4.1 Article

Quantum Mechanics, Spacetime Locality, and Gravity

期刊

FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS
卷 43, 期 8, 页码 978-1007

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10701-013-9729-1

关键词

Quantum cosmology; Quantum gravity; Multiverse

资金

  1. Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, of the US Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  2. National Science Foundation [PHY-0855653]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantum mechanics introduces the concept of probability at the fundamental level, yielding the measurement problem. On the other hand, recent progress in cosmology has led to the multiverse picture, in which our observed universe is only one of the many, bringing an apparent arbitrariness in defining probabilities, called the measure problem. In this paper, we discuss how these two problems are related with each other, developing a picture for quantum measurement and cosmological histories in the quantum mechanical universe. In order to describe the cosmological dynamics correctly within the full quantum mechanical context, we need to identify the structure of the Hilbert space for a system with gravity. We argue that in order to keep spacetime locality, the Hilbert space for dynamical spacetime must be defined only in restricted spacetime regions: in and on the (stretched) apparent horizon as viewed from a fixed reference frame. This requirement arises from eliminating all the redundancies and overcountings in a general relativistic, global spacetime description of nature. It is responsible for horizon complementarity as well as the observer dependence of horizons/spacetime-these phenomena arise to represent changes of the reference frame in the relevant Hilbert space. This can be viewed as an extension of the Poincar, transformation in the quantum gravitational context. Given an initial condition, the evolution of the multiverse state obeys the laws of quantum mechanics-it evolves deterministically and unitarily. The beginning of the multiverse, however, is still an open issue.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据