Anthropic reasoning in multiverse cosmology and string theory

Anthropic arguments in multiverse cosmology and string theory rely on the weak anthropic principle (WAP). We show that the principle, though ultimately a tautology, is nevertheless ambiguous. It can be reformulated in one of two unambiguous ways, which we refer to as WAP_1 and WAP_2. We show that WAP_2, the version most commonly used in anthropic reasoning, makes no physical predictions unless supplemented by a further assumption of "typicality", and we argue that this assumption is both misguided and unjustified. WAP_1, however, requires no such supplementation; it directly implies that any theory that assigns a non-zero probability to our universe predicts that we will observe our universe with probability one. We argue, therefore, that WAP_1 is preferable, and note that it has the benefit of avoiding the inductive overreach characteristic of much anthropic reasoning.Comment: 7 pages. Expanded discussion of selection effects and some minor clarifications, as publishe

What does inflation really predict?

If the inflaton potential has multiple minima, as may be expected in, e.g., the string theory "landscape", inflation predicts a probability distribution for the cosmological parameters describing spatial curvature (Omega_tot), dark energy (rho_Lambda, w, etc.), the primordial density fluctuations (Omega_tot, dark energy (rho_Lambda, w, etc.). We compute this multivariate probability distribution for various classes of single-field slow-roll models, exploring its dependence on the characteristic inflationary energy scales, the shape of the potential V and and the choice of measure underlying the calculation. We find that unless the characteristic scale Delta-phi on which V varies happens to be near the Planck scale, the only aspect of V that matters observationally is the statistical distribution of its peaks and troughs. For all energy scales and plausible measures considered, we obtain the predictions Omega_tot ~ 1+-0.00001, w=-1 and rho_Lambda in the observed ballpark but uncomfortably high. The high energy limit predicts n_s ~ 0.96, dn_s/dlnk ~ -0.0006, r ~ 0.15 and n_t ~ -0.02, consistent with observational data and indistinguishable from eternal phi^2-inflation. The low-energy limit predicts 5 parameters but prefers larger Q and redder n_s than observed. We discuss the coolness problem, the smoothness problem and the pothole paradox, which severely limit the viable class of models and measures. Our findings bode well for detecting an inflationary gravitational wave signature with future CMB polarization experiments, with the arguably best-motivated single-field models favoring the detectable level r ~ 0.03. (Abridged)Comment: Replaced to match accepted JCAP version. Improved discussion, references. 42 pages, 17 fig

How job and skill shortages affect the UK

Are we living in the "golden age" of cosmology? Are we close to understanding the nature of the unknown ingredients of the currently most accepted cosmological model and the physics of the early Universe? Or are we instead approaching a paradigm shift? What is dark matter and does it exist? How is it distributed around galaxies and clusters? Is the scientific community open to alternative ideas that may prompt a new scientific revolution - as the Copernican revolution did in Galileo's time? Do other types of supernovae exist that can be of interest for cosmology? Why have quasars never been effectively used as standard candles? Can you tell us about the scientific adventure of COBE? How does the extraction of the Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropy depend on the subtraction of the various astrophysical foregrounds? These, among many others, are the astrophysical, philosophical and sociological questions surrounding modern cosmology and the scientific community that Mauro D'Onofrio and Carlo Burigana pose to some of the most prominent cosmologists of our time. Triggered by these questions and in the spirit of Galileo's book "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" the roughly 40 interview partners reply in the form of essays, with a critical frankness not normally found in reviews, monographs or textbooks