Cold big-bang cosmology as a counterexample to several anthropic arguments

Physical Review D

Volumn 64, Issue 8, 2001, Pages

  Aguirre, Anthony ^a  

^a INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASTRONOMY; COSMOS; DENSITY; ELEMENTARY PARTICLE; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL PHENOMENA;

EID: 3843105045     PISSN: 05562821     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.083508     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. A. Linde, Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology (Harwood Academic Publishers, Switzerland, 1990).
2. M. Rees, Before the Beginning: Our Universe and Others (Preseus Books, Reading, MA, 1998).
3. S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989).
4. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2607 (1987).
5. G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 274, L73 (1995).
6. H. Martel, P. R. Shapiro, and S. Weinberg, Astrophys. J. 492, 29 (1998).
7. N. Turok and S. Hawking, Phys. Lett. B 432, 271 (1998).
8. J. Garriga and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 61, 083502 (2000).
9. J. Garriga, M. Livio, and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 61, 023503 (2000).
10. A. Linde, Phys. Lett. 160B, 243 (1985).
11. M. Tegmark and M. J. Rees, Astrophys. J. 499, 526 (1998).
12. J. Barrow and F. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Clarenden Press, Oxford, 1986).
13. S. Hawking and N. Turok, Phys. Lett. B 425, 25 (1998).
14. J. Garriga, T. Tanaka, and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 60, 023501 (1999).
15. A. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 201, 437 (1988).
16. For a discussion of these constants from an anthropic perspec-tive, see C. J. Hogan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 72, 1149 (2000).
17. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 846 (1995).
18. I have assumed that the number of independent measurements in a subuniverse is proportional to the number of suitable stars, neglected such effects as, for example, high metallicity leading to more planets upon which multiple civilizations might arise in a single solar system. I have also neglected factors like extinction-causing impacts, radioactivity-induced plate tectonics, etc., which are possibly but not clearly necessary for the evolution of observers.
19. J. D. Barrow and M. P. Dabrowski, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 275, 850 (1995).
20. For a review, see A. Guth, Phys. Rep. 333, 555 (2000).
21. V. Vanchurin, A. Vilenkin, and S. Winitzki, Phys. Rev. D 61, 083507 (2000).
22. A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5501 (1998);
23. A. Linde and A. Mezhlumian, Phys. Rev. D 53, 4267 (1996).
24. J. Garriga and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 64, 023507 (2001).
25. L in the literature.
26. M. Kaufman, Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1968.
27. A. Aguirre, Astrophys. J. 525, 583 (1999).
28. C. J. Hogan, Astrophys. J. 252, 418 (1982).
29. Ya. B. Zel'Dovich, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 43, 989 (1962)
30. [Sov. Phys. JETP 16, 1395 (1963)].
31. D. Layzer and R. Hively, Astrophys. J. 179, 361 (1973).
32. Ya. B. Zel'Dovich, Adv. Astron. Astrophys. 3, 241 (1965).
33. P. J. E. Peebles, The Large Scale Structure of the Universe (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1980), pp. 128-134.
34. K. R. Bell and D. N. C. Lin, Astrophys. J. 427, 987 (1994).
35. B. J. Carr, Astron. Astrophys. 60, 13 (1977).
36. D. Layzer, Astrophys. J. 137, 351 (1963).
37. T. Abel, G. L. Bryan, and M. L. Norman, Astrophys. J. 540, 39 (2000).
38. J. Binney and S. Tremaine, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1987).
39. I. Affleck and M. Dine, Nucl. Phys. B249, 361 (1985).
40. M. Dine, L. Randall, and S. Thomas, Nucl. Phys. B458, 291 (1996).
41. B. Campbell et al., Nucl. Phys. B458, 291 (1999).
42. M. J. Rees, Nature (London) 275, 35 (1978).
43. A. N. Aguirre, Astrophys. J. 533, 1 (2000).
44. E. L. Wright, Astrophys. J. 255, 401 (1982).
45. E. Kolb and M. Turner, The Early Universe (Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, MA, 1990).
46. H. Dreiner and G. Ross, Nucl. Phys. B410, 188 (1993).
47. S. Davidson, H. Murayama, and K. Olive, Phys. Lett. B 328, 354 (1994).
48. K. Enqvist and J. McDonald, Phys. Lett. B 425, 309 (1998).
49. A proponent of the anthropic program could self-consistently but unconvincingly argue that because we are human (rather than some other sort of creature), we are justified in assuming that humanlike creatures dominate the set of observer creatures making anthropic arguments. How to define humanlike without making the argument circular is, however, unclear.
50. This argument is also made by T. Banks, M. Dine, and L. Motl, J. High Energy Phys. 01, 031 (2001).