CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 38Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics

Unitary Evolution and Cosmological Fine-Tuning

Open access
Carroll, Sean M., Tam, Heywood·2010·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1007.1417arXiv 1007.1417
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Inflationary cosmology attempts to provide a natural explanation for the flatness and homogeneity of the observable universe. In the context of reversible (unitary) evolution, this goal is difficult to satisfy, as Liouville's theorem implies that no dynamical process can evolve a large number of initial states into a small number of final states. We use the invariant measure on solutions to Einstein's equation to quantify the problems of cosmological fine-tuning. The most natural interpretation of the measure is the flatness problem does not exist; almost all Robertson-Walker cosmologies are spatially flat. The homogeneity of the early universe, however, does represent a substantial fine-tuning; the horizon problem is real. When perturbations are taken into account, inflation only occurs in a negligibly small fraction of cosmological histories, less than $10^{-6.6\times 10^7}$. We argue that while inflation does not affect the number of initial conditions that evolve into a late universe like our own, it nevertheless provides an appealing target for true theories of initial conditions, by allowing for small patches of space with sub-Planckian curvature to grow into reasonable universes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1007.1417

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Choosing reasonable bounds for the largest and smallest modes considered, the total fraction of trajectories that are smooth at early times works out to be the value given in equation (34).

    “Choosing reasonable bounds for the largest and smallest modes considered, the total fraction of trajectories that are smooth at early times works out to be”

    From In What Sense Is the Early Universe Fine-Tuned? (2014) · cites this paper as [64]

    Section 5.3 (pp. 25–28) sets largest- and smallest-mode cutoffs and calculates the fraction smooth near the GUT scale. But the calculated fraction is specifically among cosmologies that are realistic at matter-radiation equality, not all trajectories. The numerical formula is undecoded in our copy, so the value referred to as equation (34) cannot be checked. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • For each individual mode, the chance that it was small at the GUT scale given that it is small at recombination is of order 10^-66.

    “For each individual mode, the chance that it was small at the GUT scale given that it is small at recombination is of order 10 -66 .”

    From In What Sense Is the Early Universe Fine-Tuned? (2014) · cites this paper as [64]

    Section 5.3 (p. 28) gives 10^-66 for each wave vector whose amplitude is small at matter-radiation equality. The authors explicitly use equality rather than recombination for the calculation (p. 25). They expect similarly tiny fractions at other late times, but do not give 10^-66 specifically for recombination. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The flatness problem does not really exist.

    “An interesting, and surprisingly nontrivial, application of the GHS measure is to the flatness problem - as we will see, it doesn't really exist.”

    From In What Sense Is the Early Universe Fine-Tuned? (2014) · cites this paper as [64]

  • The procedure advocated in [64] for obtaining a measure purely on flat universes was faulty, because the suggested regularization gave a result not invariant under the choice of surface on which to evaluate the measure.

    “The procedure we advocated in [64] for obtaining such a measure was faulty, as our suggested regularization gave a result that was not invariant under a choice of surface on which to evaluate the measure.”

    From In What Sense Is the Early Universe Fine-Tuned? (2014) · cites this paper as [64]

  • The measure on a perturbation mode is completely uniform in the {u, p_u} variables; all values for u and p_u are equally likely, and nothing in the measure explains the small observed values of perturbations at early times.

    “In other words, the measure on a perturbation mode is completely uniform in the { u, p u } variables, much as we might have na¨ ıvely guessed, and in stark contrast to the flatness problem. All values for u and p u are equally likely; there is nothing in the measure that would explain the small observed values of perturbations at early times.”

    From In What Sense Is the Early Universe Fine-Tuned? (2014) · cites this paper as [64]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 20 · Cited by 38

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. [4][4] R. Penrose, in S. W. Hawking and W. Israel. General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey . Cambridge University Press. pp. 581638. (1979). -
  2. [7][7] D. H. Coule, Class. Quant. Grav. 12 , 455 (1995) [arXiv:gr-qc/9408026]. - · arXiv
  3. [9][9] S. Hollands and R. M. Wald, Gen. Rel. Grav. 34 , 2043 (2002) [arXiv:gr-qc/0205058]. - · arXiv
  4. [10][10] L. Kofman, A. Linde and V. F. Mukhanov, JHEP 0210 , 057 (2002) [arXiv:hepth/0206088]. -
  5. [11][11] S. Hollands and R. M. Wald, arXiv:hep-th/0210001. - · arXiv
  6. [13][13] G. W. Gibbons and N. Turok, arXiv:hep-th/0609095. - · arXiv
  7. [14][14] A. Linde, arXiv:0705.0164 [hep-th]. - · arXiv
  8. [15][15] T. Vachaspati and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D 61 , 023502 (1999) [arXiv:gr-qc/9811037]. - · arXiv
  9. [16][16] S. D. Mathur, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 140 , 012009 (2008) [arXiv:0803.3727 [hep-th]]. - · arXiv
  10. [17][17] C. A. Egan and C. H. Lineweaver, Astrophys. J. 710 , 1825 (2010) [arXiv:0909.3983 [astro-ph.CO]]. - · arXiv
  11. [18][18] B. Greene, K. Hinterbichler, S. Judes and M. K. Parikh, arXiv:0911.0693 [hep-th]. - · arXiv
  12. [19][19] J. Garriga and V. F. Mukhanov, Phys. Lett. B 458 , 219 (1999) [arXiv:hep-th/9904176]. - · arXiv
  13. [21][21] K. Freese, C. Savage and W. H. Kinney, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 16 , 2573 (2008) [arXiv:0802.0227 [hep-ph]]. - · arXiv
  14. [23][23] V. F. Mukhanov, Physical Foundations of Cosmology (2005), Cambridge University Press. -
  15. [24][24] M. Trodden and S. M. Carroll, arXiv:astro-ph/0401547. - · arXiv
  16. [25][25] J. B. Hartle, S. W. Hawking and T. Hertog, Phys. Rev. D 77 , 123537 (2008) [arXiv:0803.1663 [hep-th]]. - · arXiv
  17. [29][29] A. H. Guth, J. Phys. A 40 , 6811 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0702178]. - · arXiv
  18. [30][30] L. Dyson, M. Kleban and L. Susskind, JHEP 0210 , 011 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0208013]. - · arXiv
  19. [31][31] A. Albrecht and L. Sorbo, Phys. Rev. D 70 , 063528 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0405270]. - · arXiv
  20. [32][32] D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D 78 , 063535 (2008) [arXiv:hep-th/0610079]. - · arXiv
  21. [33][33] R. Bousso and B. Freivogel, JHEP 0706 , 018 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0610132]. - · arXiv
  22. [34][34] A. Aguirre and S. Gratton, Phys. Rev. D 67 , 083515 (2003) [arXiv:gr-qc/0301042]. - · arXiv
  23. [35][35] P. J. Steinhardt and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D 65 , 126003 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0111098]. · arXiv

Authors
Carroll, S. M., & Tam, H.
Affiliations
California Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Carroll, Sean M.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2010
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1007.1417
arXiv
1007.1417
OpenAlex
W1635726905
Cited by
38
References
20
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Black Holes and Theoretical Physics
Keywords
cosmological fine-tuning, cosmic inflation, unitary evolution, Liouville's theorem, flatness problem, horizon problem, initial conditions, Einstein field equations, invariant measures, Robertson-Walker cosmology, spatial flatness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review