Paper detail

Anthropic Likelihood for the Cosmological Constant and the Primordial Density Perturbation Amplitude

Weinberg et al. calculated the anthropic likelihood of the cosmological constant using a model assuming that the number of observers is proportional to the total mass of gravitationally collapsed objects, with mass greater than a certain threshold, at t \rightarrow \infty. We argue that Weinberg's model is biased toward small Λ, and to try to avoid this bias we modify his model in a way that the number of observers is proportional to the number of collapsed objects, with mass and time equal to certain preferred mass and time scales. Compared to Weinberg's model, this model gives a lower anthropic likelihood of Λ_0 (T_+(Λ_0) ~ 5%). On the other hand, the anthropic likelihood of the primordial density perturbation amplitude from this model is high, while the likelihood from Weinberg's model is low. Furthermore, observers will be affected by the history of the collapsed object, and we introduce a method to calculate the anthropic likelihoods of Λand Q from the mass history using the extended Press-Schechter formalism. The anthropic likelihoods for $Λ$ and Q from this method are similar to those from our single mass constraint model, but, unlike models using the single mass constraint which always have degeneracies between Λand Q, the results from models using the mass history are robust even if we allow both Λand Q to vary. In the case of Weinberg's flat prior distribution of Λ(pocket based multiverse measure), our mass history model gives T_+(Λ_0) ~ 10%, while the scale factor cutoff measure and the causal patch measure give T_+(Λ_0) \geq 30%.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.