arXiv:1807.01520v3 [gr-qc] 17 Sep 2018 lc,ta s ucino bevbe characterizing observables of function a physical a is, of reading in that a nothing to clock, to refer reference is must any model there result cosmological a a that As condition Universe. the the outside by characterized is cosmological one next? of situations, the handover the extreme to or cycle to Bang Big apply the time as such omnipresent of an different concept of this in dogma would guises the different to line tied in time are [6], These time- turtles models. a of in in “before” tower least degenerate there rapidly the like were considerations not Such cycles cause, many first ours? how of [2–5], models: issue familiar arise the bouncing more to paradoxes in related surprisingly place tested often to Not a been extrapolating is only on have circumstances. This insist we that yet Universe. concepts to, it our been of never have beginning we the is ence per rmtepcueatgte,laigt number a dis- problems to time outstanding leading Gravity altogether, of no Quantum picture is the Canonical there from since In appears lost, space. is our time” of that of so flow onto- “flow space, is as of footing sense time cherished same Relativity, the In on contradicted placed often definitions. logically has is formal physics time expe- more as of everyday by notion reason, from intuitive this distant our For and rience, abstract physics. more of become laws the of 1 rvt nti ae.W ee h edrt xesv early extensive to reader the refer subject. quantum We the in on time [1] paper. of literature problem this the in solve to gravity attempting not are We nti ae eiss ntepeieta cosmology that premise the on insist we paper this In experi- daily our from far-removed situation Another h ocp ftm sfnaetli h formulation the in fundamental is time of concept The 2 eiee nttt o hoeia hsc,3 aoieS Caroline 31 Physics, Theoretical for Institute Perimeter rsdn vrtelf fteUies.Btwhy But Universe. the of life the over presiding n unu big h mrec nmte nasao Lambda of sea a in tim matter a on behaviour. to this emergence classical akin The scenarios behind something some ebbing. in In quantum Universe and the histories. how cycling localized explain time, to quantum to c rise is defined give then sharply challenge and a The with constant. Universe cosmological a the tower Alternatively, timelike to line. the conjugate time as such a paradoxes, the as several not Thus, invalidating appears does operators. it it quantum theories time: non-commuting measur some to a promoted in of two that properties by fact inspired of the is definition This the for constant. essential logical operators quantum other with nti ae epooeta omlgcltm saqatmo quantum a is time cosmological that propose we paper this In .INTRODUCTION I. 1 . olg,Pic osr d,Lno,S72Z ntdKingdom United 2BZ, SW7 London, Rd., Consort Prince College, 1 know hoeia hsc ru,TeBakt aoaoy Imper Laboratory, Blackett The Group, Physics Theoretical nvreta osntko h time the know not does that Universe A h ie rprywihoesu e omlgclscenari cosmological new up opens which property a time, the oa Magueijo Jo˜ao Dtd etme 8 2018) 18, September (Dated: 1 n e Smolin Lee and yaia ere ffreedom of degrees dynamical h rcp htntigeit usd h nvre We Universe. with the tandem outside in exists nothing time, that of precept definitions the possible of number a r rmwihw tr,btwihnnteessre to serves nonetheless proposal which but our motivate start, the- we particular which the from to stress wedded ory We not generality. Quan- are conclusions greater in our [9] in that state then Chern- Kodama (QG); the of Gravity the- We and tum concept concrete [8] the time a line. from (CS) to time Simons inspiration reference eternal gleaning with [7], an first ory of idea idea re- this bouncing the and and develop to cyclic rewind of also tied problems can scenarios, usual It the cannot without cause. it cycle time first the its know not about does quantum sharply wonder Universe is a the momentum that its If way if defined. space same in the delocalized in is particle time, time. in in delocalized ap- delocalized state be it thus, quantum and as squeezed 0, to, = strongly Λ headed a on are centred be sharply we to which state seems (and The pears) from constant. come cosmological operators, we quantum other the with extreme in commute namely least not at which, does operator cosmologi- circumstances, quantum that a propose is we time paper cal cos- this of In definition time. our mological permeate therefore may particular, freedom. of degrees gravitational the others freedom, on of purposes. solely degrees different depend matter for on partly used are depend be there Some may time, which absolute or clocks external diverse preferred a of loss the 2 esr ftm stefu ouet h ato he slice. three a of conjugat past the the the to in There, volume before, four the 24]. appeared is constant has [23, time cosmological time gravity of the measure of unimodular that measure of a idea context to the conjugate that is note we Indeed, ihti nmn,i eto Iw tr yexamining by start we II Section in mind, in this With nsm hsso t ieorUies a,therefore, may, Universe our life its of phases some In in gravity of and world, our of nature quantum The re ot,Wtro,OtroNJ25 Canada 2Y5, N2J Ontario Waterloo, North, treet ftrlsascae iha omnipresent an with associated turtles of ftm—h hr-iostime—and Chern-Simons time—the of e omlgclsae,ntbytecosmo- the notably states, cosmological sahee ybcwr rniin in transitions backward by achieved is oktm uthv nindeterminate an have must time lock sad flclzdtm a emerge, may time localized of islands ahn yl,wt lsia flow classical with cycle, machine e nvremyb dlclsd in “delocalised” be may Universe sral htde o commute not does that bservable omlgclcntn,wt the with constant, cosmological 2 rbbypoie h ballast the provides probably 2 . ial inside s swl as well as os, h nvre With Universe. the e 2 then focus of CS time, as a possible definition of time that these hypothetical fundamental from clock times, survives QG. Past work is reviewed, and we highlight the which are observable and which are at least in some cir- most recent developments which have inspired this paper. cumstances connectable with the t’s in the equations of Even though the concept is prompted by QG, in Sec- physics. tion III we initially examine CS time as a classical quan- Whether or not there is an active, fundamental time, tity. We find an intriguing result: the horizon problem of the dynamical equations of physics are supposed to gen- Big Bang cosmology, and the principle that it was solved erate correlations between observable quantities. Cos- in a non-standard primordial phase, amount to the idea mology is characterized by the condition that there is that the Universe is a two-way loop in CS time, with nothing outside the Universe, hence if we want to refer “ebb” and “flow” of time related to these two phases. to time in a cosmological dynamical equation, it must Periodicity is not required in these cycles. We stress the refer to a reading of a physical clock, which is to say, a difference to standard closed time-like curves (e.g. [6]) function of observables characterizing dynamical degrees where the arrow of time remains unchanged along the of freedom inside the Universe. loop. Since there is no preferred external or absolute time, In Section IV, we then quantize CS time, taking our there are diverse clocks which may be used for different cue from the Kodama state of QG and the work of [7], purposes. Some depend partly on matter degrees of free- but largely superseding its construction. In our picture dom; these may be called matter clocks. Others depend CS time and the cosmological constant, Λ, appear as solely on degrees of freedom of the gravitational degrees non-commuting observables in an essentially kinematic of freedom; we refer to these as gravitational clocks. Hilbert space. Thus, a sharp state in Lambda must be In , in the cosmological case, with spa- delocalized in time. The ebbing of time could then be a tially closed boundary conditions, there are several nat- quantum fluctuation, or a quantum leap, associated with ural gravitational clocks which are functions of degrees the smallness of the cosmological constant, and the un- of freedom of the gravitational field. These typically re- certainty in time it must entail. quire a foliation of the 3 + 1 dimensional spacetime into That this can work to solve the horizon problem is a one parameter family of spatial slices, Σt, labeled by demonstrated in Section V, based on the uncertainty re- an arbitrary parameter time, t. This reflects a fixing or lation, breaking of the four dimensional diffeomophism invari- ance, by a physical gauge fixing condition, also a func- 1 2 2 2 tional of degrees of freedom, to a product of Diff(Σt) ∆T ∆(lP Λ) (1) ≥ 4 and reparametrizations of t. A clock time T (t)= T (Σt) is a function of the three metric and extrinsic curvature (where l2 =8π~G) and variations thereof (here T could P on Σ . be a function of CS time, or any other similar measure). t What makes a good physical clock? We may try to list The challenge is then to explain the onset of classicality, conditions, such as continuity, uniqueness and monotic- and cycle one phase into the other, and this is addressed ity, but with the understanding that there is no perfect in Section VI. A working model is produced, where mat- clock that satisfies them in all regimes and conditions, es- ter (i.e., energy other than the cosmological constant) pecially once quantum effects are taken into account. In provides the ballast for the classical phase. The fact that fact, in this paper we will be interested in cases where the transition between the two is fuzzy should not bother these natural conditions we might impose on a good us. After all it is all about losing and then regaining a clock, are violated by quantum effects. conventional “time” line, in terms of a classical gravita- Indeed, as a physical clock is a function of physical tional clock time. degrees of freedom, it will fail to commute with some A more philosophical digression is presented in Sec- other degrees of freedom. In other words, for any notion tion VII and we close in Section VIII with a summary of physical clock time, there will be always some cost to and outlook. knowing what time it is. We insist that this is good, not bad, because there may be cases in which the cost of II. CONCEPTS OF TIME knowing the time, implies certain features of the quantum phases of the Universe’s evolution. With this in mind, we would like to focus here on a Before we get to our proposals we want to start with particularly interesting gravitational clock time, which is some words of caution. First, we have to be careful to dis- the Chern-Simons time [8]: tinguish several distinct notions of time. Some authors hypothesize that there is a fundamental, causal notion TCS = (YCS) (2) ℑ of time as an activity which continually generates new, where future events from present events [10–13]. This notion of 1 time is fundamental and irreversible [13–15]. Others in- Y = Ai dA + ǫ Ai Aj Ak (3) CS ∧ i 3 ijk ∧ ∧ stead hypothesize that no such fundamental time exists Z or that, if it does, it may not be directly connectable with where Ai is the Ashtekar connection one form and ℑ the t’s in our equations. In any case we must distinguish means the imaginary part. We point out that TCS has 3 three features which make it a particularly interesting where a is the expansion factor, and H =a/a ˙ is the probe of the quantum phases of our Universe: Hubble parameter. Two remarkable conclusions can be drawn at once. Firstly, it would appear that the stan- 1. For homogeneous or nearly homogeneous Uni- dard Big Bang Universe is going backwards in CS time. verses, in a spatially flat slicing, TCS measures the Indeed this retrograde “motion” of time is nothing but a ratio of the Hubble volume to a co-moving volume statement of the horizon problem of Big Bang cosmology. (see next Section). That means that when you can Conversely, any solution to the horizon problem (regard- measure the Chern-Simons time over an interval, less of its nature) can therefore be reinterpreted as the you learn the two most important facts which sit- statement that in the “early” Universe CS time moved uates your moment in a cosmological history: how forward enough so that it could rewind to now during large the horizon is and whether it is growing or the standard Big Bang phase. Secondly, the fact that shrinking. the Universe recently “started” accelerating suggests em- Furthermore, it is immediately apparent that if phasizing the similarities between the two accelerating there are eras in the evolution of a quantum cosmol- phases (“current” and “primordial”). Could the Universe be cyclic (in some variables) in the sense that it under- ogy in which TCS is subject to large uncertainties or large quantum fluctuations, they are not going goes a pulsation of forwards and backwards CS time? It to fit into the existing catalogue of cosmological is tempting to envisage the Universe as a closed loop of scenarios. ebb and flow in CS time. If so, the “recent” “start” of acceleration is nothing but a turning point of the tide3. 2. In a very natural class of extensions of General Rel- We stress that cyclic does not necessarily mean peri- ativity, studied in [7], the cosmological constant Λ odic. The time variable might be an angular variable becomes a dynamical variable. In the quantum the- (with half the angles describing ebb and the other half ory Λˆ is in fact the operator conjugate to TˆCS. the flow, for example TCS = cos θ), but the other vari- ables do not need to return to the starting point. The 3. In these models [7], their commutator is in fact pro- cosmological constant, for example, could classically de- 2 ˆ portional to lPlΛ, leading to uncertainty relation: pict a spiral (using it as it the radial variable). As we will see in the next Section, the situation can also be more 1 16π~G 2 complex and interesting quantum mechanically. ∆Λ2∆T 2 Λ2 2. (4) CS ≥ 4 3 h i We could modify the definition (2) by a multiplicative   minus sign: We see in these simple relations hints of novel sce- narios for the evolution of the Universes through TCS = (YCS). (8) −ℑ successions of classical and quantum phases. 2 When, as now, ~G Λ is small, Λ and TCS are si- In effect the choice between (2) and (8) amounts to a multaneously measurableh i and classical general rel- definition of the arrow of CS time. With (8), cosmological ativity suffices. But in a quantum phase in which CS time is negative, goes forward during the standard 2 ~G Λ is large, one or both of Λ and TCS are un- Big Bang phase, and back during the accelerated phase. determinableh i and subject to large quantum fluctu- With this alternative definition, the discovery that we ations. are accelerating nowadays implies that the reflux of time has started. Note that no measure of time, including TCS automat- III. CHERN-SIMONS TIME AND THE ically dominates over the others. Thus, when the evolu- HORIZON PROBLEM tion of TCS reverses that does not imply that other mea- sures of time reverse also. Different clock times are useful We note that for a general Friedmann Universe, in the for different purposes. In particular the thermodynamic cosmological frame (or for a flat slicing for a de Sitter Uni- and electromagnetic arrows of time do not necessarily verse) the Ashtekar connection and its conjugate electric reverse when TCS reverses. field are given by [17–19]: Ultimately, the choice of sign in the definition of time will depend on its relation with the cosmological ther- i i Aa = iHaδa (5) modynamical arrow. Assuming entropy can be globally a 2 a Ei = a δi . (6)

It is then interesting to note that, as pointed out above, 3 when evaluated for a FRW Universe, in a spatially flat The strange grammar of this paragraph is a reminder that one slicing, CS time becomes the number of Hubble volumes should purge one’s thoughts from the the unavoidable inconsis- tencies of our language, tied to the human experience of time. If fitting inside a given comoving region, that is: TCS is to be the only definition of time that can be extrapolated to the whole life of the Universe then expressions such as “early” T = H3V (Ha)3, (7) Universe, or “motion” in time are misleading and inappropriate. CS ∝ 4 defined on a cosmological scale, would the thermodynam- formalism. This wave-function is the so-called Kodama ical arrow of time coincide with the arrow of CS time (in state [9]: one of its two possible definitions)? If this were the case, 3Y flux and reflux models bypass a number of criticisms that Ψ= exp CS (12) might be levelled upon them. An accumulation of en- N 2l2 Λ  P  tropy from cycle to cycle would not be an issue, since the 2 ~ process we have envisaged is not a closed loop in time: it (where lP = 8πG ) and it is known to suffer from all is as an ebb and flow of time, with similar implications manner of problems, or at least open questions. Here for entropy. we take stock of the lessons from the Kodama state to Unfortunately this argument does not apply, because motivate our proposal, without importing its problems. the thermodynamic and Chern-Simons arrow of time are We note that we can split not coupled. But what if the “ebb” of Chern-Simons time Y = Y + iY (13) took place in a phase dominated by quantum geometry. CS R I The second law might appear to be violated during such † † with Y = Y and Y = Y , so that both are candidates a phase. R R I I for observables a priori. Explicitly: For the sake of definiteness we shall assume for the rest of this paper the sign convention (8), that is CS time † YCS + YCS flows forward in the standard BB phase, ebbing back in YR = (14) 2 an accelerated phase. Given that the definition depends † on the comoving region considered, we should also factor YCS iYCS 3 YI = − . (15) out its comoving volume Vc = V/a , so that: 2i

3 The imaginary part of YCS gives us the CS time. The H V 3 TCS = = (Ha) . (9) real part is associated with large gauge transformations, − Vc − and is the source of the many deficiencies of the Kodama state[20]. We can now relate TCS and cosmic time t. For equation of state w = 1 we have: In view of this, in this paper we postulate a kinematic 6 − Hilbert space spanned by wave functions of the form: 1+3w − 1+w TCS t . (10) Ψ= eiET (16) ∝− N assuming an expanding Universe, i.e. t> 0. In the mat- with the usual inner product (delta function normaliza- −1 ter dominated epoch TCS t and in the radiation tion)4. Modulo complex conjugation, these Ψ can be −3/2 ∝ − epoch TCS t . The Milne Universe (w = 1/3) ˆ ∝ − − functionally seen either as eigenstates of the operator E marks a stationary point in time (could loitering in CS in the T representation, or as eigenstates of the operator time be interesting?). For a Lambda dominated model: Tˆ in the E representation:

TCS exp(3Ht) (11) Ψ= T E = E T ⋆. (17) ∝− h | i h | i with H a constant. Regardless of the representation, we can posit that the We close by noting that alternative definitions of time Hilbert space is endowed with the hermitian operators Eˆ have been studied elsewhere [25], in the same context and Tˆ, satisfying commutation relations: of a new classical time, in the sense that time is not promoted to an operator, with its Hilbert space of states, T,ˆ Eˆ = i (18) and incompatible observables. The latter, however, is the h i whole point of this paper, and this Section is to be seen leading to a Heisenberg uncertainty principle between as a mere warm up to what follows. them: 1 ∆E2∆T 2 . (19) IV. QUANTUM TIME ≥ 4 For the Kodama state we have: Having found a new realization for a cyclic Universe by means of a classical analysis, we now try to reframe it T = TCS = YI (20) quantum mechanically. Could the CS time, which seems 3 E = , (21) to ebb and flow in our Universe, do so quantum mechan- 2l2 Λ ically at least for part of the cycle? In what sense could P time be quantum mechanical? The CS functional appears in the wave function of the Universe in the connection representation, for a given 4 Note that CS time is dimensionless, as is its conjugate “energy’, 2 ordering of the quantum Hamiltonian in the self-dual function of the dimensionless quantity lP Λ. 5 and so: when Lambda dominates the energy density of the Uni- verse the argument should be valid 6. It is then easy ˆ 1 2 2 to build a model providing the necessary delocalization YI , = ilP , (22) " Λ# 3 in CS time to rewind time enough to solve the horizon b problem. Indeed, it is sufficient to choose: with a possible representation: T = TCS = YI (25) 2 2 1 2l δ E = lP Λ. (26) = i p . (23) l2 Λ 3 δY P − I One can then kinematically derive from (18) a Heisenberg d uncertainty principle: In addition, from the Hamiltonian constraint we have: 1 Λ ∆T 2 ∆(l2 Λ)2 . (27) H2 = . (24) CS P ≥ 4 3 In the quantum, Λ-dominated phase the Universe may be However we shall allow for more general theories in the in the most general state in the Hilbert space spanned next Section, both in terms of the allowed E(Λ) and by (16). Some of these states are close to eigenstates T (TCS) functions (and their commutators) as well as the of Λ, some are not. Those that lead to Universes like Hamiltonian constraint (24). ours have a well defined Λ. Accordingly, CS time, as an Regardless of details (to be addressed in the next Sec- incompatible observable, must be quantum mechanically tion) the point to take is that a measure of clock time on undetermined, the more so the sharper in Λ the state is. a cosmological scale could be promoted to a hermitian Specifically, we can take: operator, i.e., a bona fide quantum observable like any other. This is quantum time beyond the simpler idea of 1 (E E )2 E αζ = exp − 0 iE T (28) discrete time explored in some approaches [13, 16]. Cru- 2 1/4 2 0 h | i (2π∆E ) − 4∆E − cially, our quantum time becomes an observable subject   to Heisenberg uncertainty relations, so that we cannot or “know” the time and simultaneously quantities which do 1 (T T )2 not commute with it. This is true even if these quanti- T αζ = exp − 0 + iET , (29) h | i (2π∆2 )1/4 − 4∆2 0 ties classically evolve “in time”, and it is not surprising. T  T  Classically the momentum of a free particle, p, is related where αζ represents a coherent squeezed state, with by a simple formula (via p = mx˙) to its position, x, but parameters:| i quantum mechanically this cannot be true. We close this Section with two comments. If the Uni- α = E0 + iT0 (30) verse can be in a state where it does not know the time, ∆ then thermodynamical arguments may break down. If ζ = E . (31) we do not know the time how cannot know the arrow of ∆T time? It is hard to see how the usual thermodynamics This is known to saturate the bound (27). The fact that constraints could apply. Finally, we note Pauli’s “theo- 2 lP Λ 1 suggests that we are in a wave packet centred rem” [21] is certainly not valid here, where time is not at Λ≪ = 0 but with a very small spread, of the order of the standard time, and its conjugate variable is not the the observed Λ: Hamiltonian 5

E0 = 0 (32) 2 4 ∆E l Λobs γ . (33) V. A MODEL FOR QUANTUM EBBING OF ≈ P ≈ TIME Here γ is the relevant scale for instabilities and fine tun- ing: As we shall presently see (next Section), in a viable E a model one must require that the presence of matter in- γ = CMB = P 10−32 (34) validate the argument in the previous Section. However, EP a0 ∼ that is, the ratio between the CMB temperature and the Planck temperature, or the inverse redshift factor of

5 Pauli’s theorem is the statement that no Hermitian operator tˆ can be found satisfying [t,ˆ Hˆ ] = i, where Hˆ is the Hamiltonian operator seen as a function of P and Q variables (as would be 6 the case for tˆ). A number of assumptions are made, not neces- Clearly “domination” must mean ΩΛ much closer to 1 than 0.7 sarily valid, even before we note that the “theorem” would not to comply with observations (but see a possible loophole to this be applicable here. in the speculations presented in the Conclusions). 6 the Planck epoch. For a pure radiation dominated Uni- VI. CYCLING THE CLASSICAL AND verse (i.e. ignoring the matter and Lambda domination QUANTUM PHASES epochs) the fine tuning behind the horizon, flatness and Lambda problems is given by powers of γ (specifically, a Given the proposal in the last Section the problem now power of 4 for the Lambda problem). In terms of the CS is to ensure that the Universe has a classical phase. The 3 time we have a change in TCS (aH) of the order of counterpart of the “inflationary graceful exit” problem in | |∝ γ3 since the Planck time, because aH 1/a, given that our scenario is therefore coupled to the issue of the onset 2 ∝ H √ρ 1/a for radiation. Thus, the uncertainty in of classicality in a quantum system. In addition, we must ∝ ∝ CS time implied by (27) and (33) was larger than needed explain how all the matter in the Universe appears in a to resolve the horizon problem Lambda dominated Universe (the analogue of “reheat- ing” in inflation). The two issues – onset of classicality ∆T γ−4 γ−3, (35) CS ≈ ≫ and generation of matter – are likely coupled. (note that it matters little where the centre of the state The idea is to set up a cyclic model, with ebb and flow of CS time, in which the flow phase is classical but T0 is). δ the ebbing is quantum, as described in the last Section. By choosing T = TCS with δ < 4/3 the same result could have been obtained. More generally, if: The first decision to make is what are the triggers for the transition between classical and quantum and vice versa. δ T = TCS (36) At least two options are available. The trigger could a 2 2 β combination of the values of TCS and of lP Λ (specifically, E = (lP Λ) (37) 2 for the observed value of lP Λ, quantum behaviour should −3 with δ,β > 0, we must have be triggered for TCS < 1 and TCS > γ ). This pos- sibility is very contrived.| | A more| congenial| possibility is 4β δ < (38) that quantum behaviour is triggered by the value of ΩΛ. 3 Matter provides the classical ballast for our Universe. for a solution of the horizon problem to result from the The second decision to make is how to implement clas- fine tuning in Lambda. In deriving this result note that if sicality, given the trigger. A possibility is to allow for 2 the dimensionless Planck constant implicitly understood x is a Gaussian with variance σx and zero average, then y = xa is a (non-Gaussian) variable with zero average in the right hand side of Eq. (18) (and taken to be 1 and variance there) to be a function of ρ and Λ via ΩΛ = ρΛ/(ρ + ρΛ): 2aΓ( 1 + a) ˆ ˆ σ2 = 2 σ2a. (39) T, E = ih(ΩΛ). (41) y √π x h i h In any of these models the uncertainty in T implied by In the simplest model (ΩΛ) = 0 if ΩΛ− < ΩΛ < ΩΛ+, CS h the observed sharpness in Λ is sufficient for resolving the and (ΩΛ) = 1 otherwise. Time and Lambda then be- horizon problem. come knowable concurrently and classical evolution sets In this scenario the ebbing of time is therefore a quan- in, in one well defined regime. A quantum transition tum effect. Lambda leads to a solution of the horizon into the border of quantum and classical will be seen by problem not because of classical acceleration (as in Sec- the classical phase as initial conditions for purely classi- tion III), but due to a quantum uncertainty principle. cal evolution. This model not only explains the onset of During the quantum phase states sharp in Λ did not classical time in a fundamentally quantum time system, know the time. The Universe was not timeless, as in but it also makes the snake bite its tail, if we want to canonical quantum gravity: time did exist, but was not create a cyclic Universe. determinable. A quantum rewinding Chern-Simons time Naturally the question remains: where did all the is therefore possible. matter in the Universe come from? This may require In summary, the probability of finding the system at more complicated cycles, including a transition from a some time T in the past is: higher, more natural value of Lambda. Matter (radi- ation) acts the classical ballast but Lambda injects it 1 (T T )2 when it changes. Recall that with the addition of matter T αζ 2 = exp − 0 . (40) |h | i| (2π∆2 )1/2 − 2∆2 the Hamiltonian constraints in the base space, previously E  T  Eq.( 24), become: Note that T0, could be any, but given that we are cur- 8πG Λ rently accelerating it is probably “soon” (see below for H2 = ρ + , (42) the issues controlling the transition into and outside clas- 3 3 3(1+w) sicality). This probability is all that should be consid- ρa + ρΛ = C. (43) ered. It represents evolution outside time. It is a quan- tum leap in time, backwards, precisely because there is Regarding the second expression, we remark that we can- no time line. The philosophical implications will be dis- not use the usual continuity equation because it involves cussed later in this paper. time, and we cannot generally use time here. Therefore 7 we use its first integral as a representation of energy con- VII. EVOLUTION WITHOUT TIME AND THE servation. EMERGENCE OF TIME We can then consider a cycle along the following lines: In this more philosophical Section we address a couple Classical phase. Localized time exists. Matter of interpretational issues, which, we stress, are decoupled • dominates Lambda. Time commutes with Lambda. from the cosmological model we have proposed. We have the Big Bang Universe (BBU) as we know it. This may be represented as state: One might have been critical of the fact that the Hilbert space we have proposed does not have dynam- Λdom ics or a Hamiltonian. We make no apologies for this. BBU = Λ ρ T , (44) We are seeking a situation in which time localization can | i | i ⊗ | ii ⊗ | ii i=BB dissolve. Hence there cannot be any dynamics in the Y usual sense because the framework for dynamics – local- starting from the first instant of “Big Bang” (i = ized time – is allowed to disappear. A kinematic Hilbert BB; possibly the Planck scale), until the last, space is more appropriate to what we seek to do. For where Lambda dominates and the factorization of this reason, too, the Fock space (particle basis) is absent states for each instant i into time and Lambda is from our description, since its physical interpretation is no longer possible. missing. Coherent and squeezed states, and kinematic uncertainty relation are better tools under the circum- As expansion dilutes matter and Lambda domi- stances. Note that the conjugate of time is not the/some • nates, a quantum phase ensues, with delocalized Hamiltonian in our framework, but the quantum cosmo- time. The Universe finds itself in a squeezed state logical constant. αζ , as in Eq. (28), with highly localized Lambda | i Evolution without time is then described by transition and delocalized time. Therefore a finite amplitude amplitudes (for example, (40) or (45)). This is a true exists for a transition to a state with T−: “quantum leap” and strictly speaking we should only

2 compute the amplitudes from when the system has left a 1 (T T0) T− αζ = exp − . (45) localized-time island to when it arrived at another (which h | i (2π∆2 )1/4 − 4∆2 E  T  could be the same, but in its starting past). There, the state must appear as an initial condition for a Universe We assume that such a transition does take place, with a history. Outside these islands the Universe does and it is a non-unitary process, akin to an “obser- not have a history because time is not localized. vation of time”. How the usual localized time is to be represented in this formalism depends on whether h = 0 in the classical The state T− itself can be written as: • | i phase, or just h 1. In the first case time becomes localized and continuous.≪ In the second the wave function T− = dΛdρ Λρ T− Λρ , (46) becomes the product of coherent states: | i h | i| i Z where ρ and Λ must satisfy the Hamiltonian con- Λ dom straint (43) which therefore allows for the creation Ψ= α (47) | ii of matter out of Lambda. Hence there is a finite i=BB O transition amplitude to the first state in (44). The part of the cycle delocalized in time, therefore, feeds where the α are eigenstates of the operator: into the time line of the BBU as an initial condition. | ii

Many other possible cycles exist, alternating quantum α = E(Λ) + iT (TCS) (48) and classical phases, with the production of matter from Lambda. In one way or another they all have some tun- ing, and do not preclude the existence of states different each centred on a different instant. Each state has a from our Universe. The point is that a probability exist finite spread ∆T = h/4. Thus, classical time monads for our Big Bang Universe to be realized, and it is enough emerge, that is, discretized time. Time in this sense has for this to be non-vanishing. all the features of the first quantum theory (discretized It could of course be the case that CS time is always quantities), without the elements of the second (interfer- quantum in our Universe and its is only the existence ence and complementarity). It may be difficult to render of matter that creates the illusion of classical time on a these “thick instants” with constant thickness with re- purely local level. This radical possibility – that in fact spect to the usual cosmological time. This does not need the Universe never knows the time – actually creates the to be seen as negative: it could have observational con- simplest model. sequences. 8

VIII. OUTLOOK: A UNIVERSE THAT LOST perceived differently, without “up” and “down” (for ex- THE PLOT ample, if Earth is seen as a floating disk, as it is believed Anaximander was the first to appreciate). Likewise, once In summary, this paper results from the realization time is reevaluated along the lines proposed in this paper that the beginning and the end of our Universe are far- the question of first cause vanishes. removed from our experience; nonetheless we have histor- Losing localized time in a way is like the colloquial ically insisted on applying to them a conception of time “losing the plot”, but this does not entail a free for all. which is essentially Newtonian, that has only been tested It means describing the evolution in terms of quantum here and now. Predictably, a number of unsavoury para- transitions, even if these are backwards in time. In this doxes have been found. In cyclic cosmological models, for sense the idea of “quantum leap” is perfectly embodied example, there is always the threat of an accumulation of by the proposal in this paper. Regardless of the details entropy [2]. The issue of recurrence provides the perfect of the implementation, this paper highlights the basic metaphysical nightmare [3–5]. More generally, one has flaw behind the usual metaphysical and thermodynam- to face up to the issue of “first cause”: how many cycles ical puzzles. In our concrete implementation the delo- “preceded” ours? Such considerations apply in different calization in time responsible for our origin and ultimate forms to many cosmologies, cyclic or not, and invariably fate is intimately tied to the observed small value of the lead to well known timelike towers of turtles, with some cosmological constant. This “temporal delocalization” is notable exceptions (e.g., [6]). very different from time disappearing. It is about time Here we have investigated the consequences for these becoming quantum mechanically ill-defined. There is a puzzles of a simple assumption: that quantum mechan- classical definition of time, but it cannot always be sharp ics applies to the whole universe—and everything in it— because of the laws of . An entirely including the clocks that we use to measure time7. Time new picture of the Universe emerges, as a result. must hence be associated with a physical degree of free- The challenge then is to explain how in a sea of dom, a clock, whose value is represented by a quantum Lambda, islands of localized time can appear. In this operator. Because there will then be other observables paper we suggested a possibility, linked to the Heisen- that fail to commute with it, there will be a cost to know- berg algebra of the theory. Other possibilities exist and ing what time it is. Our point has been that this cost is will be explored elsewhere. For example, it could be that also an opportunity to find new ways to solve the major the inner product of the Hilbert space is dynamical, ren- cosmological puzzles. Because our argument is quite gen- dering the effective dimensionality of the Hilbert space of eral, the main alternative would be to posit that quantum states dynamical too, allowing for time and Lambda to mechanics does not apply to the universe as a whole. coexist when matter dominates Lambda, but not other- The problem of first cause for our Universe is closely wise. As we have speculated, it could also be that time is linked to the notion of a “time line” applying to the whole always quantum in our Universe and it is only the exis- life of the Universe. And yet, why would such a concept tence of matter that creates the illusion of classical time of time persist in extreme situations, such as the start on a purely local level. This radical possibility—that the of our Universe, or its regeneration into a new cycle? As Universe never actually has a fundamental plot—would Hawking’s no boundary proposal illustrates [22], a radical in fact lead to the simplest and least fine tuned model. change in the notion of time can simply erase the problem of first cause. In Hawking’s proposal this is achieved by a signature change. In this paper we proposed that IX. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS cosmological time is a quantum operator which, at least in extreme circumstances, does not commute with other We thank Stephon Alexander, Marc Henneaux, David operators, namely the quantum cosmological constant. Jennings, Robert Brandenberger and Sumati Surya, for The state we come from (and which we are headed to) discussions and correspondence on matters related to this is a strongly squeezed quantum state sharply centred on paper. Λ = 0, and thus, delocalized in time. This research was supported in part by Perimeter Insti- In some phases our Universe may, therefore, “lose the tute for . Research at Perimeter Insti- plot”. If the Universe does not know the time it cannot tute is supported by the Government of Canada through worry about its own first cause. It can also rewind and re- Industry Canada and by the Province of Ontario through cycle bypassing the problems tied to the idea of an eternal the Ministry of Research and Innovation. This research time line. Asking for a first cause for our Universe be- was also partly supported by grants from NSERC and comes akin to asking what “supports” the Earth? Chains FQXi. LS is especially thankful to the John Templeton of elephants, turtles, pillars and other animals and ob- Foundation for their generous support of this project. jects were once invoked to answer this question. They The work of JM was supported by a Consolidated STFC become embarrassingly unnecessary as soon as space is grant. 9

7 For another approach to a quantum time see [26].

[1] C. J. Isham and K. V. Kuchar, Annals Phys. 164, 288 [14] M. Cortˆes and L. Smolin, Energetic causal sets, (1985); C. J. Isham and K. V. Kuchar, Annals Phys. 164, arXiv:1308.2206 [gr-qc], Physical Review D, volume 90, 316 (1985); S. A. Hojman, K. Kuchar and C. Teitelboim, eid 044035. Annals Phys. 96, 88 (1976). [15] M. Cortˆes and L. Smolin, Spin foam models as energetic [2] R. C. Tolman (1987) [1934]. Relativity, Thermodynam- causal sets, arXiv:1407.0032, Phys. Rev. D 93, 084039 ics, and Cosmology. New York: Dover. ISBN 0-486- (2016) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084039. 65383-8. LCCN 34032023. [16] Luca Bombelli, Joohan Lee, David Meyer, Rafael D. [3] A. Borde, A. H. Guth and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. Sorkin, Spacetime as a Causal Set, Phys.Rev.Lett. 59 90, 151301 (2003); [gr-qc/0110012]. (1987) 521-524. [4] A. Vilenkin: Many Worlds in One. New York: Hill and [17] L. Bethke and J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D 84, Wang 2006; “Eternal recurrence”, in Science and Ulti- 024014 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.024014 mate Reality: From Quantum to Cosmos, honoring John [arXiv:1104.1800 [gr-qc]]. Wheelers 90th birthday, J.D. Barrow, P.C.W. Davies, & [18] J. Magueijo and L. Bethke, arXiv:1207.0637 [gr-qc]. C.L. Harper eds., Cambridge University Press (2003). [19] L. Smolin, Quantum gravity with a positive cosmological [5] M. Tegmark, “Parallel universes, In *Barrow, J.D. constant, hep-th/0209079. (ed.) et al.: Science and ultimate reality* 459-491; [20] A. Ashtekar, A. P. Balachandran and S. Jo, Int. J. Mod. [astro-ph/0302131]. Phys. A 4, 1493 (1989). [6] J. R. Gott, III and L. X. Li, Phys. Rev. D 58, 023501 [21] W. Pauli, “General Principles of Quantum Mechanics”, (1998); [astro-ph/9712344]. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1980. [7] S. Alexander, J. Magueijo and L. Smolin, The quantum [22] J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 28, 2960 cosmological constant, arXiv:1807.01381. (1983). [8] L. Smolin and C. Soo, Nucl. Phys. B 449, 289 (1995); [23] M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim, The Cosmological Constant [gr-qc/9405015]. and General Covariance, Phys.Lett. B222 (1989) 195- [9] H. Kodama, Phys. Rev. D 42, 2548 (1990). 199. [10] and , The singular [24] R. D. Sorkin, On the Role of Time in the Sum Over universe and the reality of time, Cambridge University Histories Framework for Gravity, Int. J. Theor. Phys. Press, 2015. 33, 523 (1994). doi:10.1007/BF00670514; M. Ahmed, [11] L. Smolin, Time Reborn, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, S. Dodelson, P. B. Greene and R. Sorkin, Ever- Penguin and Random House Canada, (2013). present lambda, Phys. Rev. D 69, 103523 (2004) [12] L. Smolin Temporal naturalism, arXiv:1310.8539, Invited doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.103523 [astro-ph/0209274]. contribution for a special Issue of Studies in History and [25] R. Brandenberger, R. Costa, G. Franzmann and A. Welt- Philosophy of Modern Physics, on Time and Cosmology. man, Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 6, 063530 (2018) [13] M. Cortˆes and L. Smolin, The Universe as a Process of [26] T. P. Singh, arXiv:1210.8110 [quant-ph]; Unique Events, arXiv:1307.6167 [gr-qc], Phys. Rev. D 90, arXiv:1701.09132 [quant-ph]. 084007 (2014).