I believe in a timeless universe for the childlike reason that time cannot be seen – the emperor has no clothes. I believe that the universe is static and is described by something like the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. I would like you to accept this as a working hypothesis, so we can see where it leads. As I said earlier, I believe that it leads to the rules of creation. Let me now explain why.
According to many accounts, in both mainstream science and religion, the universe either has existed for ever or was created in the distant past. Creation in a primordial fireball is now orthodox science – the Big Bang. But why is it supposed that the universe was created in the past rather than newly created in every instant that is experienced? No two instants are identical. The things we find in one are not exactly the same as the things we find in another. What, then, is the justification for saying that something was created in the past and that its existence has continued into the present?
The most obvious reason is the apparent persistence of objects and living beings. If pressed, though, we acknowledge that they never remain exactly the same. Even rocks weather slowly. However, enough properties remain unchanged for us to say that the same things do continue to exist. Indeed, human existence is inconceivable without a significant degree of stability in the world. No doubt the baby’s recognition of the continually reappearing smiling face of its mother soon implants the notion of persistence. But if we want to think rationally and as philosophers about these matters, we ought to cultivate a degree of detachment. We must practise Cartesian doubt and, just once at least, question all our preconceptions.
I am not persuaded that the people who ought to be best at this – theoretical physicists – do achieve full freedom of thought. Many are passionately committed to an objectively existing external world. They hate anything that smacks of solipsism or creationism. This explains the controversies, virulent at times, about the reality of atoms that took place a century ago, and the equally impassioned debates today about the meaning of quantum mechanics (in many ways a continuation of the debate about atoms). For scientists committed to realism, atoms that remain the same in themselves and merely move in space and time are very welcome. Atoms, space and time are the things that either existed for ever or else came into being with the Big Bang.
However, the fields introduced by Faraday and Maxwell now provide the basis of quantum field theory, which is currently the deepest known form of quantum theory, and such fields are in perpetual flux. And within classical physics Einstein made space and time equally fluid and transient. Today there is only one scientific justification for saying that the universe was created in the past: the hypothesis of lawful dynamical evolution from some past, into the present, and on into an as yet unexperienced future. If an initial state uniquely determines a subsequent state of the same generic kind which differs only in detail, it is reasonable to speak of initial creation and subsequent evolution.
But this view must be challenged. It belongs to a mindset that holds the world either to be classical in its entirety, or to have quantum objects within the old classical framework of space and time. How slow we are to move out of old quarters! All the evidence indicates that anything dynamical must obey the rules of quantum mechanics even if it appears classical to our senses. But Einstein made space dynamical – that is the lesson of geometrodynamics taught us in detail by Dirac; by Arnowitt, Deser and Misner (ADM); and by Baierlein, Sharpe and Wheeler (BSW). When space submits to the quantum, as it surely must, the last vestige of a created but persisting framework is lost. Moreover, the transition from the classical world we see to the quantum world that underlies it is fixed in its broad outlines. All we need do is put together the two things that go into quantization – a classical theory and the rules to quantize it – and see what comes out.
The central insight is this. A classical theory that treats time in a Machian manner can allow the universe only one value of its energy. But then its quantum theory is singular – it can only have one energy eigen-value. Since quantum dynamics of necessity has more than one energy eigenvalue, quantum dynamics of the universe is impossible. There can only be quantum statics. It’s as simple as that!
In Part 1 I mentioned the dichotomy in physics between laws and initial conditions. Most equations in physics do not by themselves give complete information, they only put limits on what is possible. To arrive at some definite prediction, further conditions are necessary. Neither Newton’s nor Einstein’s equations tell us why the universe has its present form. They have to be augmented by information about a past state. We could invoke a deity in the way Einstein was wont, who goes through two steps in creating the universe. First, laws are chosen, then an initial condition is added. Many people have wondered whether this is a permanent condition of physics.
The stationary Schrödinger equation is quite different in this respect. It obviously cannot have initial conditions, since it is a timeless equation. It does not require boundary conditions, either. Let me explain what this means. There are many equations in physics which describe how quantities vary in space without there being any change in time. Such equations can have many different solutions, and to find the one that is applicable in a specific case, mathematicians often stipulate the actual values the solution must have at the boundary of some region. This stipulation is what is called a boundary condition. Boundary conditions have the same kind of importance as initial conditions. However, as explained in Box 13, the stationary Schrödinger equation requires no such conditions. Instead, there is just a general condition on the way the wave function behaves. It must be continuous (not make any jumps), it must have only one value at each point and it must remain finite everywhere. As we saw, the condition of remaining finite – of not rushing off to infinity – is very powerful. It was what unlocked the quantum treasure chest. In fact, the first two conditions are also very powerful and lead to many important results. To distinguish these conditions from normal initial or boundary conditions, let me call them conditions of being well behaved. Mathematicians may regard this as somewhat artificial, since the condition of remaining finite does actually enforce a definite kind of behaviour at boundaries. It is therefore in some sense equivalent to a boundary condition. However, I prefer not to think of it in that way, since it is very general and can be formulated in a completely timeless fashion. It avoids all particular specification, which must always be arbitrary.
Now, my suggestion is this. There are no laws of nature, just one law of the universe. There is no dichotomy in it – there is no distinction between the law and supplementary initial or boundary conditions. Just one, all-embracing static equation. We can call it the universal equation. Its solutions (which may be one or many) must merely be well behaved, in the sense explained in the previous paragraph. It is an equation that creates structure as a first principle, just as the ordinary stationary Schrödinger equation creates atomic and molecular structure. This is because it attaches a ranking – a greater or lesser probability – to each conceivable static configuration of the universe.