text:
# TROUBLES WITH QUANTUM ANISOTROPIC COSMOLOGICAL MODELS: LOSS OF UNITARITY

## 1 Introduction

One of the main hopes regarding quantum cosmology is the possibility to obtain the initial conditions that will determine the ulterior evolution of the Universe when its classical regime is reached . The task of obtaining a quantum cosmological scenario faces many difficulties, one of them being the absence of a natural time variable, since the general relativity action leads to a constrained system which is invariant under time reparametrization. There are many attempts to recover the notion of time in quantum cosmology . For example, a time coordinate may be identified with the space volume, which is a growing function in an expanding universe. But, all these attempts have revealed of limited applications until now, and the problem of time in quantum cosmology remains an unsolved puzzle.

Another suggestion to incorporate a time variable in quantum cosmology is through matter fields. This proposal has been extensivelly discussed in reference . It has been shown that a typical ordinary quantum mechanical structure can be built up: a Hilbert space, with an inner product, as well as sets of physical observables, may be identified. All analysis performed in reference  was made keeping the functional character of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. A simpler consideration in the same sense was made in references , where the matter fluids were introduced with the aid of the Schutz’s variables , the Wheeler-DeWitt equation being written in the minisuperspace. The employement of the Schutz’s variables permits again to identify the matter fields with time, since the associated momentum appears linearly in the Lagrangian; the restriction to minisuperspace has the advantage of allowing an explicit intregration of the resulting Schröndinger-like equation.

Although of phenomenological nature, these quantum cosmological perfect fluid models in the minisuperspace are a very good laboratory in order to verify the consistency of constructing quantum cosmological models where the time variable is identified with the matter fields. Since a Schröndinger-like equation is obtained, all the machinery of ordinary quantum mechanics can be employed. In the references , this has been done for isotropic universes in many different situations, connected mainly to the nature of the matter content. In order to keep the effective Hamiltonian hermitian, the inner product in the Hilbert space has acquired an aditional factor. Boundary conditions on the wave functions were imposed, assuring the hermiticity (and, at the same time, the self-adjointness) of the effective Hamiltonian operator. Wave packets were constructed from which specific predictions were obtained by computing the expectation value of the observables (in this case, the scale factor) or by evaluating the bohmian trajectories. Since the modulus of the wave function integrated in all space is time independent, both results agree. The main conclusion of those works is that the quantum model predicts a singularity-free universe which exhibits a bounce approaching the classical behaviour asymptotically.

In the present work we will attempt to extend this analysis to anisotropic cosmological models, specifically to Bianchi I models. The minisuperspace approach will be used, as well as the description of the matter fields through the Schutz’s formalism. The initial aim is to verify if quantum effects may suppress the anisotropies in the same way they have suppressed the initial singularity in the isotropic case. In doing this analysis, an unexpected feature of anisotropic quantum cosmological model appears: the norm of the wave function comes out to be time dependent. Hence, the quantum model is non-unitary. This leads immediately to the question if this is a real quantum system. With a non-unitary theory a probabilistic interpretation can not be implemented, since the norm of the wave function is not a conserved quantity. At the same time, the ontological interpretation of Bohm-de Broglie becomes doubtfull, since bohmian trajectories are not conserved also. In both cases, some kind of ”creation” must be admitted in order to have some quantum interpretation of the results. If an anisotropic quantum cosmological perfect fluid model is a legitimate quantizable system, some fundamental changes in quantum mechanical interpretation must be implemented.

The reason for this loss of unitarity when a simple extension from isotropic to anisotropic universes is made, is due, in our opinion, to the fact that the kinetic term of the effective Hamiltonian is not positive definite and, at the same time, due to the measure in the original gravitational action. The hyperbolic signature of the kinetic term implies that there is a whole line in the phase space where the momenta are not zero, and yet the energy is zero. Hence, the wave function need not to be zero at infinity along this line, and this implies that the probability current is non-zero at least at some points at infinity. Hence the time derivative of the norm of the wave function is not zero anymore. It is important to notice that the effective Hamiltonian is hermitian. The loss of unitarity comes from the fact that this effective Hamiltonian is not self-adjoint and it does not admit any self-adjoint extension.

This is not an artifact of the construction of the wave packet, but a general feature of anisotropic quantum models which lead to an hyperbolic signature to the kinetic term of the Hamiltonian function with an unusual measure. This suspiction is supported by the fact that when the kinetic term is made elliptic by force, the norm of the wave function becomes time independent and normal quantum framework is restablished. But, the hyperbolicity of the Hamiltonian is not the only reason for the lack of unitarity: the specific measure in the action, due to the determinant of the metric, is also essential in the sense that its suppression by force restore also the unitarity independently of the signature of the kinetic term. Hence, the loss of unitarity is a direct consequence of a gravitational system (which leads to a non conventional measure in the inner product) which exhibits anisotropies (which leads to a hyperbolic kinetic term).

As it will be verified, the loss of unitarity leads to a fundamental discrepancy between the many-worlds intepretation (based on the Copenhagen interpretation)  and the Bohm-de Broglie interpretation  of quantum mechanics. In both cases the universe exhibit a bounce. But the computation of the expectation value for the metric functions reveals a universe always isotropic; on the other hand, the bohmian trajectories reveal a universe where anisotropies are present near the bounce disappearing asymptotically. It is important to stress that such quantum Bianchi I model has been extensivelly studied in the literature . But, in all previous work no matter field has been used, and hence no explicit time coordinate has been identified. For this reason, in our opinion, the loss of unitarity has not been remarked before.

This article is organized as follows. In the next section, we construct the Wheeler-DeWitt equation for the anisotropic perfect fluid model and we determine the wave function by using the separation of variables method. In section 3, a wave packet is constructed and its norm is shown to be time dependent. The reason for this unexpected result is discussed. In section 4, the expectation value of the scale factor and the bohmian trajectories are obtained. The discrepancy between them are settled out. In section 5 we discuss the results and present our conclusions. In the appendix we show how the equivalence between many-worlds and dBB interpretation disappears due to the absence of unitarity in a quantum model.

## 2 Wheeler-DeWitt equation for an anisotropic perfect fluid model

Our starting point is the action of gravity coupled to a perfect fluid in the Schutz’s formalism:

$$𝒜=_Md^4x\sqrt{g}R+2_Md^3x\sqrt{h}h_{ab}K^{ab}+_Md^4x\sqrt{g}p$$
(1)
where $`K^{ab}`$ is the extrinsic curvature, and $`h_{ab}`$ is the induced metric over the three-dimensional spatial hypersurface, which is the boundary $`M`$ of the four dimensional manifold $`M`$; the factor $`16\pi G`$ is made equal to one. The first two terms were first obtained in reference ; the last term of (1) represents the matter contribution to the total action in the Schutz’s formalism for perfect fluids, $`p`$ being the pressure, which is linked to the energy density by the equation of state $`p=\alpha \rho `$. In the Schutz’s formalism , the four-velocity is expressed in terms of five potentials $`ϵ`$, $`\zeta `$, $`\beta `$, $`\theta `$ and $`S`$:

$$U_\nu =\frac{1}{\mu }(ϵ_{,\nu }+\zeta \beta _{,\nu }+\theta S_{,\nu })$$
(2)
where $`\mu `$ is the specific enthalpy. The variable $`S`$ is the specific entropy, while the potentials $`\zeta `$ and $`\beta `$ are connected with rotation and are absent for FRW’s type models. The variables $`ϵ`$ and $`\theta `$ have no clear physical meaning. The four velocity is subject to the condition

$$U^\nu U_\nu =1.$$
(3)
The metric describing a Bianchi I anisotropic model is given by

$$ds^2=N^2dt^2(X(t)^2dx^2+Y(t)^2dy^2+Z(t)^2dz^2).$$
(4)
In this expression, $`N(t)`$ is the lapse function. Using the constraints for the fluid, and after some thermodynamical considerations, the final reduced action, where surface terms were discarded, takes the form

$`𝒜={\displaystyle }dt[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N}}(\dot{X}\dot{Y}Z+\dot{X}\dot{Z}Y+\dot{Y}\dot{Z}X)`$
$`+N^{1/\alpha }(XYZ){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{(\alpha +1)^{1/\alpha +1}}}(\dot{ϵ}+\theta \dot{S})^{1/\alpha +1}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\alpha }})].`$ (5)
At this point, is more suitable to redefine the metric coefficients as

$$X(t)=e^{\beta _0+\beta _++\sqrt{3}\beta _{}},Y(t)=e^{\beta _0+\beta _+\sqrt{3}\beta _{}},Z(t)=e^{\beta _02\beta _+}.$$
(6)
Using these new variables, the action may be simplified further, leading to the gravitational Lagrangian density

$$L_G=6\frac{e^{3\beta _0}}{N}\{\dot{\beta }_0^2\dot{\beta }_+^2\dot{\beta }_{}^2\}.$$
(7)
From this expression, we can evaluate the conjugate momenta:

$$p_0=12\frac{e^{3\beta _0}}{N}\dot{\beta }_0,p_+=12\frac{e^{3\beta _0}}{N}\dot{\beta }_+,p_{}=12\frac{e^{3\beta _0}}{N}\dot{\beta }_{}.$$
(8)
The matter sector may be recast in a more suitable form through the canonical transformations

$$T=p_Se^Sp_ϵ^{(\alpha +1)},p_T=p_ϵ^{\alpha +1}e^S,\overline{ϵ}=ϵ(\alpha +1)\frac{p_S}{p_ϵ},\overline{p}_ϵ=p_ϵ.$$
(9)
The final expression for the total Hamiltonian is

$$H=Ne^{3\beta _0}\{\frac{1}{24}(p_0^2p_+^2p_{}^2)+e^{3(1\alpha )\beta _0}p_T\}.$$
(10)
The fundamental aspect of the Hamiltonian (10) to be remarked is the hyperbolic signature of the kinetic term.

The lapse function $`N`$ plays the role of a Lagrangian multiplier in (10). It leads to the constraint

$$H=0.$$
(11)
The quantization procedure consists in considering the Hamiltonian as an operator which is applied on a wave function

$$\widehat{H}\psi =0$$
(12)
taking at the same time the momenta as operators (we use natural units where $`\mathrm{}=1`$):

$$\widehat{p}_i=i\frac{}{\beta _i}.$$
(13)
Since the momentum associated to the matter degrees of freedom appears linearly in the Hamiltonian, we can identify it with a time coordinate

$$\widehat{p}_T=i\frac{}{T}.$$
(14)
Due to the canonical transformations employed before, this new time is related to the cosmic time $`t`$ by $`dt=e^{3\alpha \beta _0}dT`$. In this way, we end up with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, in the minisuperspace, for an anisotropic Universe filled with a perfect fluid:

$$(\frac{^2}{\beta _0^2}\frac{^2}{\beta _+^2}\frac{^2}{\beta _{}^2})\psi =24ie^{3(1\alpha )\beta _0}\frac{\psi }{T}.$$
(15)
The wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ must obey the following boundary conditions:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|_{\beta _i\pm \mathrm{}}=\kappa \mathrm{\Psi }|_{\beta _i\pm \mathrm{}},$$
(16)
with $`\kappa (\mathrm{},\mathrm{}]`$, $`\beta _i`$ denoting the dynamical variables. These boundary conditions are established by requiring that the Hamiltonian be hermitian. For $`\kappa =0`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, the boundary conditions are $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|_{\beta _i\pm \mathrm{}}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }|_{\beta _i\pm \mathrm{}}=0`$, respectively. As it will be seen later, in spite of being hermitian, the effective Hamiltonian is not self-adjoint and does not admit any self-adjoint extension. This will lead to the loss of unitarity. A more detailed discussion on the self-adjoint properties of the operators in quantum cosmology with perfect fluid, in a situation very close to the present one, is given in references . A rigorous mathematical discussion is given in reference .

Now, our goal is to solve (15) and to construct the corresponding wave packet. To do so, we use the separation of variable’s method. First, we write the wave function as

$$\psi (\beta _0,\beta _+,\beta _{},T)=\varphi (\beta _0,\beta _+,\beta _{})e^{iET},$$
(17)
leading to the equation

$$(\frac{^2}{\beta _0^2}\frac{^2}{\beta _+^2}\frac{^2}{\beta _{}^2})\varphi =24Ee^{3(1\alpha )\beta _0}\varphi .$$
(18)
The function $`\varphi `$ is then written as

$$\varphi (\beta _0,\beta _+,\beta _{})=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0(\beta _0)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_+(\beta _+)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}(\beta _{}),$$
(19)
leading to the equation

$$\frac{_0^2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0}+24Ee^{3(1\alpha )\beta _0}\frac{_+^2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_+}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_+}\frac{_{}^2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{}}=0$$
(20)
where we have simplified in an obvious way the notation for the partial derivatives. The solutions for the functions $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_\pm `$ are

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_\pm =C_\pm e^{ik_\pm \beta _\pm },$$
(21)
where $`C_\pm `$ are constants and $`k_\pm `$ are the separation parameters. These separation parameters must be real otherwise the wave function is not normalizable.

The equation determining the behaviour of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0`$ takes then the form,

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }+(24Ee^{3(1\alpha )\beta _0}+(k_+^2+k_{}^2))\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0=0,$$
(22)
the primes meaning derivatives with respect to $`\beta _0`$. It is easily to see that the parameter $`E`$ must be positive. The previous equation can be solved through the redefinitions

$$a=e^{\beta _0},y=a^r,r=\frac{3}{2}(1\alpha ).$$
(23)
after what (22) takes the form of a Bessel’s equation:

$$\ddot{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_0+\frac{\dot{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}_0}{y}+(\frac{24E}{r^2}+\frac{k^2}{r^2}\frac{1}{y^2})\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0=0$$
(24)
where $`k^2=k_+^2+k_{}^2`$ and the dots are derivatives with respect to $`y`$. The solution is

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_0=C_1J_\nu \left(\frac{\sqrt{24E}}{r}a^r\right)+C_2J_\nu \left(\frac{\sqrt{24E}}{r}a^r\right),$$
(25)
with $`\nu =ik/r`$, $`C_{1,2}`$ being integration constants.

The final expression for the wave function is then

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=e^{i(k_+\beta _++k_{}\beta _{})}[\overline{C}_1J_\nu \left(\frac{\sqrt{24E}}{r}a^r\right)+\overline{C}_2J_\nu \left(\frac{\sqrt{24E}}{r}a^r\right)]e^{iET}$$
(26)
where $`\overline{C}_{1,2}`$ are combinations of the preceding integration constants.

## 3 The wave packet: Loss of unitarity

We want now to construct a superposition of the solutions (26), generating a regular wave packet. In principle, this can be achieved by considering the integration constants as gaussian functions of the parameters $`k_\pm `$ and $`E`$. The general case constitutes a hard problem from the technical point of view. We may consider, for simplicity, the final wave function independent of one of the variables $`\beta _\pm `$, which amounts to fix one the corresponding parameters $`k_+`$ or $`k_{}`$ equal to zero. From here on we will consider $`k_{}=0`$. Notice that the final results would be the same if we had imposed $`k_+=0`$ and $`k_{}0`$. Hence, even if the anisotropic models are not analyzed in all their generality, a large class of them is covered in what follows.

Fixing $`k_{}=0`$, the wave packet is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=e^{ik_+\beta _+}\{\overline{C}_1J_\nu \left(\frac{\sqrt{24E}}{r}a^r\right)+\overline{C}_2J_\nu \left(\frac{\sqrt{24E}}{r}a^r\right)\}e^{iET}dk_+dE.$$
(27)
In principle, in the expression for $`\nu `$ it appears the modulus of $`k_+`$ while in the first exponential in (27) we have $`\mathrm{}<k_+<+\mathrm{}`$. We will consider a superposition of both Bessel’s functions in such a way that the expression for the wave packet may be written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}_0^{\mathrm{}}A(k_+,q)e^{ik_+\beta _+}J_\nu \left(qa^r\right)e^{iq^2T}dk_+dq,$$
(28)
with $`q=\frac{\sqrt{24E}}{r}`$ and

$$A(k_+,q)=e^{\gamma k_+^2}q^{\nu +1}e^{\lambda q^2}.$$
(29)
In this case, the integrals can be explicitly calculated, leading to the wave packet

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{B}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{\gamma }}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{a^{2r}}{4B}\frac{(\beta _++C(a,B))^2}{4\gamma }]$$
(30)
where

$$B=\lambda +isT,C(a,B)=\mathrm{ln}a\frac{2}{3(1\alpha )}\mathrm{ln}2B,s=\frac{3(1\alpha )^2}{32}.$$
(31)
Notice that the wave packet given by (30) is square integrable, and it vanishes in the extremes of the interval of validity of the variables $`a=e^{\beta _0}`$ and $`\beta _+`$, except along the line $`\beta _0=\beta _+`$ where it takes a constant value, being consequently regular as it is physically required. The wave packet (30) is indeed a solution of the equation (15), as it can be explicitly verified, and it obeys the boundary conditions fixed before. If we discard the terms corresponding to the variable $`\beta _+`$(connected with $`k_+`$), the wave packet for the isotropic case  is reobtained.

The main point to be remarked now is that the norm of (30) is time dependent. Using the definition $`a=e^{\beta _0}`$ and integrating in $`\beta _+`$ and $`a`$ we obtain

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}a^{23\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }𝑑a𝑑\beta _+=\frac{\sqrt{2\gamma \pi }}{3(1\alpha )}\frac{2}{\lambda }F(T).$$
(32)
where

$$F(T)=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{C_I^2}{2\gamma }),$$
(33)
and

$`C(a,B)`$ $`=`$ $`C_R+iC_I,`$
$`C_R=\mathrm{ln}a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}}\mathrm{ln}4B^{}B`$ , $`C_I={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3(1\alpha )}}\mathrm{arctan}({\displaystyle \frac{sT}{\lambda }}).`$ (34)
The norm of the wave function is time dependent. Hence, the quantum model is not unitary.

The absence of unitarity may be understood by inspecting again the wave packet (30). In fact, this wave packet goes to zero at infinity, excepted along the line $`\beta _0=\beta _+`$, where it takes a constant value at infinity. This does not spoil the regularity of the wave packet; in particular, it remains finite when integrated in all space and specific boundary conditions are obeyed. But, this leads, at the same time, to an anomaly in the infinity boundary. The reason for this anomaly may be understood by analysing again the Schrödinger-like equation (15). Notice that, after decomposing it into stationary states, the energy $`E`$ is zero along the whole line $`\beta _0=\beta _+`$. Along this line, the wave function need not to vanish.

It would be expected that a hermitian Hamiltonian operator should always lead to a unitary quantum system, since the Hamiltonian operator is responsible for the time evolution of the quantum states. The problem here relies on the fact that, in spite of being hermitian, the Hamiltonian effective operator

$$H_{eff}=e^{3(1\alpha )}\{_0^2_+^2_{}^2\}$$
(35)
is not self-adjoint. This means that $`H^{}=H`$ but the domain of $`H^{}`$ is not the same as the domain of $`H`$, and the conservation of the norm becomes senseless .

In order to verify if an operator is self-adjoint or not, we must compute the so-called deficiency indices $`n_\pm `$ which are the dimensions of the linear independent square integrable solutions of the indicial equation

$$H\varphi =\pm i\varphi .$$
(36)
Using the effective Hamiltonian (35), the solutions of the indicial equations are <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1It must be remarked that in finding the solutions, we supposed the system to be independent of the variable $`\beta _{}`$ and we perform a plane wave expansion in the variable $`\beta _+`$. In this sense, we considered just a one-dimensional system depending on the variable $`\beta _0`$ with a parameter $`k`$. However, the conclusions do not depend on these considerations and we could consider at least a two-dimensional system by, for example, performing a gaussian superposition in the parameter $`k`$.

$`\varphi _+=c_1J_\nu (y)+c_2J_\nu (y),`$ (37)
$`\varphi _{}=c_3K_\nu (y)+c_4I_\nu (y),`$ (38)
where $`\nu =ik/r`$ and $`y=\sqrt{i/r^2}a^r`$, $`a`$ and $`r`$ having the same definitions as before. It is easy to see that $`J_{\pm \nu }(y)`$ and $`I_\nu (y)`$ are not square integrable solutions while $`K_\nu (y)`$ is. Hence, $`n_+=0`$ and $`n_{}=1`$ and, as explained in , the effective Hamiltonian operator is not self-adjoint and does not admit any self-adjoint extension. Notice that changing arbitrarily the signature in (35) or suppressing the unusual measure, the deficiency indices become $`n_+=n_{}=0`$ and the effective Hamiltonian becomes self-adjoint.

It is important to remark also that, due to hyperbolic character of the Hamiltonian, the energy $`E`$ may take negative values. Hence, we may expect that this system is unstable since the energy is not bound below. However, it is possible to consider a kind of ”Dirac sea” hypothesis, with all negative energy state filled, and to take effectively into account only positive energy states.

To support the idea that this anomaly is due to the hyperbolic signature in the kinetic term in (15), together with the unusual measure, let us change it to an elliptic signature by force. In doing so, the main change in the wave functions (55) is that the order of the Bessel function becomes real: $`\nu =|k|`$. We keep only the Bessel function of positive order because it does not diverge as $`a0`$. In evaluating the norm of the wave function, we consider the same superposition factor as in (29) and we first integrate on the parameter $`q`$, obtaining,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0}{B}\mathrm{exp}\frac{a^{2r}}{4B}_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}[\gamma k^2+(C(a,B)+i\beta _+)k]dk.$$
(39)
Now we writte

$$N=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}_0^{\mathrm{}}a^{23\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }𝑑a𝑑\beta _+,$$
(40)
and we integrate first in $`\beta _+`$ and then in $`a`$. The unusual measure in the integrals is due to the requirement that the reduced Hamiltonian in (15) must be hermitian . The final result is

$$N=\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}2^{k/r}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+k/r)e^{2\gamma k^2},$$
(41)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ is the gamma function, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{}`$ is a new constant. The norm of the wave function is finite and, more important, time independent. The same occurs if instead the measure is suppressed.

## 4 The scenario for the Universe

The fact that the quantum cosmological perfect fluid model leads to a non-unitary quantum system implies in principle that no usual quantum interpretation can be be applied to it, unless we allow creation of universes. In what follows we will adopt the point of view that this is a legitimate quantum system which ask for a convenient framework interpretation. Hence, we will try to extract previsions for the evolution of such a universe using the many-worlds and dBB interpretations scheme. Of course, these interpretations scheme must be enlarged in order to incorporate non-unitary quantum system. It is not sure that this can be done consistently. However, this very important conceptual problem is outside the purpose of the present work. Here, in particular we will show that the many-worlds and Bohm-de Broglie interpretations leads to different results. This is due to the lack of unitarity as it is explained in the appendix.

Before to do this, let us just recall the classical solutions for the Bianchi I cosmological model with a barotropic perfect fluid described by $`p=\alpha \rho `$. For the time parametrization $`dt=a^{3\alpha }dT`$, $`t`$ being the cosmic time, the functions $`X`$, $`Y`$, and $`Z`$ admit the solution

$`X(T)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\beta _0+\beta _++\sqrt{3}\beta _{}}=X_0(T+c)^{\frac{1+2s_1}{3(1\alpha )}}(Tc)^{\frac{12s_1}{3(1\alpha )}},`$ (42)
$`Y(T)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\beta _0+\beta _+\sqrt{3}\beta _{}}=Y_0(T+c)^{\frac{1+2s_2}{3(1\alpha )}}(Tc)^{\frac{12s_2}{3(1\alpha )}},`$ (43)
$`Z(T)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\beta _02\beta _+}=Z_0(T+c)^{\frac{1+2s_3}{3(1\alpha )}}(Tc)^{\frac{12s_3}{3(1\alpha )}},`$ (44)
where $`c`$ is constant, and $`s_1`$, $`s_2`$ and $`s_3`$ are parameters such that

$$s_1+s_2+s_3=0,s_1^2+s_2^2+s_3^2=6.$$
(45)
Notice that there is an initial singularity, near which the Universe is very anisotropic, becoming isotropic asymptotically.

Let us return now to the computation of the quantum scenario through the use of the many-worlds and ontological interpretations of quantum mechanics.

### 4.1 Expectation values of the dynamical variables

Given the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the expectation value of a variable $`\beta _i`$ is obtained in the usual way:

$$<\beta _i>=\frac{_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}e^{3(1\alpha )\beta _0}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\beta _i\mathrm{\Psi }𝑑\beta _0𝑑\beta _+}{_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}e^{3(1\alpha )\beta _0}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }𝑑\beta _0𝑑\beta _+}.$$
(46)
For $`\beta _i=\beta _0`$ in (46) we find for the numerator:

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}a^{23\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{ln}adad\beta _+=\frac{F(T)\sqrt{2\gamma \pi }}{9(1\alpha )^2}\frac{2}{\lambda }\{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2B^{}B}{\lambda }\right)+n\},$$
(47)
where we have noted

$$n=_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(u)\mathrm{ln}udu0.577,u=\frac{\lambda }{2B^{}B}a^{3(1\alpha )}.$$
(48)
Hence,

$$<\beta _0>=\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}\{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2|B|^2}{\lambda }\right)+n\}.$$
(49)
This result leads to

$$e^{<\beta _0>}=(XYZ)^{1/3}=a_0[1+\frac{s^2T^2}{\lambda ^2}]^{\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}},$$
(50)
where $`a_0`$ is a constant. This is the same result as in the isotropic case . Consequently, the space volume evolves as in the corresponding isotropic case.

The anisotropies are represented by the function $`\beta _+`$, whose expectation value will be computed in what follows. We will evaluate now the numerator of (46) with $`\beta _i=\beta _+`$. Integrating in $`\beta _+`$ and expressing $`\beta _0`$ in terms of $`a`$ as before, we find:

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}e^{3(1\alpha )}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\beta _+\mathrm{\Psi }d\beta _0d\beta _+=\sqrt{\pi }\{I_1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(4B^{}B)}{3(1\alpha )}}I_2\}{\displaystyle \frac{F(T)}{B^{}B}},`$ (51)
$`I_1={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}a^{23\alpha }\mathrm{exp}\{\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{a^{3(1\alpha )}}{2B^{}B}}\}\mathrm{ln}ada,I_2={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}a^{23\alpha }\mathrm{exp}\{\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{a^{3(1\alpha )}}{2B^{}B}}\}da`$ (52)
The integrals $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ take the form,

$$I_1=\frac{1}{9(1\alpha )^2}[\frac{2B^{}B}{\lambda }\left]\right[n+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2B^{}B}{\lambda }\right)],I_2=\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}\frac{2B^{}B}{\lambda }.$$
(53)
We find finally

$$<\beta _+>=\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}\{\mathrm{ln}(2\lambda )n\}.$$
(54)
The expectation value of $`\beta _+`$ does not depend on time. Consequently, the predicted result for the evolution of the Universe in this case is the same as in the isotropic case: there is no anisotropy during all the evolution of the Universe. A similar computation shows that $`<\beta _+^2>`$ is also time independent. The cosmological scenario is really isotropic.

### 4.2 Computation of the bohmian trajectories

The result found in the last section indicates no trace of the anisotropies existing in the classical model in the corresponding quantum analysis. We will evaluate the bohmian trajectories which determine the behaviour of a quantum system in the ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics.

In the ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics, the wave function is written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Theta }),$$
(55)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is connected with the amplitude of the wave function, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ to its phase. When (55) is inserted into the Schrödinger’s equation, the real and imaginary parts of the resulting expression leads to the conservation of probability and to a Hamilton-Jacobi’s equation supplemented by a term which is identified as the quantum potential, which leads to the quantum effects distinguishing the quantum trajectories from the classical ones.

In this formulation of quantum mechanics, the trajectories (which are real trajectories) corresponding to a dynamical variable $`q`$ with a conjugate momentum $`p_q`$ are given by

$$p_q=\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{q}.$$
(56)
The ontological formulation of quantum mechanics leads to a natural identification of a time coordinate, what is very important for quantum cosmology where in general there is no explicit time coordinate.

Let us consider the wave function (30). Putting in the form (55), the phase reads,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(\beta _0,\beta _+,T)=\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{sT}{\lambda }\right)+\frac{sTa^{3(1\alpha )}}{4B^{}B}\frac{C_I}{2\gamma }(\beta _++C_R),$$
(57)
where all quantities are defined as before. The conjugate momenta associated to the dynamical variables $`\beta _0`$ and $`\beta _+`$ read

$$p_0=12a^{23\alpha }\dot{a},p_+=12a^{3(1\alpha )}\dot{\beta }_+,$$
(58)
where we have explicitly used the time parametrization such that the lapse function is given by $`N=a^{3\alpha }`$. The bohmian trajectories are then given by the expressions

$`12a^{23\alpha }\dot{a}`$ $`=`$ $`3(1\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{sT}{4B^{}B}}a^{3(1\alpha )}{\displaystyle \frac{C_I}{2\gamma }},`$ (59)
$`12a^{3(1\alpha )}\dot{\beta }_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_I}{2\gamma }},`$ (60)
dots representing derivatives with respect to $`T`$. Combining (59,60), we find

$$12a^{23\alpha }\dot{a}=3(1\alpha )\frac{sT}{4B^{}B}a^{3(1\alpha )}+12a^{3(1\alpha )}\dot{\beta }_+.$$
(61)
This last equation leads after integration to the expression

$$ae^{\beta _+}=D[\lambda ^2+s^2T^2]^{\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}}.$$
(62)
Reinserting the relation in the equations (59,60) we can obtain the following solutions to $`a`$ and $`\beta _+`$:

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{24s\lambda \gamma }})^{\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}}[\lambda ^2+s^2T^2]^{\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}}[\mathrm{arctan}^2({\displaystyle \frac{sT}{\lambda }})+E]^{\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}},`$ (63)
$`\beta _+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}}\mathrm{ln}\{\mathrm{arctan}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{sT}{\lambda }}\right)+E\}+\mathrm{ln}\{[24s\lambda \gamma ]^{\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}}\}+\mathrm{ln}D,`$ (64)
where $`E`$ and $`D`$ are integration constants. Remember that $`s<0`$.

In opposition to the expressions obtained for the expectation values of $`\beta _0`$ (which is connected to $`a`$) and $`\beta _+`$ in the preceding subsection, the bohmian trajectories predict an anisotropic Universe. Until this point, this strange discrepancy is not so catrastrophic: in order the bohmian trajectories coincide with the results for the expectation value for some quantity, the integration constants that appear in the former must be averaged over an initial distribution given by the modulus of the wave function at $`T=0`$. At $`T=0`$, we have

$`a(T=0)`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda E}{24s\gamma }})^{\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}},`$ (65)
$`\beta _+(T=0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\{[{\displaystyle \frac{24s\lambda \gamma D^{3(1\alpha )}}{E}}]^{\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}}\}.`$ (66)
Hence,

$$_\mathcal{0}=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }|_{T=0}=\frac{\pi }{\lambda ^2\gamma }e^{\frac{E}{48s\gamma }\frac{1}{18(1\alpha )^2\gamma }\mathrm{ln}^2\left[\frac{D^{3(1\alpha )}}{4}\right]}.$$
(67)
For $`\beta _0`$ and $`\beta _+`$ the average on the initial conditions leads to the integral expressions

$`\overline{\beta }_0(T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{3(1\alpha )\beta _0^i}_\mathcal{0}\beta _0(T)𝑑\beta _0^i𝑑\beta _+^i,`$ (68)
$`\overline{\beta }_+(T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{3(1\alpha )\beta _0^i}_\mathcal{0}\beta _+(T)𝑑\beta _0^i𝑑\beta _+^i,`$ (69)
where $`\beta _0^i`$ and $`\beta _+^i`$ denote the initial values of the metric functions. In the isotropic case  the expression corresponding to the above ones leads to a perfect agreement between many-worlds and dBB interpretations. These expressions can be recast in the following form:

$`\overline{\beta }_0(T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9(1\alpha )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0^2}{24s\gamma \lambda }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{y}{48s\gamma }}\right)\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{ln}x)^2}{2\gamma }})\times `$ (70)
$`\mathrm{ln}\{(\lambda ^2+s^2T^2)[(\mathrm{arctan}(sT/\lambda ))^2+y\left]\right({\displaystyle \frac{1}{48s\gamma \lambda }})\}{\displaystyle \frac{dxdy}{x}},`$
$`\overline{\beta }_+(T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9(1\alpha )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_0^2}{24\gamma s\lambda }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{y}{48s\gamma }}\right)\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{ln}x)^2}{2\gamma }})\times `$ (71)
$`\mathrm{ln}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{[\mathrm{arctan}(sT/\lambda )]^2+y}{96\gamma s\lambda x^{3(1\alpha )}}}\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{dydx}{x}},`$
where $`x=4^{\frac{1}{3(1\alpha )}}D`$ and $`y=E`$. The variables $`x`$ and $`y`$ were restricted to positive values in order to assure that the metric functions are real. Even if the integrals (70,71) seem to admit no simple closed expressions, it is evident that they are time dependent.

## 5 Conclusions

It is generally expected that quantum effects in the very early universe may furnish the set of initial conditions which will determine the subsequent evolution of the Universe when its classical phase is reached. By initial conditions we mean here the isotropy and homogeneity. Moreover, it is also expected that those quantum effects may lead to the avoidance of the initial singularity, one of the major problems of the standard cosmological model. In this work we have tried to analyse the possibility that quantum effects can suppress initial anisotropies. Specifically, we have studied a Bianchi I model with a perfect fluid, with an isotropic pressure, employing the Schutz’s description for perfect fluids. This problem has for us two main interests: first, it adds more degrees of freedom with respect to the isotropic model, since now we have four independent variables instead of just two; second, it permits to verify if anisotropies in the early Universe disappear in the quantum model, as it happens with the initial singularity for the corresponding isotropic one. The employement of Schutz’s formalism for the description of the perfect fluid present in the model allows us to identify quite naturally a time coordinate associated to the matter degrees of freedom, since the canonical momentum corresponding to the matter variables appears linearly in the Hamiltonian. Hence, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation can be reduced to a Schrördinger-like equation in terms of three dynamical variables related to the metric function, $`\beta _0`$, $`\beta _+`$ and $`\beta _{}`$. In order to treat the problem analytically, we have restricted the problem to the special case that the wave function is independent of one of the variables, namely $`\beta _{}`$.

The resulting Schrödinger-like equation has a hyperbolic signature in the kinetic term. This means that a state of zero energy is possible along an infinite line where $`p_0=p_+`$ or, equivalently, $`\beta _0=\beta _+`$. This leads to an anomaly in the boundary at infinity which, however, does not spoil the regularity of the wave function. But as consequence, the resulting quantum system is not unitary anymore. The reason for this loss of unitarity is the absence of a self-adjoint extension for the hermitian effective Hamiltonian (35). The lack of self-adjointness in this model is due both to the hyperbolic signature (which is a consequence of treating an anisotropic quantum cosmological model) and due to the presence of a non-trivial measure in the original Hamiltonian (10) (which is consequence of treating a gravitational system), as a detailed inspection of the computation of the deficiency indices reveals. The loss of unitarity leads to a discrepancy between the many-worlds and Bohm-de Broglie interpretations of quantum mechanics. Notice that if we go back to the isotropic model, where there is no hyperbolicity anymore, but yet an unusual measure, the unitarity is restored. It is important to remark that, in our opinion, the loss of unitarity pointed out here in anisotropic models has no relation with the description for the matter fluid, since the hiperbolicity of the kinetic term and the unusual measure appear already in the pure gravitational sector.

In order to verify this explicitly, we have solved the Wheeler-DeWitt equation in the minisuperspace. A wave packet was constructed being regular in the sense that it is square integrable. Using this wave packet, we have determined the behaviour of the metric functions using first the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which implies to compute the expectation value of those functions. We found that there is no trace of anisotropies at any moment: the expectation value of the function $`\beta _+`$ is constant while the expectation value of $`\beta _0`$ has essentially the same expression as in the isotropic version of this problem. All the features of this model are the same as in the isotropic case. Later, we have determined the behaviour of metric functions employing the ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics, determining the bohmian trajectories. In this case the function $`\beta _+`$ is no longer a constant, and an initial anisotropic Universe is predicted. Asymptotically, it becomes isotropic like in the classical case. This result is maintained even after the averaging on the initial conditions. As it is well known  the bohmian trajectories should lead to the same results that are obtained computing the expectation values after averaging on the initial conditions. This equivalence does not occur for the anisotropic Bianchi I cosmological model because the equivalence between both interpretations is valid only for unitary system.

Let us now precise in another way that the loss of unitarity is due to the anomaly at the boundary at infinity generated by the hyperbolic signature of the kinetic term. Writting the wave function as in (55), we obtain the expression

$$12e^{3(1\alpha )\beta _0}\frac{}{t}\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=\frac{}{\beta _0}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\frac{}{\beta _0}\mathrm{\Theta }\right)\frac{}{\beta _+}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\frac{}{\beta _+}\mathrm{\Theta }\right)$$
(72)
which should express the conservation of probability. Integrating in $`\beta _0`$ and $`\beta _+`$ does not lead to the vanishing of the integrated left hand side, since the norm of the wave function is time dependent. The term in the right-hand side can be converted to a surface integral at infinity. The currents are zero at infinity excepted along the line $`\beta _0=\beta _+`$, and hence the right hand side also does not vanish.

The question resulting from the analysis made above is if it is possible to consider seriously such quantum cosmological perfect fluid model. In principle, the answer, in our opinion, must be positive, since this system is a natural extension of the corresponding isotropic case, where everything is well definite. But, in order to take seriously such model, the usual interpretation scheme of quantum mechanics must be enlarged in order to take into account creation/annihilation of probabilities and bohmian trajectories. In what concerns cosmology this perhaps may be done since these creation/annihilation refer to disconnected universes. But, this remains an open issue, and what we may assert at the moment is that the loss of unitarity is a general feature of quantum system where the signature of the kinetic term is hyperbolic as it happens with anisotropic cosmological models. Moreover, since the predictions for the evolution of the universe using the many-worlds or the ontological interpretations do not coincide, one of them must be more suitable for implementation of this enlarged interpretation of quantum mechanics. Notice, finally, that the loss of unitarity appears already when quantum fields are quantized in space-times with closed timelike curves . But this represents another context since the space-time itself remains classical.

Acknowledgements: We thank N. Pinto-Neto, J. Acacio de Barros and N.A. Lemos for many enlightfull discussions and CNPq (Brazil) for partial financial support.

## Appendix A Conditions for the equivalence between many-worlds and dBB interpretations

Let us for simplicity consider a one dimensional quantum mechanical system:

$$\frac{^2}{x^2}\mathrm{\Psi }+V(x)\mathrm{\Psi }=i\frac{}{t}\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(73)
From this expression we obtain

$$\frac{}{t}=\frac{}{x}\left(\frac{}{x}\theta \right),$$
(74)
where we have used (55) and we have defined $`=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The expectation value and the averaged bohmian trajectories are given by

$$<x>_C=\frac{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}x𝑑x}{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x},\overline{x}_B=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_0x(t)dx_0$$
(75)
where $`C`$ and $`B`$ stand for ”Copenhagen” and ”Bohm”, respectively. The subscript in the second integral indicates that the quantities must be evaluated at $`t=0`$. Also in this second integral the function $`x(t)`$ is obtained by integrating the bohmian trajectories $`\dot{x}(t)=d\mathrm{\Theta }/dx`$. If the norm of the wave function is made equal to one in $`t=0`$, those quantities are identical at this moment.

To show that they are the same for all time, we must just show that their derivatives are the same for any value of $`t`$. Taking the derivative and using the expression for the current in the first integral and the expression for the bohmian trajectories in the second one, we obtain

$$\frac{d}{dt}<x>_C=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{x}dx,\frac{d}{dt}\overline{x}_B=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_0\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{x}dx_0,$$
(76)
where we have assumed the norm of the wave function equal to one. Integrating the expression for the current, we have that the derivative of the norm of the wave function is zero. Hence, it has the same value at any time, from which

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_t𝑑x_t=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_0𝑑x_0.$$
(77)
This implies that, after a changing of variable in the second integral,

$$_0\frac{dx_0}{dx_t}=_t.$$
(78)
Inserting this in (76) we find that the derivative of expectation value and of the averaged bohmian trajectories are the same for any value of $`t`$. Since, they were equal for $`t=0`$, both quantities are identical for any value of $`t`$. Notice that it was essential to have a constant norm of the wave function in order to obtain this result. In the Bianchi I quantum model studied in this paper the analysis follows the same lines, but the norm of the wave function is time-dependent and the equivalence exhibited here is no longer valid.


format: text

text:
# Monopoles, Duality, and String Theory

## 1 Theory

It is a great honor to speak at this centennial of Paul Dirac. I also had the honor to speak at Pauli’s centennial two years ago and at Heisenberg’s last year, and on each occasion it has been interesting to go back and learn more about the work of these men. Of course the high point of their scientific lives came rather early, with the discovery of quantum mechanics, and the rest was anticlimax by comparison. But from a modern perspective the latter part is also fascinating, as they went on to confront many problems that are still timely today.

All three thought very hard about the divergences of quantum field theory, which was perhaps the central theoretical question of the day. On the other hand, Pauli and Heisenberg both looked for unified theories, while Dirac regarded this as premature. It was his conviction that the immediate problem facing theoretical physicists was to develop better mathematical tools:

> The most powerful method of advance \[is\] to perfect and generalize the mathematical formalism that forms the existing basis of theoretical physics.

Remarkably, not only did Dirac identify the necessary direction, he followed it successfully and provided many key ideas that continue to play a major role today:

* Magnetic monopoles.
* Path integrals.
* Light cone dynamics.
* Membrane actions.
* Conformal and de Sitter symmetries.
* Constrained Hamiltonian dynamics.
* Canonical formulation of gravity.

For an anticlimax that is a pretty good career.

Dirac comes across in many ways as the first modern theoretical physicist. Many of his statements illustrate this, but the following strikes me as particularly apt:

> One must be prepared to follow up the consequences of theory, and feel that one just has to accept the consequences no matter where they lead.

Dirac is often quoted on the importance of mathematical beauty in one’s equations; I did not choose one of these quotations because beauty is so difficult to define. He also made various statements that one should not being distracted by experiment; I did not choose one of these because they are inflammatory.

The reason that I find the chosen quotation so striking is that it is not supposed to be possible to follow theory alone. Without experimental guidance, it is said, one will quickly become lost. But of course today in high energy theory we are to a large extent following theory where it leads us, and we are rather confident that this is a correct and fruitful path. Why this approach can work is illustrated by Dirac’s great discovery:

$$\text{quantum mechanics}+\text{special relativity}\text{antiparticles}.$$
(1)
This was not a direct deduction (though in the framework of quantum field theory, one can show that antiparticles are necessary for causality.). Rather, when Dirac tried to find a consistent framework that combined quantum theory and special relativity, he found it very difficult — so much so that when he did find one he had great confidence in its inevitability, and was prepared to take its other consequences seriously.

Essentially, with the discovery of quantum mechanics and special relativity, and even more so with general relativity, theory has become very rigid, so that it is difficult to extend or modify our existing theories without making them inconsistent or otherwise unattractive. One reason for this is that relativity unifies space and time. For example, it seems almost inevitable that in quantum gravity space will be modified or cut off at short distance. One can imagine many sorts of modification to the structure of space, but it is much harder to alter the nature of time in a consistent way.

## 2 The Necessity of Monopoles

One of Dirac’s remarkable discoveries was the connection between magnetic monopoles and charge quantization. Very early in the history of quantum theory, he recognized the important connection between geometry and quantum mechanics. Dirac showed that in the presence of a magnetic charge $`g`$, in order for the quantum mechanics of an electric charge $`e`$ to be consistent one had to have

$$eg=2\pi n.$$
(2)
Thus the existence of even a single magnetic charge forces every electric charge to be a multiple of $`2\pi /g`$. From the highly precise electric charge quantization that is seen in nature, it is then tempting to infer that magnetic monopoles exist, and indeed Dirac did so:

> One would be surprised if nature had made no use of it.

I would like to discuss this from the point of view of the modern search for a unified theory, and to offer two general principles of completeness:

1. In any theoretical framework that requires charge to be quantized, there will exist magnetic monopoles.
2. In any fully unified theory, for every gauge field there will exist electric and magnetic sources with the minimum relative Dirac quantum $`n=1`$ (more precisely, the lattice of electric and magnetic charges is maximal).

Obviously neither of these is a theorem. Rather, they are aesthetic principles based on experience with a rather wide range of examples. I will give three examples of the first principle, and two of the second.

### 2.1 Grand Unification

The most well-known example of the first principle of completeness is the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole. If the $`U(1)`$ of electromagnetism is embedded in a semisimple group, for example in grand unification

$$SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)SU(5),$$
(3)
then electric charge is necessarily quantized, since it descends from the quantized representations of the unified group. Under precisely these conditions, ’t Hooft and Polyakov showed that magnetic monopoles will exist as smooth but topologically nontrivial classical solutions.

Let me give a brief description of this idea. Dirac showed that the vector potential for a magnetic charge had a singularity along a string extending from the charge.

Figure 1 shows a Dirac string. Let us parallel transport a charged field $`\psi `$ on the infinitesimal path $`P`$ around it according to

$$d\psi =ie\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{d}x\psi .$$
(4)
Because of the string singularity, the field picks up a net phase $`eg`$ in the process; this is unobservable precisely if $`eg=2\pi n`$. One can think of the phase of $`\psi `$ as looping around the $`U(1)`$ group, which is a circle, $`n`$ times. Now, if we pull the loop off of the string to the position $`P^{}`$, the field is nonsingular and the phase is constant. Hence the net phase must drop rapidly from $`2\pi n`$ to zero as the loop is pulled past the monopole, and this observable phase signifies a singularity in the field. When $`U(1)`$ is embedded in a semisimple group, however, the loop can become topologically trivial: in $`SU(2)`$ for example, a rotation through $`4\pi `$ can be smoothly deformed to a trivial path. Thus there are smooth field configurations, which at long distance look like Dirac monopoles, with a net $`U(1)`$ magnetic charge.

As a postscript to the talk, I should note that this argument does not require that one can obtain $`eg=2\pi `$, and indeed this depends on the field content. In the Georgi-Glashow model $`U(1)SU(2)`$, if there are only fields of integer isospin then the minimum quantum is $`eg=4\pi `$, while if there are fields of half-integer isospin then $`eg=2\pi `$ is obtained. (This is related to the fact that some simple groups do have a finite set of nontrivial closed loops.) So in the sense of the second principle I would have to say that this theory is not fully unified, precisely because its matter content is not fixed but subject to arbitrary choice.

### 2.2 Kaluza-Klein Theory

If spacetime is five-dimensional, with the added dimension $`x^4`$ being periodic, then five-dimensional gravity gives rise to both gravity and a Maxwell field in four dimensions. This was perhaps the first application of spontaneous symmetry breaking as a unifying concept — the laws of physics are invariant under Lorentz transformations in all five spacetime dimensions, while the state we live in is invariant only under the four-dimensional symmetry group. The metric components $`g_{\mu 4}`$ become the Maxwell potential, and gauge invariance arises from reparameterizations of $`x^4`$. What the four-dimensional physicist sees as electric charge is therefore momentum in the 4-direction, and it is quantized because of the periodicity in this direction.

A Dirac monopole configuration would again have a string, which is now a coordinate singularity as in Figure 1. An infinitesimal loop in the five-dimensional geometry, whose projection to four dimensions is the loop $`P`$, makes one or more circuits of the $`x^4`$ coordinate. An infinitesimal loop away from the string, such as $`P^{}`$, does not loop the $`x^4`$ direction. Thus there is again singular behavior as the loop is pulled past the monopole. However, Gross, Perry, and Sorkin showed that again there are smooth geometries that look like Dirac monopoles outside of some core region. The point is that if the radius of the $`x^4`$ direction shrinks to zero in an appropriate way, then at the origin there is only a coordinate singularity and the loop can be smoothly slid off the string.

### 2.3 $`U(1)`$ Lattice Gauge Theory

The final example of the first principle is rather different from the others, but very vividly illustrates the connection between charge quantization and magnetic monopoles. When one puts $`U(1)`$ gauge theory on a spatial or spacetime lattice, the basic variables $`A_l`$ live on links, directed pairs of adjacent points. One can think of $`A_l`$ as the lattice approximation to $`\stackrel{}{A}𝑑\stackrel{}{x}`$, integrated from one site to the next.

There are two versions of $`U(1)`$ lattice gauge theory, according to whether $`A_l`$ is a periodic variable or takes values on the whole real line:

compact theory: $`A_lA_l+2\pi ,`$
noncompact theory: $`\mathrm{}<A_l<\mathrm{}.`$ (5)
For example these theories have different actions. The analog of the field strength is the sum of the link variables around a plaquette,

$$F_P=\underset{lP}{}A_l.$$
(6)
In the noncompact case the simplest action would be the sum over plaquettes of $`F_P^2`$, while in the compact case it would be the sum of $`(1\mathrm{cos}F_P)`$. Alternately, one can describe the compact theory entirely in terms of $`U_l=e^{iA_l}`$, and the action is constructed from $`U_P=_{lP}U_l`$.

In the noncompact case charge is not quantized, one can transport any charge $`e`$ from one site to the next with the phase $`e^{ieA_l}`$. However, in the compact case this is defined only for $`e`$ an integer, and so charge is quantized (we are working here in units where the charge is dimensionless and the minimum value is 1, but we can rescale $`A_l`$ to other systems of units). Precisely in keeping with the general principle, one finds that there are magnetic monopoles in the compact case but not the noncompact one. The Dirac string is a line of plaquettes on all of which $`F_P1`$ (or $`n`$), while it is $`1`$ on all other plaquettes except those very close to the monopole. The line ends at the monopole. From the definition of $`F_P`$ it follows that $`F_P`$ summed over any closed surface is zero, so if we consider a large surface surrounding the monopole the sum of all the small fluxes must be +1 (or $`+n`$) to cancel the contribution of the string: this is the monopole flux. Nothing is singular, everything is made finite by the lattice. In the compact theory the string costs no energy because $`U_P`$ is everywhere near unity, while in the noncompact theory the string is visible to noninteger charges and has an energy proportional to its length.

This example makes vividly clear the connection between charge quantization and the existence of monopoles. In fact, the compact theory can be rewritten as the noncompact theory coupled to a magnetic monopole field. For some reviews of this subject see Ref. 4.

### 2.4 The Kalb-Ramond Field

Many supergravity theories have an antisymmetric tensor field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$, with a generalized form of gauge invariance

$$\delta B_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \lambda _\nu _\nu \lambda _\mu .$$
(7)
If we consider such a theory in a Kaluza-Klein geometry, the components $`B_{\mu 4}`$ again become a four-dimensional Maxwell theory. However, unlike the Maxwell field from the metric, there are no states in supergravity that are electrically charged under this gauge field — there is no way to minimally couple any field to $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ so as to give rise to a minimal coupling to $`B_{\mu 4}`$.

This incompleteness is not an inconsistency, but it is somewhat puzzling and unattractive that there is this asymmetry between the gauge fields from the metric and those from $`B_{\mu \nu }`$. In this respect string theory completes supergravity. The two-form $`B_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu `$ can be integrated over the world-sheet of the string, just as $`A_\mu dx^\mu `$ can be integrated over the world-line of a particle, and just such a coupling is present in string theory. If a string wraps around the periodic $`x^4`$ direction, the integral $`dx^4`$ produces a coupling to $`B_{\mu 4}`$. Thus the string winding states are electrically charged.

There should also be a corresponding magnetic source. We can discuss this in four dimensions, but it is clearer to start in the full ten-dimensional theory. In general a $`p`$-dimensional object (brane) couples to a $`(p+1)`$-form potential, through the integral

$$B_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p+1}}𝑑x^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}𝑑x^{\mu _{p+1}}$$
(8)
over the world-history of the brane. The curl of this potential gives a $`(p+2)`$-form field strength. Contracting this with the spacetime $`ϵ`$ tensor gives a dual $`(Dp2)`$-form field strength, where $`D`$ is the dimension of spacetime. This corresponds to a $`(Dp3)`$-form magnetic potential, and so couples magnetically to a $`p^{}`$-dimensional object for $`p^{}=Dp4`$. In other words, $`p+p^{}=D4`$. The familiar electric and magnetic charges are simply $`p=p^{}=0`$ in $`D=4`$, but the Dirac quantization argument extends directly to all such pairs.

For the case at hand $`D=10`$ and $`p=1`$ and so $`p^{}=5`$: the magnetic object is a five-brane. This was found by Callan, Harvey, and Strominger as a solitonic solution to the low energy field theory of string theory — it is the Neveu-Schwarz (NS) five-brane. Curiously their first paper found a five-brane charge of 8 Dirac units. This is consistent, but rather odd. Shortly afterward the authors realized that they had used inconsistent normalizations of $`B_{\mu \nu }`$, and found that the magnetic charge is the minimum Dirac quantum.

### 2.5 D-Branes

The final example has great significance for me. In string theory, in addition to the NS-NS field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ there are other ‘Ramond-Ramond’ form potentials. The terminology refers to the fact that a closed string state is the product of the states of its right- and left-moving oscillations, so one can make a bosonic field out of two bosonic states (these are called NS-NS) or out of two fermionic states (called R-R). Unlike $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ these forms do not couple to the fundamental string.

However, string theory has extended objects of a distinctive type, the D-branes. These are like topological defects, with the notable property that a (normally closed) string can end on them. There were various early discussions of strings with such fixed endpoints. In particular it was argued that these objects had to be included in string theory because one encountered them if one took the normal open string theory and followed it to small radius ($`T`$-duality). For some time afterward these objects were still regarded as curiosities, but in the wake of string duality, in which R-R charges are necessary to fill out the multiplets, it was realized that the consistency of weak/strong duality and $`T`$-duality required that the D-branes carry the R-R charge. Further, they exist with just the right dimensions to provide a full set of electric and magnetic sources, even for nondynamical 9- and 10-form fields.

The calculation of $`eg`$ is interesting. It is shown schematically in Figure 3.

This process can be regarded as the emission and absorption of a closed string, giving rise to a force between the two D-branes. It can equally be regarded as a vacuum loop of an open string, and this is by far the most direct way to calculate it, by summing the zero point energies of open string modes. From the sum one reads off the potential, which gives the coupling of the D-branes to the various forms. Note that unlike the calculations of the charges of the various other objects that have been discussed there is nothing obviously topological about this, it is essentially the calculation of a Casimir energy. In particular there is no reason that it should give anything like an integer for $`eg`$. Indeed, the first attempts at the calculation gave undesirable powers of $`\pi `$ and $`1/2`$, but after a day of debugging the result is that the product of the charge of a D$`p`$-brane and that of a D$`(6p)`$-brane is exactly $`2\pi `$.

As a postscript, I should note that in any theory with gravity one can make electric and magnetic sources trivially, by having the field lines end on a black hole singularity (the R-R charged objects were first described in this form). In this description there is no direct way to determine the actual spectrum of charges. However in string theory we can usually turn off the gravitational force by turning down the coupling, so that the black hole goes over to something nonsingular, and in this way we know the spectrum.

## 3 Conclusions

### 3.1 The Existence of Monopoles

By the end of his career Dirac became less certain about the existence of monopoles. He forgot his earlier dictum to ignore experiment! But as I have discussed, the existence of magnetic monopoles seems like one of the safest bets that one can make about physics not yet seen. It is very hard to predict when and if monopoles will be discovered. If their mass is at the grand unified scale as one expects, then they will be beyond the reach of accelerators, while inflation has almost certainly diluted any primordial monopoles beyond discovery. It is curious to contemplate this unfortunate situation, where theory predicts the existence of an object (and its production, but in experiments that can only be carried out in thought) and at the same time suggests that it may never be seen. But we must continue to hope that we will be lucky, or unexpectedly clever, some day.

### 3.2 Duality and Beauty

Many of the electric and magnetic objects that I have discussed look quite different from one another, but there is strong evidence that in each case that there are dualities that interchange them. For Dirac this would have been a triviality. He notes that his theory of pointlike electric and magnetic charges is invariant under the interchange of the two objects, along with the interchange of electric and magnetic potentials. Dirac’s theory is rather formal, since the magnetic coupling is the inverse fine structure constant, but one can regard the lattice as providing a precise definition of a cutoff theory, and with appropriate choice of the action it is self-dual.

For the grand unified and Kaluza-Klein cases, however, any duality must be quite nontrivial. In these cases the electric charges are pointlike quanta, while the magnetic charges are smooth classical configurations. To be precise, this is the picture at weak coupling. Now it would not be surprising that as the coupling is turned up the electric objects begin to emit pairs and become big and fuzzy like the solitons. The great surprise (duality) is that when the coupling becomes very large the magnetic objects become more and more pointlike and the theory can be described in terms of their local fields. It is a remarkable property of the quantum theory that the degrees of freedom can, at least with some assistance from supersymmetry, reorganize themselves in this way. Indeed, we do not fully understand the details of this, but the number of independent consistency checks is enormous.

Even further, in string theory all of the electric and magnetic objects that have been discussed here, with the (possible) exception of the lattice examples, are related to one another by dualities. These examples involve widely different aspects of gauge field geometry, spacetime geometry, ‘stringy’ geometry, string perturbation theory, and quantum and classical physics. The existence of a single structure that unifies such a broad range of physical and mathematical ideas, and many others as well, is unexpected and remarkable. Earlier I declined to define beauty, but one can recognize it when one sees it, and here it is. This is one illustration of why the scientific path that Dirac laid out has been such a fruitful one in recent times.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by National Science Foundation grants PHY99-07949 and PHY00-98395.