- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Operator ordering and consistency of the wave function of the Universe

N. Kontoleon and D. L. Wiltshire*

  • Department of Physics and Mathematical Physics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide South Australia 5005, Australia

  • *Electronic address: dlw@physics.adelaide.edu.au
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 59, 063513 – Published 24 February, 1999

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.59.063513

Abstract

We demonstrate in the context of the minisuperspace model consisting of a closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe coupled to a scalar field that Vilenkin’s tunneling wave function can only be consistently defined for particular choices of operator ordering in the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. The requirement of regularity of the wave function has the particular consequence that the probability amplitude, which has been used previously in the literature in discussions of issues such as the prediction of inflation, is likewise ill defined for certain choices of operator ordering with Vilenkin’s boundary condition. By contrast, the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary wave function can be consistently defined within these models, independently of operator ordering. The significance of this result is discussed within the context of the debate about the predictions of semiclassical quantum cosmology. In particular, it is argued that inflation cannot be confidently regarded as a “prediction” of the tunneling wave function, for reasons similar to those previously invoked in the case of the no-boundary wave function. A synthesis of the no-boundary and tunneling approaches is argued for.

View figure in article

References (34)

  1. S. W. Hawking and N. G. Turok, Phys. Lett. B 425, 25 (1998); ibid.432, 271 (1998).
  2. A. D. Linde, Phys. Rev. D 58, 083514 (1998).
  3. S. W. Hawking and N. G. Turok, gr-qc/9802062.
  4. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 58, 067301 (1998).
  5. J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 28, 2960 (1983).
  6. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 33, 3560 (1986).
  7. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 37, 888 (1988).
  8. A. D. Linde, Zh. Éksp. Teor. Fiz. 87, 369 (1984) [Sov. Phys. JETP 60, 211 (1984)]; Lett. Nuovo Cimento 39, 401 (1984); Rep. Prog. Phys. 47, 925 (1984).
  9. J. J. Halliwell, in Quantum Cosmology and Baby Universes, edited by S. Coleman, J. B. Hartle, T. Piran, and S. Weinberg (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991), p. 159.
  10. D. N. Page, in Gravitation: A Banff Summer Institute, edited by R. B. Mann and P. S. Wesson (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991), p. 135.
  11. D. L. Wiltshire, in Cosmology: the Physics of the Universe, edited by B. Robson, N. Visvanathan, and W. S. Woolcock (World Scientific, Singapore, 1996), p. 473.
  12. A. Vilenkin, in String Gravity and Physics at the Planck Energy Scale, Eriche, 1995, edited by N. Sanchez and A. Zichichi (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996), 4th course, p. 345.
  13. L. P. Grishchuk and L. V. Rozhansky, Phys. Lett. B 234, 9 (1990); ibid.208, 369 (1988).
  14. A. Lukas, Phys. Lett. B 347, 13 (1995).
  15. A. O. Barvinsky and A. Yu. Kamenshchik, Class. Quantum Grav. 7, L181 (1990).
  16. A. O. Barvinsky and A. Yu. Kamenshchik, Phys. Lett. B 332, 270 (1994); A. O. Barvinsky, A. Yu. Kamenshchik, and I. V. Mishakov, Nucl. Phys. B491, 387 (1997).
  17. R. Bousso and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 54, 6312 (1996).
  18. J. Garriga and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 56, 2464 (1997).
  19. S. W. Hawking and D. N. Page, Nucl. Phys. B264, 185 (1986).
  20. An exact general solution can be readily obtained for the special case p=−1, and is expressed as a linear combination of Airy functions [7]. For arbitrary values of p it is straightforward, although extremely tedious, to obtain exact series solutions valid for all a>0. We shall present these solutions elsewhere [21].
  21. D. L. Wiltshire (in preparation).
  22. In fact, Hawking and Page [19], who considered the p=1 case, only made the assumption of regularity (ii). As we shall show, this is all that is required if p>~1. For p<1, additional assumptions are required to uniquely specify the wave function. We shall therefore choose the semiclassical behavior (i) as representing the choice that is generally assumed to be intended by the Hartle-Hawking proposal.
  23. Handbook of Mathematical Functions, edited by M. Abramovitz and I. A. Stegun (Dover, New York, 1965).
  24. D. Bohm, Quantum Theory (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1951).
  25. The expression (25) differs from the corresponding expressions given by Vilenkin in Refs. [4][7][12][26] for p=−1. This represents a small error in these papers which does not affect their conclusions (insofar as they only apply to p=−1). One may easily check that Eq. (25) is in fact the correct expression, as it agrees with the appropriate limit of the ΨTV Airy function general solution for p=−1 [7].
  26. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 50, 2581 (1994).
  27. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 39, 1116 (1989).
  28. J. Louko, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 181, 318 (1988); Class. Quantum Grav. 6, 1947 (1991).
  29. A. O. Barvinsky, Phys. Rep. 230, 237 (1993); Class. Quantum Grav. 10, 1985 (1993).
  30. J. J. Halliwell and J. B. Hartle, Phys. Rev. D 41, 1815 (1990).
  31. G. W. Lyons, Phys. Rev. D 46, 1546 (1992).
  32. R. Bousso and S. W. Hawking, hep-th/9807148.
  33. D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D 56, 2065 (1997).
  34. N. J. Cornish and E. P. S. Shellard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3571 (1998).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 59, 063513– Published 24 February, 1999
  • Received 28 July 1998

© 1999 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation