1: \documentclass[prd,twocolumn,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

2: 

3: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,graphicx,subfigure}%\usepackage{amsfonts}

4: %\usepackage{showkeys}

5: 

6: \begin{document}

7: 

8: \preprint{\hepth{0703206}}

9: 

10: \title{Landscape Predictions from Cosmological Vacuum Selection}

11: 

12: \author{Raphael Bousso and I-Sheng Yang\footnote{bousso@lbl.gov, 

13: jingking@berkeley.edu}}

14: 

15: \affiliation{Department of Physics and Center for Theoretical

16: Physics \\

17: University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A. \\

18: {\em and}\\

19: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A. }

20: 

21: \begin{abstract}%

22: %

23:   In BP models with hundreds of fluxes, we compute the effects

24:   of cosmological dynamics on the probability distribution of

25:   landscape vacua.  Starting from generic initial conditions, we find

26:   that most fluxes are dynamically driven into a different and much

27:   narrower range of values than expected from landscape statistics

28:   alone.  Hence, cosmological evolution will access only a tiny

29:   fraction of the vacua with small cosmological constant.  This leads

30:   to a host of sharp predictions.  Unlike other approaches to eternal

31:   inflation, the holographic measure employed here does not lead to

32:   ``staggering'', an excessive spread of probabilities that would doom

33:   the string landscape as a solution to the cosmological constant

34:   problem.

35:   %

36: \end{abstract}

37: 

38: \maketitle

39: 

40: \section{Introduction}

41: 

42: The task of making predictions in the landscape of string theory

43: represents an enormous challenge.  We must survey the metastable vacua

44: in the theory and find the relative abundance of various low-energy

45: properties.  But vacua without observers will not be observed.  The

46: great variability of low energy physics in the string landscape

47: demands novel methods for capturing such selection effects.

48: 

49: Interposed between these two tasks is a third problem, which will be

50: the focus of this paper: vacuum selection by cosmological dynamics.

51: It is not enough for a vacuum to exist in theory.  It will be relevant

52: only if it can be dynamically realized from generic initial

53: conditions,  either as regions in spacetime or

54: branches of a wavefunction.  

55: 

56: The former viewpoint insists on treating spacetime semiclassically on

57: a global scale.  This has no operational meaning, since no observer

58: can see beyond his own horizon~\cite{BouFre06a}.  Moreover, it leads

59: to problematic infinities and ambiguities that have plagued the

60: definition of measures in eternal inflation; see, e.g.,

61: Refs.~\cite{LinLin94,GarLin94,GarVil01,GarSch05,EasLim05,Bou06,Bou06b}

62: for discussions and some recent proposals.  Thus, the global viewpoint

63: seems poised to suffer the same fate as the ether: a false convenience

64: increasingly recognized as a burden.  (A similar conclusion was

65: reached earlier by studying quantum aspects of black

66: holes~\cite{SusTho93,Pre92}, and it seems natural indeed that it

67: should extend to cosmology.)

68: 

69: One of us recently proposed a ``holographic'' measure~\cite{Bou06}

70: that refers only to a single causally connected region, or causal

71: diamond.  In Ref.~\cite{BouHar07}, it was shown that this measure not

72: only overcomes problems that plagued anthropic predictions of the

73: cosmological constant, but is able to maintain this success when

74: specific anthropic conditions are traded for the much weaker

75: assumption that observers require merely free energy.  

76: 

77: Here we apply a different aspect of the proposal of Ref.~\cite{Bou06}.

78: We focus not on anthropic selection, but on cosmological selection.

79: We shall find that dynamical effects can significantly suppress or

80: enhance the probability of observing a given vacuum, and they can

81: interfere with anthropic selection in some models.  However, unlike

82: another recently proposed measure~\cite{GarSch05}, the holographic

83: measure does not lead to excessively uneven probability distributions

84: that would render the string landscape ineffective at solving the

85: cosmological constant problem.

86: 

87: We will follow Ref.~\cite{BP} in modelling the string landscape as

88: arising from a large number of possible four-form flux configurations.

89: We mainly consider a model with $250$ fluxes, with fixed charges of

90: order $1/30$.  This yields a large number of metastable vacua, of

91: which $10^{121}$ have vacuum energy comparable to the observed value.

92: Of these, however, we find that only $10^{80}$ are accessed by a

93: typical worldline, starting from generic initial conditions.

94: 

95: The selected ensemble is characterized by 250 probability

96: distributions over the integers, one for each flux.  The distributions

97: differ---in many cases, drastically---from the distributions one would

98: have obtained by simply restricting the landscape to vacua with small

99: cosmological constant.  Thus, cosmological selection leads to

100: thousands of distinct predictions.  Many correspond to probabilities

101: that are so close to 0 or 1 that even a single conflicting observation

102: would rule out the model.

103: 

104: The specific predictions we obtain apply only to the toy model we

105: study, but they do allow us to draw more general lessons.  Most

106: importantly, our results demonstrate that cosmological dynamics can be

107: a powerful constraint.  It reduces the effective size of the landscape

108: drastically, leading to a large number of strong predictions.  Another

109: general lesson is that fast decays happen first.  In natural models,

110: it takes hundreds or thousands of tunneling events to get from a

111: generic initial vacuum to a vacuum with observers.  Any metastable

112: internal configuration that gives rise to a relatively fast decay

113: channel but is unlikely to arise late in the decay chain will not be

114: observed.

115: 

116: In the real string landscape, the selection effects will likely be as

117: strong as in the BP models studied here, but they may be harder to

118: characterize in terms of a set of nearly independent flux

119: distributions.  For example, charges will not be independent of

120: fluxes, and their dynamical effects can become intertwined.  

121: 

122: The specific flux configuration associated with our own vacuum is

123: unlikely to be observed directly in the near future.  However, fluxes

124: are related to coupling constants and other low-energy parameters.  It

125: will be important to understand such correlations in realistic and

126: representative sets of string compactifications.  Then it will be

127: possible to understand the impact of cosmological selection effects on

128: the distribution of low-energy parameters.

129: 

130: \paragraph{Outline}

131: Sec.~\ref{sec-mm} includes brief descriptions of the BP model, and of

132: the holographic cosmological probability measure we use to compute

133: cosmological selection effects.  We focus on the question of how this

134: measure can be effectively applied to a model with ten to the hundreds

135: of vacua.  This would seem to require inverting a matrix of the

136: corresponding rank.  However, we develop statistical methods that are

137: both adequate and very efficient.  (Details of the techniques are

138: given in Appendices~\ref{sec-independent} and \ref{sec-unbiased}.) We

139: also discuss our choice of initial conditions, and we show that our

140: results will be the same for any initial probability distribution that

141: depends only on $\lambda$ and does not strongly favor small or

142: negative values of $\lambda$.

143: 

144: In Sec.~\ref{sec-results}, we present our results.  For a

145: representative model, we contrast the distribution of fluxes, and the

146: number of vacua with small cosmological constant, before and after

147: cosmological selection effects are taken into account.  We point out

148: specific predictions that can be made with high confidence, focussing

149: on features that would have been either absent or strikingly different

150: if cosmological dynamics had been neglected.  We consider other models

151: to illustrate that the strength of cosmological selection effects

152: varies and that, in special cases, a model that naively contains

153: enough vacua may fail after cosmological selection is accounted for.

154: 

155: In Sec.~\ref{sec-discussion}, we try to give a qualitative explanation

156: of the features seen in the cosmological flux distribution.  We

157: identify them as imprints of the dynamics at different stages in the

158: decay chain, when different types of transitions dominate.  

159: 

160: In Sec.~\ref{sec-discussion2}, we compare our results to those

161: obtained by Schwartz-Perlov and Vilenkin \cite{SchVil06} from a

162: different proposal for the probability measure~\cite{GarSch05}.  In

163: toy-BP-models with fewer vacua, the alternative measure leads to a

164: ``staggered'' probability distribution, which would leave the string

165: landscape effectively underpopulated and unable to solve the

166: cosmological constant problem.  The measure of Ref.~\cite{GarSch05} is

167: difficult to apply explicitly in models with a realistic number of

168: vacua, and to extend beyond first order in perturbation theory.

169: However, we show in Appendix~\ref{sec-mimic} that it is equivalent to

170: the holographic measure with particular (and from our point of view,

171: highly unnatural) initial conditions.  With the help of this trick, we

172: are able to argue that the staggering problem is likely to persist at

173: higher orders when the measure of Ref.~\cite{GarSch05} is applied to

174: large BP models.

175: 

176: \section{Model and measure}

177: \label{sec-mm}

178: 

179: \subsection{Probability measure, course graining, and Monte Carlo

180:   chains}

181: \label{sec-grain}

182: 

183: Consider a worldline starting in some metastable initial vacuum.  This

184: vacuum will eventually decay, giving way to a new vacuum.  The cascade

185: continues until the worldline enters a terminal vacuum, which does not

186: decay further.  According to the proposal of Ref.~\cite{Bou06}, the

187: probability $P_A$ assigned to vacuum $A$ is the expected number of

188: times the worldline will enter vacuum $A$ on its way down to a

189: terminal vacuum.\footnote{In Ref.~\cite{Bou06}, $A, B, \ldots$

190:   represented specific vacua.  Here they are indices running over all

191:   vacua.  In Appendix~\ref{sec-mimic} we use indices $a,b,\ldots$ to

192:   run over metastable vacua only.  Indices $i,j,\ldots$ are reserved

193:   for fluxes.}  For a more general initial probability distribution

194: $P_A^{(0)}$, one sums over the result obtained from each initial

195: vacuum, weighted by $P_A^{(0)}$.

196: 

197: The probabilities $P_A$ form an ${\cal N}$-dimensional vector, where

198: ${\cal N}$ is the number of vacua in the landscape.  It satisfies the

199: matrix equation~\cite{Bou06}

200: \begin{equation}

201: (1-\eta) \mathbf P = \eta \mathbf P^{(0)}~.

202: \label{eq-matrix}

203: \end{equation}

204: where $\eta_{AB}$ is the relative decay rate, or branching ratio, from

205: vacuum $B$ into vacuum $A$.  It can be obtained from the decay rate

206: per unit time, $\kappa_{AB}$, by normalizing each column of

207: $\kappa_{AB}$,

208: \begin{equation}

209: \eta_{AB} = \frac{\kappa_{AB}}{\sum_C\kappa_{CB}}~,

210: \label{eq-rel}

211: \end{equation}

212: except for columns corresponding to terminal vacua (which vanish both

213: for $\kappa$ and for $\eta$).

214: 

215: In a large landscape, one expects that both the initial distribution,

216: $P_A^{(0)}$, and the distribution resulting from dynamical selection,

217: $P_A$, will have support over an enormous number of vacua.  Then it is

218: impractical to solve Eq.~(\ref{eq-matrix}) in detail.  But

219: fortunately, the probability of a particular vacuum is no more

220: interesting than that of a specific quantum state in a macroscopic

221: system.  A more natural set of questions is the following: How large

222: is the subset of vacua selected by cosmological dynamics, and how can

223: it be characterized?  

224: 

225: In fact, we will ask a more restrictive set of questions.  Let us

226: suppose that vacua with $\lambda\gg\lambda_0$ contain no observers,

227: where

228: \begin{equation}

229: \lambda_0 \approx 7.9\times 10^{-121}

230: \label{eq-cc}

231: \end{equation}

232: is the observed cosmological constant.  Then we may restrict our

233: attention to vacua with cosmological constant $\lambda$ of order the

234: observed value:

235: \begin{equation}

236: 0<\lambda\lesssim\lambda_0~.

237: \label{eq-weinberg}

238: \end{equation}

239: (For simplicity, we exclude negative values of $\lambda$; this will

240: make our formulas simpler without changing our results qualitatively.

241: For the same reason, we will take the upper bound to be sharp.)  We

242: will consider only models which contain a large number of such vacua,

243: and we will be interested in the restriction of the probability

244: distribution $P_A$ to this subset of vacua.  Thus, we ask:

245: \begin{itemize} 

246: \item[(1)] How large is the set of vacua which (a) satisfy

247: Eq.~(\ref{eq-weinberg}) and (b) are selected by cosmological dynamics?  

248: \item[(2)] What characteristics distinguish typical vacua in the above

249:   set from typical vacua which merely satisfy (a)?

250: \end{itemize}

251: 

252: Instead of solving Eq.~(\ref{eq-matrix}), we will approach these

253: questions by a Monte Carlo simulation.  We select an unbiased sample

254: of $N$ initial vacua according to a generic initial distribution

255: $P_A^{(0)}$.  For each initial vacuum, we simulate a decay chain: At

256: every step, a new vacuum $B$ is selected with a probability given by

257: the branching ratios, $\eta_{AB}$, where $B$ is the old vacuum.  The

258: chain will eventually reach a terminal vacuum, i.e., a vacuum with

259: negative cosmological constant.  We are interested in the penultimate

260: vacuum, which still has positive vacuum energy.  For large enough $N$,

261: the penultimate vacua obtained from the Monte Carlo simulation become

262: a representative sample of the ensemble of vacua selected from the

263: landscape by cosmological dynamics.

264: 

265: 

266: \subsection{BP model and decay rates}

267: \label{sec-setup}

268: 

269: We will follow Ref.~\cite{BP} in modeling the string landscape as a

270: set of flux vacua, neglecting the backreaction of fluxes and moduli

271: stabilization.  The geometry is of the form $M_4\times X$, where $X$

272: is a compact 6 or 7-dimensional manifold, and $M_4$ is the macroscopic

273: four-dimensional spacetime.  A $p$-brane wrapped on a $p-2$ cycle in

274: $X$ acts as a membrane in $M_4$.  The number of cycles, $J$, and thus

275: the number of membrane species, can range into the hundreds.  Each

276: species sources a four-form field strength in $M_4$.  The four-form

277: flux is quantized, so each vacuum is fully specified by the set

278: $\{n_i\}$, $i=1,\ldots, J$, of integer flux numbers.  The vacua form a

279: $J$ dimensional grid in flux space (Fig.~\ref{fig-para}).

280: 

281: \begin{figure*}

282: \begin{center}

283: \includegraphics[scale = .6]{para.eps}

284: \end{center}

285: \caption{A two-dimensional slice through the $J$-dimensional

286:   flux grid.  Surfaces of constant $\lambda$ are $J-1$ dimensional

287:   spheres.  Each dot represents a vacuum.  Starting from initial vacua

288:   with $\lambda\approx 1$ (outermost shell), we simulate decay chains

289:   (blue lines) through the landscape, which terminate when a vacuum

290:   with $\lambda\leq 0$ is reached.  Among the ``penultimate'' vacua

291:   with relatively small positive $\lambda$ (green/shaded region), only

292:   a small fraction is actually accessed by the decay chains, leading

293:   to a host of predictions.  Vacua with $\lambda$ of order the tiny

294:   observed value lie in a much thinner shell (schematically shown as a

295:   black circle).  A model can be ruled out if the selection effects

296:   render this shell inaccessible.}

297: \label{fig-para}

298: \end{figure*} 

299: 

300: The cosmological constant\footnote{We use units in which $8\pi

301:   G=c=\hbar=1$.}  can be written as

302: \begin{equation}

303: \lambda=\lambda_{\rm bare}+\frac{1}{2}\sum^J_{i=1}n_i^2q_i^2~,

304: \label{eq-BP}

305: \end{equation}

306: Here, $q_i$ is the charge of the $i$-th membrane.  The second term is

307: contributed by the $J$ species of four-form flux.  $\lambda_{\rm

308:   bare}$ subsumes all other contributions, in particular those from

309: vacuum loops, and will be assumed to be naturally large and negative:

310: \begin{equation}

311: -\lambda_{\rm bare}=O(1)~.

312: \end{equation}

313: 

314: If each flux can take several different integer values, then there

315: will be an enormous number of vacua.  Some of these vacua will

316: accidentally have a very small cosmological constant, even though no

317: small scale is introduced into the model.  If the model contains vacua

318: with a cosmological constant on the order of the observed value in our

319: universe, $\lambda_0$, then the cosmological constant problem can be

320: solved by anthropic selection effects~\cite{Wei87,Bou06,BouHar07}.

321: 

322: A more detailed model of the string landscape should include the

323: backreaction of fluxes on the geometry (see Ref.~\cite{DouKac06} for a

324: review).  These effects are still hard to control, especially if we

325: are interested in the cosmology of a large, representative part of the

326: landscape.  In particular, both the charges $q_i$ and the bare

327: cosmological constant would depend on the set $\{n_i\}$.  However,

328: this is unlikely to affect a key feature of the BP model: that the

329: vacua form a discretuum with tiny effective spacing of the

330: cosmological constant.

331: 

332: In general, a metastable vacuum can decay to any other vacuum.

333: However, a typical decay will change one flux by one unit.  Tunneling

334: events that change more than one flux, or change a flux by more than

335: one unit, can be regarded as a composite event.  They will be much

336: more suppressed than one of their constituent events and can thus be

337: neglected.  This simplifies our task, reducing the number of possible

338: decays at each step to $2J$.  The only question is which flux will

339: change, and in which direction.

340: 

341: The relative decay rates are given by Eq.~(\ref{eq-rel}), with

342: \begin{equation}

343: \kappa_{ij} =A_j e^{-B_{ij}}~.

344: \end{equation}

345: The constant $A_j$ depends only on the host vacuum and drops out in

346: the branching ratios.  The instanton action for decreasing the

347: magnitude of the $i$-th flux, $n_i$, by one unit is given

348: by~\cite{BroTei87}

349: \begin{eqnarray}

350:   B(|n_i|\to |n_i|-1) &=& B_{\rm flat}(|n_i|\to |n_i|-1)\, r(x,y)

351:   \nonumber \\ 

352:   B_{\rm flat}(|n_i|\to |n_i|-1) &=& 

353:   \frac{27\pi^2}{8}\frac{1}{\left(|n_i|-\frac{1}{2}\right)^3q_i^2}  

354:   \nonumber \\

355:   r(x,y)&=&\frac{2[(1+xy)-\sqrt{1+2xy+x^2}]}

356:   {x^2(y^2-1)\sqrt{1+2xy+x^2}} \label{eq-B} \nonumber \\ 

357:   x&=&\frac{3}{8\left(|n_i|-\frac{1}{2}\right)} \nonumber \\

358:   y&=&\frac{2\lambda}{q_i^2\left(|n_i|-\frac{1}{2}\right)}-1~,

359: \end{eqnarray}

360: where $\lambda$ is the cosmological constant in the first vacuum.

361: Upward tunneling is further suppressed by the relative entropy of the

362: two vacua:

363: \begin{eqnarray}

364:  & B(|n_i|\to |n_i|+1)= & \\ & B(|n_i|+1\to |n_i|)

365:   \exp\left(\frac{24\pi^2}{\lambda+\left(|n_i|+\frac{1}{2}\right) q_i^2}

366:     -\frac{24\pi^2}{\lambda}\right) & ~. \nonumber

367: \label{eq-upward}

368: \end{eqnarray}

369: For fluxes with $n_i=0$ it is important to take into account that

370: $0\to 1$ and $0\to -1$ are two distinct decay channels that contribute

371: equal amounts to the total decay rate entering Eq.~(\ref{eq-rel}).

372: 

373: \subsection{Quantifying selection effects}

374: \label{sec-quantify}

375: 

376: Given the $N$ vacua selected by our Monte Carlo simulation, we can

377: answer the two questions posed above.  First, let us focus on how the

378: selected vacua can be characterized and distinguished from an unbiased

379: ensemble of vacua with small cosmological constant.

380: 

381: In our toy model, the only variables we have available are the fluxes,

382: $n_i$.  A list of $J$ fluxes specifies a unique vacuum, but a list of

383: $J$ probability distributions (one for each flux) defines an ensemble

384: of vacua.  Larger ensembles could be defined by throwing away more

385: information, e.g., by specifying only a list of $J$ expectation values

386: $\langle n_i\rangle$.  However, we are interested in extracting as

387: much information as possible from our simulation.  Hence, we will

388: consider the $J$ discrete distributions

389: \begin{eqnarray}

390:   &p_i(n) \equiv \mbox{probability that the}~i\mbox{-th flux,}\, 

391:   n_i,&\nonumber\\ & \mbox{has integer value}~n~. &

392: \end{eqnarray}

393: Selection effects can be demonstrated by comparing the $J$

394: distributions obtained from the selected vacua, with the $J$

395: distributions obtained from an unbiased sample of vacua with a similar

396: range of vacuum energy.

397: 

398: Next, let us turn to estimating the total number of selected vacua

399: from the small sample obtained by the simulation, and comparing this

400: to the total number of vacua in a similar range of vacuum energy.

401: This task is slightly more subtle. 

402: 

403: Associated with each probability distribution $p_i(n)$ is a Shannon

404: entropy,

405: \begin{equation}

406: s_i=-\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty p_i(n) \log p_i(n)~.

407: \end{equation}

408: We shall treat the $n_i$ as independent random variables.  This

409: assumption is justified, and small corrections are given, in

410: Appendix~\ref{sec-independent}.  Then the total entropy is

411: \begin{equation}

412: S=\sum_{i=1}^J s_i= -\sum_{n,\,i} p_i(n) \log p_i(n)~,

413: \label{eq-ent}

414: \end{equation}

415: and the corresponding number of ``states'' (i.e., vacua) in the

416: ensemble is

417: \begin{equation}

418: {\cal N} = \exp S\, .

419: \label{eq-exp}

420: \end{equation}

421: We will be interested in computing this number not only from the

422: selected sample of $N$ vacua, but also from an unbiased sample of

423: vacua with a similar range of vacuum energy.  Their fraction,

424: \begin{equation}

425:   \frac{\cal N}{{\cal N}^{\rm unselected}}

426: \end{equation}

427: quantifies the degree to which cosmological selection thins out the

428: landscape.

429: 

430: We are especially interested in how many distinct values of the

431: cosmological constant, $\lambda$, are contained in the spectrum of

432: vacua, before and after cosmological selection.  By Eq.~(\ref{eq-BP}),

433: changing the sign of a flux, $n_i\to -n_i$, leaves $\lambda$

434: invariant.  To account for this degeneracy, let us consider a new set

435: of distributions in which vacua are treated as identical if they

436: differ only by the signs of fluxes:

437: \begin{equation}

438: \tilde p_i(n) = \left\{ 

439: \begin{array}{ll}

440: p_i(0)\, , & n=0\,;\\

441: p_i(-n)+p_i(n)\, , &n>0\, .

442: \end{array}\right.

443: \label{eq-ptilde}

444: \end{equation}

445: From this set of $\tilde p_i$, we can compute the number $\tilde {\cal

446:   N}$ of different values of the cosmological constant, by the

447: analogues of Eqs.~(\ref{eq-ent}) and (\ref{eq-exp}).  

448: 

449: As we remarked above, we assume an initial probability distribution

450: that depends only on $\lambda$.  This ensures that $p_i(-n)=p_i(n)$

451: initially (up to finite-sample effects), and by since the decay rates

452: depend only on $|n_i|$, the condition is preserved by dynamics.

453: Hence,

454: \begin{equation}

455: p_i(n)= p_i(-n) = \left\{ 

456: \begin{array}{ll}

457: \tilde p_i(0)\, , & n=0\,;\\

458: \frac{1}{2}\tilde p_i(|n|)\, , &n \neq 0\, .

459: \end{array}\right.

460: \end{equation}

461: For this reason, we only display $\tilde p_i(n)$ in all figures below.

462: 

463: The $N$ vacua in our sample will be distributed over a much wider

464: interval of $\lambda$ than that of Eq.~(\ref{eq-weinberg}); very

465: likely, none of them will have $\lambda\sim\lambda_0$.  However, the

466: distribution of $\lambda$ is smooth on scales much larger than

467: $\lambda_0$, so that the total number of dynamically selected values

468: of $\lambda$ satisfying Eq.~(\ref{eq-weinberg}), $\tilde{\cal N}_{\rm

469:   W}$, can be easily estimated:

470: \begin{equation}

471: \tilde{\cal N}_{\lambda_0}=\lambda_0 \left.

472: \frac{d\tilde {\cal N}}{d\lambda}\right|_{\lambda=0}

473: \approx

474: \lambda_0 \frac{\tilde{\cal N}}{N} \left.

475: \frac{dN}{d\lambda}\right|_{\lambda=0}~,

476: \label{eq-nw}

477: \end{equation}

478: where the distribution $dN/d\lambda$ can be obtained from our Monte

479: Carlo simulation after suitable binning, and, from Eqs.~(\ref{eq-ent})

480: and (\ref{eq-exp}),

481: \begin{equation}

482:   \tilde {\cal N}=\exp[-\sum \tilde p_i(n)\log\tilde p_i(n)]~.

483:   \label{eq-tilden}

484: \end{equation}

485: 

486: In Appendix~\ref{sec-independent} we note that the fluxes are only

487: approximately, but not completely independent random variables.  We

488: argue that an appropriate correction can be implemented by generating

489: a new sample of $N'$ vacua from the probability distributions $\tilde

490: p_i(n)$ obtained from the penultimate vacua on the Monte Carlo chain,

491: and replacing $N$ by $N'$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq-nw}).

492: 

493: In Appendix~\ref{sec-unbiased} we explain how to estimate the number

494: $\tilde {\cal N}_{\lambda_0}^{\rm unselected}$ of distinct values

495: $\lambda\sim\lambda_0$ in the model (before cosmological selection).

496: An approximate formula was given in Ref.~\cite{BP} but we propose a

497: more precise method that better accounts for degeneracies of vacua.

498: 

499: \subsection{Initial conditions}

500: \label{sec-initial}

501: 

502: There is no universally accepted theory of initial conditions, and it

503: is not our purpose to propose such a theory.  Given initial

504: conditions, we are interested in the effects of the cosmological

505: dynamics on the selection of vacua with small cosmological constant.

506: For definiteness, we will assume an initial probability distribution

507: that depends only on $\lambda$ and favors large values of the vacuum

508: energy.

509: 

510: This type of initial distribution would follow, for example, by

511: assuming that all vacua are equally likely.  The number of vacua

512: with cosmological constant less than $\lambda$ grows very rapidly,

513: like $(\lambda-\lambda_{\rm bare})^{J/2}$.  Hence, the overwhelming

514: majority of vacua have large positive values of $\lambda$.

515: 

516: An even stronger preference for large initial $\lambda$ follows if we

517: adopt the tunneling proposal~\cite{Vil86,Lin84b}:

518: \begin{equation}

519: P_i^{(0)}\propto \left\{ 

520: \begin{array}{ll}

521:   e^{-24\pi^2/\lambda}\, , & \lambda>0\,;\\

522:   0\, , &\lambda\leq 0\, .

523: \end{array}\right.

524: \label{eq-tunneling}

525: \end{equation}

526: This assigns negligible probability to vacua with small cosmological

527: constant.  Vacua with a large positive vacuum energy are then favored

528: not only because of their greater number, but because of their greater

529: individual probability.

530: 

531: It makes little difference which of these specific proposals we adopt.

532: The above distributions diverge at large values of $\lambda$ and must

533: be cut off, so most initial vacua will be at the cutoff.  We will

534: choose a cutoff $\lambda\lesssim 1$.  It seems reasonable to ignore

535: vacua with $\lambda\gtrsim 1$ since semiclassical gravity cannot be

536: valid in this regime.  One signature of this breakdown is that action

537: of instantons mediating their decay becomes of order unity or less.

538: This means that the vacua cannot be treated as distinct, metastable

539: states.

540: 

541: Fortunately, our results show little sensitivity to the precise choice

542: of the cutoff.  We have run sets of decay chains starting from

543: different initial values of $\lambda$.  As the initial value is

544: increased, the selection effects at first become more important.  This

545: is not surprising, since a larger initial value implies a longer decay

546: chain, and hence, more opportunities for preferred decay channels to

547: imprint directional effects on the probability distribution.

548: Eventually, however, the distribution shows asymptotic behavior,

549: changing little as the initial $\lambda$ is further increased (see

550: Fig.~\ref{fig-asymptote}; in the model here, this occurs near

551: $\lambda=1$).  This is also reasonable: at large cosmological

552: constant, all decay channels become unsuppressed.  Directional

553: selection effects appear to set in only when $\lambda$ becomes

554: sufficiently small.  Therefore, the precise cutoff, and thus the

555: choice of initial cosmological constant, do not affect our results.

556: \begin{figure}

557: \begin{center}

558: \includegraphics[scale = .8]{assym.eps}

559: \end{center}

560: \caption{The number of selected vacua with $\lambda\sim\lambda_0$,

561:   $\log{\cal N}_{\lambda_0}$, obtained from different initial

562:   ensembles starting at different values of $\langle\lambda\rangle$,

563:   in Model 1.  For initial values $\langle\lambda\rangle\gtrsim 0.8$,

564:   the number of selected vacua stops shrinking.  This indicates that

565:   at such high values, selection effects are negligible.  Therefore,

566:   the details of the initial conditions are irrelevant as long as

567:   large values of $\lambda$ are preferred, as explained in the text.}

568: \label{fig-asymptote}

569: \end{figure} 

570: 

571: 

572: This clearly alleviates the dependence of the local probability

573: measure on initial conditions.  However, it does not eliminate this

574: dependence entirely.  For example, if the initial probability

575: distribution was concentrated on a particular vacuum (rather than

576: dependent only on $\lambda$), then the selected vacua would

577: generically show a significant imprint of this origin.  This is as it

578: should be.  If we reject the global viewpoint, there is no reason to

579: expect that all initial conditions must be washed out.

580: 

581: \section{Results}

582: \label{sec-results}

583: 

584: We will first present results for a model with $J=250$, $\lambda_{\rm

585:   bare}=-0.5$, and $q_i = 0.01494+0.03\frac{i}{J}$ (``Model

586: 1'').\footnote{Strictly, the charges should be incommensurate in order

587:   to avoid additional degeneracies.  Since this could be implemented

588:   by extremely small modifications of the $q_i$, we ignore such

589:   degeneracies here.}  The model contains ${\cal N}_{\lambda_0}^{\rm

590:   unselected}\approx 10^{121}$ vacua in the interval $0<\lambda\leq

591: \lambda_0$, with $\tilde{\cal N}_{\lambda_0}^{\rm unselected}\approx

592: 10^{60}$ distinct values of $\lambda$.  We considered initial

593: distributions centered on $\langle\lambda\rangle=0.1, 0.2, \ldots,

594: 1.4$.  For each initial distribution (for example, the red/dark shell

595: in Fig.~\ref{fig-para}), we ran $1000$ Monte Carlo decay chains

596: selecting $1000$ vacua with small positive cosmological constant (in

597: the green/light shell in Fig.~\ref{fig-para}).

598: \begin{figure}

599: \begin{center}

600: \includegraphics[scale = .75]{pnis.eps}

601: \end{center}

602: \caption{The red, wiggly curves show the probability that the $i$-th

603:   flux is $n$, $\tilde p_i(n)$, in the penultimate vacua of $N=7000$

604:   decay chains starting from $\lambda\gtrsim 0.8$ in Model 1, as a

605:   function of $i$.  For comparison, the blue, smooth curves show the

606:   probabilities that would have been obtained without cosmological

607:   selection, just from restricting to vacua with small cosmological

608:   constant.  The differences are immediately apparent and quite

609:   drastic.  For example, no fluxes greater than 4 survive the

610:   selection process; without selection, there would be many such

611:   fluxes.  The fluxes associated with small charges (small $i$) are

612:   anomalously low after selection.}

613: \label{fig-pnis}

614: \end{figure} 

615: 

616: The probability distribution of fluxes characterizing the selected

617: vacua becomes independent of the initial distribution for initial

618: values of $\lambda\gtrsim 0.8$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig-asymptote}).  This

619: asymptotic distribution is what we are after: it is the one picked out

620: by the initial conditions chosen in Sec.~\ref{sec-initial}.  To

621: improve the statistical quality of our final data, we therefore merged

622: the distributions obtained from initial $\langle\lambda\rangle=0.8, 0.9,

623: \ldots, 1.4$, effectively obtaining $N=7000$ runs.

624: 

625: The resulting probability distribution of fluxes characterizing the

626: selected vacua, $\tilde p_i(n)$, is shown as a function of $i$ in

627: Fig.~\ref{fig-pnis}, and as a function of $n$ in Fig.~\ref{fig-pn}.  For

628: comparison, we show the probabilities that would have been obtained

629: from a random sample of vacua with comparable cosmological constant,

630: without cosmological selection.

631: \begin{figure*}

632: \begin{center}

633: \includegraphics[scale = .9]{pn.eps}

634: \end{center}

635: \caption{Specific examples of probability distributions $\tilde

636:   p_i(n)$, plotted against $n$ for 6 of the 250 fluxes in Model 1.

637:   The cosmological dynamics drives most fluxes into a narrower range

638:   (red/light shaded bars) than the distribution obtained from

639:   landscape statistics alone (blue/dark bars).}

640: \label{fig-pn}

641: \end{figure*} 

642: 

643: The overall strength of the selection effects (our first question in

644: Sec.~\ref{sec-grain}) can be quantified by the ratio of selected vacua

645: to the total number of vacua with distinct cosmological constant in

646: the interval $0<\lambda<\lambda_0$ (the thin black shell in

647: Fig.~\ref{fig-para}).  We find from Eq.~(\ref{eq-nw}) that ${\cal

648:   N}_{\lambda_0}\approx 10^{80}$, so

649: \begin{equation}

650: \frac{{\cal N}_{\lambda_0}}{{\cal N}_{\lambda_0}^{\rm unselected}}

651: \approx 10^{-41}~.

652: \end{equation}

653: In other words, only one out of every $10^{41}$ vacua with small

654: cosmological constant is actually accessed by cosmological selection.

655: 

656: After taking into account degeneracies, there remain effectively

657: $\tilde{\cal N}_{\lambda_0}\approx 10^{22}$ distinct values of $\lambda$ that

658: are accessed by cosmological selection.  Hence, the cosmological

659: constant problem can still be solved in this model, albeit with a much

660: reduced discretuum density.

661: 

662: In order to answer the second question posed in Sec.~\ref{sec-grain},

663: let us inspect the probability distributions $\tilde p_i(n)$ in more

664: detail, and look for characteristics that distinguish the selected

665: vacua from the full set of vacua with small cosmological constant.  In

666: principle, every one of the $J$ fluxes will have a different

667: probability distribution, leading to $O(J)$ predictions.  For example,

668: the first flux $n_1$ vanishes with $95\%$ probability.  Before

669: selection, by constrast, it would have been unlikely to do so ($10\%$;

670: see the first panel in Fig.~\ref{fig-pn}).

671: 

672: Instead of going through each flux, it is more illuminating to

673: identify general trends, paying special attention to features that

674: would have been extremely unlikely in the unselected sample.  Quite

675: clearly, small charges tend to have smaller fluxes.  Interestingly,

676: this is precisely the opposite of what would be naively expected

677: without cosmological dynamics.

678: 

679: Let us define $i_{\rm max}(n)$ to be the largest $i$ such that there

680: is less than $1\%$ chance to find one or more $n_j>n$ in the range

681: $1\leq j\leq i$.  For the selected vacua, we have $i_{\rm max}(1)=14$,

682: $i_{\rm max}(2)=31$ and $i_{\rm max}(3)=77$.  Without cosmological

683: selection, by contrast, it is practically certain that one or more

684: fluxes in the above ranges will exceed $n$.

685: 

686: Strictly speaking, we cannot resolve probabilities less than $N^{-1}$,

687: the limit from the number of Monte Carlo runs.  However, one would

688: expect to obtain much stronger predictions by involving analytic

689: arguments.  For example, the $p_i(4)$ graph shows that for each

690: $i<34$, the probability of finding $n_i=4$ is ``zero'', i.e., less

691: than $N^{-1}$.  Dynamically, this must have resulted from a strong

692: preference for such fluxes to decay---a preference that must have been

693: present over more than $34$ steps in the decay chain.  For example, if

694: we assume that $n_1=4$ at some point in the decay chain, it must be

695: true that long before the end of the decay chain, the probability for

696: it to remain untouched must become very small.  But then it will be

697: small for each of the remaining steps.  Hence, we expect that $p_1(4)$

698: is not just less than $N^{-1}$, but in fact exponentially small.

699: 

700: We have studied a range of other model parameters to ensure that our

701: results are not peculiar features of this model.  For example, in

702: Model 2 with $J=200$, $\lambda_{\rm bare}=-0.6$, and

703: $q_i=0.01494+0.03\frac{i}{J}$, we find $\frac{{\cal

704:     N}_{\lambda_0}}{{\cal N}_{\lambda_0}^{\rm unselected}} \approx

705: 10^{-23}$; the selection effect is smaller but still considerable.

706: The number of different values of $\lambda\sim\lambda_0$ is

707: $\tilde{\cal N}_{\lambda_0}^{\rm unselected}\approx 10^{39}$ before

708: cosmological selection and $\tilde{\cal N}_{\lambda_0}\approx 10^{16}$

709: after selection.  Thus, as in the previous model, cosmological

710: selection effects yield predictions but keep the model viable.

711: 

712: Of course, there will also be models which are ruled out by

713: cosmological selection effects.  The simplest way to find such models

714: is to reduce the discretuum density before selection, for example by

715: reducing the number $J$ of fluxes or decreasing $|\lambda_{\rm

716:   bare}|$.  If the model contains only a few vacua with

717: $\lambda\sim\lambda_0$ to start with, chances are that there will be

718: none left after cosmological selection effects are taken into account.

719: For example, consider Model 3 with $q_i=0.01494+0.03\frac{i}{J}$,

720: $J=200$ and $\lambda_{\rm bare}=-0.4$.  The discretuum density per

721: $\lambda_0$ is $\tilde{\cal N}_{\lambda_0}^{\rm unselected} \approx

722: 10^{24}$ before selection but $\tilde{\cal N}_{\lambda_0}\approx

723: 10^{-12}$ after selection.  In other words, not even a single vacuum

724: with $\lambda\sim\lambda_0$ can be accessed.  This model is ruled out

725: by cosmological selection.

726: 

727: But the strength of selection effects can also vary.  For example,

728: Model 4 with $q_i=0.01494+0.03\frac{i}{J}$, $J=150$, $\lambda_{\rm

729:   bare}=-1.0$ has the same $\tilde{\cal N}_{\lambda_0}^{\rm

730:   unselected}\approx 10^{24}$ as Model 3.  But after cosmological

731: selection, the discretuum density per $\lambda_0$ is $\tilde{\cal

732:   N}_{\lambda_0}=10^{13}$, still larger than $1$, so the model remains

733: viable.

734: 

735: Finally, we should mention that there can also be models in which

736: cosmological selection effects are unimportant.  For example, for very

737: small charges $q_i\ll 1$, the typical fluxes $n_i$ will be large, and

738: their standard deviations $\delta n_i$ in the interval

739: $0<\lambda\leq\lambda_0$ can be much larger than the typical

740: enhancement or suppression of fluxes by cosmological selection

741: effects.  However, such models appear unnatural in the context of

742: string theory.  Hence, we expect that the true string theory landscape

743: will exhibit nontrivial cosmological selection effects.

744: 

745: \section{Discussion}

746: \label{sec-discussion}

747: 

748: We can understand the selection behavior qualitatively by studying the

749: tunneling rates, $e^{-B}$, where $B(q_i,n_i)$ is the instanton action

750: given in Eq.~(\ref{eq-B}).  Let us neglect tunneling events that

751: increase the magnitude of a flux $n_i$.  Then $\partial B/\partial

752: n<0$.  This means that among two unequal fluxes with similar charge

753: ($q_i\approx q_j$), the larger flux, $\max\{|n_i|,|n_j|\}$, is more

754: likely to decay.  The dependence on the size of the charge is more

755: complicated.  For most of the parameter space explored here, one finds

756: $\partial B/\partial q>0$, which implies that among two equal fluxes

757: $|n_i|=|n_j|$, the flux associated with the smaller charge,

758: $\min\{q_i,q_j\}$, is more likely to decay.  (Exceptions can occur in

759: the final stages of the decay process.)

760: 

761: \begin{figure}

762: \begin{center}

763: \includegraphics[scale = .7]{scheme.eps}

764: \end{center}

765: \caption{Constant action surfaces for $\lambda=0.8$ (top-left),

766:   $\lambda=0.4$ (top-right), $\lambda=0.2$ (bottom-left), and

767:   $\lambda=0.1$ (bottom-right) in the $i$-$|n_i|$ plane.  (Recall that

768:   the charges $q_i$ are ordered so as to increase monotonically with

769:   $i$.)  The action $B$ grows towards the bottom right with a line

770:   spacing of $1$ in all four plots, corresponding to greater

771:   suppression of the decay.}

772: \label{fig-scheme}

773: \end{figure} 

774: 

775: In order to understand how these effects combine and compete, we have

776: plotted the lines of constant action in the flux-charge plane, for a

777: number of values of the cosmological constant $\lambda$, in

778: Fig.~\ref{fig-scheme}.  At the beginning of the decay chain, for large

779: $\lambda$, the action ranges only over an interval of a few, so the

780: most unlikely decay and the most likely decay do not differ enormously

781: in probability.  In this regime, our simulation shows that even upward

782: jumps (which are neglected in Fig.~\ref{fig-scheme}) are not very

783: suppressed.  

784: 

785: As $\lambda$ decreases below $0.8$, a preference for the decay of

786: fluxes with small $q_i$ and/or large $|n_i|$ becomes apparent.  The

787: slope of the constant action lines indicates how these tendencies are

788: balanced.  Starting around $\lambda=0.2$, the elimination of large

789: fluxes is strongly preferred.  This explains the absence of fluxes

790: $|n_i|\geq 5$ in our results (see Fig.~\ref{fig-pnis}, last panel).

791: In their absence, the last panel of Fig.~\ref{fig-scheme} shows a

792: strong preference for the decay of the fluxes associated with the

793: smallest few charges.  At least qualitatively, this explains the peaks

794: in the first few panels in Fig.~\ref{fig-pnis}.

795: 

796: Throughout the decay, in all four panels of Fig.~\ref{fig-scheme}, the

797: decay of fluxes with {\em both\/} small $|n_i|$ and large $q_i$ is

798: relatively suppressed.  This suggests that such fluxes will be left

799: untouched by the cosmological dynamics, and instead will be set by

800: initial conditions.  To check this conclusion, let us compare the

801: probability distribution $\tilde p_i(n)$ obtained from the $N$

802: penultimate vacua, with the distribution at the beginning of the decay

803: chain.  This is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig-012}.  The first three panels

804: ($n\leq 2$) demonstrate that the initial probabilities are indeed

805: preserved for sufficiently large $i$.

806: \begin{figure}

807: \begin{center}

808: \includegraphics[scale = .75]{012.eps}

809: \end{center}

810: \caption{The red, wiggly curves are the same as in Fig.~3.  The

811:   blue, smooth curves show the probabilities for various flux values

812:   near the beginning of the decay chain, at $\lambda=0.8$.  In the

813:   first few panels, it is apparent that small fluxes associated with

814:   large charges do not participate in the dynamics.  This can be

815:   understood from the functional form of the instanton action.}

816: \label{fig-012}

817: \end{figure} 

818: 

819: \section{Comparison with an alternative measure}

820: \label{sec-discussion2}

821: 

822: We have computed the probability distribution $\tilde p_i(n)$ from the

823: measure proposed in Ref.~\cite{Bou06}.  Other cosmological measures

824: have been proposed, and it is important to ask which, if any, of the

825: proposals is on the right track.  In our view, this problem should be

826: treated no differently from any other challenge to come up with the

827: right theory describing a set of phenomena.  The measure problem, like

828: the question of the dynamical laws governing the early universe, is an

829: aspect of the theoretical challenge faced in quantum cosmology.  It

830: should be approached by a combination of seeking out simple guiding

831: principles (such as the causal-diamond viewpoint of the universe that

832: leads to the holographic measure used here), and elimination.  If a

833: measure, or a theory, is poorly motivated, then it is unlikely to get

834: much attention; and if a theory with a given measure yields absurd

835: predictions, then the theory or the measure or both must be wrong.

836: 

837: An interesting proposal which has been quite sharply formulated is the

838: measure of Garriga, Schwartz-Perlov, Vilenkin, and

839: Winitzki~\cite{GarSch05} (GSVW).  This measure has been applied to a

840: simplified BP model by Schwartz-Perlov and Vilenkin~\cite{SchVil06}

841: (SV), so let us compare results.

842: 

843: \subsection{Initial conditions and computational complexity}

844: 

845: Before going into the details, we note some formal differences.  The

846: GSVW measure depends on initial conditions only through the sign of

847: the initial cosmological constant.\footnote{More precisely, the

848:   measure is not defined for initial states composed exclusively of

849:   terminal vacua, and depends sensitively on initial conditions for

850:   initial states involving metastable $\lambda\leq 0$ vacua but no

851:   $\lambda>0$ vacua.}  We know of no fundamental reason why

852: cosmological dynamics should be required to have this property.  It

853: would be nice if we were spared the task of understanding the initial

854: conditions.  But even in the GSVW measure one would still need to

855: understand why the universe started in a de~Sitter vacuum.  

856: 

857: The measure we have used depends on initial conditions in additional

858: ways, for example through the value of the initial cosmological

859: constant.  As we have seen, however, the dependence is weak if we

860: assume that it enters mainly through $\lambda$.  But clearly, initial

861: conditions remain an free variable when applying the holographic

862: measure; we have argued only that within a wide range that appears to

863: be physically reasonable, the measure is not very sensitive to them.

864: 

865: It is unclear whether in practice, the GSVW measure can actually be

866: applied to a rich landscape such as that of string theory, as we have

867: done here for the holographic measure.  As shown in

868: Ref.~\cite{SchVil06}, the GSVW probability distribution is dominated

869: by the offspring of the longest-lived metastable vacuum.  This

870: requires finding the eigenvector $\mathbf{s}$ with smallest-magnitude

871: negative eigenvalue of a matrix with rank ten to the hundreds.

872: Perhaps statistical methods can be developed for this purpose, but so

873: far the problem is unsolved.  It is harder than the problem we

874: addressed here of statistically solving Eq.~(\ref{eq-matrix}), and it

875: may be computationally intractible in a realistic landscape, in the

876: sense of Ref.~\cite{DenDou06}.

877: 

878: In any case, SV considered only a toy-BP-model with $J=7$ charges and

879: a few million vacua.  Then the eigenvector $\mathbf{s}$ can be found

880: perturbatively in the small upward tunneling rates.  Because of the

881: much smaller number of vacua (in particular, their model does not

882: contain any vacua with $\lambda\sim\lambda_0$), we cannot directly

883: compare the results of SV to our results for a landscape with $\sim

884: 10^{250}$ vacua.  

885: 

886: Even at a qualitative level, Ref.~\cite{SchVil06} contains no

887: predictions of likely flux distributions that could be compared to

888: ours.  However, there is one robust prediction of the GSVW measure,

889: which is not shared by the holographic measure, and which appears to

890: conflict with observation.  We turn to this problem next.

891: 

892: 

893: \subsection{The staggering problem}

894: 

895: The most important feature in the results of SV is the ``staggered''

896: nature of the probability distribution.  The GSVW probabilities are

897: widely spread.  At first order in the perturbative approximation

898: pursued by SV, the logarithmic range of probabilities, $\log \tilde

899: p_A$, appears to be larger than the number of vacua.  (A similar

900: conclusion was reached in Ref.~\cite{Sch06} for a different

901: landscape.)

902: 

903: This behavior is in sharp contrast to our distribution, and it is

904: extremely problematic.  As SV point out, if the staggered behavior

905: persisted at all orders in the full string landscape, the cosmological

906: constant problem could no longer be solved.  Then either the landscape

907: or the GSVW measure would be ruled out.\footnote{Until we discover

908:   alternatives to the string landscape in fundamental theory, or at

909:   least until we have exhaustively explored alternative measures, the

910:   more conservative conclusion would be to regard this problem as

911:   evidence against the GSVW measure, not against the string landscape.

912:   This is all the more true since in the holographic measure we have a

913:   well-motivated alternative that does not lead to this problem.}  At

914: first order in the SV approximation, staggering is generic, but one

915: might hope that at higher order, a more uniform probability

916: distribution will emerge~\cite{Sch06}.

917: 

918: However, we will argue that staggering is a very general feature of

919: the GSVW measure.  We will use a result proven in

920: Appendix~\ref{sec-mimic}: The GSVW measure can be perfectly mimicked

921: by the holographic measure, if the initial state $\mathbf{P}^{(0)}$ is

922: chosen to be the GSVW eigenvector $\mathbf{s}$, which is dominated by

923: the longest-lived metastable vacuum in the landscape, $(*)$.  This

924: result allows us to estimate the Shannon entropy of the GSVW

925: probability distribution by following the branching trees of

926: Ref.~\cite{Bou06}.

927: 

928: Unlike in the earlier sections, we will be estimating the probability

929: of vacua directly, not as a product of probabilities of individual

930: fluxes.  The Shannon entropy is then given by

931: \begin{equation}

932:   S_{\rm GSVW}= -\sum_A \tilde p_A \log \tilde p_A~,

933: \end{equation}

934: and the effective number of selected vacua is ${\cal N}_{\rm

935:   GSVW}=\exp(S_{\rm GSVW})$.  The cosmological constant problem can

936: only be solved if ${\cal N}_{\rm GSVW}\gg 10^{120}$.  In a staggered

937: probability distribution, the most likely few vacua dominate the

938: probability and the entropy, so $S_{\rm GSVW}\sim O(1)$, which is far

939: too small.  We will now argue that this type of distribution results

940: from the GSVW measure quite generally.

941: 

942: As SV point out, the $(*)$ vacuum, by virtue of being long-lived, will

943: have a relatively small cosmological constant, and upward tunneling

944: will be enormously suppressed.  Let us denote by $\epsilon$ the total

945: branching ratio for upward tunneling.  By Eq.~(\ref{eq-upward}),

946: $\log\epsilon\sim -1/\lambda_*$, where $\lambda_*$ is the cosmological

947: constant of the $(*)$ vacuum, so that $-\log\epsilon\gg 1$.  After one

948: upward tunneling, the cosmological constant is larger, but still only

949: of order $\langle n_i\rangle q_i^2\sim O(q_i/\sqrt{J})$, which is less

950: than $10^{-2}$ in natural models, so upward tunneling remains

951: extremely suppressed.  Following SV, let us thus use upward tunneling

952: as a small expansion parameter.  At zeroth order, we consider only

953: downward tunneling.

954: 

955: SV showed that the eigenvector $\mathbf{s}$ is dominated by one

956: component, the $(*)$ vacuum, and that the $(*)$ vacuum will have a

957: small enough cosmological constant to access only terminal vacua by a

958: single downward decay.  The arguments leading to this conclusion

959: generalize to realistic models.  However, to show that the GSVW

960: entropy is small, we will only rely on the weaker statement that the

961: GSVW-equivalent initial conditions correspond to starting from a small

962: number of initial vacua whose downward decay leads to terminal vacua

963: after very few steps.

964: 

965: Let us imagine that the downward decay of any metastable vacuum

966: affects each flux with equal relative probability, $1/J$.  Moreover,

967: let us pretend that decay chains never merge; all vacua reached by

968: downward decays are different.  These assumptions vastly overestimate

969: the spread of probabilities and thus overestimate the GSVW entropy,

970: for two reasons.  First, we are at small cosmological constant and

971: some decay channels will be much more suppressed than others;

972: vanishing fluxes cannot decay downward at all.  Second, the effective

973: number of selected vacua will also be smaller since some vacua will be

974: reached by more than one decay chain.

975: 

976: For simplicity, we assume that the tree contains only metastable vacua

977: until the $D$-th step, at which point all vacua will be terminal.

978: Starting from the the $(*)$ vacuum, $D$ will most likely be 1, but

979: when starting a downward progression after the first upward jump, $D$

980: can be a few, so let us keep it general.

981: 

982: At zeroth order, we thus have $D$ generations of vacua.  The $d$-th

983: generation contains $J^{d}$ vacua with normalized probability

984: $p_{d,0}\sim 1/DJ^d$ (the second index refers to the zeroth order).

985: A bound on the zeroth order entropy is therefore

986: \begin{equation}

987:   S_{\rm GSVW,0}<-\frac{1}{D}\sum_{d=1}^D \log\frac{1}{DJ^d} = \log D +

988:   \frac{D+1}{2}\log J~,

989: \label{eq-szero}

990: \end{equation}

991: This is of order one for realistic values of $J\lesssim O(1000)$ and

992: $D\sim O(1)$.  

993: 

994: The number of states, ${\cal N}_{\rm GSVW,0}\sim DJ^{\frac{D+1}{2}}$,

995: is very small compared to $10^{120}$---far too small to include vacua

996: with $\lambda\sim\lambda_0$.  Typically, anthropic considerations

997: cannot help in such a case, since most observers will be rare

998: fluctuations in a vacuum with $\lambda\gg\lambda_0$.  Hence, the GSVW

999: measure is not capable of populating the landscape at leading order.

1000: 

1001: Before turning to higher order corrections, let us pause to ask

1002: whether the holographic measure would have succeeded at this stage,

1003: i.e., ``at leading order'', when upward tunneling is neglected.

1004: Indeed, our simulation obtains large entropy even if upward tunneling

1005: is turned off.  However, one might be concerned that this is mainly

1006: the result of starting from a large ensemble of vacua with similar,

1007: large $\lambda$, rather than just a single vacuum (natural though such

1008: a starting distribution may be~\cite{Vil02}).

1009: 

1010: But in fact the holographic measure would produce large $S$ even if we

1011: restricted $\mathbf P^{(0)}$ to a single member of the initial

1012: ensemble.  The only thing that matters is that we start from a generic

1013: initial vacuum, for which $\lambda$ is of order unity.  Then there

1014: will be a large number $D\sim O(\sqrt{J}/q)$ of downward tunnelings

1015: ($D\sim O(100)$ in our model) before the cascade terminates, and

1016: Eq.~(\ref{eq-szero}) yields ${\cal N}\sim J^{O(\sqrt{J}/q)}$, which is

1017: much larger than $10^{120}$ in generic models.

1018: 

1019: Returning to the GSVW measure, the entropy in Eq.~(\ref{eq-szero})

1020: receives corrections at higher order.  We will now argue that they are

1021: suppressed by powers of $\epsilon\ll 1$ and so they will hardly change

1022: the zeroth order entropy.  In particular, they will not change the

1023: conclusion that ${\cal N}_{\rm GSVW}\ll 10^{120}$.

1024: 

1025: At each order, we make one upward jump and gain one

1026: ``supergeneration'', or downward cascade of vacua, to which the above

1027: analysis can again be applied.  Because upward tunneling is so highly

1028: suppressed, it will almost certainly originate from the

1029: largest-$\lambda$ vacuum in the $u$-th supergeneration and lead to a

1030: strongly preferred vacuum with larger $\lambda$.  Corrections to this

1031: assumption will be considered below.

1032: 

1033: Then the GSVW entropy may again be (over-)estimated by the normalized

1034: probability distribution

1035: \begin{equation}

1036: p(u,d)=\frac{1-\epsilon}{D} \frac{\epsilon^u}{J^d}~,

1037: \end{equation}

1038: for a vacuum in the $d$-th generation of the $u$-th supergeneration.

1039: Thus the GSVW entropy is bounded by\footnote{Here we have included the

1040:   $(*)$ vacuum ($u=d=0$) to keep the expression simple.  Strictly, it

1041:   should be excluded, but this leaves the result essentially unchanged

1042:   quantitatively; an overall factor $(D+1)/D$ would appear on the left

1043:   hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq-asdf}).}

1044: \begin{eqnarray}

1045:   S_{\rm GSVW} &<& \sum_{u=0}^\infty \sum _{d=0}^D p(u,d)  \\

1046:   & \approx & \log \frac{D}{1-\epsilon} + 

1047:   \frac{\epsilon}{1-\epsilon} \log\frac{1}{\epsilon} +

1048:   \frac{D+1}{2}\log J~. \nonumber

1049: \end{eqnarray}

1050: This differs from the zeroth order result mainly through the

1051: negligible term

1052: \begin{equation}

1053: \epsilon \log \frac{1}{\epsilon}\ll 1~,

1054: \label{eq-asdf}

1055: \end{equation}

1056: so the GSVW entropy remains too small even at higher order.

1057: 

1058: We have neglected the $u$-dependence of both $\epsilon\ll 1$ and $D$.

1059: Choosing an upper bound $\epsilon\ll 1$ for all upward tunnelings and

1060: $D\lesssim O(1)$ for the number of downward generations will only

1061: overestimate the entropy but leave the conclusion unchanged.  But at

1062: very high order, $u\sim O(\sqrt{J}/q)$, $\epsilon$ might be come

1063: $O(1)$, $D$ will become larger, and the expansion might break down.

1064: Can this change our conclusion?

1065: 

1066: To see that it will not, let us stop at $u$ of order a few, so that

1067: our approximations hold up to this point.  Let us estimate the

1068: remaining contributions to the entropy by imagining that at this point

1069: the remaining probability flows equally into all vacua in the

1070: landscape, resulting in ${\cal N}$ vacua with probability

1071: $\epsilon^u/{\cal N}$.  (This is almost certainly a large overestimate

1072: unless the landscape has no sinks or is extended far beyond the

1073: semiclassical regime.)  But this contributes only of order

1074: \begin{equation}

1075: \epsilon^u \log \frac{\cal N}{\epsilon^u}

1076: \end{equation}

1077: to the GSVW entropy.  In a realistic landscape, we may safely assume

1078: that $\log {\cal N} \ll \epsilon^{-u}$ even for $u\sim O(1)$.  Hence this

1079: contribution is also negligible.  

1080: 

1081: We conclude that the GSVW entropy is dominated by the zeroth order

1082: term, Eq.~(\ref{eq-szero}).  Its small size indicates that staggering

1083: is a general problem for the GSVW measure.  It arises because the GSVW

1084: measure, in effect, attempts to populate the landscape starting from

1085: the longest-lived metastable vacuum.  This fails since it relies on

1086: decay channels of enormously small relative probability.  With

1087: reasonable initial conditions (such as starting with a randomly chosen

1088: vacuum or an ensemble at large $\lambda$), this problem is absent in

1089: the holographic measure.

1090: 

1091: 

1092: \acknowledgments We thank Michael Douglas for discussions in which

1093: some aspects of the approaches used in this paper first came up.  This

1094: work was supported by the Berkeley Center for Theoretical Physics, by

1095: a CAREER grant of the National Science Foundation, and by DOE grant

1096: DE-AC03-76SF00098.

1097: 

1098: 

1099: \appendix

1100: 

1101: \section{Statistical independence of fluxes}

1102: \label{sec-independent}

1103: 

1104: Let us discuss the assumption that the $J$ fluxes are statistically

1105: independent.  We will argue that there is some minor interdependence

1106: because $J$ is finite, and we will explain how we correct for the

1107: corresponding constraint.  Since the correction is small, some readers

1108: may wish to skip this appendix.

1109: 

1110: If there are correlations between the distributions $p_i(n)$, then

1111: their entropies do not simply add.  In this case, the total number of

1112: states will be lower than the ``maximum randomness'' formula,

1113: Eq.~(\ref{eq-ent}), would make us believe.  This will not be a concern

1114: for our sample of $N$ initial vacua, nor for our unbiased samples of

1115: vacua with small cosmological constant (without including selection

1116: effects from cosmological dynamics).  As we discuss in

1117: Appendix~\ref{sec-unbiased} below, one can generate suitable samples

1118: by treating the fluxes as statistically independent.  However, it is a

1119: concern for the $N$ vacua we arrive at by selection though a Monte

1120: Carlo chain.

1121: 

1122: In fact, an obvious correlation is introduced by our choice to

1123: consider the penultimate vacuum in each chain.  By construction, these

1124: vacua must have a positive cosmological constant small enough that the

1125: next flux decay can make $\lambda$ negative.  Thus, they satisfy the

1126: constraint

1127: \begin{equation}

1128: 2|\lambda_{\rm bare}|\leq \sum_i n_i^2

1129: q_i^2<2|\lambda_{\rm bare}|+ (2n_j-1) q_j^2 

1130: \label{eq-constraint}

1131: \end{equation}

1132: for at least one flux $j$.  This constraint would be unimportant if

1133: $J$ was very large, but in realistic models, $J$ is only of order a

1134: few hundred.

1135: 

1136: The number of vacua with distinct vacuum energies of order $\lambda_0$

1137: was estimated in Eq.~(\ref{eq-nw}).  The correction due to the

1138: constraint (\ref{eq-constraint}) can be approximately implemented as

1139: follows.  The entropy of the unconstrained ensemble is larger than the

1140: true entropy, with the extra states coming from vacua that fail to

1141: satisfy Eq.~(\ref{eq-constraint}).  But consider the distribution of

1142: vacua over the cosmological constant, $d\tilde{\cal N}/d\lambda$, in

1143: both the constrained and unconstrained ensembles.  In the range of

1144: $\lambda$ where Eq.~(\ref{eq-constraint}) is guaranteed to hold (which

1145: ranges from $\lambda=0$ to an upper bound much larger than

1146: $\lambda_0$), the two distributions $d\tilde{\cal N}/d\lambda$ will

1147: agree well.  

1148: 

1149: From this viewpoint, the problem with Eq.~(\ref{eq-nw}) is not that

1150: $\tilde {\cal N}$ is computed from the unconstrained ensemble; the

1151: problem is that $dN/d\lambda$ is not.  But this is easy to correct.

1152: Let us keep only the probabilities $\tilde p_i(n)$ obtained from the

1153: Monte Carlo chain, but replace the actual sample of $N$ vacua

1154: satisfying the constraint with a broader sample of $N'$ vacua randomly

1155: generated from the $\tilde p_i(n)$, with the $\tilde p_i(n)$ treated

1156: as truly independent.  This will spread the vacua over a larger range

1157: of $\lambda$ and thus reduce the number of vacua with

1158: $\lambda\sim\lambda_0$:

1159: \begin{equation}

1160: \tilde{\cal N}_{\lambda_0}=\lambda_0 \left.

1161: \frac{d\tilde {\cal N}}{d\lambda}\right|_{\lambda=0}

1162: \approx

1163: \lambda_0 \frac{\tilde{\cal N}}{N'} \left.

1164: \frac{dN'}{d\lambda}\right|_{\lambda=0}~,

1165: \end{equation}

1166: In the models studied in this paper, this correction reduces the

1167: number of vacua with $\lambda\sim\lambda_0$ by about one order of

1168: magnitude.

1169: 

1170: In principle, additional correlations could arise through the

1171: dynamics.  By Eq.~(\ref{eq-B}), however, the decay rate of each flux

1172: depends on the other fluxes only through $\lambda$ (and not, for

1173: example, though terms like $(n_i-n_{i+1})^2$, which could introduce

1174: clustering).  The vast majority of possible flux combinations at each

1175: step in decay chains starting from a fixed value of $\lambda$ are

1176: mapped to a small range of $\lambda$, so the relative decay rates

1177: determining the next step cannot be sensitive to the detailed

1178: distribution of fluxes.  

1179: 

1180: A very conservative upper bound on such correlations can be obtained

1181: by ignoring averaging.  Instead, let us imagine that decay chains fall

1182: into two families, one of which has higher values of $\lambda$ at each

1183: step.  But they cannot differ by more than the amount by which the

1184: final decay, at the end of the chain, changes $\lambda$ (or else, the

1185: steps can just be relabeled so as to match the families more closely).

1186: At the beginning of the chain, the decay is random for either family,

1187: since $\lambda$ is large.  So the two families can differ at most by

1188: the effect of one additional decay at the end.  Thus, we can bound

1189: dynamical correlation effects by comparing our sample of penultimate

1190: vacua with the ultimate vacua they decay to.  But in the models we

1191: study, the corresponding probability distributions, $p_i(n)$, barely

1192: differ.

1193: 

1194: 

1195: \section{Generating an unbiased sample}

1196: \label{sec-unbiased}

1197: 

1198: Consider all the vacua whose cosmological constant lies in a small

1199: interval $\delta\lambda$ around some value $\lambda$.  On a number of

1200: occasions in this paper, we require an unbiased sample of such vacua.

1201: This task is equivalent to throwing all the vacua in the interval

1202: $\delta\lambda$ into a bag, pulling one out, returning it\footnote{In

1203:   the cases of interest here, the number of vacua in the interval

1204:   $\delta\lambda$ will be much larger than the required sample size

1205:   $\hat N$, so this step is not important.}, and repeating this

1206: process $\hat N$ times to get a sample of size $\hat N$.

1207: 

1208: But the vacua are not in a bag; they are arranged in a grid on which

1209: the above interval corresponds to a spherical shell (see

1210: Fig.~\ref{fig-para}).  Because the grid has a high dimension $J$, we

1211: must be careful to avoid directional effects that tend to pick vacua

1212: from preferred patches of the shell.

1213: 

1214: To generate a sample, we first need a set of probability distributions

1215: for the fluxes, $p_i(n)$.  Vacua can be generated by picking the

1216: fluxes $n_i$ randomly according to the distributions $p_i(n)$.  It is

1217: not necessary that all vacua thus generated lie in the interval

1218: $\delta\lambda$.  We can reject those that do not, and generate vacua

1219: until we have $\hat N$ that do.

1220: 

1221: However, this procedure will generate directional bias if the ensemble

1222: of vacua defined by the $p_i(n)$ is not distributed spherically

1223: symmetrically in flux space.  For example, if we specified that

1224: $p_i(n)$ is identical for all $i$, then the distribution would not be

1225: spherically symmetric since fluxes with large charge $q_i$ will tend

1226: to contribute more to the cosmological constant.

1227: 

1228: A spherically symmetric ensemble can be generated as a kind of

1229: canonical ensemble.  Let us define a ``temperature'', $T=1/\beta$,

1230: dual to the cosmological constant $\lambda$.  Each flux contributes an

1231: ``energy'' $n_i^2 q_i^2/2$, so its partition function is

1232: \begin{equation}

1233: z_i(\beta) = \sum_{n_i=-\infty}^{\infty}

1234: \exp \left(-\beta \frac{n_i^2 q_i^2}{2}\right)~.

1235: \end{equation}

1236: Treating the fluxes as independent, we obtain a total partition

1237: function

1238: \begin{equation}

1239: Z(\beta)=\prod_{i=1}^J z_i(\beta) = 

1240: \sum_{n_1,\ldots,n_J} e^{-\beta \Delta\lambda}~,

1241: \label{eq-ensemble}

1242: \end{equation}

1243: where

1244: \begin{equation}

1245: \Delta\lambda(n_1,\ldots,n_J)\equiv \sum_{i=1}^J\frac{n_i^2 q_i^2}{2}~.

1246: \end{equation}

1247: Recall that $\lambda=-|\lambda_{\rm bare}|+\Delta\lambda$ by

1248: Eq.~(\ref{eq-BP}).  Since the probability for each vacuum, $Z^{-1}e^{-\beta

1249:   \Delta\lambda}$, depends on the fluxes only through the cosmological

1250: constant, the ensemble is manifestly direction-independent.  

1251: 

1252: The individual partition functions, $z_i$, can be evaluated

1253: analytically for\footnote{This condition is not overwhelmingly

1254:   satisfied in the models studied here, so we evaluated the partition

1255:   function numerically.  This turns out to make only a small

1256:   difference, but all results in the main part paper were obtained in

1257:   this more precise manner.  We use the analytic approximation in the

1258:   formulas for ease of presentation.} $\beta q_i^2/2\ll 1$:

1259: \begin{equation}

1260: z_i(\beta)\approx q_i^{-1}\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{\beta}}~,

1261: \end{equation}

1262: and the expectation value of the ``energy'' $\Delta\lambda$ is given

1263: by

1264: \begin{equation}

1265: \langle\Delta\lambda\rangle(\beta)=\frac{J}{2\beta}~.

1266: \end{equation}

1267: In order to generate a sample containing vacua near $\lambda$, we

1268: choose\footnote{It is not essential that $\beta$ is chosen just right,

1269:   since in the cases of interest in this paper the ensemble

1270:   (\ref{eq-ensemble}) has a larger spread than the interval

1271:   $\delta\lambda$ that we want our sample to lie in.  As long as the

1272:   distribution has significant overlap with it, a sample can be

1273:   efficiently obtained by rejecting vacua that fail to lie in the

1274:   desired interval.}

1275: \begin{equation}

1276: \beta=\frac{J}{2(\lambda+|\lambda_{\rm bare}|)}~,

1277: \label{eq-beta}

1278: \end{equation}

1279: and pick the fluxes $n_i$ randomly according to the probability

1280: distributions

1281: \begin{equation}

1282: p_i(n)=z_i^{-1}\exp \left(-\beta \frac{n^2 q_i^2}{2}\right)~.

1283: \label{eq-pin}

1284: \end{equation}

1285: 

1286: In this paper we have two distinct occasions to apply this method.

1287: The first is the task of generating initial vacua for our Monte Carlo

1288: chains.  For a given initial $\lambda$ we generate $N=1000$ initial

1289: vacua according to Eqs.~(\ref{eq-beta}) and (\ref{eq-pin}).  From

1290: them, we generate $1000$ decay chains and inspect the final

1291: probability distribution $p_i(n)$ obtained from the penultimate vacua

1292: on the chains.  We increase the initial $\lambda$ and repeat the

1293: process until the final distribution shows asymptotic behavior, i.e.,

1294: until an increase in the initial cosmological constant no longer

1295: modifies our result.

1296: 

1297: The second application arises in estimating how many vacua with

1298: $0<\lambda\leq\lambda_0$ are present in a given BP model, before

1299: cosmological selection is taken into account.  We will begin by

1300: discussing why the estimate given in Ref.~\cite{BP} is too crude in

1301: the present context.

1302: 

1303: By Eq.~(\ref{eq-BP}), vacua with small cosmological constant

1304: $0<\lambda\leq \lambda_0$ lie in a thin shell of radius

1305: \begin{equation}

1306: r=|2\lambda_{\rm bare}|^{1/2}

1307: \end{equation}

1308: and width

1309: \begin{equation}

1310: \Delta r=\lambda_0/|2 \lambda_{\rm bare}|^{1/2}

1311: \end{equation}

1312: in flux space.  Its volume is $\omega_{J-1}r^{J-1}\Delta r$, where

1313: $\omega_{J-1}= 2\pi^{J/2}/\Gamma(J/2)$ is the area of a unit $J-1$

1314: sphere.

1315: 

1316: In the limit where $r^2\gg \sum q_i^2$, directional effects in the

1317: lattice can be neglected, and the number of vacua in the shell can be

1318: estimated by comparing the volume of the shell to the volume of a

1319: single cell in the grid, $\prod_{i=1}^J q_i$~\cite{BP}.  In the same

1320: limit, the expectation values of the fluxes, $\langle n_i\rangle$,

1321: will be much larger than unity.  Under the stronger condition that

1322: $r^2\gg (\sum q_i)^2 J$, the probability that at least one flux

1323: vanishes is very small.  Then most values of $\lambda$ in the interval

1324: will be $2^J$-fold degenerate, and the number of different values of

1325: $\lambda$ in the interval $0<\lambda<\lambda_0$ can be estimated as

1326: \begin{equation}

1327: \tilde {\cal N}_{\lambda_0}\approx 

1328: \frac{|\pi\lambda_{\rm bare}/2|^{J/2}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{J}{2}\right)}

1329: \, \frac{1}{\prod_{i=1}^J q_i}\, \frac{\lambda_0}{\lambda_{\rm bare}}

1330: \label{eq-bpest}

1331: \end{equation}

1332: 

1333: However, here we will study models in which the shell radii of

1334: interest are of the same order of magnitude as the diagonal of a grid

1335: cell: $r^2\sim\sum q_i^2$.  For the same reason, typical vacua on the

1336: shell will have many vanishing fluxes ($n_i=0$).  The

1337: $\lambda$-degeneracy of typical vacua will vary but will be less than

1338: $2^J$.  Hence, Eq.~(\ref{eq-bpest}) is unreliable.

1339: 

1340: The canonical ensemble yields a better estimate.  With $\beta$ chosen

1341: so that $\langle\Delta\lambda\rangle\approx |\lambda_{\rm bare}|$, we

1342: obtain a canonical ensemble characterized by the probability

1343: distributions (\ref{eq-pin}).  In order to account for degeneracies,

1344: we treat vacua with the same cosmological constant as identical.  The

1345: corresponding probability distributions $\tilde p_i(n)$, with $n\geq

1346: 0$, can be computed from Eq.~(\ref{eq-ptilde}). The full number of

1347: vacua in this ensemble, $\tilde {\cal N}$ is given by

1348: Eq.~(\ref{eq-tilden}).  The number of vacua in the tiny interval

1349: $0<\lambda<\lambda_0$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{eq-nw}).  The distribution

1350: $dN/d\lambda$ can be obtained by generating $N$ vacua randomly from

1351: $p_i(n)$ [or $\tilde p_i(n)$] and binning them suitably.

1352: 

1353: 

1354: \section{GSVW-equivalent initial conditions}

1355: \label{sec-mimic}

1356: 

1357: In this appendix we show that our measure reproduces the GSVW

1358: measure~\cite{GarSch05} if the initial probability distribution in

1359: Eq.~(\ref{eq-matrix}) is taken to be a particular eigenvector singled

1360: out by the GSVW analysis.

1361: 

1362: We should warn that this initial condition is a very unnatural choice

1363: from the viewpoint of the holographic measure, and our result should

1364: not be interpreted as an equivalence of the two measures in any

1365: natural, physical sense.  Indeed, finding the appropriate eigenvector

1366: $\mathbf{s}$ is the most challenging task in applying the GSVW

1367: measure.  We are in effect using a nontrivial intermediate result of

1368: the GSVW analysis as an initial condition for the holographic measure.

1369: But this unified viewpoint allows us to reduce the difference between

1370: measures to a difference in initial conditions.  In

1371: Sec.~\ref{sec-discussion2}, we use this viewpoint to clarify both the

1372: origin of ``staggering'' problem in the GSVW measure, and its absence

1373: in our measure.

1374: 

1375: Let us briefly summmarize the GSVW measure.  It is derived from the

1376: evolution of a ``comoving volume fraction'',

1377: \begin{equation}

1378: \frac{df_B}{dt}=\sum_A(-\kappa_{AB}f_B+\kappa_{BA}f_A)~,

1379: \end{equation}

1380: where $\kappa_{AB}$ is the rate per unit time for a worldline in

1381: vacuum $B$ to enter vacuum $A$ (we neglect factors of the Hubble

1382: parameter).  Let us restrict our attention to non-terminal vacua

1383: ($\lambda>0$), from whose volume fraction the GSVW probability

1384: distribution is ultimately computed (see below).  We may then rewrite

1385: the above equation using the fact that terminal vacua do not tunnel

1386: back:

1387: \begin{equation} 

1388: \frac{df_b}{dt} = -\sum_A\kappa_{Ab}f_b+\sum_a\kappa_{ba}f_a~,

1389: \label{eq-evo}

1390: \end{equation}

1391: where $a,b$ only run over non-terminal vacua.  

1392: 

1393: In the presence of terminal vacua, the solution to Eq.~(\ref{eq-evo})

1394: is of the form

1395: \begin{equation}

1396: f_a(t)=s^{(1)}_ae^{-k_1t}+s^{(2)}_ae^{-k_2t}+\ldots

1397: \label{eq-soln}

1398: \end{equation} 

1399: where $0<k_1<k_2\cdots$~\cite{GarSch05}.  The GSVW probability is

1400: defined to be proportional to the ``bubble abundance'' produced by the

1401: slowest decaying state, the vector $\mathbf{s}^{(1)}$:

1402: \begin{equation}

1403: p_A=\sum_b\kappa_{Ab}s_b^{(1)}

1404: \label{eq-prob}

1405: \end{equation}

1406: Since the subleading terms are irrelevant, we will drop the sub- and

1407: superscripts and write $\mathbf{s}\equiv \mathbf{s}^{(1)}$ and

1408: $k\equiv k_1$.

1409: 

1410: For simplicity, we first demonstrate the claimed equivalence for the

1411: probability of non-terminal vacua.  Let us write the above equations

1412: in matrix form:

1413: \begin{equation}

1414: \frac{d\mathbf{f}}{dt}=(\mathbf{K} - \mathbf{J})\mathbf{f} ~,

1415: \end{equation}

1416: where $J_{ab}=\delta_{ab}\sum_A\kappa_{Ab}$ is a diagonal matrix, and

1417: $\mathbf{K}$ is the matrix with components $\kappa_{ab}$.

1418: The eigenvector $\mathbf{s}$ satisfies

1419: \begin{equation}

1420: ({\mathbf{K} - \mathbf{J}}){\mathbf{s}}=-k{\mathbf{s}}.

1421: \label{eq-eigen}

1422: \end{equation}

1423: The unnormalized GSVW probabilities for non-terminal vacua are

1424: \begin{equation}

1425: {\bf p=Ks}~.

1426: \label{eq-prob1}

1427: \end{equation}

1428: 

1429: By Eq.~(\ref{eq-rel}), the absolute decay rates are related to the

1430: branching ratios by

1431: \begin{equation}

1432: {\bf E J = K}~,

1433: \label{eq-relation}

1434: \end{equation}

1435: where $\mathbf{E}$ is the matrix with components $\eta_{ab}$.  Combining the

1436: above four equations, we obtain

1437: \begin{eqnarray}

1438: (1-\mathbf{E}){\bf p} &=& (1-\mathbf{E}){\bf Ks} \nonumber \\

1439: &=& (1-\mathbf{E})({\bf J}-k){\bf s} \nonumber \\

1440: &=& ({\bf J-K}-k+k\mathbf{E}){\bf s}=k\mathbf{E} {\bf s}~.

1441: \end{eqnarray}

1442: Comparison with Eq.~(\ref{eq-matrix}), with initial condition

1443: $\mathbf{P}^{(0)}=\mathbf{s}$, reveals that the GSVW probability

1444: agrees with the holographic probability up to an overall factor $k$

1445: that will be absorbed by normalization:

1446: \begin{equation}

1447: \mathbf{p}\propto\mathbf{P}~~\mbox{for}~~~\mathbf{P}^{(0)}=\mathbf{s}~.

1448: \label{eq-equiv}

1449: \end{equation}

1450: 

1451: 

1452: To include terminal vacua, we extend the above argument to vectors and

1453: matrices containing terminal components.  A prime will denote the

1454: non-square matrix of decay rates from terminal into terminal

1455: vacua.  First, we note that the GSVW probabilities are independent of

1456: any terminal components $\mathbf{s}'$ ascribed to the eigenvector:

1457: \begin{equation} 

1458: \mathbf{p} = 

1459: \left(\begin{array}{cc}

1460:   \mathbf{K} & 0 \\

1461:   \mathbf{K'}& 0 \\

1462: \end{array}\right)

1463: \left(\begin{array}{cc}

1464:   \mathbf{s} \\

1465:   \mathbf{s}' \\

1466: \end{array}\right)=

1467: \left(\begin{array}{cc}

1468:   (\mathbf{J}-k)\mathbf{s} \\

1469:   \mathbf{K's} \\

1470: \end{array}\right) \\

1471: \end{equation}

1472: Similarly, by Eq.~(\ref{eq-matrix}), the holographic measure does not

1473: depend on the terminal components of the initial probability

1474: distribution $\mathbf{P}^{(0)}$.  For convenience, we might as well

1475: set $\mathbf{s}'=0$.  

1476: 

1477: The remaining question is whether the (final) probabilities for

1478: terminal vacua agree.  From Eq.~(\ref{eq-rel}) we have

1479: \begin{equation}

1480: \left(\begin{array}{cc}

1481:   \mathbf{E} & 0 \\

1482:   \mathbf{E}'& 0 \\

1483: \end{array}\right)

1484: \left(\begin{array}{cc}

1485:   \mathbf{J} & 0 \\

1486:   0 & 0 \\

1487: \end{array}\right)=

1488: \left(\begin{array}{cc}

1489:   \mathbf{E}\mathbf{J} & 0 \\

1490:   \mathbf{E}'\mathbf{J}& 0 \\

1491: \end{array}\right)=

1492: \left(\begin{array}{cc}

1493:   \mathbf{K} & 0 \\

1494:   \mathbf{K'}& 0 \\

1495: \end{array}\right)~,

1496: \end{equation}

1497: so that

1498: \begin{eqnarray}

1499:   (1-\eta)

1500:   \mathbf{p}&=&

1501:   \left(\begin{array}{cc}

1502:       1-\mathbf{E} & 0      \\

1503:       -\mathbf{E}'          & 1 \\

1504: \end{array}\right)

1505: \left(\begin{array}{cc}

1506:   (\mathbf{J}-k)\mathbf{s} \\

1507:   \mathbf{K's} \\

1508: \end{array}\right) \nonumber \\

1509: &=& 

1510: \left(\begin{array}{cc}

1511:   (1-\mathbf{E})(\mathbf{J}-k)\mathbf{s}  \\

1512:   \left[-\mathbf{E}'(\mathbf{J}-k)+\mathbf{K'}\right]\mathbf{s} 

1513: \end{array}\right) \nonumber \\

1514: &=&

1515: \left(\begin{array}{cc}

1516:   k\mathbf{E}\mathbf{s}     \\

1517:   k\mathbf{E}'\mathbf{s}    \\

1518: \end{array}\right)=k

1519: \left(\begin{array}{cc}

1520:   \mathbf{E}   & 0      \\

1521:   \mathbf{E}'  & 0      \\

1522: \end{array}\right)

1523: \left(\begin{array}{cc}

1524:   \mathbf{s}    \\

1525:   \mathbf{0} \\

1526: \end{array}\right) \nonumber \\

1527: & = & k \eta \mathbf{s} ~, 

1528: \end{eqnarray}

1529: so Eq.~(\ref{eq-equiv}) holds for both nonterminal and terminal

1530: components of the probability distribution.

1531: 

1532: Note that our result does not contradict a crucial difference between

1533: the GSVW measure and the holographic measure, namely that the former

1534: depends on absolute lifetimes of vacua whereas the latter knows

1535: nothing about them.  (The former is constructed from the full matrix

1536: $\kappa$; the latter only from its normalized version, $\eta$.)  To

1537: achieve equivalence, we had to impart the extra information contained

1538: in $\kappa$ to the holographic measure through a very special choice

1539: of initial condition, $\mathbf{s}$.  We emphasize again that from the

1540: point of view of the latter measure, this choice would be completely

1541: unmotivated; the equivalence is useful mainly for clarifying the

1542: differences of the two measures (Sec.~\ref{sec-discussion2}).

1543: 

1544: 

1545: \bibliographystyle{board}

1546: \bibliography{all}

1547: 

1548: \end{document}

1549: 

1550: