# An insider’s guide to quantum causal histories

## 1 Introduction

A quantum theory of gravity is expected to also be a satisfactory theory of quantum cosmology. In turn, a quantum theory of cosmology would only be acceptable if it admits a description fully from within the universe itself. We may translate this into the requirement that, in a satisfactory quantum theory of gravity, the physical observables must refer to observations made inside the universe.

This has immediate consequences. Consider, for example, the familiar construction of the 3-geometry wavefunction that is used in the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. This describes the quantum state of a spatial slice. However, in a causal spacetime, only very special observers, such as an observer at the final singularity, can have access to an entire slice. Since there are no observers outside the universe, this wavefunction is not an observable quantity.

In , I argued that what is required to construct a cosmological theory is internal observables, corresponding to observations made inside the universe. Internal observations contain only partial information about the universe, that which is in the causal past of an observer at the corresponding spacetime region. It then becomes desirable to set up a framework for quantum gravity in which all physical observables are internal. To see how to do this we begin by understanding the effect the requirement that all observables are internal has on the structure of observables in classical general relativity.

## 2 Classical Internal observables and their algebra

Let us start by considering only the causal structure of the universe. To proceed it is convenient to approximate the causal structure of spacetime by picking out a discrete set of events. This gives us an approximate description of the causal structure of the spacetime in terms of a causal set . This is s set of events $`p,q,r,\mathrm{}`$, ordered by a causal preceding relation $`pq`$, which is transitive ($`pq`$ and $`qr`$ imply that $`pr`$), is locally finite (given $`pq`$ the intersection of the past of $`q`$ and the future of $`p`$ contains a finite number of events), and has no closed timelike loops (if $`pq`$ and $`qp`$, then $`p=q`$).

In such a causal set universe, the internal observables are functors from the causal set to the category of sets<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 A category is a collection of objects, and arrows between the objects. There should be a unit, and the composition of arrows should be associative. Thus, a causal set is a category (partial order) whose objects are the events, and arrows are the causal relations. $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐞𝐭}`$ is the category whose objects are sets and whose arrows are maps between sets. A functor can be thought of as a “function” from one category to another that turns the objects of the first into objects of the second, while preserving the properties of the arrows of the first into the second.. Details can be found in , here we will simply discuss examples. An prime example of an internal observable then is the one describing causal past. This is the functor

$$\text{Past}:𝒞\mathrm{𝐒𝐞𝐭},$$
(1)   
that outputs events that have occurred. It has components at each event $`p`$ which are the causal past of $`p`$: $`\text{Past}(p)=\{r𝒞:rp\}`$. Further, the functor contains not only all these sets, but the maps between them: $`\text{Past}(p)\text{Past}(q)`$, whenever $`pq`$.

The internal observable Past can be thought of as a varying set, having components at each event which are sets, all tied together by inclusion functions. Thus, the causal structure of the universe is built into the observable. These are fundamentally different than standard set-like observables. This can be seen by considering the algebra of internal observables.

The algebra of standard (fixed time) observables is obtained by is called a Heyting algebra. As a result a theory with internal observables is fundamentally different that a theory describing a system external to the observers. It has a different logical structure. Just as the Boolean algebra obeyed by set-like observables means that physical propositions obey boolean logic, physical propositions in a theory with internal observables obey intuitionistic logic. Its characteristic feature is that, for some statement $`a`$, $`\neg \neg aa`$. Thus, the requirement that physical observables must refer to measurements made by observers in the universe has as a consequence the fact that the very logic that observers use to describe what they see must be modified. It should take into account the fact that any single observer is only able to know a subset of the true facts about their universe.

An immediate application of the Heyting algebra is in coding the causal topology. It is easy to check that in a universe with an initial event, which causally preceeds all the others, $`\text{Future}(p)=\mathrm{}`$, for all $`p𝒞`$. In a universe with a final event, in the future of all others, $`\text{Past}(p)=\mathrm{}`$ for all $`p𝒞`$. And for a universe with both, both internal observables have all their components empty. As a result, as described in , the existence of horizons and topology change can be deduced from the Heyting complements.

## 3 The framework of Quantum Causal Histories

A quantum cosmological theory should involve only internal observables; thus it should have an algebra of observables whose classical limit is a Heyting algebra of the kind we just discussed. But we know that the $`\mathrm{}0`$ limit of the projection operators on an ordinary Hilbert space is a Boolean algebra. Therefore we need to look for a formulation of quantum cosmology that is not based on the usual single Hilbert space formalism. One possible way to proceed is to “quantize” the causal structure by attaching Hilbert spaces to the events of a causal set. These can be thought of as elementary Planck-scale systems that interact and evolve by rules that give rise to a discrete causal history. An example of such a theory is the causal evolution of spin networks , as we will see in the next section. But let us first give a brief discussion of the basic features of quantum causal histories (or QCH for short).

### 3.1 Hilbert spaces on the events

Consider a causal set $`𝒞`$. This is a “spacetime” graph, with nodes which represent events, and directed edges coding the causal ordering of the nodes. Let us interpret the events as elementary quantum mechanical systems, which are to be encountered at Planck scale. Thus, we may attach a Hilbert space to each node of the causal set graph, representing the elementary system that we encounter at that node. Since we are building a theory with a fundamental discreteness in the causal relations between these systems, thus assuming there is a lowest scale, it is reasonable to expect that these Hilbert spaces are finite-dimensional. We have, therefore, built a causal network of finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces.

By the standard rules of quantum mechanics, the combined state space of a set of events that are acausal to each other is the tensor product of the individual Hilbert spaces.

When may we expect that there is unitary evolution in this quantum causal history? It is not difficult to check that this is only possible between acausal sets of events $`a`$ and $`b`$ that form a complete pair $`ab`$ , that is, every event in $`b`$ is to the future of some event in $`a`$ and every event in $`a`$ is to the past of some event in $`b`$, as shown ($`H_a=H_1H_2`$ and $`H_b=H_3H_4H_5`$):

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}$$

Any information that reaches $`b`$ has come through $`a`$, and there is no event in the future of $`a`$ which is not related to $`b`$. Information is therefore conserved from $`a`$ to $`b`$ when a unitary evolution map relates the two Hilbert spaces.

It should be emphasized that this is local unitary evolution, in the sense that the complete pair $`a`$ and $`b`$, in general, are localised spacelike regions in the universe. In the special case when the causal set admits a global foliation into a set of antichains (maximal sets of events in the causal set that are all acausal to each other), there is a linear sequence of unitary evolution operators (this may be compared to quantum field theory on a globally hyperbolic spacetime).

### 3.2 Hilbert spaces on the edges

Closer inspection of the above model reveals that the unitary evolution operators do not, in general, respect local causality. As an example, consider the following configuration:

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}$$

with evolution operator $`E:H_1H_2H_3H_4`$. Next, select some state $`|\psi _2H_2`$. This can be extended to $`|\psi _1|\psi _2`$ in $`H_1H_2`$ and then evolved by $`E`$ to some $`|\psi ^{}H_3H_4`$. Finally, $`H_4`$ can be traced out to leave a density matrix $`\rho _3=\text{Tr}_{H_4}|\psi ^{}\psi ^{}|`$ in $`H_3`$. That is, system 3 “knows about” $`|\psi _2`$, even though there is no causal link from 2 to 3. This is a violation of the causal relations of the underlying causal set.

There is a straightforward solution to this problem. Instead of attaching the Hilbert spaces to the events of the causal set, let us attach them to the causal relations. We again take tensor products of Hilbert spaces on edges that are acausal to each other. Any unitary operator in a history where the Hilbert spaces are on the edges can be decomposed to a product of unitary operators that live on the nodes of the causal set, going from the composite Hilbert space on the incoming edges to that node to the composite Hilbert space on the outgoing ones, all of which respect the causal structure of $`𝒞`$. Therefore, in a QCH with the Hilbert spaces on the causal relations and the operators on the events, the quantum evolution strictly respects the underlying causal set.

We may also note that promoting the nodes of the causal set to evolution operators is consistent with the intuition that an event in the causal set denotes change, and so is most naturally represented by an operator. In addition, since only spacelike separated Hilbert spaces are tensored together, there is no single Hilbert space, or wavefunction, for the entire universe.

## 4 Examples of quantum causal histories

We will now give specific examples of QCH models. To do so, we need to identify the Hilbert spaces and the complete pairs that are related by the unitary evolution operators. The first of our two examples is causal spin network evolution, a model of quantum spatial geometry evolving causally. The second example considers identical individual Hilbert spaces which are two-dimensional, and the resulting QCH is a quantum computer.

### 4.1 Causal evolution of spin networks

Spin networks were originally defined by Penrose as trivalent graphs with their edges labelled by representations of $`SU(2)`$ . From such abstract labelled graphs, Penrose was able to recover directions (angles) in 3-dimensional Euclidean space. Later, in loop quantum gravity, spin networks were shown to be the basis states for the spatial quantum geometry states . The quantum area and volume operators, expanded in the spin network basis were shown to have a discrete spectrum, with their eigenvalues depending on the labels of the spin network present in the region of space whose area, or volume, is being measured.

In , spin network graphs were used as model of quantum spatial geometry evolving causally. This means that the nodes of the spin network graph are the events in a causal set.

A causal spin network history is a quantum causal history. To see this, we need to observe that it has the following features. The Hilbert spaces are the spaces of intertwiners. An intertwiner labels a node of a spin network. It is a map from the tensor product of the representations labelling the edges incoming to that node to the tensor product of the outgoing edges. The possible intertwiners for a node in the spin network form a vector space, the so-called “space of intertwiners”<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2For a trivalent node of an $`SU(2)`$ spin network, the intertwiner is unique. For a four-valent node, the intertwiner space is finite-dimensional. For higher valence, continuous parameters enter..

The intertwiner spaces of spacelike separated nodes in the causal history are to be tensored together, with the representations on any connecting edges summed over: $`V_{ijkmno}=_lV_{ijkl}V_{lmno}`$ when $`l`$ labels the shared edge.

In , it was shown that, if the spin networks were restricted to be of valence $`n`$, a small set of generating evolution operators can be identified. These are the 1-skeletons of the $`n`$-dimensional Pachner moves for piecewise linear triangulations . For example, in 2+1, the set of elementary moves is shown below; in each pair the top and bottom configurations are exchanged.

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}$$

Given an initial 3-valent spin network, to be thought of as modeling a quantum “spatial slice”, the causal history is built by repeated application of the above moves. They change the spin network locally, thus producing a discrete analogue of multifingered time evolution. Thus, the amplitude to go from an given initial spin network $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ to a final one $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ can be expressed as the product of the amplitudes for the Pachner moves that occur in a spacetime history extrapolating between the two spin networks, summed over the possible extrapolating histories:

$$A_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}=\underset{\text{histories }\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{}\underset{\begin{array}{c}\text{moves in a}\\ \text{given history}\end{array}}{}A_{\text{move}}.$$
(2)   
Explicit expressions for the amplitudes $`A_{\text{move}}`$ for the elementary moves have so far only been given for a simple causal model in .

By construction, the Pachner moves are always moves between complete pairs (they are homs of the spin network graph). Thus, they can be consistently promoted to unitary operators.

This completes the identification of causal spin network histories as a QCH model. The individual Hilbert spaces are the intertwiner spaces, which are to be tensored when they are spacelike separated in the history. The local unitary operators are the Pachner moves.

Having performed these identifications, we may note that several more models of the same type have been explored in the literature. They are graphs evolving under the above causal moves, but with different sets of labels. Trivalent graphs labelled by ratios of integers give rise to Sen’s string networks . Using $`q`$-deformed spin networks, that is, spin networks labelled by representations of $`SU_q(2)`$ have a finite list of labels that may appear on an edge . In fact, spin networks can be constructed that are labelled by representations of any compact group , as well as supersymmetry , and all give rise to quantum causal histories when evolved causally.

### 4.2 Quantum computers

Possibly the simplest choice of individual Hilbert spaces in a QCH is to require that they all are 2-dimensional: $`𝐂^2`$. Having done so, it is unavoidable to note that these spaces are qubits and the history is a (very large) quantum computer! (For related work, see ). A choice of local unitary operators is a choice of quantum gates in a quantum computer. The set of properties of the underlying causal set is identical to the computer’s circuit.

Given how hard the task of finding explicit expressions for suitable QCH evolution operators, this model provides the opportunity to use the quantum gates used in quantum computing to model quantum spacetime evolution. It is possible that there is a relationship between the conditions required for a quantum computer to run for a long time and a quantum spacetime to have a classical limit.

## 5 What a quantum causal history looks like from the Inside

We may now briefly return to internal observables and outline how we expect they will appear in QCH. Consider a QCH with Hilbert spaces labelling the causal relations, and let us interpret them in a way that will help us set up internal observables.

Given some event $`p`$ in the causal set, let $`q`$ and $`r`$ be two events in the future of $`p`$. In the QCH on this causal set, there are two Hilbert spaces for the two causal relations, $`H_{pq}`$ and $`H_{pr}`$ respectively. We will interpret the first as “the state space of $`p`$ as seen by $`q`$”, and the second as “the state space of $`p`$ as seen by $`r`$”. The relation between the two should depend on the causal relation between $`q`$ and $`r`$. Thus, if $`S(p)`$ is the set of causal relations that start at $`p`$, there is a Hilbert space for every element of $`S(p)`$, describing how the an observer at the end of that particular causal relation sees $`p`$.

We may then define a generalised Hilbert space for $`p`$ to be a functor $`H_p:𝒞\text{Hilb}`$, which has as its elements the individual “viewpoint” Hilbert spaces, linked together by consistency maps that transform from the viewpoint of one observer to the viewpoint of another. A standard (not observer-dependent) description is recovered when these consistency maps are identities. Then $`H_p`$ becomes a standard state space for $`p`$.

It is on such generalised Hilbert spaces that the quantum internal observables are expected to act. A quantum internal observable should be a generalized operator, by which is meant an operator on each of the components of a generalized Hilbert space, related by the consistency maps. Details of this construction will appear elsewhere.

## 6 Conclusions: General Relativity as the low energy limit of quantum gravity

In the above examples we have seen that the requirement that all observables are internal has non-trivial consequences for the structure of both classical and quantum cosmological theories. One should not forget, however, that any Planck scale quantum cosmological theory will have to have general relativity as its low energy limit. We have not discussed this aspect of quantum gravity here, but progress on methods to obtain the low energy limit is needed in order to bring the developments described here to a conclusion. Work is in progress currently on methods to coarse grain and renormalize quantum causal histories, which will be reported elsewhere.

## Acknowledgments

I am grateful to John Baez, Louis Crane, Sameer Gupta, Eli Hawkins, Louis Kauffman, Renate Loll, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin for discussions. I especially want to thank Chris Isham for explaining to me the use of functorial methods in quantum theory in  and many discussions. I would also like to thank Abhay Ashtekar for hospitality at the Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry during the course of this work.

This work was supported by NSF grant PHY/9423950 and PHY/9514240, and a gift from the Jesse Phillips foundation.