 physical inner product, and thus we do not know if the relevant operators are hermitean or not. Besides, we do not even know if we should demand these operators to be hermitean: the hamiltonian annihilates the physical states (the famous time problem [@ishamtime]) and thus unitary evolution does not play the privileged role anymore. It follows that we cannot distinguish “relevant” wave functions by demanding that they are normalizable, as in the case of quantum mechanics, in fact, since the probabilistic interpretation of the “wavefunction of the universe” is doubtful, it is not clear if the norm of this wavefunction is to be 1.

In the recent paper [@JK] a class of exact solutions of the Wheeler–De Witt equation was found. In that paper we used the heat kernel to regularize the hamiltonian operator and inserted the particular ordering. The question arises what is the level of arbitrariness in this construction. In other words, could we construct other (possibly simpler) regularized hamiltonian operators and what would be their properties? This question is the subject of the present paper.

It is clear from the discussion above that the only principle, we can base our construction on is the principle that the algebra of constraints is to be anomaly–free, that is, the corresponding algebra of commutators of quantum constraints is weakly identical with the classical one. This means that the structure of the Poisson bracket algebra (\[difdif\]–\[hamham\]) is to be preserved, in the sense which will be explained below, on the quantum level. The following section is devoted to the analysis of this problem. In section 3 we investigate solutions of the resulting equations, and in section 4 we seek interpretation of the wavefunctions making use of the quantum potential approach to quantum mechanics. In the final section we draw our conclusions and describe the open problems.

The commutator algebra and construction of regularized operators
================================================================

As we explained in Introduction, our starting point in construction of the quantum hamiltonian operator (the Wheeler–De Witt operator) is the algebra (\[difdif\]–\[hamham\]) and we demand that the same algebra holds on the quantum level. At this point we encounter immediately the problem, well known from the investigations of anomalies in quantum field theories, that the sole algebra of regularized operators is meaningless unless the space of states on which these operators act is defined [*a priori*]{}[^3]. This follows from the fact that the
physical inner product, and thus we do not acknowledge if the relevant operator are hermitean or not. Besides, we do not even know if we should demand these operators to be hermitean: the hamiltonian eliminate the physical states (the famous clock time problem [ @ishamtime ]) and thus one development does not play the privileged function anymore. It follows that we cannot distinguish “ relevant ” wave routine by demanding that they are normalizable, as in the case of quantum mechanics, in fact, since the probabilistic interpretation of the “ wavefunction of the universe ” is doubtful, it is not clean if the norm of this wavefunction is to be 1. 

 In the recent paper [ @JK ] a course of exact solutions of the Wheeler – De Witt equality was found. In that newspaper we used the estrus kernel to regularize the hamiltonian operator and inserted the finical ordering. The question arises what is the level of arbitrariness in this structure. In early discussion, could we construct other (possibly simpler) regularized hamiltonian operators and what would be their properties? This question is the subject of the present composition. 

 It is clear from the discussion above that the only rationale, we can establish our structure on is the principle that the algebra of constraints is to be anomaly – free, that is, the corresponding algebra of commutators of quantum constraints is weakly identical with the classical one. This mean that the structure of the Poisson bracket algebra (\[difdif\]–\[hamham\ ]) is to be preserved, in the sense which will be explained below, on the quantum level. The following department is devoted to the analysis of this problem. In section 3 we investigate solution of the result equations, and in section 4 we seek interpretation of the wavefunctions making habit of the quantum potential approach to quantum mechanics. In the concluding section we reap our conclusions and describe the receptive problems. 

 The commutator algebra and structure of regularized operators 
 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

 As we explained in Introduction, our starting point in structure of the quantum hamiltonian operator (the Wheeler – De Witt operator) is the algebra (\[difdif\]–\[hamham\ ]) and we demand that the same algebra retain on the quantum level. At this point we encounter immediately the problem, well known from the investigation of anomalies in quantum field theories, that the sole algebra of regularized operators is meaningless unless the space of states on which these operators work is defined [ * a priori*]{}[^3 ]. This follows from the fact that the
 phjsical inner product, and thus we do not know ih the rslevant uperators are hermitean or nlt. Besiees, we do not even knod if we sjould denand rhese operefors to be hedlitecn: the hamiltonisn annihildtes the physiwau dtates (the famous time problem [@ishaitime]) amd thus unitary gvoluuiog doss not play the privileged role angmore. Iu follows that we vannot distinguish “relevanh” wage functions by delanding thaj thqt are normalkzable, as pu the case kf quantum mechanics, in fact, sivce tke probabilusric hnterpretatmon of the “wavefungnion of the unoverse” is doubbful, mt iw not clear if the nocm of this wavefunctyon is to bz 1.

In the recent paper [@JJ] a cnass of dzacg sklntikns of thx Wheeler–De Witt equatuon was found. In thst isper we used the hqae kernel to regularize the hamiltonian mpedator and inserted the particular ordering. Tje questijn arises what is the level of arbitrariness in tvis ckvstxmgtiov. Ij other words, could we construct other (possibjg xikpler) regularided hamiltonian oprrwtpts and what woold be cgejr properties? This questijn is the subjtct og the present paper.

It is clwar from the eiscussion above tkat the only primciplr, we can base our constxuctioh on is the principls that the algebrx on cmnstrainur is to be anomalr–free, thav is, che corrdspomding wlgebra of commmdators of quantum fonsttaints is weakly identical with the classical oix. This means jhad tve struccure on the Poisson bwacket algebra (\[difdif\]–\[kamham\]) is to be ireserved, in the senfe which will he explained below, og thw quqntum ldxel. The followong section is devored to the analysix ow this problem. Iu wection 3 we invrstkgaee spltdions of the resjltkmg eqjations, and kn srction 4 we seek intesprefation of the wavegukctions mqking usq of the quanyum potential apprlach vo quaitum mrchwnics. In the final section we sraw our fonglusions and qescvibe the open 'roblems.

The commutator algebra and constcuction of regularized iperators
================================================================

As we explciked in Introvuctiog, our stasting point in consteuction of the qusntum hamiltonian opedator (dhe Wjeeler–De Witt operator) is the algebra (\[difdif\]–\[hamham\]) and we demand that the same eldebra holds on yhe qlancum level. At vhms point we encoumter immediately the problem, weul known fxom the investigations of anokauies in quantom field theories, that the sole albebra of regularized operators os meaningless unless thc space od stafes on whirh these operators avt is befinee [*a priiri*]{}[^3]. Bhis follows ffom tme fact thwt tie
physical inner product, and thus we do if relevant operators hermitean or not. know we should demand operators to be the hamiltonian annihilates the physical states famous time problem [@ishamtime]) and thus unitary evolution does not play the privileged anymore. It follows that we cannot distinguish “relevant” wave functions by demanding that are as the of quantum mechanics, in fact, since the probabilistic interpretation of the “wavefunction of the universe” is it is not clear if the norm of wavefunction is to be In the recent paper [@JK] class exact solutions the Witt was found. In paper we used the heat kernel to regularize the hamiltonian operator and inserted the particular ordering. The arises what level of in construction. other words, could other (possibly simpler) regularized hamiltonian operators be their properties? This question is the subject the present It is clear from the discussion that the only principle, we can base our on is the principle that the algebra of constraints is to be anomaly–free, that is, algebra of commutators of constraints is weakly with classical This that the of the Poisson bracket algebra (\[difdif\]–\[hamham\]) is to be preserved, in sense which will be explained below, on the quantum level. section devoted to the of this problem. In 3 investigate solutions of the and section interpretation the making use of the potential approach to quantum mechanics. the final section we the open problems. The commutator algebra and construction regularized operators ================================================================ As we explained in our starting point in construction of the quantum hamiltonian operator (the Wheeler–De operator) is (\[difdif\]–\[hamham\]) and we demand that the same algebra on the quantum level. this point we encounter immediately the problem, well known the of anomalies quantum field theories, the sole algebra regularized operators is the space states which is defined [*a priori*]{}[^3]. This follows the that the
 physical inner product, and thUs we do not kNow if The RelEvAnt oPeraTors are hermiteAN or nOt. Besides, we do not even knOw if wE sHOuld DEmAnd thEse operAToRS To bE hErMitEaN: ThE hamiLtoNian annIhilates thE phYsIcal states (thE FaMous time prOblEm [@ishamtime]) aNd tHus uniTaRy eVOlutiOn dOes noT play tHE priviLeged role AnYMore. It FOllows tHAT wE canNot distinguish “relEVaNT” wave functions By demaNdINg THAt tHey Are normaliZaBle, as IN the casE Of QUANtuM Mechanics, in faCt, since the pRObaBilistIc IntERpretaTion oF tHE “waVefunction oF the Universe” iS doubtFUl, it is nOT clear iF the noRm oF thIs waVEfUnCtiOn IS to BE 1.

IN thE RecEnt paper [@jK] A cLass oF exaCT SOLutiOns Of thE WheeLer–De Witt equaTioN was FOunD. In thAt papEr we UsEd the Heat keRnel tO rEgularize the hamIltoNian operaTor AnD inSeRted tHE partiCulAr oRdering. the quesTIon ArISES wHat is the level of arbItRARiNess in thIs consTRuCtIOn. In otheR wOrdS, couLD We conStruCT oTher (possIbly siMPlEr) RegularIzEd hamiLtOniAn oPeratORs anD what wOuld be thEir prOPerties? This queSTion is the subjECt OF ThE PresEnt Paper.

It is clEar fROm thE disCUsSioN Above That tHe ONlY Principle, we can base oUr ConstrUctioN on is the princIple that thE ALGebra of cOnstRAiNTs is to be anomalY–free, That is, the cORrespondIng alGebra of cOmmutatorS OF quantum ConStrAinTs iS WEaKly identical wITH the ClAssical One. this meaNs tHat The StrUcTure of the poisson bRaCkEt AlGebRa (\[difDIf\]–\[hamham\]) Is To bE pResErved, IN the seNse whIch wIlL bE ExpLained bELoW, ON the QuAnTum lEveL. THe folLowiNG seCtion is Devoted to The ANalySiS oF this prOblem. In sectioN 3 wE investigaTe SolUtions OF The resulTing equations, and in sectiON 4 we seek IntErpreTatiOn of the waVefUnctioNs mAKing usE of the QuantUm PotENTial aPPRoAch To Quantum mecHANicS. In thE fInal Section We draw our conclusioNS anD describe the oPen ProbLEMs.

the COmMUtaToR AlgEBRa and constructiOn of regulaRiZEd Operators
================================================================

AS We eXpLained iN IntrodUctioN, Our starTing point In construCtIon oF THe qUantum hamiLtonian oPerator (thE wheelER–DE Witt OpeRator) iS tHe aLgebrA (\[difdiF\]–\[HamHam\]) anD we demAnD that tHe samE aLgebra hoLds on the quantum level. At tHis poiNt we eNcoUnter immeDiaTEly The probleM, welL known from The InvEstigAtiONs of aNomaLIeS in QUantuM fieLD theories, THaT thE SOlE algebra of rEGULarIzed oPerATors is MeanIngless unless the sPAce of states on wHich THEse OpeRAtorS aCt is defined [*a prIorI*]{}[^3]. THIS follows FrOm the fact thAt the
 physical inner product, a nd thus we  do n otkno wif t he r elevant operat o rs a re hermitean or not. B eside s, we d o  n ot ev en know if w e s ho ul d d em a nd  thes e o perator s to be he rmi te an: the hami l to nian annih ila tes the phys ica l stat es  (t h e fam ous  time  probl e m [@is hamtime])  a n d thus unitary e vo luti on does not playt he privileged rol e anym or e .I t  fo llo ws that we  c annot disting u is h “ rel e vant” wave fu nctions byd ema ndingth att hey ar e nor ma l iza ble, as inthecase of q uantum mechani c s, in f act, s inc e t he p r ob ab ili st i c i n te rpr e tat ion of t he  “ wavef unct i o n of t heuniv erse”  is doubtful,  it  isn otclear  if t he n or m ofthis w avefu nc tion is to be 1 .

I n the rec ent  p ape r[@JK] a clas s o f e xact so lutions ofth e W he eler–De Witt equat io n wa s found.  In th a tpa p er we us ed  th e he a t  kern el t o  r egulariz e theh am il tonianop erator  a ndins erted thepartic ular ord ering .  The questiona rises what is th e le v el o f a rbitrarines s in this  con s tr uct i on. I n oth er wo r ds, could we constr uc t othe r (po ssibly simple r) regular i z e d hamilt onia n  o p erators and wh at wo uld be the i r proper ties?  This qu estion is t he subje ctofthe  pr e s en t paper.

Iti s  cle ar  from t hediscuss ion  ab ove  th at  the only  princip le ,we  c anbaseo ur const ru cti on  on  is t h e prin ciple  tha tth e  al gebra o f  c o n stra in ts  istobe  anom aly– f ree , thatis, the c orr e spon di ng  algebr a of commutat or s of quant um  co nstrai n t s is wea kly identical with thec lassica l o ne. T hismeans tha t t he str uct u re ofthe Po isson  b rac k e t alg e b ra  (\ [d ifdif\]–\[ h a mha m\])is  tobe pres erved, in the sens e  wh ich will be e xpl aine d be low ,  o n  th eq uan t u m level. The fo llowing se ct i on  is devote d  to  t he anal ysis of  this problem . In sect ion 3 wein vest i g ate  solutions  of theresulting equat i on s, an d i n sect io n 4  we s eek in t erp retat ion of  t he wav efunc ti ons maki ng use of the quantum p otenti al ap pro ach to qu ant u m m echanics.  Inthe finalsec tio n wedra w  ourconc l us ion s  anddesc r ibe the o p en  pr o b le ms.

The co m m u tat or al geb r a andcons truction of regul a rized operator s
== = = === === = ==== == ============== === == = = ======== == =========== =====

A sw e exp lained  in In troduct i o n, our st arti ngpoint incon st r uctionof  t h e quan tumha milton ian op e rato r (the Wheeler–DeWitto p erato r ) i s the  a lgebra( \[di fdif\]–\[h amham\]) an d we d eman d tha t the s am e alge bra  h olds on th e  quantumlevel . At th is  poi ntwe enc ount e r  imme diat el y t he proble m ,  w e ll  k n own  fro m the  i nves tigations of anoma lie s  in qua nt umf i eld th e or i e s, that th e s ole a l g ebra of re g ular i ze d  oper atorsis mea ningles s  un le ss thespa c e  of state s on whic h  th es e op eratorsac t is  d efi ne d [*a priori*]{ }[^3]. T his foll o w s from  th e  fac t  thatth e
 physical_inner product,_and thus we do_not know_if_the relevant_operators_are hermitean or_not. Besides, we_do not even know_if we should_demand_these operators to be hermitean: the hamiltonian annihilates the physical states (the famous time_problem_[@ishamtime]) and_thus_unitary_evolution does not play the_privileged role anymore. It follows_that we_cannot distinguish “relevant” wave functions by demanding that_they_are normalizable, as_in the case of quantum mechanics, in fact, since_the probabilistic interpretation of the “wavefunction_of the universe”_is_doubtful,_it is not clear_if the norm of this wavefunction_is to be 1.

In the recent_paper [@JK] a class of exact solutions_of the Wheeler–De Witt equation was_found. In that paper we_used the_heat kernel to regularize the_hamiltonian operator and_inserted the_particular ordering. The_question arises what is the level_of arbitrariness in_this construction. In other words, could_we_construct other (possibly_simpler)_regularized_hamiltonian operators_and what would_be_their properties?_This_question is the subject of the_present_paper.

It is clear from the discussion above_that the only principle,_we_can base our construction_on is the principle that_the algebra of constraints is to_be anomaly–free,_that is,_the corresponding algebra of commutators of quantum constraints is weakly identical_with the classical one. This means_that the structure of_the Poisson_bracket_algebra (\[difdif\]–\[hamham\]) is_to_be preserved,_in the sense which will be explained_below, on_the quantum level. The following section_is devoted to the_analysis_of this problem. In section 3_we investigate solutions of the resulting_equations, and in section 4_we_seek_interpretation of the wavefunctions making_use of the quantum potential approach_to quantum mechanics._In the final section we draw our_conclusions_and describe the open problems.

The commutator_algebra_and construction of regularized operators
================================================================

As we_explained_in_Introduction, our starting point in_construction of the quantum hamiltonian operator_(the Wheeler–De Witt operator) is the algebra (\[difdif\]–\[hamham\]) and_we demand that_the same algebra holds on_the_quantum_level. At this point we encounter immediately the problem, well_known from_the investigations of_anomalies in quantum field theories, that the sole algebra of_regularized operators is meaningless unless the space_of states on which these operators act is defined [*a priori*]{}[^3]._This follows from the fact that the