1: \documentclass[prd,twocolumn,aps,amsmath,nofootinbib,superscriptaddress, preprintnumbers]{revtex4}

2: 

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: \usepackage{hyperref}

5: \usepackage{bm}

6: 

7: % The following code, by Alan Guth, defines the macro

8: %   \citenosort{}, which allows one to force TeX to list the

9: %   references in the order that they are entered.

10: \catcode`@=11

11: \let\savesort=\NAT@sort@cites

12: \newcommand\nosort[1]{\edef\NAT@cite@list{#1}}

13: \def\citenosort#1{\let\NAT@sort@cites=\nosort \cite{#1}%

14:    \let\NAT@sort@cites=\savesort}

15: \catcode`@=12 % at signs are no longer letters

16: 

17: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

18: %Put your definitions here

19: 

20: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber} 

21: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

22: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

23: \newcommand{\comment}[1]{}

24: 

25: \newcommand{\mS}{{\mathcal S}}

26: \newcommand{\mI}{{\mathcal I}}

27: \newcommand{\mV}{{\mathcal V}}

28: \newcommand{\mA}{{\mathcal A}}

29: \newcommand{\mP}{{\mathcal P}}

30: \newcommand{\mO}{{\mathcal O}}

31: \newcommand{\mF}{{\mathcal F}}

32: \newcommand{\mR}{{\mathcal R}}

33: 

34: \begin{document}

35: 

36: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

37: %Define Title, Author, Address, Preprint#

38: 

39: \preprint{MIT-CTP-3934} 

40: 

41: \title{Predicting the cosmological constant with the scale-factor

42: cutoff measure}

43: 

44: \author{Andrea De Simone}

45: \affiliation{Center for Theoretical Physics, Laboratory for Nuclear 

46: Science, and Department of Physics, \\

47: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139}

48: 

49: \author{Alan H.~Guth}

50: \affiliation{Center for Theoretical Physics, Laboratory for Nuclear 

51: Science, and Department of Physics, \\

52: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139}

53: 

54: \author{Michael P.~Salem}

55: \affiliation{Institute of Cosmology, Department of Physics and Astronomy,

56: Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155}

57: 

58: \author{Alexander Vilenkin}

59: \affiliation{Institute of Cosmology, Department of Physics and Astronomy,

60: Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155}

61: 

62: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

63: 

64: \begin{abstract}

65: It is well known that anthropic selection from a landscape with a

66: flat prior distribution of cosmological constant $\Lambda$ gives

67: a reasonable fit to observation.  However, a realistic model of

68: the multiverse has a physical volume that diverges with time, and

69: the predicted distribution of $\Lambda$ depends on how the

70: spacetime volume is regulated.  We study a simple model of the

71: multiverse with probabilities regulated by a scale-factor cutoff,

72: and calculate the resulting distribution, considering both

73: positive and negative values of $\Lambda$.  The results are in

74: good agreement with observation.  In particular, the scale-factor

75: cutoff strongly suppresses the probability for values of

76: $\Lambda$ that are more than about ten times the observed value.

77: We also discuss several qualitative features of the scale-factor

78: cutoff, including aspects of the distributions of the curvature

79: parameter $\Omega$ and the primordial density~contrast~$Q$.

80: \end{abstract}

81: 

82: \pacs{98.80.Cq}

83: 

84: \maketitle

85: 

86: \section{Introduction}

87: \label{sec:introduction}

88: 

89: The present understanding of inflationary cosmology suggests that

90: our universe is one among an infinite number of ``pockets'' in an

91: eternally inflating multiverse.  Each of these pockets contains

92: an infinite, nearly homogeneous and isotropic universe and, when

93: the fundamental theory admits a landscape of metastable vacua,

94: each may be characterized by different physical parameters, or

95: even different particles and interactions, than those observed

96: within our pocket. Predicting what physics we should expect to

97: observe within our region of such a multiverse is a major

98: challenge for theoretical physics. (For recent reviews of this

99: issue, see e.g.~\cite{Sergereview,Guth07,Linde07,AV06,Aguirre}.)

100: 

101: The attempt to build a calculus for such predictions is

102: complicated in part by the need to regulate the diverging

103: spacetime volume of the multiverse.  A number of different

104: approaches to this measure problem has been explored: a cutoff at

105: a fixed global

106: time~\cite{tconstflux,ccVilenkin,tconst3}\footnote{Much of the

107: early work sought to calculate the relative volumes occupied by

108: different pockets on hypersurfaces of constant

109: time~\cite{tconst,LLM}.  In Ref.~\cite{tconstflux} the

110: probabilities were expressed in terms of the fluxes appearing in

111: the Fokker-Planck equation for eternal inflation.  In most (but

112: not all) cases, this method is equivalent to imposing a cutoff at

113: a constant time.  The prescription of a global time cutoff was

114: first explicitly formulated in~\cite{ccVilenkin}.}, the so-called

115: ``gauge-invariant'' measures~\cite{AV96,tconst4}, where different

116: cutoff times are used in different pockets in order to make the

117: measure approximately time-parametrization invariant, the

118: pocket-based measure~\cite{GTV,pockets,GSPVW,ELM}, which avoids

119: reference to global time by focusing on pocket abundances and

120: regulates the diverging volume within each pocket with a

121: spherical volume cutoff, and finally the causal patch

122: measures~\cite{diamond,censor}, which restrict consideration to

123: the spacetime volume accessible to a single observer.\footnote{We

124: also note the recent measure proposals in

125: Refs.~\cite{Vanchurin07,Winitzki08}.  Observational predictions

126: of these measures have not yet been worked out, so we shall not

127: discuss them any further.} Different measures make different

128: observational predictions.  In order to decide which, if any, is

129: on the right track, one can take an empirical approach, working

130: out the predictions of candidate measures and comparing them with

131: the data.  In this spirit, we investigate one of the simplest

132: global-time measure proposals:  the scale-factor cutoff measure.

133: 

134: The main focus of this paper is on the prediction of the

135: cosmological constant

136: $\Lambda$~\citenosort{ccweinberg,Linde84,cclinde,ccVilenkin,Efstathiou,MSW},

137: which is arguably a major success of the multiverse picture. 

138: Most calculations of the distribution of $\Lambda$ in the

139: literature~\cite{Efstathiou,MSW,GLV,Tegmark,VP,Peacock} do not

140: explicitly specify the measure, but in fact correspond to using

141: the pocket-based measure.  The distribution of positive $\Lambda$

142: in a causal-patch measure has also been

143: considered~\cite{ccbousso}.  The authors of Ref.~\cite{ccbousso}

144: emphasize that the causal-patch measure gives a strong

145: suppression for values of $\Lambda$ more than about ten times the

146: observed value, while anthropic constraints alone might easily

147: allow values 1000 times larger than observed, depending on

148: assumptions.  Here, we calculate the distribution for $\Lambda$

149: in the scale-factor cutoff measure, considering both positive and

150: negative values of $\Lambda$, and compare our results with those

151: of other approaches.  We find that our distribution is in a good

152: agreement with the observed value of $\Lambda$, and that the

153: scale-factor cutoff gives a suppression for large positive values

154: of $\Lambda$ that is very similar to that of the causal-patch

155: measure.

156: 

157: We also show that the scale-factor cutoff measure is not

158: afflicted with some of the serious problems arising in other

159: approaches. For example, another member of the global time

160: measure family --- the proper-time cutoff measure --- predicts a

161: population of observers that is extremely

162: youth-dominated~\citenosort{youngness1,Guth07,youngness2}.

163: Observers who take a little less time to evolve are hugely more

164: numerous than their slower-evolving counterparts, suggesting that

165: we should most likely have evolved at a very early cosmic time,

166: when the conditions for life were rather hostile.  This

167: counter-factual prediction is known as ``the youngness paradox''. 

168: Furthermore, the ``gauge-invariant'' and pocket-based measures

169: suffer from a ``$Q$ catastrophe,'' exponentially preferring

170: either very large or very small values of the primordial density

171: contrast $Q$~\cite{FHW,QGV}.  In fact, this problem is not

172: restricted to $Q$ --- there are similar expectations for the

173: gravitational constant $G$~\cite{GS}.  We show that the youngness

174: bias is very mild in the scale-factor cutoff, and that there is

175: no $Q$ (or $G$) catastrophe.  We also describe qualitative

176: expectations for the distributions of $Q$ and of the curvature

177: parameter $\Omega$.

178: 

179: This paper is organized as follows.  In section~\ref{sec:sfcutoff} 

180: we describe the scale-factor cutoff, commenting on its more salient 

181: features including its very mild youngness bias and aspects of the 

182: distributions of $Q$ and $\Omega$.  In section~\ref{sec:Ldist} we 

183: compute the probability distribution of $\Lambda$, calculating it 

184: first for the pocket-based measure, reproducing previous results, 

185: and then calculating it for the scale-factor cutoff. In both cases 

186: we study positive and negative values of $\Lambda$.  Our main

187: results are summarized in section~\ref{sec:conclusions}.  Finally, 

188: we include two appendices.  In appendix~\ref{sec:initial} we 

189: consider the possibility that the landscape splits into several 

190: disconnected sectors, and show that even in this situation the 

191: scale-factor cutoff measure is essentially independent of the 

192: initial state of the universe.  Appendix~\ref{sec:threshold} 

193: contains an analysis of the evolution of the collapse density 

194: threshold, along with a description of the linear growth function 

195: of density perturbations.

196: 

197: \section{The scale-factor cutoff}

198: \label{sec:sfcutoff}

199: 

200: \subsection{Global time cutoffs}

201: \label{ssec:global}

202: 

203: To introduce a global time cutoff, we start with a patch of a

204: spacelike hypersurface $\Sigma$ somewhere in the inflating part

205: of spacetime, and follow its evolution along the congruence of

206: geodesics orthogonal to $\Sigma$.  The spacetime region covered

207: by this congruence will typically have infinite spacetime volume,

208: and will include an infinite number of pockets.  In the

209: global-time cutoff approach we introduce a time coordinate $t$,

210: and restrict our attention to the finite spacetime region

211: $\Gamma(\Sigma,t_c)$ swept out by the geodesics prior to $t=t_c$,

212: where $t_c$ is a cutoff which is taken to infinity at the end of

213: the calculation.  The relative probability of any two types of 

214: events $A$ and $B$ is then defined to be  

215: \bea

216: {p(A) \over p(B)} \equiv \lim_{t_c \to \infty} {{n\bigl(A,

217: \Gamma(\Sigma, t_c)\bigr)} \over {n\bigl(B, \Gamma(\Sigma,

218: t_c)\bigr)}} \ ,

219: \eea

220: where $n(A,\Gamma)$ and $n(B,\Gamma)$ are the number of events of

221: types $A$ and $B$ respectively in the spacetime region $\Gamma$. 

222: In particular, the probability $P_j$ of measuring parameter

223: values corresponding to a pocket of type $j$ is proportional to

224: the number of independent measurements made in that type of

225: pocket, within the spacetime region $\Gamma(\Sigma,t_c)$, in the

226: limit $t_c \to \infty$.

227: 

228: The time coordinate $t$ is ``global'' in the sense that

229: constant-time surfaces cross many different pockets.  Note

230: however that it does not have to be global for the entire

231: spacetime, so the initial surface $\Sigma$ does not have to be a

232: Cauchy surface for the multiverse.  It need not be monotonic,

233: either, where for nonmonotonic $t$ we limit $\Gamma(\Sigma,t_c)$

234: to points along the geodesics prior to the first occurrence of

235: $t=t_c$.

236: 

237: As we will discuss in more detail in appendix~\ref{sec:initial},

238: probability distributions obtained from this kind of measure are

239: independent of the choice of the hypersurface 

240: $\Sigma$.\footnote{Here, and in most of the paper, we assume an 

241: irreducible

242: landscape, where any metastable inflating vacuum is accessible

243: from any other such vacuum through a sequence of transitions. 

244: Alternatively, if the landscape splits into several disconnected

245: sectors, each sector will be characterized by an independent

246: probability distribution and our discussion will still be

247: applicable to any of these sectors. The distribution in case of a

248: reducible landscape is discussed in appendix~\ref{sec:initial}.}

249: They do depend, however, on how one defines the time parameter

250: $t$.  To understand this sensitivity to the choice of cutoff,

251: note that the eternally inflating universe is rapidly expanding,

252: such that at any time most of the volume is in pockets that have

253: just formed.  These pockets are therefore very near the cutoff

254: surface at $t=t_c$, which explains why distributions depend on

255: exactly how that surface is drawn.

256: 

257: A natural choice of the time coordinate $t$ is the proper time

258: $\tau$ along the geodesic congruence.  But as we have already

259: mentioned, and will discuss in more detail in the following

260: subsection, this choice is plagued with the youngness paradox,

261: and therefore does not yield a satisfactory measure.  Another

262: natural option is to use the expansion factor $a$ along the

263: geodesics as a measure of time.  The scale-factor time is then

264: defined as

265: \bea

266: t\equiv\ln a \,.

267: \label{tdef}

268: \eea

269: The use of this time parameter for calculating probabilities is

270: advocated in Ref.~\cite{Starobinsky} and is studied in various

271: contexts in Refs.~\cite{tconst}, \cite{LLM},

272: \cite{tconstflux}, and \cite{tconst3}.\footnote{The measure

273: studied in Ref.~\cite{Starobinsky} is a comoving-volume measure

274: on surfaces of constant scale-factor time; it is different from

275: the scale-factor cutoff measure being discussed here.  In

276: particular, the former measure has a strong dependence on the

277: initial state at the hypersurface $\Sigma$.  Our measure is very

278: similar to one studied in Ref.~\cite{tconst3}, which is called

279: the ``pseudo-comoving volume-weighted measure.''} It amounts to

280: measuring time in units of the local Hubble time $H^{-1}$,

281: \bea 

282: dt=Hd\tau \,.

283: \label{ttau}

284: \eea

285: The scale-factor cutoff is imposed at a fixed value of $t=t_c$,

286: or, equivalently, at a fixed expansion factor $a_c$.

287: 

288: The term ``scale factor'' is often used in the context of

289: homogeneous and isotropic spaces, but it is easily generalized to

290: spacetimes with no such symmetry. In the general case, the

291: scale-factor time can be defined by Eq.~(\ref{ttau}) with

292: \bea

293: H=(1/3)\,u^\mu{}_{;\,\mu} \, ,

294:    \label{Hubble}

295: \eea

296: where $u^\mu(x)$ is the four-velocity vector along the geodesics. 

297: This definition has a simple geometric meaning, which can be seen

298: by imagining that the congruence of geodesics describes the flow

299: of a ``dust'' of test particles. If the dust of particles is

300: assumed to have a uniform density $\rho_0$ on the initial surface

301: $\Sigma$, then the four-current of the dust can be described by

302: $j^\mu(x) = \rho(x) u^\mu(x)$, where $\rho=\rho_0$ on $\Sigma$. 

303: Conservation of the current then implies that $u^\mu \partial_\mu

304: \rho + \rho \, u^\mu{}_{;\mu} = 0$, which with Eqs.~(\ref{ttau})

305: and (\ref{Hubble}) implies that

306: \bea

307: D_\tau \ln \rho = - u^\mu{}_{;\mu} = - 3 D_\tau t \, ,

308: \eea

309: where $D_\tau \equiv u^\mu \partial_\mu$ is the derivative with

310: respect to proper time along the geodesics.  The solution is then

311: $\rho = \rho_0 e^{- 3 t}$.  From Eq.~(\ref{tdef}) we then have $a

312: \propto

313: \rho^{-1/3}$, so the scale-factor cutoff is triggered when the

314: density $\rho(x)$ of the dust in its own rest frame drops below a

315: certain specified level.

316: 

317: The divergence of geodesics during inflation or homogeneous

318: expansion can be followed by convergence during structure

319: formation or in regions dominated by a negative cosmological

320: constant.  The scale-factor time then ceases to be a good time

321: variable, but this does not preclude one from using it to impose

322: a cutoff.  A geodesic is terminated when the scale factor first

323: reaches the cutoff value $a_c$.  If the scale factor turns around

324: and starts decreasing before reaching that value, we continue the

325: geodesic all the way to the crunch. When geodesics cross we can 

326: still define the scale factor time along each geodesic according 

327: to Eqs.~(\ref{ttau}) and (\ref{Hubble}); then one includes a point 

328: in $\Gamma(\Sigma,t_c)$ if it lies on any geodesic prior to the 

329: first occurrence of $t=t_c$ on that geodesic.

330: 

331: To facilitate further discussion, it will be useful to review

332: some general features of eternally inflating spacetimes, and how

333: they are reflected in proper time and scale-factor time slicings. 

334: Regions of an eternally inflating multiverse may evolve in two

335: distinct ways.  In the case of quantum

336: diffusion~\cite{eternal1,Linde86}, inflation is driven by the

337: potential energy of some light scalar fields, the evolution of

338: which is dominated by quantum fluctuations and is described by

339: the Fokker-Planck equation (see e.g. Ref.~\cite{LLM}). Pockets

340: form when the scalar field(s) fluctuate into a region of

341: parameter space where classical evolution dominates, and

342: slow-roll inflation ensues.  One can define spacelike

343: hypersurfaces separating the quantum and classical regimes (see

344: for example Ref.~\cite{GSPVW}), which we denote by $\Sigma_q$. 

345: In universes like ours, slow-roll inflation is followed by

346: thermalization (reheating) and the standard post-inflationary

347: evolution.  We denote the hypersurface of thermalization, which

348: separates the inflationary and post-inflationary epochs, as

349: $\Sigma_*$.

350: 

351: The multiverse may also (or instead) feature massive fields

352: associated with large false-vacuum energies.  Evolution is then

353: governed by bubble nucleation through quantum

354: tunneling~\cite{Gott,Steinhardt} and can be described to good

355: approximation by a suitable master equation \citenosort{GV97,GSPVW}.  

356: The tunneling may proceed into another local minimum, into a region

357: of quantum diffusion, or into a region of classical slow-roll

358: inflation. In the latter case, the bubble interiors have the

359: geometry of open FRW universes \cite{ColemanDeLuccia}. Bubbles of

360: interest to us here have a period of slow-roll inflation followed

361: by thermalization.  The role of the hypersurface $\Sigma_q$ is

362: played in this case by the surface separating the initial

363: curvature-dominated regime and the slow-roll regime inside the

364: bubble. The differences between quantum diffusion and tunneling

365: are not important for most of the discussion below, so we shall

366: use notation and terminology interchangeably.

367: 

368: The number of objects of any type that have formed prior to some

369: time $t$ is proportional to $e^{\gamma t}$, where $\gamma$ is the

370: largest eigenvalue of the physical-volume Fokker-Planck or master

371: equation. This is because the asymptotic behavior is determined

372: by the eigenstate with the largest eigenvalue.  Similarly, the

373: physical volume that thermalizes into pockets of type $j$ between

374: times $t$ and $t+dt$ has the form

375: \bea

376: dV_{*j} = C_j e^{\gamma t}dt \,,

377: \label{dV}

378: \eea

379: where $C_j$ is a constant that depends on the type of pocket.

380: (This was derived in Ref.~\cite{tconstflux} for models with

381: quantum diffusion and in Refs.~\cite{VW} and \cite{youngness2}

382: for models with bubble nucleation.)

383: 

384: The value of $\gamma$ in Eq.~(\ref{dV}) is the same for all

385: pockets, but it depends on the choice of time variable $t$.  With

386: a proper-time slicing, it is given by

387: \bea

388: \gamma\sim 3 H_{\rm max} \qquad (t=\tau)\,,

389: \label{gammaproper}

390: \eea

391: where $H_{\rm max}$ is the expansion rate of the highest-energy

392: vacuum in the landscape, and corrections associated with decay 

393: rates and upward tunneling rates have been ignored.  In this

394: case the overall expansion of the multiverse is driven by this

395: fastest-expanding vacuum, which then ``trickles down'' to all of

396: the other vacua.  With scale-factor slicing, all regions would

397: expand as $a^3=e^{3t}$ if it were not for the continuous loss of

398: volume to terminal vacua with negative or zero $\Lambda$. 

399: Because of this loss, the value of $\gamma$ is slightly smaller

400: than 3, and the difference is determined mostly by the rate of

401: decay of the slowest-decaying (dominant) vacuum in the

402: landscape~\cite{Delia},

403: \bea

404: \gamma \approx 3-\kappa_D \qquad (t=\ln a) \,.

405: \label{gammascale}

406: \eea

407: Here,

408: \bea

409: \kappa_D=(4\pi/3)\,\Gamma_D/H_D^4 \,,

410: \label{kappa}

411: \eea

412: where $\Gamma_D$ is the decay rate of the dominant vacuum per

413: unit spacetime volume, and $H_D$ is its expansion rate. The

414: vacuum decay rate is typically exponentially suppressed, so for

415: the slowest-decaying vacuum we expect it to be extremely small. 

416: Hence,

417: \bea

418: 3-\gamma \ll 1 \,.

419: \label{gammasmall}

420: \eea

421: 

422: \subsection{The youngness bias} 

423: \label{ssec:youngness}

424: 

425: As we have already mentioned, the proper-time cutoff measure

426: leads to rather bizarre predictions, collectively known as the

427: youngness paradox~\citenosort{youngness1,Guth07,youngness2}.  With

428: proper time slicing, Eqs.~(\ref{dV}) and (\ref{gammaproper}) tell

429: us that the growth of volume in regions of all types is extremely

430: fast, so at any time the thermalized volume is exponentially

431: dominated by regions that have just thermalized.  With this

432: super-fast expansion, observers who take a little less time to

433: evolve are rewarded by a huge volume factor. This means most

434: observers form closer to the cutoff, when there is much more

435: volume available.  Assuming that $H_{\rm max}$ is comparable to

436: Planck scale, as one might expect in the string theory landscape,

437: then observers who evolved faster than us by $\Delta\tau=10^9$

438: years would have an available thermalized volume which is larger

439: than the volume available to us by a factor of

440: \bea

441: e^{\gamma \, \Delta \tau} \sim e^{3 H_{\rm max} \, \Delta \tau}

442: \sim \exp(10^{60}) \,.

443: \eea

444: Unless the probability of life evolving so fast is suppressed by

445: a factor greater than $\exp(10^{60})$, then these rapidly

446: evolving observers would outnumber us by a huge factor.  Since

447: these observers would measure the cosmic microwave background (CMB) 

448: temperature to be $T=2.9$~K, it would be hard to explain why we 

449: measure it to be $T=2.73$~K.  Note that because 

450: $H_{\rm max}\Delta\tau$ appears in the exponent, the situation is 

451: qualitatively unchanged by considering much smaller values of 

452: $H_{\rm max}$ or $\Delta\tau$. 

453: 

454: The situation with a scale-factor cutoff is very different.  To

455: illustrate methods used throughout this paper, let us be more

456: precise. Let $\Delta t$ denote the interval in scale-factor time

457: between the time of thermalization, $t_*$, and the time when some

458: class of observers measures the CMB temperature.  A time cutoff

459: excludes the counting of observers who measure the CMB

460: temperature at times later than $t_c$, so the number of counted

461: observers is proportional to the volume that thermalizes at time

462: $t_* < t_c - \Delta t$. (For simplicity we focus on pockets that

463: have the same low-energy physics as ours.) The volume of regions

464: thermalized per unit time is given by Eq.~(\ref{dV}).  During the

465: time interval $\Delta t$, some of this volume may decay by

466: tunneling transitions to other vacua.  This effect is negligible, 

467: and we henceforth ignore it.  For a given $\Delta t$, the 

468: thermalized volume available for observers to evolve, as counted 

469: by the scale-factor cutoff measure, is

470: \bea

471: {\mathcal V}(\Delta t) \,\,\propto\, 

472: \int_{-\infty}^{t_c-\Delta t}\! e^{\gamma t_*}\, dt_* 

473: \,\,\propto\,\,\, e^{-\gamma \Delta t} \,.

474: \eea

475: 

476: To compare with the results above, consider the relative amounts

477: of volume available for the evolution of two different 

478: civilizations, which form at two different time intervals since

479: thermalization, $\Delta t_1$ and $\Delta t_2$:

480: \bea

481: \frac{{\mathcal V}(\Delta t_1)}{{\mathcal V}(\Delta t_2)} \,\,=\,\, 

482: e^{\gamma(\Delta t_2-\Delta t_1)}

483: \,\,=\,\, \left(a_2/a_1\right)^{\gamma} \,,

484: \eea

485: where $a_i$ is the scale factor at time $t_*+\Delta t_i$.  Thus,

486: taking $\gamma \approx 3$, the relative volumes available for 

487: observers who measure the CMB at the present value ($T=2.73$~K), 

488: compared to observers who measure it at the value of $10^9$ years 

489: ago ($T=2.9$~K), is given by

490: \bea

491: \frac{{\mathcal V}(2.73~\hbox{K})}{{\mathcal V}(2.9~\hbox{K})} \approx

492: \left({2.73~\hbox{K}\over{2.9~\hbox{K}}}\right)^{\!3}\approx\, 0.8 \,.

493: \eea

494: Thus, the youngness bias is very mild in the scale-factor cutoff

495: measure.  Yet, as we shall see, it can have interesting

496: observational implications.

497: 

498: \subsection{Expectations for the density contrast $Q$ and the

499: curvature parameter $\Omega$}

500: \label{ssec:runaway}

501: 

502: Pocket-based measures, as well as ``gauge-invariant'' measures,

503: suffer from a ``$Q$ catastrophe'' where one expects to measure

504: extreme values of the primordial density contrast $Q$.  To see

505: this, note that these measures exponentially prefer parameter

506: values that generate a large number of e-folds of inflation. 

507: This by itself does not appear to be a problem, but $Q$ is

508: related to parameters that determine the number of e-folds.  The

509: result of this is a selection effect that exponentially prefers

510: the observation of either very large or very small values of $Q$,

511: depending on the model of inflation and on which inflationary

512: parameters scan (i.e., which parameters vary significantly across 

513: the landscape)~\cite{FHW,QGV}. On the other hand, we observe $Q$ 

514: to lie comfortably in the middle of the anthropic

515: range~\cite{anthQ}, indicating that no such strong selection

516: effect is at work.\footnote{Possible resolutions to this problem

517: have been proposed in Refs.~\cite{FHW,QGV,HWY,LM}.} Note that a

518: similar story applies to the magnitude of the gravitational

519: constant $G$~\cite{GS}. 

520: 

521: With the scale-factor cutoff, on the other hand, this is not a

522: problem. To see this, consider a landscape in which the only

523: parameter that scans is the number of e-folds of inflation; all

524: low-energy physics is exactly as in our universe.  Consider first

525: the portions of the hypersurfaces $\Sigma_q$ that begin slow-roll

526: inflation at time $t_q$ in the interval $dt_q$.  These regions

527: begin with a physical volume proportional to $e^{\gamma

528: t_q}\,dt_q$, and those that do not decay grow by a factor of

529: $e^{3N_e}$ before they thermalize at time $t_*=t_q+N_e$.  If

530: $\kappa_I$ is the transition rate out of the slow-roll

531: inflationary phase (as defined in Eq.~(\ref{kappa})), then the

532: fraction of volume that does not undergo decay is

533: $e^{-\kappa_IN_e}$.

534: 

535: After thermalization at time $t_*$, the evolution is the same in

536: all thermalized regions.  Therefore we ignore this common

537: evolution and consider the number of observers measuring a given

538: value of $N_e$ to be proportional to the volume of thermalization

539: hypersurfaces that appear at times earlier than the cutoff at

540: scale-factor time $t_c$.  This cutoff requires $t_*=t_q+N_e<t_c$. 

541: Summing over all times $t_q$ gives

542: \bea

543: P(N_e) \,\propto\, e^{(3-\kappa_I)N_e}\!\!

544: \int_{-\infty}^{t_c-N_e}\!\!  

545: e^{\gamma t_q} \, dt_q \,\propto\, e^{(3-\gamma-\kappa_I)N_e} \,.

546: \,\,

547: \eea

548: Even though the dependence on $N_e$ is exponential, the factor

549: \bea

550: 3-\gamma-\kappa_I\approx \kappa_D-\kappa_I

551: \eea 

552: is exponentially suppressed.  Thus we find $P(N_e)$ is a very

553: weak function of $N_e$, and there is not a strong selection

554: effect for a large number of e-folds of slow-roll inflation. In

555: fact, since the dominant vacuum $D$ is by definition the

556: slowest-decaying vacuum, we have $\kappa_I > \kappa_D$.  Thus the

557: scale-factor cutoff introduces a very weak selection for smaller

558: values of $N_e$.\footnote{We are grateful to Ben Freivogel for

559: pointing out to us the need to account for vacuum decay during

560: slow-roll inflation.  He has also suggested that this effect will

561: lead to preference for smaller values of $N_e$.}

562: 

563: Because of the very mild dependence on $N_e$, we do not expect

564: the scale-factor measure to impose significant cosmological

565: selection on the scanning of any inflationary parameters.  Thus,

566: there is no $Q$ catastrophe --- nor is there the related problem

567: for $G$ --- and the distribution of $Q$ is essentially its

568: distribution over the states in the landscape, modulated by

569: inflationary dynamics and any anthropic selection effects.

570: 

571: The distribution $P(N_e)$ is also important for the expected

572: value of the curvature parameter $\Omega$.  This is because the

573: deviation of $\Omega$ from unity decreases during an inflationary

574: era,

575: \bea

576: |\Omega -1|\propto e^{-2N_e} \,.

577: \eea

578: Hence pocket-based and ``gauge-invariant'' measures, which

579: exponentially favor large values of $N_e$, predict a universe

580: with $\Omega$ extremely close to unity.  The distributions of

581: $\Omega$ from a variety of models have been calculated using a

582: pocket-based measure in Refs.~\cite{GTV} and \cite{VW}.

583: 

584: On the other hand, as we have just described, the scale-factor

585: cutoff measure does not significantly select for any value of

586: $N_e$.  There will still be some prior distribution of $N_e$,

587: related to the distributions of inflationary parameters over the

588: states in the landscape, but it is not necessary that $N_e$ be

589: driven strongly toward large values (in fact, it has been argued

590: that small values should be preferred in the string landscape,

591: see e.g. Ref.~\cite{FKMS}). Thus, it appears that the

592: scale-factor cutoff allows for the possibility of a detectable

593: negative curvature.  The probability distribution of $\Omega$ in

594: this type of measure has been discussed qualitatively in

595: Ref.~\cite{FKMS}; a more detailed quantitative analysis will be

596: given elsewhere~\cite{Omeganext}.

597: 

598: \boldmath

599: \section{The Distribution of $\Lambda$}

600: \label{sec:Ldist}

601: \unboldmath

602: 

603: \boldmath

604: \subsection{Model assumptions}      

605: \label{ssec:model}

606: \unboldmath

607: 

608: We now consider a landscape of vacua with the same low-energy

609: physics as we observe, except for an essentially continuous

610: distribution of possible values of $\Lambda$.  According to 

611: Eq.~(\ref{dV}), the volume that thermalizes between times $t_*$ 

612: and $t_*+dt_*$ with values of cosmological constant between 

613: $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda+d\Lambda$ is given by

614: \bea

615: dV_*(\Lambda) = C(\Lambda)d\Lambda\, e^{\gamma t_*}dt_* \,.

616: \eea

617: The factor of $C(\Lambda)$ plays the role of the ``prior'' 

618: distribution of $\Lambda$; it depends on the spectrum of 

619: possible values of $\Lambda$ in the landscape and on the 

620: dynamics of eternal inflation.  The standard 

621: argument~\cite{ccweinberg,Efstathiou} suggests that 

622: $C(\Lambda)$ is well approximated by

623: \bea

624: C(\Lambda)\approx {\rm const} \,,

625: \label{flatprior}

626: \eea

627: because anthropic selection restricts $\Lambda$ to values that

628: are very small compared to its expected range of variation in 

629: the landscape.  The conditions of validity of this heuristic

630: argument have been studied in simple landscape 

631: models~\cite{Delia,KenDelia,Shenker}, with the conclusion that 

632: it does in fact apply to a wide class of models.  Here, we shall

633: assume that Eq.~(\ref{flatprior}) is valid.

634: 

635: Anthropic selection effects are usually characterized by the 

636: fraction of matter that has clustered in galaxies.  The idea here 

637: is that a certain average number of stars is formed per unit 

638: galactic mass and a certain number of observers per star, and that 

639: these numbers are not strongly affected by the value of $\Lambda$. 

640: Furthermore, the standard approach is to assume that some minimum

641: halo mass $M_G$ is necessary to drive efficient star formation

642: and heavy element retention.  Since we regulate the volume of the

643: multiverse using a time cutoff, it is important for us to also

644: track at what time observers arise.  We assume that after halo

645: collapse, some fixed proper time lapse $\Delta\tau$ is required

646: to allow for stellar, planetary, and biological evolution before

647: an observer can measure $\Lambda$.  Then the number of observers

648: measuring $\Lambda$ before some time $\tau$ in a thermalized

649: volume of size $V_*$ is roughly

650: \bea

651: {\mathcal N} \propto F(M_G,\tau-\Delta\tau) V_* \,,

652: \label{Nobs1}

653: \eea  

654: where $F$ is the collapse fraction, measuring the fraction of

655: matter that clusters into objects of mass greater than or equal

656: to $M_G$, at time $\tau-\Delta\tau$.

657: 

658: Anthropic selection for structure formation ensures that within

659: each relevant pocket matter dominates the energy density before

660: $\Lambda$ does.  Thus, all thermalized regions evolve in the same

661: way until well into the era of matter domination.  To draw upon

662: this common evolution, within each pocket we define proper time

663: $\tau$ with respect to a fixed time of thermalization, $\tau_*$. 

664: It is convenient to also define a reference time $\tau_m$ such

665: that $\tau_m$ is much larger than the time of matter-radiation

666: equality and much less than the time of matter-$\Lambda$

667: equality.  Then evolution before time $\tau_m$ is the same in

668: every pocket, while after $\tau_m$ the scale factor evolves as

669: \bea

670: \tilde{a}(\tau)=\left\{ 

671: \begin{array}{l l}

672: H_\Lambda^{-2/3}\sinh^{2/3}\!

673: \big(\textstyle{\frac{3}{2}}H_\Lambda\tau\big)\quad 

674: & {\rm for }\,\, \Lambda > 0 \\ H_\Lambda^{-2/3}\sin^{2/3}\!

675: \big(\textstyle{\frac{3}{2}}H_\Lambda\tau\big)\quad

676: & {\rm for }\,\, \Lambda < 0 \,.

677: \end{array}

678: \right.

679: \label{a}

680: \eea

681: Here we have defined

682: \bea

683: H_\Lambda\equiv \sqrt{|\Lambda|/3} \,,

684: \eea

685: and use units with $G=c=1$.  The prefactors $H_\Lambda^{-2/3}$

686: ensure that early evolution is identical in all thermalized

687: regions.  This means the global scale factor $a$ is related to

688: $\tilde{a}$ by some factor that depends on the scale-factor time

689: $t_*$ at which the region of interest thermalized.

690: 

691: In the case $\Lambda >0$, the rate at which halos accrete matter

692: decreases with time and halos may settle into galaxies that

693: permit quiescent stellar systems such as ours.  The situation

694: with $\Lambda < 0$ is quite different.  At early times, the

695: evolution of overdensities is the same; but when the proper time

696: reaches $\tau_{\rm turn}=\pi/3H_\Lambda$, the scale factor begins

697: to decrease and halos begin to accrete matter at a rate that

698: increases with time.  Such rapid accretion may prevent galaxies

699: from settling into stable configurations, which in turn would

700: cause planetary systems to undergo more frequent close encounters

701: with passing stars.  This effect might become significant even 

702: before turnaround, since our present environment benefits from 

703: positive $\Lambda$ slowing the collision rate of the Milky Way 

704: with other systems.

705: 

706: For this reason, we use Eq.~(\ref{Nobs1}) to estimate the number

707: of observers if $\Lambda > 0$, but for $\Lambda < 0$ we consider

708: two alternative anthropic hypotheses:

709: \begin{itemize}

710: \item[{$A$.\quad}] we use Eq.~(\ref{Nobs1}), but of course taking

711: account of the fact that the proper time $\tau$ cannot exceed

712: $\tau_{\rm crunch}=2\pi/3H_\Lambda$; or

713: \item[{$B$.\quad}] we use Eq.~(\ref{Nobs1}), but with the

714: hypothesis that the proper time $\tau$ is capped at $\tau_{\rm

715: turn} = \pi/3 H_\Lambda$.

716: \end{itemize}

717: Here $\tau_{\rm crunch}$ refers to the proper time at which a

718: thermalized region in a collapsing pocket reaches its future

719: singularity, which we refer to as its ``crunch.'' Anthropic

720: hypothesis $A$ corresponds to the assumption that life can form in

721: any sufficiently massive collapsed halo, while anthropic

722: hypothesis $B$ reflects the assumption that the probability for

723: the formation of life becomes negligible in the tumultuous

724: environment following turnaround. Similar hypotheses for

725: $\Lambda<0$ were previously used in Ref.~\cite{Peacock}. It seems

726: reasonable to believe that the truth lies somewhere between these

727: two hypotheses, perhaps somewhat closer to hypothesis B.

728: 

729: \boldmath

730: \subsection{Distribution of $\Lambda$ using a pocket-based measure}      

731: \label{ssec:standardL}

732: \unboldmath

733: 

734: Before calculating the distribution of $\Lambda$ using a

735: scale-factor cutoff, we review the standard

736: calculation~\cite{Efstathiou,MSW,GLV,Tegmark,VP,Peacock}.  This

737: approach assumes an ensemble of equal-size regions with a flat

738: prior distribution of $\Lambda$.  The regions are allowed to

739: evolve indefinitely, without any time cutoff, so in the case of

740: $\Lambda >0$ the selection factor is given by the asymptotic

741: collapse fraction at $\tau\to\infty$.  For $\Lambda <0$ we shall

742: consider anthropic hypotheses $A$ and $B$.  This prescription

743: corresponds to using the pocket-based measure, in which the

744: ensemble includes spherical regions belonging to different

745: pockets and observations are counted in the entire comoving

746: history of these regions.  The corresponding distribution

747: function is given by

748: \bea

749: P(\Lambda) \propto \left\{

750: \begin{array}{ll}

751: F(M_G,\tau\to\infty) \quad & {\rm for}\,\, \Lambda> 0 \\

752: F(M_G,\tau_{\rm crunch}-\Delta\tau) \quad & {\rm for}\,\,

753: \Lambda< 0 \,\,\, (A) \\ F(M_G,\tau_{\rm turn}-\Delta\tau) \quad

754: & {\rm for}\,\, \Lambda< 0 \,\,\, (B) \,, \\

755: \end{array}\right.

756: \label{PocketBased}

757: \eea     

758: where, again, $\tau_{\rm crunch}=2\pi/3H_\Lambda$ is the proper

759: time of the crunch in pockets with $\Lambda<0$, while $\tau_{\rm

760: turn}=\pi/3H_\Lambda$.

761: 

762: We approximate the collapse fraction $F$ using the

763: Press-Schechter (PS) formalism~\cite{PS}, which gives

764: \bea

765: F(M_G,\tau) = {\rm erfc}\left[

766: \frac{\delta_c(\tau)}{\sqrt{2}\,\sigma(M_G,\tau)}\right] \,,

767: \label{warren}

768: \eea     

769: where $\sigma(M_G,\tau)$ is the root-mean-square fractional

770: density contrast $\delta M/M$ averaged over a comoving scale

771: enclosing mass $M_G$ and evaluated at proper time $\tau$, while

772: $\delta_c$ is the collapse density threshold. As is further

773: explained in appendix~\ref{sec:threshold}, $\delta_c(\tau)$ is

774: determined by considering a ``top-hat'' density perturbation in a

775: flat universe, with an arbitrary initial amplitude. 

776: $\delta_c(\tau)$ is then defined as the amplitude reached by the

777: linear evolution of an overdensity of nonrelativistic matter

778: $\delta \rho_m/\rho_m$ that has the same initial amplitude as a

779: top-hat density perturbation that collapses to a singularity in

780: proper time $\tau$.  $\delta_c(\tau)$ has the constant value of

781: 1.686 in an Einstein-de Sitter universe (i.e., flat,

782: matter-dominated universe), but it evolves with time when

783: $\Lambda\neq 0$~\cite{dc,PTV}.  We simulate this evolution using

784: the fitting functions (\ref{fitdeltac}), which are accurate to

785: better than 0.2\%. Note, however, that the results are not

786: significantly different if one simply uses the constant value

787: $\delta_c=1.686$.

788: 

789: \begin{figure}[t!]

790: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{pdist0e.eps} 

791: \caption{The normalized distribution of $\Lambda$ for $\Lambda>0$, 

792: with $\Lambda$ in units of the observed value, for the pocket-based

793: measure. The vertical bar highlights the value we measure, while

794: the shaded regions correspond to points more than one and two 

795: standard deviations from the mean.}

796: \label{fig:ccpocketL>0}

797: \end{figure}

798: 

799: \begin{figure*}[t!]

800: \begin{tabular}{ccc}

801: \vspace{5pt} anthropic hypothesis $A$ & & anthropic hypothesis $B$ \\

802: \vspace{-5pt}

803: \!\!\!\!\!\includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{fdist0eA.eps} & 

804: \hspace{1cm} &

805: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{fdist0eB.eps} \\

806: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{fdist0eaA.eps} & &

807: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{fdist0eaB.eps} \\

808: \end{tabular}

809: \caption{The normalized distribution of $\Lambda$, with $\Lambda$ 

810: in units of the observed value, for the pocket-based measure.  

811: The left column corresponds to anthropic hypothesis $A$ while the

812: right column corresponds to anthropic hypothesis $B$.  Meanwhile, 

813: the top row shows $P(\Lambda)$ while the bottom row shows 

814: $P(|\Lambda|)$. The vertical bars highlight the value we

815: measure, while the shaded regions correspond to points more than

816: one and two standard deviations from the mean.}

817: \label{fig:ccpocket}

818: \end{figure*}

819: 

820: Aside from providing the collapse fraction, the PS formalism

821: describes the ``mass function,'' i.e. the distribution of halo

822: masses as a function of time.  $N$-body simulations indicate that

823: PS model overestimates the abundance of halos near the peak of

824: the mass function, while underestimating that of more massive

825: structures~\cite{Jenkins}.  Consequently, other models have been

826: developed (see e.g. Refs.~\cite{ST}), while others have studied

827: numerical fits to $N$-body results~\cite{Warren,Peacock}.  From

828: each of these approaches, the collapse fraction can be obtained

829: by integrating the mass function.  We have checked that our

830: results are not significantly different if we use the fitting

831: formula of Ref.~\cite{Peacock} instead of Eq.~(\ref{warren}). 

832: Meanwhile, we prefer Eq.~(\ref{warren}) to the fit of

833: Ref.~\cite{Peacock} because the latter was performed using only

834: numerical simulations with $\Lambda>0$. 

835: 

836: The evolution of the density contrast $\sigma$ is treated

837: linearly, to be consistent with the definition of the collapse

838: density threshold $\delta_c$.  Thus we can factorize the behavior

839: of $\sigma(M_G,\tau)$, writing

840: \bea

841: \sigma(M_G,\tau)=\bar\sigma(M_G)\,G_\Lambda(\tau)\,, 

842: \label{factorize}

843: \eea

844: where $G_\Lambda(\tau)$ is the linear growth function, which is

845: normalized so that the behavior for small $\tau$ is given by

846: $G_\Lambda(\tau)\sim (3 H_\Lambda \tau/2)^{2/3}$.  In 

847: appendix~\ref{sec:threshold}

848: we will give exact integral expressions for $G_\Lambda(\tau)$,

849: and also the fitting formulae~(\ref{sigp}) and~(\ref{sign}),

850: taken from Ref.~\cite{Peacock}, that we actually used in our

851: calculations.  Note that for $\Lambda\geq 0$ the growth rate

852: $\dot G_\Lambda(\tau)$ always decreases with time ($\ddot

853: G_\Lambda(\tau) < 0$), while for $\Lambda < 0$ the growth rate

854: reaches a minimum at $\tau \approx 0.24 \tau_{\rm crunch}$ and

855: then starts to accelerate. This accelerating rate of growth is

856: related to the increasing rate of matter accretion in collapsed

857: halos after turnaround, which we mentioned above in motivating

858: the anthropic hypothesis $B$.

859: 

860: The prefactor $\bar\sigma(M_G)$ in Eq.~(\ref{factorize}) depends

861: on the scale $M_G$ at which the density contrast is evaluated.

862: According to our anthropic model, $M_G$ should correspond to the

863: minimum halo mass for which star formation and heavy element

864: retention is efficient.  Indeed, the efficiency of star formation

865: is seen to show a sharp transition: it falls abruptly for halo

866: masses smaller than $M_G\sim 2\times 10^{11}M_\odot$, where

867: $M_\odot$ is the solar mass~\cite{StarForm}.  Peacock

868: \cite{Peacock} showed that the existing data on the evolving

869: stellar density can be well described by a Press-Schechter

870: calculation of the collapsed density for a single mass scale,

871: with a best fit corresponding to $\sigma(M_G,\,

872: \tau_{1000})\approx 6.74\times 10^{-3}$, where $\tau_{1000}$ is

873: the proper time corresponding to a temperature $T=1000$ K.  Using

874: cosmological parameters current at the time, Peacock found that

875: this perturbation amplitude corresponds to an effective galaxy

876: mass of $1.9 \times 10^{12}\,M_\odot$.  Using the more recent 

877: WMAP-5 parameters~\cite{WMAP5}, as is done throughout 

878: this paper,\footnote{The relevant values are

879: $\Omega_\Lambda=0.742$, $\Omega_m=0.258$, $\Omega_b=0.044$,

880: $n_s=0.96$, $h=0.719$, and $\Delta_{\mathcal R}^2(k=0.02\,{\rm

881: Mpc}^{-1})= 2.21\times 10^{-9}$.} 

882: we find (using Ref.~\cite{cmbfast} and the CMBFAST program) that 

883: the corresponding effective galaxy mass is $1.8\times

884: 10^{12}\,M_\odot$.

885: 

886: Unless otherwise noted, in this paper we set the prefactor

887: $\bar\sigma(M_G)$ in Eq.~(\ref{factorize}) by choosing 

888: $M_G=10^{12}\,M_\odot$.  Using the WMAP-5 parameters and CMBFAST, 

889: we find that at the present cosmic time

890: $\sigma(10^{12}\,M_\odot) \approx 2.03$.  This corresponds to 

891: $\sigma(10^{12}\,M_\odot,\tau_{1000})\approx 7.35\times 10^{-3}$.  

892: 

893: We are now prepared to display the results, plotting $P(\Lambda)$

894: as determined by Eq.~(\ref{PocketBased}). We first reproduce the

895: standard distribution of $\Lambda$, which corresponds to the case

896: when $\Lambda>0$.  This is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ccpocketL>0}. 

897: We see that the value of $\Lambda$ that we measure is between one

898: and two standard deviations from the mean.  Throughout the paper,

899: the vertical bars in the plots merely highlight the observed

900: value of $\Lambda$ and do not indicate its experimental

901: uncertainty.  The quality of the fit depends on the choice of

902: scale $M_G$; in particular, choosing smaller values of $M_G$

903: weakens the fit~\cite{Loeb,VP}.  Note however that the value of

904: $M_G$ that we use is already less than that recommended by

905: Ref.~\cite{Peacock}.

906: 

907: Fig.~\ref{fig:ccpocket} shows the distribution of $\Lambda$ for

908: positive and negative values of $\Lambda$.  We use

909: $\Delta\tau=5\times 10^9$ years, corresponding roughly to the age

910: of our solar system.  The left column corresponds to choosing

911: anthropic hypothesis $A$ while the right column corresponds to

912: anthropic hypothesis $B$.  To address the question of whether the

913: observed value of $|\Lambda|$ lies improbably close to the special

914: point $\Lambda=0$, in the second row we plot the distributions

915: for $P(|\Lambda|)$.  We see that the observed value of $\Lambda$

916: lies only a little more than one standard deviation from the

917: mean, which is certainly acceptable.  (Another measure of the

918: ``typicality'' of our value of $\Lambda$ has been studied in

919: Ref.~\cite{VP}).

920: 

921: \boldmath

922: \subsection{Distribution of $\Lambda$ using the scale-factor cutoff}      

923: \label{ssec:sfcutoffL}

924: \unboldmath

925: 

926: We now turn to the calculation of $P(\Lambda)$ using a

927: scale-factor cutoff to regulate the diverging volume of the

928: multiverse.  When we restrict attention to the evolution of a

929: small thermalized patch, a cutoff at scale-factor time $t_c$

930: corresponds to a proper time cutoff $\tau_c$, which depends on

931: $t_c$ and the time at which the patch thermalized, $t_*$.  Here

932: we take the thermalized patch to be small enough that

933: scale-factor time $t$ is essentially constant over hypersurfaces

934: of constant $\tau$.  Then the various proper and scale-factor

935: times are related by

936: \bea

937: t_c - t_* = \int_{\tau_*}^{\tau_c}\! H(\tau)\,d\tau = \ln\big[

938: \tilde{a}(\tau_c)/\tilde{a}(\tau_*)\big]\,.

939: \label{tauc}

940: \eea  

941: 

942: Recall that all of the thermalized regions of interest share a

943: common evolution up to the proper time $\tau_m$, after which they

944: follow Eqs.~(\ref{a}).  Solving for the proper time cutoff

945: $\tau_c$ gives

946: \bea

947: \tau_c = \frac{2}{3}H_\Lambda^{-1}{\rm arcsinh}\!\left[

948: \textstyle{\frac{3}{2}}H_\Lambda\tau_m\, 

949: e^{\frac{3}{2}(t_c-t_*-C)} \right] ,

950: \label{taucL>0}

951: \eea  

952: for the case $\Lambda> 0$\,, and

953: \bea

954: \tau_c = \frac{2}{3}H_\Lambda^{-1}{\rm arcsin}\!\left[

955: \textstyle{\frac{3}{2}}H_\Lambda\tau_m\, 

956: e^{\frac{3}{2}(t_c-t_*-C)} \right] ,

957: \label{taucL<0}

958: \eea

959: for $\Lambda < 0$.  The term $C$ is a constant that accounts for

960: evolution from time $\tau_*$ to time $\tau_m$.  Note that as

961: $t_c-t_*$ is increased in Eq.~(\ref{taucL<0}), $\tau_c$ grows

962: until it reaches the time of scale-factor turnaround in the

963: pocket, $\tau_{\rm turn}=\pi/3H_\Lambda$, after which the

964: expression is ill-defined.  Physically, the failure of

965: Eq.~(\ref{taucL<0}) corresponds to when a thermalized region

966: reaches turnaround before the scale-factor time reaches its

967: cutoff at $t_c$.  After turnaround, the scale factor decreases;

968: therefore these regions evolve without a cutoff all the way up to

969: the time of crunch, $\tau_{\rm crunch}=2\pi/3H_\Lambda$. 

970: 

971: \begin{figure}[t!]

972: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{pdist2e.eps}

973: \caption{The normalized distribution of $\Lambda$ for $\Lambda>0$, 

974: with $\Lambda$ in units of the observed value, for the scale-factor 

975: cutoff. The vertical bar highlights the value we measure, while the 

976: shaded regions correspond to points more than one and two standard 

977: deviations from the mean.}

978: \label{fig:ccsfcutoffL>0}

979: \end{figure}

980: 

981: When counting the number of observers in the various pockets

982: using a scale-factor cutoff, one must keep in mind the dependence

983: on the thermalized volume $V_*$ in Eq.~(\ref{Nobs1}), since in

984: this case $V_*$ depends on the cutoff.  As stated earlier, we

985: assume the rate of thermalization for pockets containing

986: universes like ours is independent of $\Lambda$.  Thus, the total

987: physical volume of all regions that thermalized between times

988: $t_*$ and $t_*+dt_*$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{dV}), and is

989: independent of $\Lambda$.  Using Eq.~(\ref{Nobs1}) to count the

990: number of observers in each thermalized patch, and summing over

991: all times below the cutoff, we find

992: \bea

993: P(\Lambda) \propto

994: \int_{-\infty}^{t_c}\! F\big[M_G,\tau_c(t_c,t_*)-\Delta\tau\big]\,

995: e^{\gamma t_*} dt_* \,. \,\,

996: \label{PL}

997: \eea

998: Note that regions thermalizing at a later time $t_*$ have a

999: greater weight $\propto e^{\gamma t_*}$.  This is an expression

1000: of the youngness bias in the scale-factor measure.  The $\Lambda$

1001: dependence of this distribution is implicit in $F$, which depends

1002: on $\delta_c(\Lambda,\tau_c-\Delta\tau)/

1003: \sigma_{\rm rms}(\Lambda,\tau_c-\Delta\tau)$, and in turn 

1004: on $\tau_c(\Lambda)$, which is described below. 

1005: 

1006: \begin{figure*}[t!]

1007: \begin{tabular}{ccc}

1008: \vspace{5pt} anthropic hypothesis $A$ & & anthropic hypothesis $B$ \\

1009: \vspace{-5pt}

1010: \!\!\!\!\!\includegraphics[width=0.39\textwidth]{fdist2eA.eps} & 

1011: \hspace{1cm} &

1012: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{fdist2eB.eps} \\

1013: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{fdist2eaA.eps} & &

1014: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{fdist2eaB.eps} \\

1015: \end{tabular}

1016: \caption{The normalized distribution of $\Lambda$, with $\Lambda$ 

1017: in units of the observed value, for the scale-factor cutoff. The

1018: left column corresponds to anthropic hypothesis $A$ while the

1019: right column corresponds to anthropic hypothesis $B$.  Meanwhile, 

1020: the top row shows $P(\Lambda)$ while the bottom row shows 

1021: $P(|\Lambda|)$. The vertical bars highlight the value we measure, 

1022: while the shaded regions correspond to points more than one and 

1023: two standard deviations from the mean.}

1024: \label{fig:ccsfcutoff}

1025: \end{figure*}

1026: 

1027: For pockets with $\Lambda> 0$, the cutoff on proper time $\tau_c$

1028: is given by Eq.~(\ref{taucL>0}).  Meanwhile, when $\Lambda < 0$,

1029: $\tau_c$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{taucL<0}), when that expression is

1030: well-defined. In practice, the constant $C$ of

1031: Eqs.~(\ref{taucL>0}) and (\ref{taucL<0}) is unimportant, since a

1032: negligible fraction of structures form before the proper time

1033: $\tau_m$.  Furthermore, for a reference time $\tau_m$ chosen deep

1034: in the era of matter domination, the normalized distribution is

1035: independent of $\tau_m$.  As mentioned above, for sufficiently

1036: large $t_c-t_*$ Eq.~(\ref{taucL<0}) becomes ill-defined,

1037: corresponding to the thermalized region reaching its crunch

1038: before the scale-factor cutoff.  In this case we set

1039: $\tau_c=\tau_{\rm crunch}$ or $\tau_c=\tau_{\rm turn}$,

1040: corresponding to the anthropic hypothesis $A$ or $B$ described

1041: above. 

1042: 

1043: To compare with previous work, we first display the distribution

1044: of positive $\Lambda$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:ccsfcutoffL>0}.  We have

1045: set $\gamma=3$ and use $\Delta\tau=5\times 10^9$ years.  Clearly,

1046: the scale-factor cutoff provides an excellent fit to observation,

1047: when attention is limited to $\Lambda>0$.  Note that the

1048: scale-factor-cutoff distribution exhibits a much faster fall off

1049: at large $\Lambda$ than the pocket-based distribution in

1050: Fig.~\ref{fig:ccpocketL>0}.  The reason is not difficult to

1051: understand.  For larger values of $\Lambda$, the vacuum energy

1052: dominates earlier.  The universe then begins expanding

1053: exponentially, and this quickly triggers the scale-factor cutoff. 

1054: Thus, pockets with larger values of $\Lambda$ have an earlier

1055: cutoff (in terms of the proper time) and have less time to evolve

1056: observers.  This tendency for the cutoff to kick in soon after

1057: $\Lambda$-domination may help to sharpen the anthropic

1058: explanation~\cite{GLV,Bludman} of the otherwise mysterious fact

1059: that we live so close to this very special epoch

1060: (matter-$\Lambda$ equality) in the history of the universe.

1061: 

1062: \begin{figure*}[t!]

1063: \begin{tabular}{ccc}

1064: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{fdist2t.eps} & \hspace{1cm} &

1065: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{fdist2m.eps} \\

1066: \end{tabular}

1067: \caption{The normalized distribution of $\Lambda$, with $\Lambda$ 

1068: in units of the observed value, for anthropic hypothesis $B$ in

1069: the scale-factor cutoff.  The left panel displays curves for

1070: $\Delta\tau=3$ (solid), $5$ (dashed), and $7$ (dotted) $\times

1071: 10^9$ years, with $M_G= 10^{12}\,M_\odot$, while the right panel

1072: displays curves for $M_G=10^{10}\,M_\odot$ (solid),

1073: $10^{11}\,M_\odot$ (dashed), and $10^{12}\,M_\odot$ (dotted), with

1074: $\Delta\tau=5\times 10^9$ years.  The vertical bars highlight

1075: the value of $\Lambda$ that we measure.}

1076: \label{fig:ccsfcutofftm}

1077: \end{figure*}

1078: 

1079: The distribution of $\Lambda$ for positive and negative values of

1080: $\Lambda$ is displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:ccsfcutoff}, using the

1081: same parameter values as before.  We see that the distribution

1082: with anthropic hypothesis $A$ provides a reasonable fit to

1083: observation, with the measured value of $\Lambda$ appearing just

1084: within two standard deviations of the mean.  Note that the weight

1085: of this distribution is dominated by negative values of

1086: $\Lambda$, yet anthropic hypothesis $A$ may not give the most

1087: accurate accounting of observers in pockets with $\Lambda<0$. 

1088: Anthropic hypothesis $B$ provides an alternative count of the

1089: number of observers in regions that crunch before the cutoff, and

1090: we see that the corresponding distributions provide a very good

1091: fit to observation.  This is the main result of this work.

1092: 

1093: The above distributions all use $\Delta\tau=5\times 10^9$ years

1094: and $M_G=10^{12}M_\odot$.  These values are motivated

1095: respectively by the age of our solar system and by the mass of

1096: our galactic halo, the latter being a good match to an empirical

1097: fit determining the halo mass scale characterizing efficient star

1098: formation~\cite{Peacock}.  Yet, to illustrate the dependence of

1099: our main result on $\Delta\tau$ and $M_G$, in

1100: Fig.~\ref{fig:ccsfcutofftm} we display curves for anthropic

1101: hypothesis $B$, using $\Delta\tau=3$, $5$, and $7\times 10^9$

1102: years and using $M_G=10^{10}$, $10^{11}$, and $10^{12}M_\odot$. 

1103: The distribution varies significantly as a result of these

1104: changes, but the fit to the observed value of $\Lambda$ remains

1105: good.

1106: 

1107: \section{Conclusions}

1108: \label{sec:conclusions}

1109: 

1110: To date, several qualitatively distinct measures have been

1111: proposed to regulate the diverging volume of the multiverse. 

1112: Although theoretical analysis has not provided much guidance as

1113: to which of these, if any, is correct, the various regulating

1114: procedures make different predictions for the distributions of

1115: physical observables.  Therefore, one can take an empirical

1116: approach, comparing the predictions of various measures to our

1117: observations, to shed light on what measures are on the right

1118: track.  With this in mind, we have studied some aspects of a

1119: scale-factor cutoff measure.  This measure averages over the

1120: spacetime volume in a comoving region between some initial

1121: spacelike hypersurface $\Sigma$ and a final hypersurface of

1122: constant time, with time measured in units of the local Hubble

1123: rate along the comoving geodesics.  At the end of the

1124: calculation, the cutoff on scale-factor time is taken to

1125: infinity.  We shall now summarize what we have learned about the

1126: scale-factor measure and compare its properties to those of other

1127: proposed measures.

1128: 

1129: The main focus of this paper has been on the probability 

1130: distribution for the cosmological constant $\Lambda$.  Although 

1131: the statistical distribution of $\Lambda$ among states in the

1132: landscape is assumed to be flat, imposing a scale-factor cutoff

1133: modulates this distribution to prefer smaller values of

1134: $\Lambda$.  Combined with appropriate anthropic selection

1135: effects, this gives a distribution of $\Lambda$ that is in a good

1136: fit with observation.  We have calculated the distribution for

1137: positive and negative values of $\Lambda$, as well as for the

1138: absolute value $|\Lambda|$.  For $\Lambda >0$, we adopted the 

1139: standard assumption that the number of observers is proportional 

1140: to the fraction of matter clustered in halos of mass greater than 

1141: $10^{12}M_\odot$, and allowed a fixed proper time interval 

1142: $\Delta\tau= 5\times 10^9$ years for the evolution of observers in 

1143: such halos.  For $\Lambda<0$, we considered two possible scenarios, 

1144: which probably bracket the range of reasonable possibilities.  The 

1145: first (scenario $A$) assumes that observations can be made all the 

1146: way to the big crunch, so we count all halos formed prior to time 

1147: $\Delta\tau$ before the crunch.  The second (scenario $B$) assumes 

1148: that the contracting negative-$\Lambda$ phase is hazardous to life, 

1149: so we count only halos that formed at time $\Delta\tau$ or earlier 

1150: before the turnaround.

1151: 

1152: Our results show that the observed value of $\Lambda$ is within 

1153: two standard deviations from the mean for scenario $A$, and within 

1154: one standard deviation for scenario $B$.  In the latter case, the 

1155: fit is better than that obtained in the ``standard''

1156: calculations~\cite{Efstathiou,MSW,GLV,Tegmark,VP,Peacock}, which

1157: assume no time cutoff (this is equivalent to choosing a

1158: pocket-based measure on the multiverse).  The causal patch

1159: measure also selects for smaller values of $\Lambda$ providing,

1160: in the case of positive $\Lambda$, a fit to observation similar

1161: to that of the scale-factor cutoff~\cite{ccbousso}.  Note,

1162: however, that the approach of Ref.~\cite{ccbousso} used an

1163: entropy-based anthropic weighting (as opposed to the

1164: structure-formation-based approach used here) and that the

1165: distribution of negative $\Lambda$ has not been studied in this

1166: measure.

1167: 

1168: We have verified that our results are robust with respect to

1169: changing the parameters $M_G$ and $\Delta\tau$.  The agreement

1170: with the data remains good for $M_G$ varying between $10^{10}$

1171: and $10^{12} M_\odot$ and for $\Delta\tau$ varying between

1172: $3\times 10^9$ and $7\times 10^9$ years.

1173: 

1174: We have also shown that the scale-factor cutoff measure does not

1175: suffer from some of the problems afflicting other proposed

1176: measures.  The most severe of these is the ``youngness paradox'' 

1177: --- the prediction of an extremely youth-dominated distribution

1178: of observers --- which follows from the proper-time cutoff

1179: measure.  The scale-factor cutoff measure, on the other hand,

1180: predicts only a very mild youngness bias, which is consistent

1181: with observation.  Another problem, which arises in pocket-based

1182: and ``gauge-invariant'' measures, is the $Q$ catastrophe, where

1183: one expects to measure the amplitude of the primordial density

1184: contrast $Q$ to have an unfavorably large or small value.  This

1185: problem ultimately stems from an exponential preference for a

1186: large number of e-folds of slow-roll inflation in these measures. 

1187: The scale-factor cutoff does not strongly select for more

1188: inflation, and thus does not suffer from a $Q$ catastrophe.  An

1189: unattractive feature of causal patch and comoving-volume measures

1190: is that their predictions are sensitive to the assumptions one

1191: makes about the initial conditions for the multiverse. 

1192: Meanwhile, the scale-factor cutoff measure is essentially

1193: independent of the initial state.  This property reflects the

1194: attractor character of eternal inflation: the asymptotic

1195: late-time evolution of an eternally inflating universe is

1196: independent of the starting point.

1197: 

1198: As mentioned above, a key features of the scale-factor cutoff

1199: measure is that, unlike the pocket-based or ``gauge-invariant''

1200: measures, it does not reward large amounts of slow-roll

1201: inflation.  As a result, it allows for the possibility of a

1202: detectable negative curvature.  This issue will be discussed in

1203: detail in Ref.~\cite{Omeganext}.

1204: 

1205: With any measure over the multiverse, one must be wary that it

1206: does not over-predict ``Boltzmann brains'' --- observers that pop

1207: in and out of existence as a result of rare quantum

1208: fluctuations~\cite{BBs}.  This issue has not been addressed here,

1209: but our preliminary analysis suggests that, with some mild 

1210: assumptions about the landscape, the scale-factor cutoff measure 

1211: does not have a Boltzmann brain problem.  We shall return to this 

1212: issue in a separate publication~\cite{BBnext}.

1213: 

1214: \begin{acknowledgments}

1215: We thank Raphael Bousso, Ben Freivogel, Andrei Linde, John

1216: Peacock, Delia Schwartz-Perlov, Vitaly Vanchurin, and Serge 

1217: Winitzki for useful comments and discussions.  The work of ADS is  

1218: supported in part by the INFN ``Bruno Rossi'' Fellowship.  ADS 

1219: and AHG are supported in part by the U.S.  Department of Energy 

1220: under contract No. DE-FG02-05ER41360.  MPS and AV are supported in 

1221: part by the U.S. National Science Foundation under grant NSF 322.

1222: \end{acknowledgments}

1223: 

1224: \appendix

1225: 

1226: \boldmath

1227: \section{Independence of the initial state}      

1228: \label{sec:initial}

1229: \unboldmath

1230: 

1231: In section~\ref{sec:sfcutoff} we assumed that the landscape is

1232: irreducible, so that any vacuum is accessible through quantum

1233: diffusion or bubble nucleation from any other (de Sitter) vacuum. 

1234: If instead the landscape splits into several disconnected

1235: sectors, the scale-factor cutoff can be used to find the

1236: probability distributions $P_j^{(A)}$ in each of the sectors

1237: (labeled by $A$).  These distributions are determined by the

1238: dominant eigenstates of the Fokker-Planck or master equation,

1239: which correspond to the largest eigenvalues $\gamma_A$, and are

1240: independent of the choice of the initial hypersurfaces $\Sigma_A$

1241: that are used in implementing the scale-factor cutoff.  But the

1242: question still remains, how do we compare the probabilities of

1243: vacua belonging to different sectors?

1244: 

1245: Since different sectors are inaccessible from one another, the

1246: probability $P_A$ of being in a given sector must depend on the

1247: initial state of the universe. For definiteness, we shall assume

1248: here that the initial state is determined by the wave function of

1249: the universe, although most of the following discussion should

1250: apply to any theory of initial conditions.  According to both

1251: tunneling

1252: \cite{tunneling} and Hartle-Hawking \cite{HH} proposals for the wave

1253: function, the universe starts as a 3-sphere $S_\alpha$ filled

1254: with some positive-energy vacuum $\alpha$.  The radius of the

1255: 3-sphere is $r_\alpha=H_\alpha^{-1}$, where $H_\alpha$ is the de

1256: Sitter expansion rate.  The corresponding nucleation probability

1257: is

1258: \bea

1259: P_{\rm nucl}^{(\alpha)}\propto

1260: \exp\left(\pm{\pi\over{H_\alpha^2}} \right)

1261: \,,

1262: \label{Pnucl}

1263: \eea

1264: where the upper sign is for the Hartle-Hawking and the lower is

1265: for the tunneling wave function.  Once the universe has

1266: nucleated, it immediately enters de Sitter inflationary

1267: expansion, transitions from $\alpha$ to other vacua, and

1268: populates the entire sector of the landscape to which the vacuum

1269: $\alpha$ belongs.  We thus have an ensemble of eternally

1270: inflating universes with initial conditions at 3-surfaces

1271: $S_\alpha$ and the probability distribution $P_{\rm

1272: nucl}^{(\alpha)}$ given by Eq.~(\ref{Pnucl}). 

1273: 

1274: If the landscape were not disconnected, we could apply the scale

1275: factor cutoff measure to any single component $\alpha$ of the

1276: initial wave function, and the result would be the same in all

1277: cases.  To generalize the scale-factor cutoff measure to the

1278: disconnected landscape, the most straightforward prescription is

1279: to apply the scale factor cutoff directly to the initial

1280: probability ensemble.  In that case,

1281: \bea

1282: P_{j, A}\propto \lim_{t_c\to\infty} \sum_{\alpha\in A} P_{\rm

1283: nucl}^{(\alpha)}\, {\mathcal N}_j^{(\alpha)}(t_c) \,.

1284: \label{PjA}

1285: \eea 

1286: Here,

1287: \bea

1288: {\mathcal N}_j^{(\alpha)}(t_c) = R_\alpha^{(A)} P_j^{(A)}

1289: e^{\gamma_A t_c}

1290: \label{Nj}

1291: \eea

1292: is the number of relevant observations in the entire closed

1293: universe, starting from the hypersurface $S_\alpha$, with a

1294: cutoff at scale-factor time $t_c$. The $R_\alpha^{(A)}$ are

1295: determined by the initial volume of the 3-surface $S_\alpha$, and

1296: also by the efficiency with which this initial state couples to

1297: the leading eigenvector of Eq.~(\ref{dV}).  In other words, the

1298: ${\mathcal N}_j^{(\alpha)}(t_c)$ are calculated using $S_\alpha$

1299: as the initial hypersurface $\Sigma_A$.  Note that only the

1300: overall normalization of ${\mathcal N}_j^{(\alpha)}$ depends on

1301: the initial vacuum $\alpha$; the relative probabilities of

1302: different vacua in the sector do not.  In the limit of

1303: $t_c\to\infty$, only the sectors corresponding to the largest of

1304: all dominant eigenvalues,

1305: \bea

1306: \gamma_{\rm max}={\rm max} \{\gamma_A \} \,,

1307: \label{gammamax}

1308: \eea

1309: have a nonzero probability.  If there is only one sector with

1310: this eigenvalue, this selects the sector uniquely.

1311: 

1312: Since the issue of initial state dependence is new, one might

1313: entertain an alternative method of dealing with the issue, in

1314: which the probability $P_A$ for each sector is determined

1315: immediately by the initial state, with

1316: \bea

1317: P_A \propto \sum_{\alpha\in A} P_{\rm nucl}^{(\alpha)}\, .

1318: \label{psubA}

1319: \eea

1320: Then one could calculate any probability of interest within each

1321: sector, using the standard scale factor cutoff method, and weight

1322: the different sectors by $P_A$.  However, although this

1323: prescription is well-defined, we would advocate the first method

1324: that we described as the natural extension of the scale factor

1325: cutoff measure.  First, it seems to be more closely related to

1326: the description of the scale-factor cutoff measure in a connected

1327: landscape: the only change is to replace the initial state by an

1328: ensemble of states, determined in principle by one's theory of

1329: the initial wave function.  Second, in a toy theory, one could

1330: imagine approaching a disconnected landscape from a connected

1331: one, by gradually decreasing all the cross-sector tunneling rates

1332: to zero.  In that case, the limit clearly corresponds to the

1333: first description, where one sector is selected uniquely if it

1334: has the largest dominant eigenvalue.

1335: 

1336: Assuming the first of these prescriptions, the conclusion is that

1337: the probability distribution (\ref{PjA}) defined by the

1338: scale-factor measure is essentially independent of the initial

1339: distribution (\ref{Pnucl}).  Some dependence on $P_{\rm

1340: nucl}^{(\alpha)}$ survives only in a restricted class of models

1341: where the landscape splits into a number of sectors with strictly

1342: zero probability of transitions between them and, in addition,

1343: where the maximum eigenvalue $\gamma_{\rm max}$ is degenerate. 

1344: Even then, this dependence is limited to the relative probability

1345: of the sectors characterized by the eigenvalue $\gamma_{\rm

1346: max}$.

1347: 

1348: \boldmath

1349: \section{The Collapse Density Threshold $\delta_c$}

1350: \label{sec:threshold}

1351: \unboldmath

1352: 

1353: The collapse density threshold $\delta_c$ is determined by comparing

1354: the linearized evolution of matter perturbations with the

1355: nonlinear evolution of a spherical top-hat density perturbation,

1356: which can be treated as a closed FRW universe.  The collapse

1357: density threshold $\delta_c(\tau)$ is defined as the amplitude

1358: reached by the linear evolution of an overdensity $\delta \equiv

1359: \delta \rho_m/\rho_m$ that has the same initial amplitude as a

1360: top-hat density perturbation that collapses to a singularity in

1361: proper time $\tau$. In a matter-dominated universe with zero

1362: cosmological constant, $\delta_c$ is a constant; however, it is

1363: well known that $\delta_c$ depends on the collapse time when

1364: $\Lambda$ is nonzero (see e.g. Refs.~\cite{dc,PTV}).  In this

1365: appendix we first outline the calculation of the time evolution

1366: of $\delta_c$, then display the results for positive and negative

1367: $\Lambda$, and finally describe how we apply it in our analysis

1368: of the collapse fraction $F$ of Eq.~(\ref{warren}).

1369: 

1370: As suggested by the definition above, both linear and nonlinear

1371: analyses are involved at different stages of the calculation of

1372: the collapse density.  Arbitrarily small perturbations obey

1373: linearized equations of motion, and their evolution defines the

1374: linear growth function $G_\Lambda(\tau)$:

1375: \bea

1376: \delta(\tau) \propto G_\Lambda(\tau)\,,

1377: \label{deltatau}

1378: \eea

1379: where $G_\Lambda(\tau)$ is normalized so that the behavior for

1380: small $\tau$ is given by $G_\Lambda(\tau) \sim 

1381: (3 H_\Lambda \tau/2)^{2/3}$, where $H_\Lambda=\sqrt{|\Lambda|/3}$.

1382: The exact nonlinear analysis is used to determine the time at

1383: which an overdensity with a given initial amplitude will collapse

1384: to a singularity. For simplicity, this is worked out for the

1385: ``top-hat'' model, where the overdensity is assumed to be uniform

1386: and spherically symmetric. Such a region is embedded in a flat

1387: FRW universe containing only non-relativistic matter and

1388: cosmological constant. 

1389: 

1390: By Birkhoff's theorem, the evolution of the spherical overdensity

1391: is equivalent to that of a closed FRW universe. The Friedmann

1392: equation for a closed FRW universe, with scale factor $a$, may be

1393: written as:

1394: \bea

1395: H^2= H_\Lambda^2\left[ {\rm sign}(\Lambda) +

1396: \frac{B(\kappa)}{a^3} - \frac{\kappa}{a^2}\right] \,,

1397: \label{friedmann}

1398: \eea

1399: where $H=d\ln a/d\tau=\dot a/a$ and $B(\kappa)$ is an arbitrary

1400: quantity that fixes the normalization of $a$.  We will always

1401: choose $B(0)=1$, so for $\kappa=0$ the scale factor is normalized

1402: in such a way that $\rho_m=|\rho_\Lambda|$ at $a=1$, where

1403: $\rho_\Lambda=\Lambda/(8\pi)$ is the vacuum energy density.

1404: 

1405: Let us first focus our attention on the evolution of a linearized

1406: density perturbation in a flat FRW universe with positive

1407: cosmological constant; the case with negative cosmological

1408: constant proceeds similarly. Consider a closed FRW universe

1409: obtained by ``perturbing'' the flat universe with a small

1410: curvature term $\delta \kappa$.  The proper time parameter

1411: $\hat\tau$ in such a universe, as a function of the scale

1412: factor, is given by an expansion with respect to the flat

1413: background: $\hat\tau(a)=\tau(a)+\delta\tau(a)$, where to

1414: linear order in $\delta \kappa$

1415: \bea

1416: \delta \tau(a)={\delta \kappa \over 2 H_\Lambda}\int_0^a

1417: \frac{\sqrt{a'} \left[a' - {d B \over d \kappa} (0) \right] \,da'}

1418: {\left(1+a'^3\right)^{3/2}}\,.

1419: \label{deltataua}

1420: \eea

1421: The scale factor of the closed universe is obtained by inverting

1422: the function $\hat\tau(a)$:

1423: \bea

1424: \hat a(\tau)=a(\tau)-\dot a(\tau)\, \delta\tau\bigl(a(\tau)\bigr) \,.

1425: \label{deltaa}

1426: \eea

1427: As mentioned above, the evolution of this closed FRW universe

1428: also gives the evolution of a small density perturbation.  Using

1429: $\rho_m = (3 / 8 \pi) H_\Lambda^2 B(\kappa)/a^3$, one has

1430: \bea

1431: \delta={\delta \rho_m\over \rho_m}=-3{\delta a\over a}+{d B \over

1432: d \kappa} (0) =3 H \delta \tau +{d B \over d \kappa} (0) \,, \,\,

1433: \label{deltadeltatau}

1434: \eea

1435: where the last equality follows from Eq.~(\ref{deltaa}).  From 

1436: here on, unless noted otherwise, we normalize $a$ so that 

1437: $B(\kappa)=1$.  It is convenient to introduce the ``time'' variable

1438: \bea

1439: x\equiv \frac{|\rho_\Lambda|}{\rho_m}=a^3\,,

1440: \label{defx}

1441: \eea

1442: for both choices of the sign of $\Lambda$.  To be consistent with

1443: Eq.~(\ref{friedmann}), the solutions for $\kappa=0$ are not

1444: normalized as in Eq.~(\ref{a}), but instead are given by

1445: \bea

1446: a(\tau)=\left\{ 

1447: \begin{array}{l l}

1448: \sinh^{2/3}\!

1449: \big(\textstyle{\frac{3}{2}}H_\Lambda\tau\big)\quad 

1450: & {\rm for }\,\, \Lambda > 0 \\

1451: \sin^{2/3}\!

1452: \big(\textstyle{\frac{3}{2}}H_\Lambda\tau\big)\quad

1453: & {\rm for }\,\, \Lambda < 0 \,.

1454: \end{array}

1455: \right.

1456: \label{anew}

1457: \eea

1458: We can then find the evolution function $\delta(x)$ from 

1459: Eq.~(\ref{deltadeltatau}), using Eq.~(\ref{deltataua}) and also 

1460: Eq.~(\ref{friedmann}) with $\kappa=0$:

1461: \bea

1462: \delta(x)&=&{1\over 2}\delta \kappa \sqrt{1+{1\over x}}\,\int_0^x

1463: {dy\over y^{1/6}(1+y)^{3/2}}\nn\\ &=&{3\over 5}\,\delta \kappa\,

1464: G^+(x)\,,

1465: \label{35delta}

1466: \eea

1467: where the linear growth function (for $\Lambda>0$),

1468: \bea

1469: G^+(x)={5\over 6}\sqrt{1+{1\over x}}\,\int_0^x {dy\over

1470: y^{1/6}(1+y)^{3/2}}\,,

1471: \eea

1472: is normalized so that the behavior for small $x$ is given by 

1473: $G^+(x)\sim x^{1/ 3}=a \sim (3 H_\Lambda\tau/2)^{2/3}$.

1474: 

1475: In the $\Lambda<0$ case, the calculation proceeds along the same

1476: steps as before and the formula (\ref{35delta}) is indeed valid

1477: also for negative $\Lambda$, after replacing the growth function

1478: with $G^-(x)$.  This function now has two branches $G^-_{{\rm

1479: I}}(x)$ and $G^-_{{\rm II}}(x)$, corresponding to the expanding

1480: and contracting phases of the universe, respectively. The first

1481: branch of the growth function introduces no new complications,

1482: and is found to be

1483: \bea

1484: G^-_{{\rm I}}(x)={5\over 6}\sqrt{{1\over x}-1}\,\int_0^x {dy\over

1485: y^{1/6}(1-y)^{3/2}}\,. 

1486: \eea

1487: For the second branch, the integration is first performed over

1488: the whole history of the universe, from $x=0$ to $x=1$ and back

1489: to $x=0$, and then one integrates back to the value of interest

1490: $x$.  There is a complication, however, because for this case the

1491: denominator in Eq.~(\ref{deltataua}) is $(1-a'^3)^{3/2}$, so the

1492: integral diverges when the upper limit is equal to 1.  The cause

1493: of the problem is that for $\delta

1494: \kappa \not= 0$, $a_{\rm max}$ is no longer equal to 1.  A simple

1495: cure is to choose $B(\kappa) = 1 + \kappa$ for this case, which

1496: ensures that $a_{\rm max}=1$ for any $\kappa$, and which

1497: correspondingly provides an additional term in

1498: Eq.~(\ref{deltataua}) which causes the integral to converge. 

1499: After some manipulation of the integrals, the result can be

1500: written as

1501: \bea

1502: G^-_{{\rm II}}(x) \!\!&=&\!\! {5\over 6}\sqrt{{1\over x}-1}

1503: \left[{4\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma\left({5\over 6}\right)\over 

1504: \Gamma\left({1\over 3}\right)}

1505: +\int_0^x {dy\over y^{1/6}(1-y)^{3/2}}\right].\nn\\ 

1506: \eea

1507: The time dependence of the linear growth functions can be made

1508: explicit by expressing $x$ as a function of $\tau$, through

1509: Eqs.~(\ref{defx}) and (\ref{anew}).

1510: 

1511: In practice, we carry out our calculations using fitting functions 

1512: for the growth functions, which were devised by Peacock 

1513: \cite{Peacock}, and which are accurate to better than 0.1\%. 

1514: These give

1515: \begin{widetext}

1516: \bea

1517: G_\Lambda^+(\tau) &\simeq& 

1518: \tanh^{2/3}\!

1519: \big(\textstyle{\frac{3}{2}}H_\Lambda\tau\big)

1520: \Big[1-\tanh^{1.27}\!

1521: \big(\textstyle{\frac{3}{2}}H_\Lambda\tau\big)\Big]^{0.82} 

1522: + 1.437H_\Lambda^{-2/3}\left[ 1-\cosh^{-4/3}\!

1523: \big(\textstyle{\frac{3}{2}}H_\Lambda\tau\big)\right] \label{sigp} \\

1524: %

1525: G_\Lambda^-(\tau) &\simeq& \big(\textstyle{\frac{3}{2}} 

1526: H_\Lambda \tau\big)^{2/3}

1527: \left[1+0.37\left(\tau/\tau_{\rm crunch}\right)^{2.18}\right]^{-1}\!

1528: \left[1-\left(\tau/\tau_{\rm crunch}\right)^2\right]^{-1} \,,

1529: \label{sign}

1530: \eea

1531: \end{widetext}

1532: for the cases $\Lambda>0$ and $\Lambda<0$, respectively, where the 

1533: latter fitting formula is valid for both branches.

1534: 

1535: We are now prepared to set the calculation of $\delta_c$.  Since

1536: the universe in Eq.~(\ref{friedmann}) can be viewed as a

1537: ``perturbation'' over a flat universe with $\delta\kappa=\kappa$, the

1538: time evolution of the overdensity is described in general by

1539: \bea

1540: \delta(\tau)={3\over 5}\kappa\, G_\Lambda(\tau)\,.

1541: \label{deltakG}

1542: \eea

1543: The quantity $(3/5)\kappa\, a$ quantifies the size of the initial 

1544: inhomogeneity.

1545: 

1546: In order to find the time at which the spherical overdensity

1547: collapses, it is convenient to determine the time of turnaround

1548: $\tau_{\rm turn}$, corresponding to when $H=0$. The time of

1549: collapse is then given by $2\, \tau_{\rm turn}$.  The

1550: turnaround time is obtained by integrating Eq.~(\ref{friedmann}),

1551: choosing $B=1$:

1552: \bea

1553: H_\Lambda\tau_{\rm turn}(\kappa) = \int_0^{a_{\rm turn}(\kappa)}\!

1554: \frac{\sqrt{a}\,da}{\sqrt{{\rm sign}(\Lambda) \, a^3-\kappa\,a+1}} 

1555: \,,\,\,\,

1556: \label{intb}

1557: \eea

1558: where the scale factor at turnaround $a_{\rm turn}$ corresponds

1559: to the smallest positive solution of

1560: \bea

1561: {\rm sign}(\Lambda)\, a^3_{\rm turn} -\kappa\,a_{\rm turn}+1 = 0\,.

1562: \label{bta}

1563: \eea 

1564: For positive $\Lambda$, the universe will collapse only if

1565: $\kappa>\kappa_{\rm min}\equiv 3/2^{2/3}$; for negative

1566: $\Lambda$, perturbations that collapse before the universe has

1567: crunched have $\kappa>0$.

1568: 

1569: The numerical evaluation of the integral in Eq.~(\ref{intb}) allows

1570: one the extract the function $\tau_{\rm turn}(\kappa)$, which can

1571: be inverted to give $\kappa_{\rm turn}(\tau)$, expressing the

1572: value of $\kappa$ that leads to turnaround at time $\tau$.

1573: Finally, the collapse density threshold as a function of the time

1574: of collapse is read from Eq.~(\ref{deltakG}):

1575: \bea

1576: \delta_c (\tau)={3\over 5} \kappa_{\rm turn}(\tau/2)\, 

1577: G_\Lambda(\tau)\,.

1578: \label{deltacgeneral}

1579: \eea

1580: 

1581: In the limits of small and large collapse times the above

1582: procedure can be carried out analytically to find the limiting

1583: values of $\delta_c$. Let us consider first the large-time

1584: regime, corresponding to small $\kappa$.  In the case

1585: $\Lambda>0$, the smallest $\kappa$ allowed is $\kappa_{\rm min}$;

1586: therefore

1587: \bea

1588: \delta_c^+(\infty)={3\over 5} \kappa_{\rm min}\, G_\Lambda^+(\infty)

1589: \simeq 1.629\,,

1590: \eea

1591: where $G^+_\Lambda(\infty)=G^+(\infty)= 5 

1592: \Gamma(2/3)\Gamma(5/6)/(3\sqrt{\pi})\simeq 1.437$. The case 

1593: $\Lambda<0$ is a little more complicated. The

1594: collapse time cannot exceed $\tau_{\rm crunch}=2\pi/3 H_\Lambda$,

1595: corresponding to $\kappa=0$. At small $\kappa$, the integral in

1596: Eq.~(\ref{intb}) is expanded to give

1597: \bea

1598: H_\Lambda \tau_{\rm turn}(\kappa)\simeq \frac{1}{2}

1599: H_\Lambda \tau_{\rm crunch}-{2\over 5} {\sqrt{\pi} 

1600: \Gamma\left({11\over 6}\right)\over 

1601: \Gamma\left({1\over 3}\right)}\,\kappa\,.

1602: \label{turnksmall}

1603: \eea

1604: On the other hand, the growth function $G^-(\tau)$ in the

1605: neighborhood of $\tau_{\rm crunch}$ behaves as

1606: \bea

1607: G^-_\Lambda(\tau\approx\tau_{\rm crunch})\simeq 

1608: {10\over 3} {\Gamma\left({5\over 6}\right)\over

1609: \sqrt{\pi}\Gamma\left({1\over 3}\right)}{1\over  

1610: (1-\tau/\tau_{\rm crunch})}\,.\,\,\,

1611: \label{Gntcrunch}

1612: \eea

1613: After using Eqs.~(\ref{turnksmall}) and (\ref{Gntcrunch}) in the

1614: general formula (\ref{deltacgeneral}), we simply get

1615: \bea

1616: \delta_c^-(\tau_{\rm crunch})=2\,.

1617: \eea

1618: 

1619: \begin{figure}[t!]

1620: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{fits2.eps}

1621: \caption{The collapse density thresholds $\delta^+_c$ (for $\Lambda> 0$) 

1622: and $\delta^-_c$ (for $\Lambda<0$), as functions of time.  The

1623: solid curves represent numerical evaluations of $\delta^\pm_c$,

1624: while the dashed curves correspond to the fitting functions in

1625: Eq.~(\ref{fitdeltac}).  Note that $\delta^+_c$ decreases with time,

1626: while $\delta^-_c$ increases with time.}

1627: \label{fig:threshold}

1628: \end{figure}

1629: 

1630: In the opposite regime $H_\Lambda \tau\ll 1$, corresponding to

1631: large $\kappa$, the growth functions are $G^\pm_\Lambda(\tau)\simeq

1632: a(\tau)\simeq (3H_\Lambda\tau/2)^{2/3}$. The integral

1633: (\ref{intb}) can be analytically solved in this limit: $H_\Lambda

1634: \tau_{\rm turn}(\kappa)=\pi/(2 \kappa^{3/2})$. Combining these

1635: results leads to

1636: \bea

1637: \delta_c^\pm(0)\,=\,{3\over 5}\left({3\pi\over 2}\right)^{2/3}\!

1638: \simeq\, 1.686\,,

1639: \eea

1640: which is also the constant value of $\delta_c$ in a $\Lambda=0$

1641: universe.

1642: 

1643: The time dependence of $\delta_c$ is displayed in

1644: Fig.~\ref{fig:threshold}, for both positive and negative values

1645: of $\Lambda$.  We also display the following simple fitting

1646: functions,

1647: \bea

1648: \delta^+_c(\tau) \!&=&\! 1.629+0.057\,e^{-0.28 H_\Lambda^2\tau^2} \nn\\

1649: \delta^-_c(\tau) \!&=&\!

1650: 1.686 + 0.165\left({\tau\over \tau_{\rm crunch}}\right)^{\!2.5}

1651: \!\!+0.149\left({\tau\over \tau_{\rm crunch}}\right)^{\!11} \nn\\ 

1652: \label{fitdeltac}

1653: \eea

1654: which are accurate to better than 0.2\%.  Although we choose to

1655: include the effect of the time evolution of $\delta_c$, our

1656: results are not significantly changed by treating $\delta_c$ as a

1657: constant.  This is easy to understand. First of all, $\delta^+_c$

1658: varies by only about 3\%.  The evolution of $\delta^-_c$ is more

1659: significant, about $15$\%, and most of this happens at very late

1660: times.  But our anthropic weight in Eq.~(\ref{Nobs1}) never

1661: samples $\delta^-_c$ within a time $\Delta\tau$ of $\tau_{\rm

1662: crunch}$.

1663: 

1664: Finally, we point out that the appearance of $G_\Lambda(\tau)$ in

1665: this discussion is not needed for the calculation, and appears here 

1666: primarily to make contact with other work.  From 

1667: Eq.~(\ref{warren}) one sees that the collapse fraction depends only 

1668: on the ratio of $\delta_c(\tau)/\sigma(M_G,\tau)$, which from 

1669: Eqs.~(\ref{factorize}) and~(\ref{deltacgeneral}) can be seen to equal 

1670: $(3/5) \kappa_{\rm turn}(\tau/2)/\bar \sigma(M_G)$.  Expressed in 

1671: this way, Eq.~(\ref{warren}) becomes fairly transparent.  Since 

1672: $\kappa$ is a measure of the amplitude of an initial perturbation, 

1673: Eq.~(\ref{warren}) is saying that the collapse fraction at time $\tau$ 

1674: depends precisely on the magnitude required for an initial top-hat 

1675: perturbation to collapse by time $\tau$.  In more detail, 

1676: Eq.~(\ref{warren}) is predicated on a Gaussian distribution of initial 

1677: fluctuations, where the complementary error function erfc$(x)$ is the 

1678: integral of a Gaussian.  The collapsed fraction at time $\tau$ is given 

1679: by the probability, in this Gaussian approximation, for the initial 

1680: fluctuations to exceed the magnitude needed for collapse at time $\tau$.  

1681: From a practical point of view, the use of $G_\Lambda(\tau)$ in the 

1682: discussion of the collapse fraction can be a helpful simplification if 

1683: one uses the approximation that $\delta_c\approx$ const.  We have not 

1684: used this approximation, but as described above, our results would not 

1685: be much different if we had.  We have maintained the discussion in 

1686: terms of $G_\Lambda(\tau)$ to clarify the relationship between our 

1687: work and this approximation.

1688: 

1689: 

1690: 

1691: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1692: 

1693: \bibitem{Sergereview}

1694: %\cite{Winitzki:2006rn}

1695: %\bibitem{Winitzki:2006rn}

1696: S.~Winitzki,

1697:   %``Predictions in eternal inflation,''

1698: Lect.\ Notes Phys.\ {\bf 738}, 157 (2008) [arXiv:gr-qc/0612164].

1699:   %%CITATION = LNPHA,738,157;%%

1700: 

1701: \bibitem{Guth07}

1702: %\cite{Guth:2007ng}

1703: %\bibitem{Guth:2007ng}

1704: A.~H.~Guth, Phys. Rept. {\bf 333}, 555 (2000);

1705:   %``Eternal inflation and its implications,''

1706: J.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 40}, 6811 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0702178].

1707:   %%CITATION = JPAGB,A40,6811;%%

1708: 

1709: \bibitem{Linde07}

1710: %\cite{Linde:2007fr}

1711: %\bibitem{Linde:2007fr}

1712: A.~Linde,

1713:   %``Inflationary Cosmology,''

1714: Lect.\ Notes Phys.\ {\bf 738}, 1 (2008) [arXiv:0705.0164

1715: [hep-th]].

1716:   %%CITATION = LNPHA,738,1;%%

1717: 

1718: \bibitem{AV06}

1719: %\cite{Vilenkin:2006xv}

1720: %\bibitem{Vilenkin:2006xv}

1721: A.~Vilenkin,

1722:   %``A measure of the multiverse,''

1723: J.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 40}, 6777 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0609193].

1724:   %%CITATION = JPAGB,A40,6777;%%

1725: 

1726: \bibitem{Aguirre}

1727: %\cite{Aguirre:2006na}

1728: %\bibitem{Aguirre:2006na}

1729: A.~Aguirre, S.~Gratton and M.~C.~Johnson,

1730:   %``Measures on transitions for cosmology from eternal inflation,''

1731: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 98}, 131301 (2007)

1732: [arXiv:hep-th/0612195].

1733:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,98,131301;%%

1734: 

1735: \bibitem{tconstflux}

1736: %\cite{GarciaBellido:1993wn}

1737: %\bibitem{GarciaBellido:1993wn}

1738: J.~Garcia-Bellido, A.~D.~Linde and D.~A.~Linde,

1739:   %``Fluctuations Of The Gravitational Constant In The Inflationary Brans-Dicke

1740:   %Cosmology,''

1741: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50}, 730 (1994) [arXiv:astro-ph/9312039];

1742:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D50,730;%%

1743: %\cite{GarciaBellido:1994ci}

1744: %\bibitem{GarciaBellido:1994ci}

1745: J.~Garcia-Bellido and A.~D.~Linde,

1746:   %``Stationarity of inflation and predictions of quantum cosmology,''

1747: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51}, 429 (1995) [arXiv:hep-th/9408023];

1748:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D51,429;%%

1749: %\cite{GarciaBellido:1995br}

1750: %\bibitem{GarciaBellido:1995br}

1751: J.~Garcia-Bellido and A.~D.~Linde,

1752:   %``Stationary solutions in Brans-Dicke stochastic inflationary cosmology,''

1753: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, 6730 (1995) [arXiv:gr-qc/9504022].

1754:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D52,6730;%%

1755: 

1756: \bibitem{ccVilenkin}

1757: %\cite{Vilenkin:1994ua}

1758: %\bibitem{Vilenkin:1994ua}

1759: A.~Vilenkin,

1760:   %``Predictions from quantum cosmology,''

1761: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74}, 846 (1995) [arXiv:gr-qc/9406010].

1762:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,74,846;%%

1763: 

1764: \bibitem{tconst3}

1765: %\cite{Linde:2006nw}

1766: %\bibitem{Linde:2006nw}

1767: A.~Linde,

1768:   %``Sinks in the Landscape, Boltzmann Brains, and the Cosmological Constant

1769:   %Problem,''

1770: JCAP {\bf 0701}, 022 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0611043].

1771:   %%CITATION = JCAPA,0701,022;%%

1772: 

1773: \bibitem{tconst}

1774: %\bibitem{Linde:1993nz}

1775: A.~D.~Linde and A.~Mezhlumian,

1776:   %``Stationary universe,''

1777: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 307}, 25 (1993) [arXiv:gr-qc/9304015].

1778:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B307,25;%%

1779: 

1780: \bibitem{LLM}

1781: A.~D.~Linde, D.~A.~Linde and A.~Mezhlumian,

1782:   %``From the Big Bang theory to the theory of a stationary universe,''

1783: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 1783 (1994) [arXiv:gr-qc/9306035].

1784:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,1783;%%

1785: 

1786: \bibitem{AV96}

1787: %\cite{Vilenkin:1995yd}

1788: %\bibitem{Vilenkin:1995yd}

1789: A.~Vilenkin,

1790:   %``Making predictions in eternally inflating universe,''

1791: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, 3365 (1995) [arXiv:gr-qc/9505031].

1792:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D52,3365;%%

1793: 

1794: \bibitem{tconst4}

1795: %\cite{Linde:2007nm}

1796: %\bibitem{Linde:2007nm}

1797: A.~Linde,

1798:   %``Towards a gauge invariant volume-weighted probability measure for

1799:   % eternal inflation,''

1800: JCAP {\bf 0706}, 017 (2007) [arXiv:0705.1160 [hep-th]].

1801:   %%CITATION = JCAPA,0706,017;%%

1802: 

1803: \bibitem{GTV}

1804: %\cite{Garriga:1998px}

1805: %\bibitem{Garriga:1998px}

1806: J.~Garriga, T.~Tanaka and A.~Vilenkin,

1807:   %``The density parameter and the Anthropic Principle,''

1808: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 023501 (1999) [arXiv:astro-ph/9803268].

1809:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D60,023501;%%

1810: 

1811: \bibitem{pockets}

1812: %\cite{Vilenkin:1998kr}

1813: %\bibitem{Vilenkin:1998kr}

1814: A.~Vilenkin,

1815:   %``Unambiguous probabilities in an eternally inflating universe,''

1816: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81}, 5501 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9806185];

1817:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9806185;%%

1818: %\cite{Vanchurin:1999iv}

1819: %\bibitem{Vanchurin:1999iv}

1820: V.~Vanchurin, A.~Vilenkin and S.~Winitzki,

1821:   %``Predictability crisis in inflationary cosmology and its resolution,''

1822: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 083507 (2000) [arXiv:gr-qc/9905097].

1823:   %%CITATION = GR-QC 9905097;%%

1824: 

1825: \bibitem{GSPVW}

1826: %\cite{Garriga:2005av}

1827: %\bibitem{Garriga:2005av}

1828: J.~Garriga, D.~Schwartz-Perlov, A.~Vilenkin and S.~Winitzki,

1829:   %``Probabilities in the inflationary multiverse,''

1830: JCAP {\bf 0601}, 017 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0509184].

1831:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0509184;%%

1832: 

1833: %\cite{Easther:2005wi}

1834: \bibitem{ELM}

1835: R.~Easther, E.~A.~Lim and M.~R.~Martin,

1836:   %``Counting pockets with world lines in eternal inflation,''

1837: JCAP {\bf 0603}, 016 (2006) [arXiv:astro-ph/0511233].

1838:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0511233;%%

1839: 

1840: \bibitem{diamond}

1841: %\cite{Bousso:2006ev}

1842: %\bibitem{Bousso:2006ev}

1843: R.~Bousso,

1844:   %``Holographic probabilities in eternal inflation,''

1845: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97}, 191302 (2006)

1846: [arXiv:hep-th/0605263];

1847:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,97,191302;%%

1848: %\cite{Bousso:2006ge}

1849: %\bibitem{Bousso:2006ge}

1850: R.~Bousso, B.~Freivogel and I.~S.~Yang,

1851:   %``Eternal inflation: The inside story,''

1852: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 103516 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0606114].

1853:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,103516;%%

1854: 

1855: \bibitem{censor}

1856: %\cite{Susskind:2007pv}

1857: %\bibitem{Susskind:2007pv}

1858: L.~Susskind,

1859:   %``The Census Taker's Hat,''

1860: arXiv:0710.1129 [hep-th].

1861:   %%CITATION = ARXIV:0710.1129;%%

1862: 

1863: \bibitem{Vanchurin07}

1864: V. Vanchurin, Phys. Rev. {\bf D75}, 023524 (2007).

1865: 

1866: \bibitem{Winitzki08}

1867: S. Winitzki, arXiv:gr-qc/0803.1300.

1868: 

1869: \bibitem{ccweinberg}

1870: %\cite{Weinberg:1987dv}

1871: %\bibitem{Weinberg:1987dv}

1872: S.~Weinberg,

1873:   %``Anthropic Bound On The Cosmological Constant,''

1874: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 59}, 2607 (1987).

1875:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,59,2607;%%

1876: 

1877: \bibitem{Linde84}

1878: %\cite{Linde:1984ir}

1879: %\bibitem{Linde:1984ir}

1880:   A.~D.~Linde,

1881:   %``The Inflationary Universe,''

1882:   Rept.\ Prog.\ Phys.\  {\bf 47}, 925 (1984).

1883:   %%CITATION = RPPHA,47,925;%%

1884: 

1885: \bibitem{cclinde}

1886: A.~D.~Linde, in {\em Three hundred years of gravitation}, ed. by

1887: S.~W.~Hawking and W.~Israel, Cambridge University Press (1987).

1888: 

1889: \bibitem{Efstathiou}

1890: G.~Efstathiou, MNRAS {\bf 274}, L73 (1995).

1891: 

1892: \bibitem{MSW}

1893: %\cite{Martel:1997vi}

1894: %\bibitem{Martel:1997vi}

1895: H.~Martel, P.~R.~Shapiro and S.~Weinberg,

1896:   %``Likely Values of the Cosmological Constant,''

1897: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 492}, 29 (1998) [arXiv:astro-ph/9701099].

1898:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9701099;%%

1899: 

1900: \bibitem{GLV}

1901: %\cite{Garriga:1999hu}

1902: %\bibitem{Garriga:1999hu}

1903: J.~Garriga, M.~Livio and A.~Vilenkin,

1904:   %``The cosmological constant and the time of its dominance,''

1905: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 023503 (2000) [arXiv:astro-ph/9906210].

1906:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D61,023503;%%

1907: 

1908: \bibitem{Tegmark}

1909: %\cite{Tegmark:2005dy}

1910: %\bibitem{Tegmark:2005dy}

1911: M.~Tegmark, A.~Aguirre, M.~Rees and F.~Wilczek,

1912:   %``Dimensionless constants, cosmology and other dark matters,''

1913: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 023505 (2006) [arXiv:astro-ph/0511774].

1914:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D73,023505;%%

1915: 

1916: \bibitem{VP}

1917: %\cite{Pogosian:2006fx}

1918: %\bibitem{Pogosian:2006fx}

1919: L.~Pogosian and A.~Vilenkin,

1920:   %``Anthropic predictions for vacuum energy and neutrino masses in the  light

1921:   %of WMAP-3,''

1922: JCAP {\bf 0701}, 025 (2007) [arXiv:astro-ph/0611573].

1923:   %%CITATION = JCAPA,0701,025;%%

1924: 

1925: \bibitem{Peacock}

1926: %\cite{Peacock:2007cw}

1927: %\bibitem{Peacock:2007cw}

1928: J.~A.~Peacock,

1929:   %``Testing anthropic predictions for Lambda and the CMB temperature,''

1930: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 379}, 1067 (2007)

1931: [arXiv:0705.0898 [astro-ph]].

1932:   %%CITATION = MNRAA,379,1067;%%

1933: 

1934: \bibitem{ccbousso}

1935: %\cite{Bousso:2007kq}

1936: %\bibitem{Bousso:2007kq}

1937: R.~Bousso, R.~Harnik, G.~D.~Kribs and G.~Perez,

1938:   %``Predicting the Cosmological Constant from the Causal Entropic Principle,''

1939: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 76}, 043513 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0702115].

1940:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D76,043513;%%

1941: 

1942: \bibitem{youngness1}

1943: %\cite{Linde:1994gy}

1944: %\bibitem{Linde:1994gy}

1945: A.~D.~Linde, D.~A.~Linde and A.~Mezhlumian,

1946:   %``Do we live in the center of the world?,''

1947: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 345}, 203 (1995) [arXiv:hep-th/9411111].

1948:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B345,203;%%

1949: 

1950: \bibitem{youngness2}

1951: %\cite{Bousso:2007nd}

1952: %\bibitem{Bousso:2007nd}

1953: R.~Bousso, B.~Freivogel and I.~S.~Yang,

1954:   %``Boltzmann babies in the proper time measure,''

1955: arXiv:0712.3324 [hep-th].

1956:   %%CITATION = ARXIV:0712.3324;%%

1957: 

1958: \bibitem{FHW}

1959: %\cite{Feldstein:2005bm}

1960: %\bibitem{Feldstein:2005bm}

1961: B.~Feldstein, L.~J.~Hall and T.~Watari,

1962:   %``Density perturbations and the cosmological constant from inflationary

1963:   %landscapes,''

1964: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 123506 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0506235];

1965:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0506235;%%

1966: %\cite{Garriga:2005ee}

1967: %\bibitem{Garriga:2005ee}

1968: 

1969: \bibitem{QGV}

1970: J.~Garriga and A.~Vilenkin,

1971:   %``Anthropic prediction for Lambda and the Q catastrophe,''

1972: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 163}, 245 (2006)

1973: [arXiv:hep-th/0508005].

1974:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0508005;%%

1975: 

1976: \bibitem{GS}

1977: %\cite{Graesser:2006ft}

1978: %\bibitem{Graesser:2006ft}

1979: M.~L.~Graesser and M.~P.~Salem,

1980:   %``The scale of gravity and the cosmological constant within a landscape,''

1981: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 76}, 043506 (2007) [arXiv:astro-ph/0611694].

1982:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D76,043506;%%

1983: 

1984: \bibitem{Starobinsky}

1985: A.~A.~Starobinsky,

1986:   %``Stochastic De Sitter (Inflationary) Stage In The Early Universe,'' 

1987: in: {\it Current Topics in Field Theory, Quantum Gravity and

1988: Strings}, Lecture Notes in Physics, eds. H.~J. de Vega and N.

1989: Sanchez (Springer, Heidelberg 1986) {\bf 206}, p. 107.

1990: 

1991: \bibitem{eternal1}

1992: %\cite{Vilenkin:1983xq}

1993: %\bibitem{Vilenkin:1983xq}

1994: A.~Vilenkin,

1995:   %``The Birth Of Inflationary Universes,''

1996: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 27}, 2848 (1983).

1997:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D27,2848;%%

1998: 

1999: \bibitem{Linde86}

2000: %\cite{Linde:1986fd}

2001: %\bibitem{Linde:1986fd}

2002: A.~D.~Linde,

2003:   %``Eternally Existing Selfreproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe,''

2004: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 175}, 395 (1986).

2005:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B175,395;%%

2006: 

2007: \bibitem{Gott}

2008: J.~R.~Gott, Nature {\bf 295}, 304 (1982).

2009: 

2010: \bibitem{Steinhardt}

2011: P.~J.~Steinhardt, in {\it The Very Early Universe}, ed. by G.W.

2012: Gibbons, S.W. Hawking and S.T.C. Siklos (Cambridge University

2013: Press, Cambridge, 1983).

2014: 

2015: \bibitem{GV97}

2016: %\cite{Garriga:1997ef}

2017: %\bibitem{Garriga:1997ef}

2018:   J.~Garriga and A.~Vilenkin,

2019:   %``Recycling universe,''

2020:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 57}, 2230 (1998)

2021:   [arXiv:astro-ph/9707292].

2022:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D57,2230;%%

2023: 

2024: \bibitem{ColemanDeLuccia}

2025: %\cite{Coleman:1980aw}

2026: %\bibitem{Coleman:1980aw}

2027: S.~R.~Coleman and F.~De Luccia,

2028:   %``Gravitational Effects On And Of Vacuum Decay,''

2029: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 21}, 3305 (1980).

2030:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D21,3305;%%

2031: 

2032: \bibitem{VW}

2033: %\cite{Vilenkin:1996ar}

2034: %\bibitem{Vilenkin:1996ar}

2035: A.~Vilenkin and S.~Winitzki,

2036:   %``Probability distribution for Omega in open-universe inflation,''

2037: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55}, 548 (1997) [arXiv:astro-ph/9605191].

2038:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D55,548;%%

2039: 

2040: \bibitem{Delia}

2041: %\cite{SchwartzPerlov:2006hi}

2042: %\bibitem{SchwartzPerlov:2006hi}

2043: D.~Schwartz-Perlov and A.~Vilenkin,

2044:   %``Probabilities in the Bousso-Polchinski multiverse,''

2045: JCAP {\bf 0606}, 010 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0601162];

2046:   %%CITATION = JCAPA,0606,010;%%

2047: %\cite{SchwartzPerlov:2006hz}

2048: %\bibitem{SchwartzPerlov:2006hz}

2049: D.~Schwartz-Perlov,

2050:   %``Probabilities in the Arkani-Hamed-Dimopolous-Kachru landscape,''

2051: J.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 40}, 7363 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0611237].

2052:   %%CITATION = JPAGB,A40,7363;%%

2053: 

2054: \bibitem{anthQ}

2055: %\cite{Tegmark:1997in}

2056: %\bibitem{Tegmark:1997in}

2057: M.~Tegmark and M.~J.~Rees,

2058:   %``Why is the CMB fluctuation level 10^{-5}?,''

2059: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 499}, 526 (1998) [arXiv:astro-ph/9709058].

2060:   %%CITATION = ASJOA,499,526;%%

2061: 

2062: \bibitem{HWY}

2063: %\cite{Hall:2006ff}

2064: %\bibitem{Hall:2006ff}

2065: L.~J.~Hall, T.~Watari and T.~T.~Yanagida,

2066:   %``Taming the runaway problem of inflationary landscapes,''

2067: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 103502 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0601028].

2068:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D73,103502;%%

2069: 

2070: \bibitem{LM}

2071: %\cite{Linde:2005yw}

2072: %\bibitem{Linde:2005yw}

2073: A.~Linde and V.~Mukhanov,

2074:   %``The curvaton web,''

2075: JCAP {\bf 0604}, 009 (2006) [arXiv:astro-ph/0511736].

2076:   %%CITATION = JCAPA,0604,009;%%

2077: 

2078: \bibitem{FKMS}

2079: %\cite{Freivogel:2005vv}

2080: %\bibitem{Freivogel:2005vv}

2081: B.~Freivogel, M.~Kleban, M.~Rodriguez Martinez and L.~Susskind,

2082:   %``Observational consequences of a landscape,''

2083: JHEP {\bf 0603}, 039 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0505232].

2084:   %%CITATION = JHEPA,0603,039;%%

2085: 

2086: \bibitem{Omeganext}

2087: A.~De~Simone, A.~H.~Guth, M.~P.~Salem, and A.~Vilenkin, 

2088: in preparation.

2089: 

2090: \bibitem{KenDelia}

2091: %\cite{Olum:2007yk}

2092: %\bibitem{Olum:2007yk}

2093: K.~D.~Olum and D.~Schwartz-Perlov,

2094:   %``Anthropic prediction in a large toy landscape,''

2095: JCAP {\bf 0710}, 010 (2007) [arXiv:0705.2562 [hep-th]].

2096:   %%CITATION = JCAPA,0710,010;%%

2097: 

2098: \bibitem{Shenker}

2099: %\cite{Clifton:2007bn}

2100: %\bibitem{Clifton:2007bn}

2101: T.~Clifton, S.~Shenker and N.~Sivanandam,

2102:   %``Volume Weighted Measures of Eternal Inflation in the Bousso-Polchinski

2103:   %Landscape,''

2104: JHEP {\bf 0709}, 034 (2007) [arXiv:0706.3201 [hep-th]].

2105:   %%CITATION = JHEPA,0709,034;%%

2106: 

2107: %\bibitem{GV03}

2108: %J.~Garriga and A.~Vilenkin,

2109: %  %``Testable anthropic predictions for dark energy,''

2110: %Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 043503 (2003) [arXiv:astro-ph/0210358].

2111: 

2112: \bibitem{PS}

2113: %\cite{Press:1973iz}

2114: %\bibitem{Press:1973iz}

2115: W.~H.~Press and P.~Schechter,

2116:   %``Formation of galaxies and clusters of galaxies by selfsimilar gravitational

2117:   %condensation,''

2118: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 187} (1974) 425;

2119:   %%CITATION = ASJOA,187,425;%%

2120: %\cite{Bardeen:1985tr}

2121: %\bibitem{Bardeen:1985tr}

2122: J.~M.~Bardeen, J.~R.~Bond, N.~Kaiser and A.~S.~Szalay,

2123:   %``The Statistics Of Peaks Of Gaussian Random Fields,''

2124: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 304}, 15 (1986).

2125:   %%CITATION = ASJOA,304,15;%%

2126: 

2127: \bibitem{dc}

2128: P.~B.~Lilje, Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 386}, L33--L26 (1992);

2129: %\cite{White:1992ri}

2130: %\bibitem{White:1992ri}

2131: S.~D.~M.~White, G.~Efstathiou and C.~S.~Frenk,

2132:   %``The Amplitude Of Mass Fluctuations In The Universe,''

2133: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 262}, 1023 (1993).

2134:   %%CITATION = MNRAA,262,1023;%%

2135: %\cite{Eke:1996ds}

2136: %\bibitem{Eke:1996ds}

2137: V.~R.~Eke, S.~Cole and C.~S.~Frenk,

2138:   %``Using the Evolution of Clusters to Constrain Omega,''

2139: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 282}, 263 (1996)

2140: [arXiv:astro-ph/9601088].

2141:   %%CITATION = MNRAA,282,263;%%

2142: 

2143: \bibitem{PTV}

2144: %\cite{Tegmark:2003ug}

2145: %\bibitem{Tegmark:2003ug}

2146: M.~Tegmark, A.~Vilenkin and L.~Pogosian,

2147:   %``Anthropic predictions for neutrino masses,''

2148: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 103523 (2005) [arXiv:astro-ph/0304536].

2149:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D71,103523;%%

2150: 

2151: \bibitem{Jenkins}

2152: %\cite{Jenkins:2000bv}

2153: %\bibitem{Jenkins:2000bv}

2154: A.~Jenkins {\it et al.},

2155:   %``Mass function of dark matter halos,''

2156: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 321}, 372 (2001)

2157: [arXiv:astro-ph/0005260].

2158:   %%CITATION = MNRAA,321,372;%%

2159: 

2160: \bibitem{ST}

2161: %\cite{Sheth:1999mn}

2162: %\bibitem{Sheth:1999mn}

2163: R.~K.~Sheth and G.~Tormen,

2164:   %``Large scale bias and the peak background split,''

2165: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 308}, 119 (1999)

2166: [arXiv:astro-ph/9901122];

2167:   %%CITATION = MNRAA,308,119;%%

2168: %\cite{Sheth:1999su}

2169: %\bibitem{Sheth:1999su}

2170: R.~K.~Sheth, H.~J.~Mo and G.~Tormen,

2171:   %``Ellipsoidal collapse and an improved model for the number and spatial

2172:   %distribution of dark matter haloes,''

2173: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 323}, 1 (2001)

2174: [arXiv:astro-ph/9907024].

2175:   %%CITATION = MNRAA,323,1;%%

2176: 

2177: \bibitem{Warren}

2178: %\cite{Warren:2005ey}

2179: %\bibitem{Warren:2005ey}

2180: M.~S.~Warren, K.~Abazajian, D.~E.~Holz and L.~Teodoro,

2181:   %``Precision Determination of the Mass Function of Dark Matter Halos,''

2182: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 646}, 881 (2006) [arXiv:astro-ph/0506395].

2183:   %%CITATION = ASJOA,646,881;%%

2184: 

2185: \bibitem{StarForm}

2186: %\cite{Kauffmann:2002hv}

2187: %\bibitem{Kauffmann:2002hv}

2188: G.~Kauffmann {\it et al.} [SDSS Collaboration],

2189:   %``The Dependence of Star Formation History and Internal Structure on Stellar

2190:   %Mass for 80,000 Low-Redshift Galaxies,''

2191: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\ {\bf 341}, 54 (2003)

2192: [arXiv:astro-ph/0205070].

2193:   %%CITATION = MNRAA,341,54;%%

2194: 

2195: \bibitem{WMAP5}

2196: %\cite{Dunkley:2008ie}

2197: %\bibitem{Dunkley:2008ie}

2198: J.~Dunkley {\it et al.} [WMAP Collaboration],

2199:   %``Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:

2200:   %Likelihoods and Parameters from the WMAP data,''

2201: arXiv:0803.0586 [astro-ph];

2202:   %%CITATION = ARXIV:0803.0586;%%

2203: %\cite{Komatsu:2008hk}

2204: %\bibitem{Komatsu:2008hk}

2205: E.~Komatsu {\it et al.} [WMAP Collaboration],

2206:   %``Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP\altaffilmark 1 )

2207:   %Observations:Cosmological Interpretation,''

2208: arXiv:0803.0547 [astro-ph].

2209:   %%CITATION = ARXIV:0803.0547;%%

2210: 

2211: \bibitem{cmbfast}

2212: %\cite{Seljak:1996is}

2213: %\bibitem{Seljak:1996is}

2214: U.~Seljak and M.~Zaldarriaga,

2215:   %``A Line of Sight Approach to Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies,''

2216: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 469}, 437 (1996) [arXiv:astro-ph/9603033].

2217:   %%CITATION = ASJOA,469,437;%%

2218: 

2219: \bibitem{Loeb}

2220: %\cite{Loeb:2006en}

2221: %\bibitem{Loeb:2006en}

2222: A.~Loeb,

2223:   %``An Observational Test for the Anthropic Origin of the Cosmological

2224:   %Constant,''

2225: JCAP {\bf 0605}, 009 (2006) [arXiv:astro-ph/0604242].

2226:   %%CITATION = JCAPA,0605,009;%%

2227: 

2228: \bibitem{Bludman}

2229: %\cite{Bludman:1999gi}

2230: %\bibitem{Bludman:1999gi}

2231: S.~A.~Bludman,

2232:   %``Vacuum energy: If not now, then when?,''

2233: Nucl.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 663}, 865 (2000) [arXiv:astro-ph/9907168].

2234:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,A663,865;%%

2235: 

2236: \bibitem{BBs}

2237: %\cite{Albrecht:2004ke}

2238: %\bibitem{Albrecht:2004ke}

2239: A.~Albrecht and L.~Sorbo,

2240:   %``Can the universe afford inflation?,''

2241: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 063528 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0405270];

2242:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D70,063528;%%

2243: %\cite{Page:2005ur}

2244: %\bibitem{Page:2005ur}

2245: D.~N.~Page,

2246:   %``The lifetime of the universe,''

2247: J.\ Korean Phys.\ Soc.\ {\bf 49}, 711 (2006)

2248: [arXiv:hep-th/0510003];

2249:   %%CITATION = JKPSD,49,S711;%%

2250: %\cite{Page:2006dt}

2251: %\bibitem{Page:2006dt}

2252: D.~N.~Page,

2253:   %``Is our universe likely to decay within 20 billion years?,''

2254: arXiv:hep-th/0610079;

2255:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH/0610079;%%

2256: R. Bousso and B. Freivogel, arXiv:hep-th/0610132.

2257: 

2258: \bibitem{BBnext}

2259: A.~De Simone, A.~H.~Guth, A.~Linde, M.~Noorbala, M.~P.~Salem,

2260: and A.~Vilenkin, work in progress.

2261: 

2262: \bibitem{tunneling}

2263: %\cite{Vilenkin:1984wp}

2264: %\bibitem{Vilenkin:1984wp}

2265: A.~Vilenkin,

2266:   %``Quantum Creation Of Universes,''

2267: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 30}, 509 (1984);

2268:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D30,509;%%

2269: %\cite{Vilenkin:1986cy}

2270: %\bibitem{Vilenkin:1986cy}

2271: A.~Vilenkin,

2272:   %``Boundary Conditions In Quantum Cosmology,''

2273: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 33}, 3560 (1986);

2274:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D33,3560;%%

2275: %\cite{Linde:1983mx}

2276: %\bibitem{Linde:1983mx}

2277: A.~D.~Linde,

2278:   %``Quantum Creation Of The Inflationary Universe,''

2279: Lett.\ Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf 39}, 401 (1984);

2280:   %%CITATION = NCLTA,39,401;%%

2281: %\cite{Rubakov:1984bh}

2282: %\bibitem{Rubakov:1984bh}

2283: V.~A.~Rubakov,

2284:   %``Quantum Mechanics In The Tunneling Universe,''

2285: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 148} (1984) 280.

2286:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B148,280;%%

2287: 

2288: \bibitem{HH}

2289: %\cite{Hartle:1983ai}

2290: %\bibitem{Hartle:1983ai}

2291: J.~B.~Hartle and S.~W.~Hawking,

2292:   %``Wave Function Of The Universe,''

2293: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 28}, 2960 (1983).

2294:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D28,2960;%%

2295: 

2296: \end{thebibliography}

2297: 

2298: \end{document}

2299: 

2300: