationary expansion could begin.

More recently, general theorems were proved , using the global techniques of Penrose and Hawking, where it was shown that inflationary spacetimes are geodesically incomplete to the past. However, it is now believed  that one of the key assumptions made in these theorems, the weak energy condition, is likely to be violated by quantum fluctuations in the inflating parts of the universe. This appears to open the door again to the possibility that inflation, by itself, can eliminate the need for initial conditions. Now I would like to report on a new theorem, proved in collaboration with Arvind Borde and Alan Guth , which appears to close that door completely. (For a more detailed discussion of the theorem and an outline of the proof, see Alan Guth’s contribution to this volume.)

The theorem assumes that (i) the spacetime is globally expanding and (ii) that the expansion rate is bounded below by a positive constant,

$$H>H_{min}0.$$
(22)
The theorem states that any spacetime with these properties is past geodesically incomplete. Both of the above conditions need to be spelled out.

It is important to realize that expansion and contraction are not local properties of spacetime. Rather, they refer to the relative motion of comoving observers filling the spacetime, with observers being described by a congruence of timelike geodesics. The global expansion condition requires that the spacetime can be filled by an expanding congruence of geodesics.This formulation of the global expansion condition may be somewhat too restrictive. Congruences of geodesics tend to develop caustics and often cannot be globally defined. A weaker form of the condition, which is still sufficient for the proof of the theorem, requires that an expanding congruence satisfying (22) can be continuously defined along a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Members of the congruence may cross or focus away from that geodesic. This condition is meant to exclude spacetimes like de Sitter space (which can be said to have a globally contracting phase).

The Hubble expansion rate $`H`$ is defined as usual, as the relative velocity divided by the distance, with all quantities measured in the local comoving frame. Since we do not assume any symmetries of spacetime, the expansion rates are generally different at different places and in different directions. The bound (22) is assumed to be satisfied at all points and in all directions. This is a very reasonable requirement in the inflating region of spacetime.

The theorem is straightforwardly extended to higher-dimensional models. For example, in Bucher’s model , brane worlds are created in collisions of bubbles nucleating in an inflating higher-dimensional bulk spacetime. Our theorem implies that the inflating bulk cannot be past-eternal. Another example is the cyclic brane world model of Steinhardt and Turok . One of the two branes in this model is globally expanding and thus should have a past boundary.

This is good news for quantum cosmology. It follows from the theorem that the inflating region has a boundary in the past, and some new physics (other than inflation) is necessary to determine the conditions at that boundary. Quantum cosmology is the prime candidate for this role. The picture suggested by quantum cosmology is that the universe starts as a small, closed 3-geometry and immediately enters the regime of eternal inflation, with new thermalized regions being constantly formed. In this picture, the universe has a beginning, but it has no end.

## VIII Is quantum cosmology testable?

There are also some bad news. In the course of eternal inflation, the universe quickly forgets its initial conditions. Since the number of thermalized regions to be formed in an eternally inflating universe is unbounded, a typical observer is removed arbitrarily far from the beginning, and the memory of the initial state is completely erased. This implies that any predictions that quantum cosmology could make about the initial state of the universe cannot be tested observationally. All three proposals for the wave function of the universe are therefore in equally good agreement with observations, as well as a wide class of other wave functions – as long as they give a non-vanishing probability for eternal inflation to start .§§§There is, arguably, a much wider class of wave functions which describe highly excited states of the fields, but these will generally exhibit no quasiclassical behavior and will not, therefore, allow for the existence of observers .

The only case that requires special consideration is when there are some constants of nature, $`\alpha _j`$, which are constant within individual universes, but can take different values in different universes of the ensemble. (One example is the cosmological constant in models where it is determined by a four-form field.) In this case, the memory of the initial state is never erased completely, since the values of $`\alpha _j`$ are always equal to their initial values. One might hope that probabilistic predictions for the values of $`\alpha _j`$ could be derived from quantum cosmology and could, in principle, be tested observationally. Unfortunately, this prospect does not look very promising either.

Quantum cosmology can give us the probability distribution $`P_{nucl}(\alpha )`$ for a universe to nucleate with given values of $`\alpha _j`$. In other words, this is the probability for a universe arbitrarily picked in the ensemble to have this set of values. To get the probability of observing these values, it should be multiplied by the average number of independent observers, $`N(\alpha )`$, that will evolve in such a universe ,

$$P_{obs}(\alpha )P_{nucl}(\alpha )N(\alpha ).$$
(23)
The number of observers in each eternally inflating universe grows exponentially with time,

$$N(\alpha ;t)=B(\alpha )\mathrm{exp}[\chi (\alpha )t].$$
(24)
The prefactor $`B(\alpha )`$ depends on the details of the biochemical processes, and at present we have no idea how to calculate it. But the rate of growth $`\chi `$ is determined by the growth of thermalized volume and can be found as an eigenvalue of the Fokker-Planck operator, as discussed in Refs. . It is independent of biology, but generally depends on $`\alpha _j`$. This suggests that the most probable values of $`\alpha _j`$ should be the ones maximizing the expansion rate $`\chi (\alpha )`$. As time goes on, the number of observers in universes with this preferred set of $`\alpha _j`$ gets larger than the competition by an arbitrarily large factor. In the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$, this set has a 100% probability, while the probability of any other values is zero,

$$P_{obs}(\alpha )\delta (\alpha \alpha _{}),$$
(25)
where $`\chi (\alpha _{})=\mathrm{max}`$. We thus see that the probability of observing the constants $`\alpha _j`$ is determined entirely by the physics of eternal inflation and is independent of the nucleation probability $`P_{nucl}(\alpha )`$ – as long as $`P_{nucl}(\alpha _{})0`$.

The situation I have just described is somewhat clouded by the problem of gauge-dependence. The problem is that the expansion rate $`\chi (\alpha )`$ and the values of $`\alpha _j`$ maximizing this rate depend on one’s choice of the time coordinate $`t`$ . Time in General Relativity is an arbitrary label, and this gauge dependence casts doubt on the meaningfulness of the probability (25). We now have some proposals on how this problem can be resolved in a single eternally inflating universe , but comparing the numbers of observers in disconnected eternally inflating universes still remains a challenge.

I can think of two possible responses to this situation. (i) There may be some preferred, on physical grounds, choice of the time variable $`t`$, which should be used in this case for the calculation of probabilities. For example, one could choose the proper time along the worldlines of comoving observers. (ii) One can take the point of view that no meaningful definition of probabilities is possible for observations in disconnected, eternally inflating universes. While this issue requires further investigation, the important point for us here is that, in either case, an observational test of quantum cosmology does not seem possible.

Thus, the conclusion is that, sadly, quantum cosmology is not likely to become an observational science. However, without quantum cosmology our picture of the universe is incomplete. It raises very intriguing questions of principle and will, no doubt, inspire future research. I wish that Stephen continues to lead and challenge us in this adventure.