arXiv:0808.3778v3 [hep-th] 20 Aug 2010 sted itrHbl xaso ae o h observed the For rate. expansion of Hubble value Sitter de the is nsaBlzanban h motn on,however, point, important The brain. de- Boltzmann one how a on fines depending magnitude its small, extremely T olcieyrfre oa Blzanban”[,3.Of Γ 3]. rate [2, nucleation brains” the “Boltzmann course, as are to observers mi- referred freak cosmic be- collectively the Such of observing radiation. perception example, background a for crowave and, creating Earth with firings on existence, neuron ing into observer, of complete fluctuate pattern a may a of brain short disembodied Or, a structure. could space- such human, unit a one like per be observer, rate intelligent quantum An nonzero as volume. but vacuum time small the a at from fluctuations, emerge occasionally will evri eSte pc ol eettemlradiation thermal temperature detect characteristic would a space with Sitter de in server accurately is space. universe Sitter de energy. the as vacuum uni- of described the by evolution so dominated subsequent or completely years The billion be ten will another verse in as and remains same, dilute density energy the more vacuum the becomes expands, universe matter nonrelativistic the ordinary of density While present matter. the than greater times n xaso fteuies sta ti rvnb a by driven is it that is density universe energy vacuum the constant of expansion ing dS twssonb ibn n akn 1 hta ob- an that [1] Hawking and Gibbons by shown was It h ipetitrrtto fteosre accelerat- observed the of interpretation simplest The 2 = . ρ 3 Λ otmn risadtesaefco uo esr ftem the of measure cutoff scale-factor the and brains Boltzmann × h eSte eprtr seteeylow, extremely is temperature Sitter de the , cetbe n edsusetmtso h ae ne var a under rates these the that of term conditions estimates in the discuss it we for discuss We expression and an acceptable, Boltz rates. give decay and of vacuum finite, ratio be and s the to rich ratio calculate the the we find surrou than measure, rather be away, cutoff redshifted to scale-factor has likely Bol energy overwhelmingly the vacuum If be but fluctuations. would quantum observer frea rare — chosen of brains” result c “Boltzmann a universes by as outnumbered pocket existence vastly in new be evolve not a who must Recently, — — observers volume. normal spacetime emerged: divergent its regulating 10 1 omk rdcin o neenlyifltn “multiverse, inflating eternally an for predictions make To etrfrTertclPyis aoaoyfrNcerSci Nuclear for Laboratory Physics, Theoretical for Center − .INTRODUCTION I. 30 .Nvrhls,cmlxstructures complex Nevertheless, K. H Λ 3 2 = uaaIsiueo hoeia hsc,KooUniversity Kyoto Physics, Theoretical of Institute Yukawa adyrNoorbala, Mahdiyar eateto hsc,Safr nvriy tnod A9 CA Stanford, University, Stanford Physics, of Department ascuet nttt fTcnlg,Cmrde A0213 MA Cambridge, Technology, of Institute Massachusetts 4 nttt fCsooy eateto hsc n Astronom and Physics of Department Cosmology, of Institute 8 BB 3 nraD Simone, De Andrea π Gρ ρ fBlzanban is brains Boltzmann of Λ T Λ hc saotthree about is which , dS ut nvriy efr,M 25,USA 02155, MA Medford, University, Tufts = H Λ / 2 2 π ihe .Salem, P. Michael where , 1 lnH Guth, H. Alan (1) sta Γ that is atrhwsaltevleo Γ of value no the observers, small normal how outnumber matter Boltzmann eventually then state, will vacuum brains the stable by a driven of truly density is energy universe the of expansion celerating vrtm,goigruhya h oue proportional volume, the bound as without to roughly cumula- grows growing the brains hand, time, other over Boltzmann the of On volume number finite. comoving tive is fixed universe a normal the in of exist of sta- number ever a total will approaching the that is then observers universe spacetime, our Sitter If wake de the bang. ble re- in big a hot occur as the that evolve of processes that non-equilibrium those of to sult refer to observers” “normal be. r,sc nifiiepeodrneo otmn brains Boltzmann ignored. of be preponderance cannot infinite an such ory, uvvst aeaya l,wl ettlyincoherent, totally be will all, at she if any make, make will there- she predict, to that would observations survives next theory the The that fore, brain. she that Boltzmann proposition a the on is and based small, be arbitrarily probability would then The predictions is all observer set. normal could the a she is of knows she member that she with any all shared be for is likely brains, equally knowledge Boltzmann her of all processes set thought Since this and moment. memories that her at all exactly brains, share happen Boltzmann would to predic- of that spacetime, number a the infinite throughout make distributed theory an the to be to would According tries there observation. lifetime, next her her about tion in moment some eSte pc seenlt h uue hs fteac- the if Thus, future. the to eternal is space Sitter De odfietepolmmr rcsl,w s h term the use we precisely, more problem the define To o xml,spoeta oenra bevr at observer, normal some that suppose example, For e 3 4 H Λ n lxne Vilenkin Alexander and 1 zanban rvi,te randomly a then prevail, brains tzmann anban onra bevr.We observers. normal to brains mann t hnetatn h rdcin fti the- this of predictions the extracting When . eyo assumptions. of iety BB fBlzanbannceto rates nucleation brain Boltzmann of s nriLinde, Andrei eto uhsaeiemaue has measures spacetime such of test ddb nepywrd hr all where world, empty an by nded ne n eateto Physics, of Department and ence, rcueta eosre sn the Using observe. we that tructure n utaotapoeuefor procedure a adopt must one ” oigfo o i agconditions bang big hot from ooling ae utoe o h ai obe to ratio the for obey must rates sawy nonzero. always is bevr htppi n u of out and in pop that observers k yt,Japan Kyoto, , 35 USA 4305, ,USA 9, ,3 2, I-T-95SU-ITP-08/20 MIT-CTP-3975 y, 4 BB ultiverse 4 ,5 ,9 might 9] 8, 5, 7, [4, 2 with no logical relationship to the world that she thought early cosmic time, when the conditions for life were rather she knew. (While it is of course true that some Boltz- hostile [29]. The youngness problem, as well as the Boltz- mann brains might experience coherent observations, for mann brain problem, can be avoided in the stationary example by living in a Boltzmann solar system, it is easy measure [19, 28], which is an improved version of the to show that Boltzmann brains with such dressing would proper-time cutoff measure. However, the stationary be vastly outnumbered by Boltzmann brains without any measure, as well as the pocket-based measure, is afflicted coherent environment.) Thus, the continued orderliness with a runaway problem, suggesting that we should ob- of the world that we observe is distinctly at odds with the serve extreme values (either very small or very large) of predictions of a Boltzmann-brain-dominated cosmology.1 the primordial density contrast Q [31, 32] and the grav- itational constant G [33], while these parameters appear This problem was recently addressed by Page [8], who concluded that the least unattractive way to produce to sit comfortably in the middle of their respective an- thropic ranges [34, 33]. Some suggestions to get around more normal observers than Boltzmann brains is to re- quire that our vacuum should be rather unstable. More this issue have been described in Refs. [32, 35–37]. In addition, the pocket-based measure seems to suffer from specifically, it should decay within a few Hubble times of vacuum energy domination; that is, in 20 billion years or the Boltzmann brain problem. The comoving coordinate measure [12, 38] and the causal-patch measures [24, 25] so. are free from these problems, but have an unattractive In the context of inflationary cosmology, however, this feature of depending sensitively on the initial state of problem acquires a new twist. Inflation is generically the multiverse. This does not seem to mix well with eternal, with the physical volume of false-vacuum in- the attractor nature of eternal inflation: the asymptotic flating regions increasing exponentially with time and late-time evolution of an eternally inflating universe is “pocket universes” like ours constantly nucleating out of independent of the starting point, so it seems appeal- the false vacuum. In an eternally inflating multiverse, ing for the measure to maintain this property. Since the the numbers of normal observers and Boltzmann brains scale-factor cutoff measure2 [13–15, 17, 18, 39] has been produced over the course of eternal inflation are both in- shown to be free of all of the above issues [40], we con- finite. They can be meaningfully compared only after sider it to be a promising candidate for the measure of one adopts some prescription to regulate the infinities. the multiverse. The problem of regulating the infinities in an eter- As we have indicated, the relative abundance of normal nally inflating multiverse is known as the measure prob- observers and Boltzmann brains depends on the choice of lem [10], and has been under discussion for some time. measure over the multiverse. This means the predicted It is crucially important in discussing predictions for any ratio of Boltzmann brains to normal observers can be kind of observation. Most of the discussion, including the used as yet another criterion to evaluate a prescription discussion in this paper, has been confined to the classi- to regulate the diverging volume of the multiverse: regu- cal approximation. While one might hope that someday lators that predict normal observers are greatly outnum- there will be an answer to this question based on a fun- bered by Boltzmann brains should be ruled out. This damental principle [11], most of the work on this subject criterion has been studied in the context of several mul- has focussed on proposing plausible measures and explor- tiverse measures, including a causal patch measure [9], ing their properties. Indeed, a number of measures have several measures associated with globally defined time been proposed [12–28], and some of them have already coordinates [18, 41, 19, 30, 28], and the pocket-based been disqualified, as they make predictions that conflict measure [42]. In this work, we apply this criterion to the with observations. scale-factor cutoff measure, extending the investigation In particular, if one uses the proper-time cutoff mea- that was initiated in Ref. [18]. We show that the scale- sure [12–16], one encounters the “youngness paradox,” factor cutoff measure gives a finite ratio of Boltzmann predicting that humans should have evolved at a very brains to normal observers; if certain assumptions about the landscape are valid, the ratio can be small.3

1 Here we are taking a completely mechanistic view of the brain, treating it essentially as a highly sophisticated computer. Thus, 2 This measure is sometimes referred to as the volume-weighted the normal observer and the Boltzmann brains can be thought scale-factor cutoff measure, but we will define it below in terms of of as a set of logically equivalent computers running the same the counting of events in spacetime, so the concept of weighting program with the same data, and hence they behave identically will not be relevant. The term “volume-weighted” is relevant until they are affected by further input, which might be differ- when a measure is described as a prescription for defining the ent. Since the computer program cannot determine whether it probability distribution for the value of a field. In Ref. [18], is running inside the brain of one of the normal observers or one this measure is called the “pseudo-comoving volume-weighted of the Boltzmann brains, any intelligent probabilistic prediction measure.” that the program makes about the next observation would be 3 In a paper that appeared simultaneously with version 1 of this based on the assumption that it is equally likely to be running paper, Raphael Bousso, Ben Freivogel, and I-Sheng Yang inde- on any member of that set. pendently analyzed the Boltzmann brain problem for the scale- 3

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. When more than one geodesic passes through a point, In Section II, we provide a brief description of the scale- the scale-factor time at that point may be taken to be factor cutoff and describe salient features of the multi- the smallest value among the set of geodesics. In col- verse under the lens of this measure. In Section III we lapsing regions H(x) is negative, in which case the corre- calculate the ratio of Boltzmann brains to normal ob- sponding geodesics are continued unless or until they hit servers in terms of multiverse volume fractions and tran- a singularity. sition rates. The volume fractions are discussed in Sec- This “local” definition of scale-factor time has a sim- tion IV, in the context of toy landscapes, and the section ple geometric meaning. The congruence of geodesics can ends with a general description of the conditions neces- be thought of as representing a “dust” of test particles sary to avoid Boltzmann brain domination. The rate of scattered uniformly on the initial hypersurface Σ. As one Boltzmann brain production and the rate of vacuum de- moves along the geodesics, the density of the dust in the cay play central roles in our calculations, and these are orthogonal plane decreases. The expansion factor a in estimated in Section V. Concluding remarks are provided Eq. (2) can then defined as a ρ−1/3, where ρ is the in Section VI. density of the dust, and the cutoff∝ is triggered when ρ drops below some specified level. Although the local scale-factor time closely follows the II. THE SCALE FACTOR CUTOFF FRW scale factor in expanding spacetimes — such as inflating regions and thermalized regions not long after Perhaps the simplest way to regulate the infinities of reheating — it differs dramatically from the FRW scale eternal inflation is to impose a cutoff on a hypersurface factor as small-scale inhomogeneities develop during mat- of constant global time [13–17]. One starts with a patch ter domination in universes like ours. In particular, the of a spacelike hypersurface Σ somewhere in an inflating local scale-factor time nearly grinds to a halt in regions region of spacetime, and follows its evolution along the that have decoupled from the Hubble flow. It is not clear congruence of geodesics orthogonal to Σ. The scale-factor whether we should impose this particular cutoff, which time is defined as would essentially include the entire lifetime of any non- linear structure that forms before the cutoff, or impose a t = ln a , (2) cutoff on some nonlocal time variable that more closely tracks the FRW scale factor.4 where a is the expansion factor along the geodesics. The There are a number of nonlocal modifications of scale scale-factor time is related to the proper time τ by factor time that both approximate our intuitive notion of FRW averaging and also extend into more complicated dt = H dτ , (3) geometries. One drawback of the nonlocal approach is that no single choice looks more plausible than the others. where H is the Hubble expansion rate of the congruence. For instance, one nonlocal method is to define the factor The spacetime region swept out by the congruence will H in Eq. (3) by spatial averaging of the quantity H(x) typically expand to unlimited size, generating an infinite in Eq. (4). A complete implementation of this approach, number of pockets. (If the patch does not grow with- however, involves many seemingly arbitrary choices re- out limit, one chooses another initial patch Σ and starts garding how to define the hypersurfaces over which H(x) again.) The resulting four-volume is infinite, but we cut should be averaged, so we here set this possibility aside. it off at some fixed scale-factor time t = tc. To find the A second, simpler method is to use the local scale-factor relative probabilities of different events, one counts the time defined above, but to generate a new cutoff hyper- numbers of such events in the finite spacetime volume surface by excluding the future lightcones of all points between Σ and the t = tc hypersurface, and then takes on the original cutoff hypersurface. In regions with non- the limit tc . linear inhomogeneities, the underdense regions will be → ∞ The term “scale factor” is often used in the context the first to reach the scale-factor cutoff, after which they of homogeneous and isotropic geometries; yet on very quickly trigger the cutoff elsewhere. The resulting cutoff large and on very small scales the multiverse may be hypersurface will not be a surface of constant FRW scale very inhomogeneous. A simple way to deal with this is factor, but the fluctuations of the FRW scale factor on to take the factor H in Eq. (3) to be the local divergence this surface should be insignificant. of the four-velocity vector field along the congruence of As a third and final example of a nonlocal modifica- geodesics orthogonal to Σ, tion of scale factor time, we recall the description of the

H(x) (1/3) u . (4) ≡ ;

4 The distinction between these two forms of scale-factor time was first pointed out by Bousso, Freivogel, and Yang in Ref. [43]. factor cutoff measure [43]. 4 local scale-factor cutoff in terms the density ρ of a dust be written of test particles. Instead of such a dust, consider a set of −4 massless test particles, emanating uniformly in all direc- κij = (4π/3)Hj Γij , (7) tions from each point on the initial hypersurface Σ. We can then construct the conserved number density current where Γij is the bubble nucleation rate per unit spacetime J for the gas of test particles, and we can define ρ as volume and Hj is the Hubble expansion rate in vacuum j. 0 the rest frame number density, i.e. the value of J in The solution of Eq. (5) can be written in terms of the i the local Lorentz frame in which J = 0, or equivalently eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the transition matrix Mij . ρ = √J 2. Defining a ρ−1/3, as we did for the dust of test particles, we apply∝ the cutoff when the number It is easily verified that each terminal vacuum is an density ρ drops below some specified level. Since null eigenvector with eigenvalue zero. We here define “ter- geodesics are barely perturbed by structure formation, minal vacua” as those vacua j for which κij = 0 for all the strong perturbations inherent in the local definition i. Thus the terminal vacua include both negative-energy of scale factor time are avoided. Nonetheless, we have vacua, which collapse in a big crunch, and stable zero- not studied the properties of this definition of scale fac- energy vacua. It was shown in Ref. [22] that all of the tor time, and they may lead to complications. Large-scale other eigenvalues of Mij have negative real parts. More- anisotropic flows in the gas of test particles can be gener- over, the eigenvalue with the smallest (by magnitude) ated as the particles stream into expanding bubbles from real part is pure real; we call it the “dominant eigen- value” and denote it by q (with q> 0). Assuming that outside. Since the null geodesics do not interact with − matter except gravitationally, these anisotropies will not the landscape is irreducible, the dominant eigenvalue is be damped in the same way as they would be for pho- nondegenerate. In that case the probabilities defined by tons. The large-scale flow of the gas will not redshift in the scale-factor cutoff measure are independent of the ini- tial state of the multiverse, since they are determined by the normal way, either; for example, if the test particles 5 in some region of an FRW universe have a nonzero mean the dominant eigenvector. velocity relative to the comoving frame, the expansion For an irreducible landscape, the late-time asymptotic of the universe will merely reduce the energies of all the solution of Eq. (5) can be written in the form6 test particles by the same factor, but will not cause the mean velocity to decrease. Thus, the detailed predictions (0) −qt fj(t)= fj + sj e + ..., (8) for this definition of scale-factor cutoff measure remain a matter for future study. (0) where the constant term fj is nonzero only in terminal The local scale-factor cutoff and each of the three non- vacua and sj is proportional to the eigenvector of Mij local definitions correspond to different global-time pa- corresponding to the dominant eigenvalue q, with the rameterizations and thus to different spacetime measures. constant of proportionality determined by the− initial dis- In general they make different predictions for physical tribution of vacua on Σ. It was shown in Ref. [22] that observables; however with regard to the relative number sj 0 for terminal vacua, and sj > 0 for nonterminal of normal observers and Boltzmann brains, their predic- vacua,≤ as is needed for Eq. (8) to describe a nonnegative tions are essentially the same. For the remainder of this paper we refer to the generic nonlocal definition of scale factor time, for which we take FRW time as a suitable approximation. Note that the use of local scale factor 5 In this work we assume that the multiverse is irreducible; that time would make it slightly easier to avoid Boltzmann is, any metastable inflating vacuum is accessible from any other brain domination, since it would increase the count of such vacuum via a sequence of tunneling transitions. Our re- sults, however, can still be applied when this condition fails. In normal observers while leaving the count of Boltzmann that case the dominant eigenvalue can be degenerate, in which brains essentially unchanged. case the asymptotic future is dominated by a linear combina- tion of dominant eigenvectors that is determined by the initial To facilitate later discussion, let us now describe some state. If transitions that increase the vacuum energy density are general properties of the multiverse. The volume fraction included, then the landscape can be reducible only if it splits fi occupied by vacuum i on constant scale-factor time into several disconnected sectors. That situation was discussed slices can be found from the rate equation [44], in Appendix A of Ref. [40], where two alternative prescriptions were described. The first prescription (preferred by the authors) df leads to initial-state dependence only if two or more sectors have i = M f , (5) dt ij j the same dominant eigenvalue q, while the second prescription j always leads to initial-state dependence. 6 Mij is not necessarily diagonalizable, but Eq. (8) applies in any where the transition matrix Mij is given by case. It is always possible to form a complete basis from eigenvec- tors and generalized eigenvectors, where generalized eigenvectors k Mij = κij δij κri , (6) satisfy (M − λI) s = 0, for k > 1. The generalized eigenvectors − λt r appear in the solution with a time dependence given by e times a polynomial in t. These terms are associated with the nonlead- and κij is the transition rate from vacuum j to vacuum i ing eigenvalues omitted from Eq. (8), and the polynomials in t per Hubble volume per Hubble time. This rate can also will not change the fact that they are nonleading. 5 volume fraction, with a nondecreasing fraction assigned includes states with nearby energy densities for which to any terminal vacuum. the upward transition rate is not strongly suppressed. In By inserting the asymptotic expansion (8) into the dif- that case there could be a group of vacuum states that undergo rapid transitions into each other, but very slow ferential equation (5) and extracting the leading asymp- totic behavior for a nonterminal vacuum i, one can show transitions to states outside the group. The role of the dominant vacuum could then be played by this group of that states, and q would be approximately equal to some ap- (κ q)s = κ s , (9) propriately averaged rate for the decay of these states i − i ij j j to states outside the group. Under these circumstances q could be much less than κmin. An example of such a where κj is the total transition rate out of vacuum j, situation is described in Subsection IV E.

κ κ . (10) In the asymptotic limit of late scale-factor time t, the j ≡ ij physical volumes in the various nonterminal vacua are i given by The positivity of si for nonterminal vacua then implies (3−q) t rigorously that q is less than the decay rate of the slowest- Vj (t)= V0 sj e , (15) decaying vacuum in the landscape: where V0 is the volume of the initial hypersurface Σ and q κmin min κj . (11) e3t is the volume expansion factor. The volume growth in ≤ ≡ { } Eq. (15) is (very slightly) slower than e3t due to the con- Since “upward” transitions (those that increase the en- stant loss of volume from transitions to terminal vacua. ergy density) are generally suppressed, we can gain some Note that even though upward transitions from the dom- intuition by first considering the case in which all upward inant vacuum are strongly suppressed, they play a crucial transition rates are set to zero. (Such a landscape is re- role in populating the landscape [45]. Most of the volume ducible, so the dominant eigenvector can be degenerate.) in the asymptotic solution of Eq. (15) originates in the In this case Mij is triangular, and the eigenvalues are dominant vacuum D, and “trickles” to the other vacua precisely the decay rates κi of the individual states. The through a series of transitions starting with at least one dominant eigenvalue q is then exactly equal to κmin. upward jump. If upward transitions are included but assumed to have a very low rate, then the dominant eigenvalue q is approx- imately equal to the decay rate of the slowest-decaying III. THE ABUNDANCE OF NORMAL vacuum [45], OBSERVERS AND BOLTZMANN BRAINS

q κmin . (12) ≈ Let us now calculate the relative abundances of Boltz- The slowest-decaying vacuum (assuming it is unique) is mann brains and normal observers, in terms of the vac- the one that dominates the asymptotic late-time volume uum transition rates and the asymptotic volume frac- of the multiverse, so we call it the dominant vacuum and tions. denote it by D. Hence, Estimates for the numerical values of the Boltzmann

q κD . (13) brain nucleation rates and vacuum decay rates will be ≈ discussed in Section V, but it is important at this stage to The vacuum decay rate is typically exponentially sup- be aware of the kind of numbers that will be considered. pressed, so for the slowest-decaying vacuum we expect it We will be able to give only rough estimates of these to be extremely small, rates, but the numbers that will be mentioned in Section V will range from exp ( 10120) to exp( 1016). Thus, q ≪ 1 . (14) when we calculate the ratio− BB/ NO−of Boltzmann N N Note that the corrections to Eq. (13) are comparable brains to normal observers, the natural logarithm of this to the upward transition rate from D to higher-energy ratio will always include one term with a magnitude of at least 1016. Consequently, the presence or absence of any vacua, but for large energy differences this transition rate BB NO 16 2 2 term in ln( / ) that is small compared to 10 is is suppressed by the factor exp( 8π /HD) [46]. Here and N N throughout the remainder of this− paper we use reduced of no relevance. We therefore refer to any factor f for which Planck units, where 8πG = c = kB = 1. We shall argue in Section V that the dominant vacuum is likely to have ln f < 1014 (16) a very low energy density, so the correction to Eq. (13) | | is very small even compared to q. as “roughly of order one.” In the calculation of A possible variant of this picture, with similar conse- BB/ NO such factors — although they may be minus- quences, could arise if one assumes that the landscape culeN orN colossal by ordinary standards — can be ignored. 6

It will not be necessary to keep track of factors of 2, π, avoid mystery we mention that w(t) can be written as 8 10 or even 10 . Dimensionless coefficients, factors of H, ¯ π ξ(t) π and factors coming from detailed aspects of the geome- w(t)= sinh2(ξ) dξ = sinh 2ξ¯(t) 2ξ¯(t) , try are unimportant, and in the end all of these will be 2 8 − 0 ignored. We nonetheless include some of these factors in (18) the intermediate steps below simply to provide a clearer where ξ¯(tc tnuc Ne NO) is the maximum value of − − − description of the calculation. the Robertson-Walker radial coordinate ξ that lies under the cutoff. If the pocket universe begins with a moderate We begin by estimating the number of normal ob- period of inflation (exp(N ) 1) with the same vacuum servers that will be counted in the sample spacetime re- e energy as outside, then ≫ gion specified by the scale-factor cutoff measure. Normal observers arise during the big bang evolution in the af- −1 ξ¯(t) 2 cosh et/2 . (19) termath of slow-roll inflation and reheating. The details ≈ of this evolution depend not only on the vacuum of the pocket in question, but also on the parent vacuum from Eq. (17) gives the physical volume on the ΣNO hyper- which it nucleated [47]. That is, if we view each vacuum surface for a single pocket of type ik, which nucleates as a local minimum in a multidimensional field space, at time tnuc. The number of ik-pockets that nucleate then the dynamics of inflation in general depend on the between time tnuc and tnuc + dtnuc is direction from which the field tunneled into the local min- (ik) 3 imum. We therefore label pockets with two indices, ik, dnnuc (tnuc) = (3/4π)Hk κik Vk(tnuc) dtnuc 3 (3−q) tnuc indicating the pocket and parent vacua respectively. = (3/4π)Hk κiksk V0 e dtnuc (20), To begin, we restrict our attention to a single “an- where we use Eq. (15) to give Vk(tnuc). The total number thropic” pocket — i.e., one that produces normal ob- of normal observers in the sample region is then servers — which nucleates at scale-factor time tnuc. The internal geometry of the pocket is that of an open FRW tc−Ne−NO NO = nNO V (ik)(t ) dn(ik)(t ) universe. We assume that, after a brief curvature- Nik ik O nuc nuc nuc −1 dominated period ∆τ Hk , slow-roll inflation inside ∞ ∼ NO (3−q) tc −(3−q) z the pocket gives Ne e-folds of expansion before thermal- n κ s V e w(z) e dz .(21) ≈ ik ik k 0 ization. Furthermore, we assume that all normal ob- 0 servers arise at a fixed number NO of e-folds of expan- In the first expression we have ignored the (very small) sion after thermalization. (Note that Ne and NO are probability that pockets of type ik may transition to both measured along FRW comoving geodesics inside the other vacua during slow-roll inflation or during the sub- pocket, which do not initially coincide with, but rapidly sequent period NO of big bang evolution. In the sec- asymptote to, the “global” geodesic congruence that orig- ond line, we have changed the integration variable to inated outside the pocket.) We denote the fixed-internal- z = tc tnuc Ne NO (reversing the direction of inte- time hypersurface on which normal observers arise by gration)− and− have dropped− the (1) prefactors, and also NO O Σ , and call the average density of observers on this the factor eq(Ne+NO ), since q is expected to be extraordi- NO hypersurface nik . narily small. We have kept e−qtc , since we are interested qz The hypersurface ΣNO would have infinite volume, due in the limit tc . We have also kept the factor e → ∞ to the constant expansion of the pocket, but this diver- long enough to verify that the integral converges with or gence is regulated by the scale-factor cutoff tc, because without the factor, so we can carry out the integral using the global scale-factor time t is not constant over the the approximation q 0, resulting in an (1) prefactor ≈ O ΣNO hypersurface. For the pocket described above, the that we will drop. NO regulated physical volume of Σ can be written as Finally,

NO nNOκ s V e(3−q) tc . (22) Nik ≈ ik ik k 0 3(N +N ) (ik) −3 Note that the expansion factor e e O in Eq. (17) was V (t )= H e3(Ne+NO ) w(t t N N ) , O nuc k c nuc e O canceled when we integrated over nucleation times, illus- − − − (17) where the exponential gives the volume expansion factor trating the mild youngness bias of the scale-factor cutoff measure. The expansion of the universe is canceled, so coming from slow-roll inflation and big bang evolution to the hypersurface ΣNO, and H−3w(t t N N ) objects that form at a certain density per physical vol- k c nuc e O ume in the early universe will have the same weight as describes the comoving volume of the− part− of the− ΣNO hypersurface that is underneath the cutoff. The function objects that form at the same density per physical vol- ume at a later time, despite the naive expectation that w(t) was calculated, for example, in Refs. [48] and [30], and is applied to scale-factor cutoff measure in Ref. [49]. there is more volume at later times. Its detailed form will not be needed to determine the To compare, we now need to calculate the number of answer up to a factor that is roughly of order one, but to Boltzmann brains that will be counted in the sample 7 spacetime region. Boltzmann brains can be produced is converted into a total number for the sample volume in in any anthropic vacuum, and presumably in many non- exactly the same way that we did for normal observers, anthropic vacua as well. Suppose Boltzmann brains are leading to BB produced in vacuum j at a rate Γj per unit space- BB,reheat BB BB (3−q) tc BB Γ ∆τ κik sk V0 e . time volume. The number of Boltzmann brains j Nik ≈ reheat,ik reheat,ik is then proportional to the total four-volume in thatN vac- (25) uum. Imposing the cutoff at scale-factor time tc, this Thus, the dominance of normal observers is assured if four-volume is BB BB NO Γreheat,ik ∆τreheat,ikκik sk nik κik sk . (26) tc tc ≪ (4) = V (t) dτ = H−1 V (t) dt i,k i,k Vj j j j If Eq. (26) did not hold, it seems likely that we would 1 −1 (3−q) tc = H sj V0 e , (23) suffer from Boltzmann brain problems regardless of our 3 q j − measure. We leave numerical estimates for Section V, where we have used Eq. (15) for the asymptotic volume but we will see that Boltzmann brain production during −1 reheating is not a danger. fraction. By setting dτ = Hj dt, we have ignored the time-dependence of H(τ) in the earlier stages of cosmic Ignoring the Boltzmann brains that form during re- evolution, assuming that only the late-time de Sitter evo- heating, the ratio of Boltzmann brains to normal ob- lution is relevant. In a similar spirit, we will assume that servers can be found by combining Eqs. (22) and (24), BB the Boltzmann brain nucleation rate Γj can be treated giving as time-independent, so the total number of Boltzmann BB 3 BB brains nucleated in vacua of type j, within the sample Hj κj sj N j , (27) volume, is given by NO ≈ nNOκ s N i, k ik ik k BB BB −1 (3−q) tc Γ H sj V0 e , (24) Nj ≈ j j where the summation in the numerator covers only the vacua in which Boltzmann brains can arise, the sum- where we have dropped the (1) numerical factor. O mation over i in the denominator covers only anthropic For completeness, we may want to consider the effects vacua, and the summation over k includes all of their BB of early universe evolution on Boltzmann brain produc- possible parent vacua. κj is the dimensionless Boltz- BB tion, effects which were ignored in Eq. (24). We will mann brain nucleation rate in vacuum j, related to Γj separate the effects into two categories: the effects of by Eq. (7). The expression can be further simplified by NO slow-roll inflation at the beginning of a pocket universe, dropping the factors of Hj and ni , which are roughly and the effects of reheating. of order one, as defined by Eq. (16). We can also replace To account for the effects of slow-roll inflation, we ar- the sum over j in the numerator by the maximum over j, gue that, within the approximations used here, there is since the sum is at least as large as the maximum term and no larger than the maximum term times the num- no need for an extra calculation. Consider, for example, 500 a pocket universe A which begins with a period of slow- ber of vacua. Since the number of vacua (perhaps 10 ) is roughly of order one, the sum over j is equal to the roll inflation during which H(τ) Hslow roll = const. Consider also a pocket universe B,≈ which throughout its maximum up to a factor that is roughly of order one. We similarly replace the sum over i in the denominator evolution has H = Hslow roll, and which by hypothesis has the same formation rate, Boltzmann brain nucle- by its maximum, but we choose to leave the sum over k. ation rate, and decay rates as pocket A. Then clearly Thus we can write the number of Boltzmann brains formed in the slow roll BB BB maxj κj sj phase of pocket A will be smaller than the number formed N { } , (28) NO ∼ max κ s throughout the lifetime of pocket B. Since we will require N i { k ik k} that generic bubbles of type B do not overproduce Boltz- where the sets of j and i are restricted as for Eq. (27). mann brains, there will be no need to worry about the NO NO 3 slow-roll phase of bubbles of type A. In dropping ni , we are assuming that ni Hi is roughly of order one, as defined at the beginning of this To estimate how many Boltzmann brains might form section. It is hard to know what a realistic value for as a consequence of reheating, we can make use of the NO 3 ni Hi might be, as the evolution of normal observers calculation for the production of normal observers de- may require some highly improbable events. For exam- scribed above. We can assume that the Boltzmann brain ple, it was argued in Ref. [50] that the probability for life nucleation rate has a spike in the vicinity of some par- to evolve in a region of the size of our observable universe ticular hypersurface in the early universe, peaking at −1000 BB per Hubble time may be as low as 10 . But even some value Γreheat,ik which persists roughly for some time the most pessimistic estimates cannot∼ compete with the BB interval ∆τreheat,ik, producing a density of Boltzmann small numbers appearing in estimates of the Boltzmann BB BB brains equal to Γreheat,ik ∆τreheat,ik. This spatial density brain nucleation rate, and hence by our definition they 8 are roughly of order one. Nonetheless, it is possible to irreducibility of the landscape, and hence the nondegen- NO imagine vacua for which ni might be negligibly small, eracy of the dominant eigenvalue and the independence but still nonzero. We shall ignore the normal observers of the late-time asymptotic behavior from the initial con- in these vacua; for the remainder of this paper we will ditions of the multiverse. The results of this subsection use the phrase “anthropic vacuum” to refer only to those will therefore not always conform to the expectations out- NO 3 vacua for which ni Hi is roughly of order one. lined in Section II, but this shortcoming is corrected in For any landscape that satisfies Eq. (8), which includes the next subsection and all subsequent work in this pa- per. any irreducible landscape, Eq. (28) can be simplified by using Eq. (9): We are interested in the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the rate equation, Eq. (5). In the FIB landscape the BB BB maxj κ sj rate equation gives { j } N NO , (29) ∼ maxi (κi q) si N { − } f˙F = κIF fF where the numerator is maximized over all vacua j that − (31) f˙ = κ f + κ f . support Boltzmann brains, and the denominator is max- I − BI I IF F imized over all anthropic vacua i. We ignore the volume fraction in the terminal vacuum In order to learn more about the ratio of Boltzmann as it is not relevant to our analysis. Starting with the brains to normal observers, we need to learn more about ansatz, the volume fractions s , a topic that will be pursued in j f s −qt the next section. (t)= e , (32) we find two eigenvalues of Eqs. (31). These are, with their corresponding eigenvectors, IV. MINI-LANDSCAPES AND THE GENERAL CONDITIONS TO AVOID BOLTZMANN BRAIN q1 = κIF , s1 = (1, C) , DOMINATION (33) q2 = κBI , s2 = (0, 1) ,

where the eigenvectors are written in the basis s In this section we study a number of simple models ≡ of the landscape, in order to build intuition for the vol- (sF ,sI ) and ume fractions that appear in Eqs. (28) and (29). The κIF reader uninterested in the details may skip the pedagog- C = . (34) κBI κIF ical examples given in Subsections IV A–IV E, and con- − tinue with Subsection IV F, where we state the general Suppose that we start in the false vacuum F at t = 0, conditions that must be enforced in order to avoid Boltz- i.e. f(t =0)= (1, 0). Then the solution of the FIB rate mann brain domination. equation, Eq. (31), is

−κIF t fF (t) = e , (35) A. The FIB Landscape f (t) = C (e−κIF t e−κBI t) . I −

The asymptotic evolution depends on whether κIF < Let us first consider a very simple model of the land- κBI (case I) or not (case II). In case I, scape, described by the schematic −κIF t f(t )= s1e (κIF <κBI ) , (36) F I B, (30) → ∞ → → where s1 is given in Eq. (33), while in case II where F is a high-energy false vacuum, I is a positive- −κIF t −κBI t energy anthropic vacuum, and B is a terminal vacuum. f(t )= e , C e (κBI <κIF ) . This model, which we call the FIB landscape, was ana- → ∞ | | (37) lyzed in Ref. [22] and was discussed in relation to the In the latter case, the inequality of the rates of decay for abundance of Boltzmann brains in Ref. [18]. As in the two volume fractions arises from the reducibility of Ref. [18], we assume that both Boltzmann brains and the FIB landscape, stemming from our ignoring upward normal observers reside only in vacuum I. transitions from I to F .

Note that the FIB landscape ignores upward transi- For case I (κIF <κBI ), we find the ratio of Boltzmann tions from I to F . The model is constructed in this way brains to normal observers by evaluating Eq. (28) for the as an initial first step, and also in order to more clearly asymptotic behavior described by Eq. (36): relate our analysis to that of Ref. [18]. Although the rate of upward transitions is exponentially suppressed rela- BB κBBs κBB κ κBB N I IF , (38) tive the other rates, its inclusion is important for the NO ∼ κ s ∼ κ κ κ ∼ κ N IF F IF BI − IF BI 9 where we drop κIF compared to κBI in the denomina- Further analysis is simplified if we note that upward tor, as we are only interested in the overall scale of the transitions from low-energy vacua like ours are very solution. We find that the ratio of Boltzmann brains to strongly suppressed, even when compared to the other normal observers is finite, depending on the relative rate exponentially suppressed transition rates, i.e. κ F I ≪ of Boltzmann brain production to the rate of decay of κIF ,κBI . We are interested mostly in how this small vacuum I. Meanwhile, in case II (where κBI <κIF ) we correction modifies the dominant eigenvector in the case find where κBI <κIF (case II), which led to an infinite ratio BB BB of Boltzmann brains to normal observers. To the lowest κ (κIF −κBI )t N NO e . (39) order in κF I , we find ∼ κIF → ∞ N κ κ In this situation, the number of Boltzmann brains over- q κ IF F I , (43) ≈ I − κ κ whelms the number of normal observers; in fact the ratio IF − I diverges with time. and The unfavorable result of case II stems from the fact κIF κI that, in this case, the volume of vacuum I grows faster sI − sF sF . (44) than that of vacuum F . Most of this I-volume is in large ≈ κF I ≫ pockets that formed very early; and this volume domi- nates because the F -vacuum decays faster than I, and is The above equation is a consequence of the second of not replenished due to the absence of upward transitions. Eqs. (41), but it also follows directly from Eq. (9), which This leads to Boltzmann brain domination, in agreement holds in any irreducible landscape. In this case fI (t) with the conclusion reached in Ref. [18]. Thus, the FIB and fF (t) have the same asymptotic time dependence, −qt landscape analysis suggests that Boltzmann brain dom- e , so the ratio fI (t)/fF (t) approaches a constant ∝ ination can be avoided only if the decay rate of the an- limit, sI /sF R. However, due to the smallness of κF I , ≡ thropic vacuum is larger than both the decay rate of its this ratio is extremely large. Note that the ratio of Boltz- parent false vacuum F and the rate of Boltzmann brain mann brains to normal observers is proportional to R. production. Moreover, the FIB analysis suggests that Although it is also proportional to the minuscule Boltz- Boltzmann brain domination in the multiverse can be mann brain nucleation rate (estimated in Section V), the avoided only if the first of these conditions is satisfied for typically huge value of R will still lead to Boltzmann all vacua in which Boltzmann brains exist. This is a very brain domination (again, see Section V for relevant de- stringent requirement, since low-energy vacua like I typ- tails). But the story is not over, since the recycling FIB ically have lower decay rates than high-energy vacua (see landscape is still far from realistic. Section V). We shall see, however, that the above condi- tions are substantially relaxed in more realistic landscape models. C. A More Realistic Landscape

B. The FIB Landscape with Recycling In the recycling model of the preceding section, the anthropic vacuum I was also the dominant vacuum, while in a realistic landscape this is not likely to be the case. To The FIB landscape of the preceding section is re- see how it changes the situation to have a non-anthropic ducible, since vacuum F cannot be reached from vacuum vacuum as the dominant one, we consider the model I. We can make it irreducible by simply allowing upward transitions, A D F I B, (45) ← ↔ → → F I B. (40) which we call the “ADFIB landscape.” Here, D is the ↔ → This “recycling FIB” landscape is more realistic than the dominant vacuum and A and B are both terminal vacua. original FIB landscape, because upward transitions out of The vacuum I is still an anthropic vacuum, and the vac- positive-energy vacua are allowed in semi-classical quan- uum F has large, positive vacuum energy. As explained tum gravity [46]. The rate equation of the recycling FIB in Section V, the dominant vacuum is likely to have very landscape gives the eigenvalue system, small vacuum energy; hence we consider that at least one upward transition (here represented as the transition to qsF = κIF sF + κF I sI , F ) is required to reach an anthropic vacuum. − − (41) qsI = κI sI + κIF sF , Note that the ADFIB landscape ignores the upward − − where κ κ + κ is the total decay rate of vacuum transition rate from vacuum I to F ; however this is I ≡ BI F I exponentially suppressed relative the other transition I, as defined in Eq. (10). Thus, the eigenvalues q1 and q correspond to the roots of rates pertinent to I and, unlike the situation in Subsec- 2 tion IV A, ignoring the upward transition does not signif- (κ q)(κ q)= κ κ . (42) icantly affect our results. The important property is that IF − I − IF F I 10 all vacuum fractions have the same late-time asymptotic we assume that D is anthropic and restrict Eq. (28) to behavior, and this property is assured whenever there is vacuum D, we find using Eq. (48) that a unique dominant vacuum, and all inflating vacua are accessible from the dominant vacuum via a sequence of BB BB BB tunneling transitions. The uniformity of asymptotic be- D κD sD κD κF N NO , (50) haviors is sufficient to imply Eq. (9), which implies im- D ∼ κDF sF ∼ κF D κDF mediately that N

sI κIF κIF κIF so again the ratio is enhanced by the extremely small = , (46) s κ q ≈ κ κ ≈ κ upward tunneling rate κF D in the denominator. F BI − BI − D BI Thus, in order to avoid Boltzmann brain domination, where we used q κ κ + κ , and assumed that D AD F D it seems we have to impose two requirements: (1) the κ κ . ≈ ≡ D ≪ BI Boltzmann brain nucleation rate in the anthropic vac- This holds even if the decay rate of the anthropic vac- uum I must be less than the decay rate of that vacuum, uum I is smaller than that of the false vacuum F . and (2) the dominant vacuum D must either not support Boltzmann brains at all, or must produce them with a Even though the false vacuum F may decay rather BB quickly, it is constantly being replenished by upward dimensionless rate κD that is small even compared to transitions from the slowly-decaying vacuum D, which the upward tunneling rate κF D. If the vacuum D is an- overwhelmingly dominates the physical volume of the thropic then it must support Boltzmann brains, so the multiverse. Note that, in light of these results, our domination by Boltzmann brains could be avoided only by the stringent requirement κBB κ . constraints on the landscape to avoid Boltzmann brain D ≪ F D domination are considerably relaxed. Specifically, it is no longer required that the anthropic vacua decay at a faster rate than their parent vacua. Using Eq. (46) with Eq. (28), the ratio of Boltzmann brains to normal ob- servers in vacuum I is found to be D. A Further Generalization

BB BB BB I κI sI κI N NO . (47) The conclusions of the last subsection are robust to ∼ κIF sF ∼ κBI NI more general considerations. To illustrate, let us general- ize the ADFIB landscape to one with many low-vacuum- If Boltzmann brains can also exist in the dominant energy pockets, described by the schematic vacuum D, then they are a much more severe problem. By applying Eq. (9) to the F vacuum, we find A D F I B, (51) s κ κ κ ← ↔ j → i → F = F D F D F D , (48) s κ q ≈ κ κ ≈ κ D F − F − D F where each high energy false vacuum Fj decays into a set where κF = κIF +κDF , and where we have assumed that of vacua I , all of which decay (for simplicity) to the { i} κD κF . The ratio of Boltzmann brains in vacuum D same terminal vacuum B. The vacua I are taken to be a ≪ i to normal observers in vacuum I is then large set including both anthropic vacua and vacua that BB BB BB host only Boltzmann brains. Eq. (9) continues to apply, D κD sD κD κF so Eqs. (46) and (48) are easily generalized to this case, N NO . (49) ∼ κIF sF ∼ κF D κIF NI giving Since we expect that the dominant vacuum has very small vacuum energy, and hence a heavily suppressed upward 1 BB NO sIi κIiFj sFj (52) transition rate κF D, the requirement that / be ≈ κ D I Ii j small could be a very stringent one. Note thatN comparedN to sD, both sF and sI are suppressed by the small fac- tor κF D; however the ratio sI /sF is independent of this and factor.

Since sD is so large, one should ask whether Boltzmann 1 s κ s , (53) brain domination can be more easily avoided by allowing Fj Fj D D ≈ κF vacuum D to be anthropic. The answer is no, because j the production of normal observers in vacuum D is pro- portional (see Eq. (22)) to the rate at which bubbles of where we have assumed that q κIi ,κFj , as we ex- D nucleate, which is not large. D dominates the space- pect for vacua other than the dominant≪ one. Using these time volume due to slow decay, not rapid nucleation. If results with Eq. (28), the ratio of Boltzmann brains in 11

vacua Ii to normal observers in vacua Ii is given by where AFj D is the action of the instanton responsible for the transition and SD is the action of the Euclideanized BB max κBB s de Sitter 4-sphere, N{Ii} i Ii Ii NO ∼ 2 {Ii} maxi κIiFj sFj 8π N j SD = 2 . (58) HD BB 1 1 maxi κIi κIiFj κFj D sD κI j κF i j But generically AFj D 1/ρFj . If we assume that ∼ 1 | |∼ maxi κI F κF D sD j i j κ j 1 1 14 Fj < 10 (59) ρFj − ρFk κBB κ Ii IiFj maxi κF D j j for every pair of vacua Fj andFk, then κF D = κF D up κIi κFj j k , (54) to a factor that can be ignored because it is roughly of ∼ κIiFj maxi κF D order one. Thus, up to subleading factors, the transition j j 7 BB NO κFj rates κF D cancel out in the ratio / . j N{Ii} N where the denominators are maximized over the re- Returning to Eq. (54) and keeping only the leading stricted set of anthropic vacua i (and the numerators are factors, we have maximized without restriction). The ratio of Boltzmann BB κBB brains in the dominant vacuum (vacuum D) to normal N{Ii} Ii NO max , (60) observers in vacua Ii is given by ∼ i κ N Ii BB BB κ sD where the index i runs over all (non-dominant) vacua in ND D NO ∼ which Boltzmann brains can nucleate. For the dominant {Ii} maxi κI F sF N j i j j vacuum, our simplifying assumptions8 convert Eqs. (55) κBB and (56) into D , (55) ∼ κIiFj BB BB maxi κF D D κD BB S j κ j N κ e D , (61) Fj NO ∼ κ ∼ D N up and, if vacuum D is anthropic, then the ratio of Boltz- where κup j κFj D is the upward transition rate out mann brains in vacuum D to normal observers in vacuum of the dominant≡ vacuum. D is given by Thus, the conditions needed to avoid Boltzmann brain BB BB domination are essentially the same as what we found in D κD N NO κ . (56) Subsection IVC. In this case, however, we must require ∼ DFj D κF D N j j that in any vacuum that can support Boltzmann brains, κFj the Boltzmann brain nucleation rate must be less than the decay rate of that vacuum. In this case our answers are complicated by the pres- ence of many different vacua. We can in principle deter- mine whether Boltzmann brains dominate by evaluating Eqs. (54)–(56) for the correct values of the parameters, 7 Depending on the range of vacua Fj that are considered, the but this gets rather complicated and model-dependent. bound of Eq. (59) may or may not be valid. If it is not, then The evaluation of these expressions can be simplified sig- the simplification of Eq. (60) below is not justified, and the orig- inal Eq. (54) has to be used. Of course one should remember nificantly, however, if we make some very plausible as- 14 sumptions. that there was significant arbitrariness in the choice of 10 in the definition of “roughly of order one.” 1014 was chosen to ac- For tunneling out of the high-energy vacua Fj , one commodate the largest estimate that we discuss in Sec. V for ∼ − 16 can expect the transition rates into different channels to the Boltzmann brain nucleation rate, ΓBB exp( 10 ). In considering the other estimates of Γ , one could replace 1014 be roughly comparable, so that κ κ κ . BB IiFj ∼ DFj ∼ Fj by a much larger number, thereby increasing the applicability of That is, we assume that the branching ratios κIiFj /κFj Eq. (59). A 8 Fj D and κDFj /κFj are roughly of order one in the sense of The dropping of the factor e is a more reliable approxima- Eq. (16). These factors (or their inverses) will therefore tion in this case than it was in Eq. (60) above. In this case the − BB NO factor e SD does not cancel between the numerator and denom- be unimportant in the evaluation of / , and may A N N inator, so the factor e Fj D can be dropped if it is unimportant be dropped. Furthermore, the upward transition rates − compared to e SD . We of course do not know the value of S for from the dominant vacuum D into Fj are all comparable the dominant vacuum, but for our vacuum it is of order 10122 , to one another, as can be seen by writing [46] and it is plausible that the value for the dominant vacuum is

similar or even larger. Thus as long as 1/ρFj is small compared AF D −S A κ e j e D , (57) to 10122, it seems safe to drop the factor e Fj D . Fj D ∼ 12

E. A Dominant Vacuum System from D1 and D2 can be neglected. To see that these vacua dominate the volume fraction, we calculate the modified form of Eq. (53): In the next to last paragraph of Section II, we described a scenario where the dominant vacuum was not the vac- sFj α1 κFj D1 + α2 κFj D2 uum with the smallest decay rate. Let us now study a . (69) sD ≈ κFj simple landscape to illustrate this situation. Consider the toy landscape Thus the volume fractions of the Fj , and hence also the Ij and B vacua, are suppressed by the very small rate F I B j → i → for large upward jumps from low energy vacua, namely κ and κ . The volume fraction for S depends on րւ տց Fj D1 Fj D2 A D1 D2 A (62) ← ←→ → κAD1 and κAD2 , but it is maximized when these rates are negligible, in which case it is given by տցS րւ A, → s q S . (70) where as in Subsection IVD the vacua Ii are taken to in- sD ≈ κS q clude both anthropic vacua and vacua that support only − Boltzmann brains. Vacua A and B are terminal vacua This quantity can in principle be large, if q is just a little and the Fj have large, positive vacuum energies. Assume smaller than κS, but that would seem to be a very special that vacuum S has the smallest total decay rate. case. Generically, we would expect that since q must be smaller than κS (see Eq. (11)), it would most likely be We have in mind the situation in which D1 and D2 are many orders of magnitude smaller, and hence the ratio in nearly degenerate, and transitions from D1 to D2 (and Eq. (70) would be much less than one. There is no reason, vice versa) are rapid, even though the transition in one however, to expect it to be as small as the ratios that direction is upward. With this in mind, we divide the are suppressed by large upward jumps. For simplicity, decay rates of D1 and D2 into two parts, however, we will assume in what follows that sS can be out neglected. κ1 = κ21 + κ1 (63) out To calculate the ratio of Boltzmann brains to normal κ2 = κ12 + κ2 , (64) observers in this toy landscape, note that Eqs. (54) and with κ ,κ κout. We assume as in previous sections (55) are modified only by the substitution 12 21 ≫ 1,2 that the rates for large upward transitions (S to D1 or κ κ¯ α κ + α κ . (71) D2, and D1 or D2 to Fj ) are extremely small, so that Fj D → Fj D ≡ 1 Fj D1 2 Fj D2 we can ignore them in the calculation of q. The rate Thus, the dominant vacuum transition rate is simply re- equation, Eq. (9), then admits a solution with q κD, but it also admits solutions with ≃ placed by a weighted average of the dominant vacuum transition rates. If we assume that neither of the vacua 1 D nor D are anthropic, and make the same assump- q κ + κ (κ κ )2 +4κ κ . (65) 1 2 ≃ 2 1 2 ± 1 − 2 12 21 tions about magnitudes used in Subsection IV D, then out Eqs. (60) and (61) continue to hold as well, where we Expanding the smaller root to linear order in κ1,2 gives have redefined κ by κ κ¯ . up up ≡ j Fj D out out q α1κ + α2κ , (66) If, however, we allow D1 orD2 to be anthropic, then ≃ 1 2 new questions arise. Transitions between D1 and D2 where are by assumption rapid, so they copiously produce new κ12 κ21 pockets and potentially new normal observers. We must α1 , α2 . (67) recall, however (as discussed in Section III), that the ≡ κ12 + κ21 ≡ κ12 + κ21 properties of a pocket universe depend on both the cur- In principle this value for q can be smaller than κD, which rent vacuum and the parent vacuum. In this case, the is the case that we wish to explore. unusual feature is that the vacua within the D system are nearly degenerate, and hence very little energy is released In this case the vacua D1 and D2 dominate the volume fraction of the multiverse, even if their total decay rates by tunnelings within D. For pocket universes created in κ and κ are not the smallest in the landscape. We can this way, the maximum particle energy density during 1 2 reheating will be only a small fraction of the vacuum en- therefore call the states D1 and D2 together a dominant vacuum system, which we denote collectively as D. The ergy density. Such a big bang is very different from the rate equation (Eq. (9)) shows that one that took place in our pocket, and presumably much less likely to produce life. We will call a vacuum in the D system “strongly anthropic” if normal observers are sD1 α1 sD , sD2 α2 sD , (68) ≈ ≈ produced by tunnelings from within D, and “mildly an- where sD sD1 + sD2 , and the equations hold in the thropic” if normal observers can be produced, but only ≡ out approximation that κ1,2 and the upward transition rates by tunnelings from higher energy vacua outside D. 13

If either of the vacua in D were strongly anthropic, (1) anthropic vacua for which the total dimensionless then the normal observers in D would dominate the nor- decay rate satisfies κi q, mal observers in the multiverse. Normal observers in the ≫ vacua Ii would be less numerous by a factor proportional (2) non-anthropic vacua that can transition to an- thropic vacua via unsuppressed transitions, to the extremely small rateκ ¯Fj D for large upward transi- tions . This situation would itself be a problem, however, (3) non-anthropic vacua that can transition to an- similar to the Boltzmann brain problem. It would mean thropic vacua only via suppressed transitions, that observers like ourselves, who arose from a hot big bang with energy densities much higher than our vacuum (4) anthropic vacua for which the total dimensionless energy density, would be extremely rare in the multiverse. decay rate is κi q. We conclude that if there are any models which give a ≈ dominant vacuum system that contains a strongly an- Here q is the smallest-magnitude eigenvalue of the rate thropic vacuum, such models would be considered unac- equation (see Eqs. (5)–(8)). We call a transition “unsup- ceptable in the context of the scale-factor cutoff measure. pressed” if its branching ratio is roughly of order one in On the other hand, if the D system included one or the sense of Eq. (16). If the branching ratio is smaller more mildly anthropic vacua, then the situation is very than this, it is “suppressed.” As before, when calculat- similar to that discussed in Subsections IV C and IV D. ing BB/ NO we assume that factors that are roughly In this case the normal observers in the D system would of orderN oneN can be ignored. Note that Eq. (11) forbids be comparable in number to the normal observers in the κi from being less than q, so the above four cases are vacua Ii, so they would have no significant effect on the exhaustive. ratio of Boltzmann brains to normal observers in the mul- We first discuss conditions that are sufficient to guar- tiverse. If any of the D vacua were mildly anthropic, how- BB antee that Boltzmann brains will not dominate, postpon- ever, then the stringent requirement κD κup would ing until later the issue of what conditions are necessary. have to be satisfied without resort to the simple≪ solution BB We begin with the vacua in the first class. Very likely κD = 0. all anthropic vacua belong to this class. For an anthropic Thus, we find that the existence of a dominant vacuum vacuum i, the Boltzmann brains produced in vacuum i system does not change our conclusions about the abun- cannot dominate the multiverse if they do not dominate dance of Boltzmann brains, except insofar as the Boltz- the normal observers in vacuum i, so we can begin with mann brain nucleation constraints that would apply to this comparison. Restricting Eq. (29) to this single vac- the dominant vacuum must apply to every member of the uum, we obtain dominant vacuum system. Probably the most important implication of this example is that the dominant vacuum BB BB i κi is not necessarily the vacuum with the lowest decay rate, N NO , (72) ∼ κi so the task of identifying the dominant vacuum could be Ni very difficult. a ratio that has appeared in many of the simple examples. If this ratio is small compared to one, then Boltzmann brains created in vacuum i are negligible. F. General Conditions to Avoid Boltzmann Brain Let us now study a vacuum j in the second class. First Domination note that Eq. (9) implies the rigorous inequality

κ s κ s (no sum on repeated indices) , (73) In constructing general conditions to avoid Boltzmann i i ≥ ij j brain domination, we are guided by the toy landscapes which holds for any two states i and j. (Intuitively, discussed in the previous subsections. Our goal, however, Eq. (73) is the statement that, in steady state, the total is to construct conditions that can be justified using only rate of loss of volume fraction must exceed the input rate the general equations of Sections II and III, assuming from any one channel.) To simplify what follows, it will that the landscape is irreducible, but without relying on be useful to rewrite Eq. (73) as the properties of any particular toy landscape. We will be especially cautious about the treatment of the dominant (κisi) (κj sj ) Bj→i , (74) vacuum and the possibility of small upward transitions, ≥ which could be rapid. The behavior of the full landscape where Bj→i κij /κj is the branching ratio for the tran- of a realistic theory may deviate considerably from that sition j i.≡ of the simplest toy models. → Suppose that we are trying to bound the Boltzmann To discuss the general situation, it is useful to divide brain production in vacuum j, and we know that it can vacuum states into four classes. We are only interested undergo unsuppressed transitions in vacua that can support Boltzmann brains. These can be j k ... k i , (75) → 1 → → n → 14 where i is an anthropic vacuum. We begin by using we should keep in mind that the sequence of Eq. (75) BB NO Eqs. (22) and (24) to express j / i , dropping ir- is presumably not unique, so other sequences will pro- relevant factors as in Eq. (28),N and thenN we can iterate duce other bounds. All the bounds will be valid, so the the above inequality: strongest bound is the one of maximum interest. Fi- nally, since the vacua under discussion are not anthropic, BB κBB s κBB s Nj j j j j a likely method for Eq. (77) to be satisfied would be for NO BB ∼ κik sk ≤ κi si κ to vanish, as would happen if the vacuum j did not Ni k j BB support the complex structures needed to form Boltz- κ sj j mann brains. ≤ (κ s )B 1 B 1 2 B j j j→k k →k kn→i BB The criterion above can be summarized by saying that κj 1 BB = , (76) if κj /(Bupκj ) 1, then the Boltzmann brains in vac- κ B B B ≪ j j→k1 k1→k2 kn→i uum j will be overwhelmingly outnumbered by the nor- where again there is no sum on repeated indices, and mal observers living in pocket universes that form in the Eq. (9) was used in the last step on the first line. Each decay chain starting from vacuum j. We now describe a inverse branching ratio on the right of the last line is second, alternative criterion, based on the idea that the greater than or equal to one, but by our assumptions can number of Boltzmann brains in vacuum j can be com- be considered to be roughly of order one, and hence can pared with the number of normal observers in vacuum i be dropped. Thus, the multiverse will avoid domination if the two types of vacuum have a common ancestor. BB by Boltzmann brains in vacuum j if κj /κj 1, the Denoting the common ancestor vacuum as A, we as- same criterion found for the first class. ≪ sume that it can decay to an anthropic vacuum i by a The third class — non-anthropic vacua that can only chain of transitions transition to an anthropic state via at least one sup- A k ... k i , (78) pressed transition — presumably includes many states → 1 → → n → with very low vacuum energy density. The dominant vac- uum of our toy landscape models certainly belongs to this and also to a Boltzmann-brain-producing vacuum j by a class, but we do not know of anything that completely chain excludes the possibility that the dominant vacuum might belong to the second or fourth classes. That is, perhaps A ℓ1 ... ℓm j . (79) → → → → the dominant vacuum is anthropic, or decays to an an- thropic vacuum. If there is a dominant vacuum system, From the sequence of Eq. (78) and the bound of Eq. (74), as described in Subsection IVE, then κi q, and the we can infer that dominant vacua could belong to the first class,≫ as well as to either of classes (2) and (3). (κ s ) (k s )B 1 B 1 2 B . (80) i i ≥ A A A→k k →k kn→i To bound the Boltzmann brain production in this class, we consider two possible criteria. To formulate the first, To make use of the sequence of Eq. (79) we will want a we can again use Eqs. (75) and (76), but this time the bound that goes in the opposite direction, for which will sequence must include at least one suppressed transition, need to require additional assumptions. Starting with presumably an upward jump. Let us therefore denote the Eq. (9), we first require q κi, which is plausible pro- vided that vacuum i is not≪ the dominant vacuum. Next branching ratio for this suppressed transition as Bup, not- we look at the sum over j on the right-hand side, and we ing that Bup will appear in the denominator of Eq. (76). call the transition j i “significant” if its contribution Of course, the sequence of Eq. (75) might involve more → than one suppressed transition, but in any case the prod- to the sum is within a factor roughly of order one of the uct of these very small branching ratios in the denomi- entire sum. (The sum over j is the sum over sources for vacuum i, so a transition j i is “significant” if pocket nator can be called Bup, and all the other factors can be → taken as roughly of order one. Thus, a landscape con- universes of vacuum j are a significant source of pocket taining a vacuum j of the third class avoids Boltzmann universes of vacuum i.) It follows that for any significant transition j i for which q κ , brain domination if → ≪ i BB κj (κ s ) (κ s )Z B (κ s )Z , (81) 1 , (77) i i ≤ j j max j→i ≤ j j max Bup κj ≪ where Zmax denotes the largest number that is roughly in agreement with the results obtained for the dominant 14 of order one. By our conventions, Zmax = exp(10 ). If vacua in the toy landscape models in the previous sub- we assume now that all the transitions in the sequence of sections. Eq. (79) are significant, and that q is negligible in each A few comments are in order. First, if the only sup- case, then pressed transition is the first, then Bup = κup/κj, and the above criterion simplifies to κBB/κ 1. Second, (κ s ) (k s )Zm+1 . (82) j up ≪ j j ≤ A A max 15

Using the bounds from Eqs. (80) and (82), the Boltzmann in that case Boltzmann brain domination can be avoided brain ratio is bounded by if

BB BB BB BB κ s κ s κi Bupκi . (84) Nj j j j j ≪ NO ∼ κik sk ≤ κi si −SD Ni k However, as pointed out in Ref. [43], Bup e (see m+1 BB Eq. (57)) is comparable to the inverse of the∝ recurrence Zmax κj . (83) time, while in an anthropic vacuum one would expect the ≤ BA→k1 Bk1→k2 Bk →i κj n Boltzmann brain nucleation rate to be much faster than But all the factors on the right are roughly of order one, once per recurrence time. except that some of the branching ratios in the denomi- To summarize, the domination of Boltzmann brains nator might be smaller, if they correspond to suppressed can be avoided by first of all requiring that all vacuum transitions. If Bup denotes the product of branching ra- states in the landscape obey the relation tios for all the suppressed transitions shown in the de- BB nominator (i.e., all suppressed transitions in the sequence κj 9 1 . (85) of Eq. (78)), then the bound reduces to Eq. (77). κj ≪ To summarize, the Boltzmann brains in a non- That is, the rate of nucleation of Boltzmann brains in anthropic vacuum j can be bounded if there is an an- each vacuum must be less than the rate of nucleation, cestor vacuum A that can decay to j through a chain in that same vacuum, of bubbles of other phases. For of significant transitions for which q κ for each ℓ anthropic vacua i with κ q, this criterion is enough. vacuum, as in the sequence of Eq. (79),≪ and if the i Otherwise, the Boltzmann brains≫ that might be produced same ancestor vacuum can decay to an anthropic vac- in vacuum j must be bounded by the normal observers uum through a sequence of transitions as in Eq. (78). forming in some vacuum i, which must be related to j The Boltzmann brains will never dominate provided that through decay chains. Specifically, there must be a vac- κBB/(B κ ) 1, where B is the product of all sup- j up j up uum A that can decay through a chain to an anthropic pressed branching≪ ratios in the sequence of Eq. (78). vacuum i, i.e. Finally, the fourth class of vacua consists of anthropic A k ... k i , (86) vacua i with decay rate κi q, a class which could be → 1 → → n → empty. For this class Eq. (29)≃ may not be very useful, where either A = j, or else A can decay to j through a since the quantity (κ q) in the denominator could be i sequence very small. Yet, as in the− two previous classes, this class can be treated by using Eq. (76), where in this case the A ℓ1 ... ℓm j . (87) vacuum i can be the same as j or different, although the → → → → case i = j requires n 1. Again, if the sequence con- In the above sequence we insist that κj q and that ≥ ≫ tains only unsuppressed transitions, then the multiverse κl q for each vacuum ℓp in the chain, and that each ≫ avoids domination by Boltzmann brains in vacuum i if transition must be “significant,” in the sense that pockets BB κ /κ 1. If upward jumps are needed to reach an of type ℓp must be a significant source of pockets of type i i ≪ anthropic vacuum, whether it is the vacuum i again or a ℓp+1. (More precisely, a transition from vacuum j to i distinct vacuum j, then the Boltzmann brains in vacuum is “significant” if it contributes a fraction that is roughly BB i will never dominate if κi /(Bup κi) 1. of order one to j κij sj in Eq. (9).) For these cases, the ≪ bound which ensures that the Boltzmann brains in vac- The conditions described in the previous paragraph uum j are dominated by the normal observers in vacuum are very difficult to meet, so if the fourth class is not i is given by empty, Boltzmann brain domination is hard to avoid. These vacua have the slowest decay rates in the land- BB κj scape, κ q, so it seems plausible that they have very 1 , (88) i B κ ≪ low energy≈ densities, precluding the possibility of decay- up j ing to an anthropic vacuum via unsuppressed transitions; where Bup is the product of any suppressed branching ratios in the sequence of Eq. (86). If all the transi- tions in Eq. (86) are unsuppressed, this bound reduces to Eq. (85). If j is anthropic, the case A = j = i is 9 Note, however, that the argument breaks down if the sequences in allowed, provided that n 1. either of Eqs. (78) or (79) become too long. For the choices that ≥ we have made, a factor of Zmax is unimportant in the calculation The conditions described above are sufficient to guar- BB NO 100 16 of N /N , but Zmax = exp(10 ) can be significant. Thus, antee that Boltzmann brains do not dominate over nor- for our choices we can justify the dropping of O(100) factors that mal observers in the multiverse, but without further as- are roughly of order one, but not more than that. For choices sumptions there is no way to know if they are necessary. appropriate to smaller estimates of ΓBB, however, the number of factors that can be dropped will be many orders of magnitude All of the conditions that we have discussed are quasi- larger. local, in the sense that they do not require any global 16

picture of the landscape of vacua. For each of the above there is a dominant vacuum system, then κk1D is replaced arguments, the Boltzmann brains in one type of vacuum j byκ ¯ α κ , where the D are the components k1D ≡ ℓ ℓ k1Dℓ ℓ are bounded by the normal observers in some type of vac- of the dominant vacuum system, and the αℓ are defined uum i that is either the same type, or directly related to by generalizing Eqs. (67) and (68).10 Applying Eq. (9) it through decay chains. Thus, there was no need to dis- to the next transition, k1 k2 we find cuss the importance of the vacua j and i compared to the → rest of the landscape as a whole. The quasi-local nature κk2 sk2 = Bk1→k2 κk1 sk1 + ... κk1 sk1 , (91) of these conditions, however, guarantees that they can- ∼ not be necessary to avoid the domination by Boltzmann where we have used the fact that Bk1→k2 is roughly of brains. If two vacua j and i are both totally insignificant order one, and that the transition is significant. Iterating, in the multiverse, then it will always be possible for the we have Boltzmann brains in vacuum j to overwhelm the normal observers in vacuum i, while the multiverse as a whole κi si κkn skn κup sD . (92) ∼ ∼ could still be dominated by normal observers in other vacua. Since the expression on the right is independent of i, we conclude that under these assumptions any two non- We have so far avoided making global assumptions dominant anthropic and/or Boltzmann-brain-producing about the landscape of vacua, because such assumptions vacua i and j have equal values of κs, up to a factor that are generally hazardous. While it may be possible to is roughly of order one: make statements that are true for the bulk of vacua in the landscape, in this context the statements are not use- κ s κ s . (93) ful unless they are true for all the vacua of the land- j j ∼ i i scape. Although the number of vacua in the landscape, NO 500 Using Eq. (22) and assuming as always that nik is often estimated at 10 [51], is usually considered to be roughly of order one, Eq. (93) implies that any two non- incredibly large, the number is nonetheless roughly of dominant anthropic vacua i and j have comparable num- order one compared to the numbers involved in the esti- bers of ordinary observers, up to a factor that is roughly mates of Boltzmann brain nucleation rates and vacuum of order one: decay rates. Thus, if a single vacuum produces Boltz- mann brains in excess of required bounds, the Boltzmann NO NO . (94) brains from that vacuum could easily overwhelm all the Nj ∼ Ni normal observers in the multiverse. The dominant vacuum could conceivably be anthropic, Recognizing that our conclusions could be faulty, we but we begin by considering the case in which it is not. can nonetheless adopt some reasonable assumptions to In that case all anthropic vacua are equivalent, so the see where they lead. We can assume that the multiverse Boltzmann brains produced in any vacuum j will either is sourced by either a single dominant vacuum, or by a dominate the multiverse or not depending on whether dominant vacuum system. We can further assume that they dominate the normal observers in an arbitrary an- every anthropic and/or Boltzmann-brain-producing vac- thropic vacuum i. Combining Eqs. (22), (24), (9), and uum i can be reached from the dominant vacuum (or (93), and omitting irrelevant factors, we find that for any dominant vacuum system) by a single significant upward jump, with a rate proportional to e−SD , followed by some number of significant, unsuppressed transitions, all of which have rates κ q and branching ratios that are 10 k ≫ In more detail, the concept of a dominant vacuum system is rele- roughly of order one: vant when there is a set of vacua ℓ that can have rapid transitions within the set, but only very slow transitions connecting these D k1 ... kn i . (89) vacua to the rest of the landscape. As a zeroth order approxi- → → → → mation one can neglect all transitions connecting these vacua to ≫ We will further assume that each non-dominant an- the rest of the landscape, and assume that κℓ q, so Eq. (9) thropic and/or Boltzmann-brain-producing vacuum i has takes the form κℓ sℓ = X Bℓℓ′ κℓ′ sℓ′ . a decay rate κ q, but we need not assume that all of ′ i ≫ ℓ the κi are comparable to each other. With these assump- Here B ′ ≡ κ ′ /κ ′ is the branching ratio within this restricted BB NO ℓℓ ℓℓ ℓ tions, the estimate of / becomes very simple. subspace, where κℓ = ′ κℓ′ℓ is summed only within the dom- Pℓ ′ N N ′ ′ inant vacuum system, so Pℓ Bℓℓ = 1 for all ℓ . Bℓℓ is non- Applying Eq. (9) to the first transition of Eq. (89), negative, and if we assume also that it is irreducible, then the Perron-Frobenius theorem guarantees that it has a nondegen- κ s κ s κ s , (90) k1 k1 ∼ k1D D ∼ up D erate eigenvector vℓ of eigenvalue 1, with positive components. From the above equation κℓ sℓ ∝ vℓ, and then where we use κup to denote the rate of a typical transition sℓ vℓ αℓ = = v ′ . D k , assuming that they are all equal to each other ′ s ′ ℓ Pℓ ℓ κℓ X → κ ′ up to a factor roughly of order one. Here indicates ℓ′ ℓ equality up to a factor that is roughly of order∼ one. If 17 non-dominant vacuum j V. BOLTZMANN BRAIN NUCLEATION AND VACUUM DECAY RATES BB κBBs κBBs κBB Nj j j j j j NO . (95) ∼ κik sk ∼ κisi ∼ κj A. Boltzmann Brain Nucleation Rate Ni k Thus, given the assumptions described above, for any non-dominant vacuum j the necessary and sufficient con- Boltzmann brains emerge from the vacuum as large dition to avoid the domination of the multiverse by Boltz- quantum fluctuations. In particular, they can be mod- mann brains in vacuum j is given by eled as localized fluctuations of some mass M, in the thermal bath of a de Sitter vacuum with temperature κBB TdS = HΛ/2π [1]. The Boltzmann brain nucleation rate j 1 . (96) is then roughly estimated by the Boltzmann suppression κj ≪ factor [7, 9],

Γ e−M/TdS , (99) For Boltzmann brains formed in the dominant vacuum, BB ∼ we can again find out if they dominate the multiverse by determining whether they dominate the normal ob- where our goal is to estimate only the exponent, not the servers in an arbitrary anthropic vacuum i. Repeating prefactor. Eq. (99) gives an estimate for the nucleation the above analysis for vacuum D instead of vacuum j, rate of a Boltzmann brain of mass M in any particular quantum state, but we will normally describe the Boltz- using Eq. (92) to relate si to sD, we have mann brain macroscopically. Thus ΓBB should be mul- SBB BB BB BB BB tiplied by the number of microstates e corresponding D κD sD κD sD κD to the macroscopic description, where SBB is the entropy N NO . (97) ∼ κik sk ∼ κisi ∼ κup Ni k of the Boltzmann brain. Thus we expect Thus, for a single dominant vacuum D or a dominant Γ e−M/TdS eSBB = e−F/TdS , (100) BB ∼ vacuum system with members Di, the necessary and suf- where F = M T S is the free energy of the Boltz- ficient conditions to avoid the domination of the multi- − dS BB verse by these Boltzmann brains is given by mann brain. Eq. (100) should be accurate as long as the de Sit- κBB κBB ter temperature is well-defined, which will be the case D 1 or Di 1 . (98) κup ≪ κup ≪ as long as the Schwarzschild horizon is small compared to the de Sitter horizon radius. Furthermore, we shall As discussed after Eq. (84), probably the only way to neglect the effect of the gravitational potential energy of BB de Sitter space on the Boltzmann brain, which requires satisfy this condition is to require that κD = 0. that the Boltzmann brain be small compared to the de If the dominant vacuum is anthropic, then the con- Sitter horizon. Thus we assume clusions are essentially the same, but the logic is more involved. For the case of a dominant vacuum system, −1 M/4π < R HΛ , (101) we distinguish between the possibility of vacua being ≪ “strongly” or “mildly” anthropic, as discussed in Sub- where the first inequality assumes that Boltzmann brains section IV E. “Strongly anthropic” means that normal cannot be black holes. The general situation, which al- −1 observers are formed by tunneling within the dominant lows for M R HΛ , will be discussed in Appendix A vacuum system D, while “mildly anthropic” implies that and in Ref.∼ [52].∼ normal observers are formed by tunneling, but only from While the nucleation rate is proportional to eSBB , this outside D. Any model that leads to a strongly anthropic factor is negligible for any Boltzmann brain made of dominant vacuum would be unacceptable, because al- atoms like those in our universe. The entropy of such most all observers would live in pockets with a maximum atoms is bounded by reheat energy density that is small compared to the vac- uum energy density. With a single anthropic dominant S . 3M/mn , (102) vacuum, or with one or more mildly anthropic vacua within a dominant vacuum system, the normal observers where mn is the nucleon mass. Indeed, the actual value in the dominant vacuum would be comparable in num- of SBB is much smaller than this upper bound because of ber (up to factors roughly of order one) to those in other the complex organization of the Boltzmann brain. Mean- anthropic vacua, so they would have no significant effect while, to prevent the Boltzmann brain from being de- on the ratio of Boltzmann brains to normal observers in stroyed by pair production, we require that TdS mn. the multiverse. An anthropic vacuum would also pro- Thus, for these Boltzmann brains the entropy factor≪eSBB duce Boltzmann brains, however, so Eq. (98) would have is irrelevant compared to the Boltzmann suppression fac- to somehow be satisfied for κBB = 0. tor. D 18

To estimate the nucleation rate for Boltzmann brains, Until now, we have concentrated on Boltzmann brains we need at least a crude description of what constitutes that are very similar to human brains. However a com- a Boltzmann brain. There are many possibilities. We mon assumption in the philosophy of mind is that of argued in the introduction to this paper that a theory substrate-independence. Therefore, pressing onward, we that predicts the domination of Boltzmann brains over study the possibility that a Boltzmann brain can be any normal observers would be overwhelmingly disfavored by device capable of emulating the thoughts of a human our continued observation of an orderly world, in which brain. In other words, we treat the brain essentially the events that we observe have a logical relationship as a highly sophisticated computer, with logical opera- to the events that we remember. In making this argu- tions that can be duplicated by many different systems ment, we considered a class of Boltzmann brains that of hardware.11 share exactly the memories and thought processes of a With this in mind, from here out we drop the assump- particular normal observer at some chosen instant. For tion that Boltzmann brains are made of the same mate- these purposes the memory of the Boltzmann brain can rials as human brains. Instead, we attempt to find an consist of random bits that just happen to match those upper bound on the probability of creation of a more of the normal observer, so there are no requirements on generalized computing device, specified by its informa- the history of the Boltzmann brain. Furthermore, the tion content IBB, which is taken to be comparable to the Boltzmann brain need only survive long enough to regis- information content of a human brain. ter one observation after the chosen instant, so it is not required to live for more than about a second. We will To clarify the meaning of information content, we can refer to Boltzmann brains that meet these requirements model an information storage device as a system with as minimal Boltzmann brains. N possible microstates. Smax = ln N is then the max- imum entropy that the system can have, the entropy While an overabundance of minimal Boltzmann brains corresponding to the state of complete uncertainty of is enough to cause a theory to be discarded, we nonethe- microstate. To store B bits of information in the de- less find it interesting to discuss a wide range of Boltz- vice, we can imagine a simple model in which 2B distin- mann brain possibilities. We will start with very large guishable macroscopic states of the system are specified, Boltzmann brains, discussing the minimal Boltzmann each of which will be used to represent one assignment brains last. of the bits. Each macroscopic state can be modeled as We first consider Boltzmann brains much like us, who a mixture of N/2B microstates, and hence has entropy B evolved in stellar systems like ours, in vacua with low- S = ln(N/2 )= Smax B ln 2. Motivated by this simple energy particle physics like ours, but allowing for a de model, one defines the− information content of any macro- Sitter Hubble radius as small as a few astronomical units scopic state of entropy S as the difference between Smax or so. These Boltzmann brains evolved in their stellar and S, where Smax is the maximum entropy that the de- systems on a time scale similar to the evolution of life on vice can attain. Applying this definition to a Boltzmann Earth, so they are in every way like us, except that, when brain, we write they perform cosmological observations, they find them- selves in an empty, vacuum-dominated universe. These “Boltzmann solar systems” nucleate at a rate of roughly Γ exp( 1085) , (103) BB ∼ − 30 −1 −1 IBB = SBB,max SBB , (106) where we have set M 10 kg and HΛ = (2πTdS) − 1012 m. This nucleation∼ rate is fantastically small; we∼ found it, however, by considering the extravagant possi- bility of nucleating an entire Boltzmann solar system. Next, we can consider the nucleation of an isolated brain, with a physical construction that is roughly similar where IBB/ln 2 is the information content measured in −1 bits. to our own brains. If we take M 1 kg and HΛ = −1 ∼ (2πTdS) 1 m, then the corresponding Boltzmann As discussed in Ref. [53], the only known substrate- ∼ brain nucleation rate is independent limit on the storage of information is the 43 Bekenstein bound. It states that, for an asymptotically ΓBB exp( 10 ) . (104) ∼ − flat background, the entropy of any physical system of If the construction of the brain is similar to ours, however, then it could not function if the tidal forces resulted in a relative acceleration from one end to the other that is much greater than the gravitational acceleration g on the 11 Note that the validity of the assumption of substrate- −1 8 surface of the Earth. This requires HΛ & 10 m, giving independence of mind is not entirely self-evident. Some of us a Boltzmann brain nucleation rate are skeptical of identifying human consciousness with operations of a generic substrate-independent computer, but accept it as a Γ exp( 1051) . (105) working hypothesis for the purpose of this paper. BB ∼ − 19

12 −1 size R and energy M is bounded by taking our assumption R HΛ to the boundary of its validity. Thus we write the≪ Boltzmann brain production S SBek 2πMR . (107) rate ≤ ≡

One can use this bound in de Sitter space as well if −aIBB −1 ΓBB e , (111) the size of the system is sufficiently small, R HΛ , ≤ so that the system does not “know” about the≪ horizon. where a (RH )−1, the value of which is of order a A possible generalization of the Bekenstein bound for Λ few. In Appendix≡ A we explore the case in which the R = (H−1) was proposed in Ref. [54]; we will study this Λ Schwarzschild radius, the Boltzmann brain radius, and and otherO possibilities in Appendix A and in Ref. [52]. the de Sitter horizon radius are all about equal, in which To begin, however, we will discuss the simplest case, −1 case Eq. (111) holds with a = 2. R HΛ , so that we can focus on the most impor- tant≪ issues before dealing with the complexities of more The bound of Eq. (111) can be compared to the es- general results. timate of the Boltzmann brain production rate, ΓBB e−SBB , which follows from Eq. (2.13) of Freivogel and∼ Using Eq. (106), the Boltzmann brain nucleation rate Lippert, in Ref. [55]. The authors of Ref. [55] explained of Eq. (100) can be rewritten as that by SBB they mean not the entropy, but the num- 2πM ber of degrees of freedom, which is roughly equal to the ΓBB exp + SBB,max IBB , (108) number of particles in a Boltzmann brain. This estimate ∼ − HΛ − appears similar to our result, if one equates SBB to IBB, which is clearly maximized by choosing M as small as or to a few times IBB. Freivogel and Lippert describe possible. The Bekenstein bound, however, implies that this relation as a lower bound on the nucleation rate for Boltzmann brains, commenting that it can be used as an SBB,max SBek and therefore M SBB,max/(2πR). Thus ≤ ≥ estimate of the nucleation rate for vacua with “reason- ably cooperative particle physics.” Here we will explore SBB,max in some detail the question of whether this bound can be ΓBB exp + SBB,max IBB . (109) ≤ − RHΛ − used as an estimate of the nucleation rate. While we will not settle this issue here, we will discuss evidence that −1 Since R

−1 HΛ , leads to the following condition: E. In all cases, the bound is saturated in a limit where Smax = (1). Meanwhile, as we shall argue below, the M R H−1 . (112) requiredO value of S should be greater than 1016. ∼ ∼ Λ max If the Bekenstein bound is saturated, this leads to the The present authors are aware of only one example of a physical system that may saturate the Bekenstein bound following relations between I , H , and M: BB Λ and at the same time store sufficient information I to −1 −2 emulate a human brain. This may happen if the total IBB MR MHΛ HΛ . (113) ∼ ∼ ∼ number of particle species with mass smaller than HΛ is 16 greater than IBB & 10 . No realistic examples of such A second potential mechanism of Boltzmann brain sta- theories are known to us, although some authors have bilization is to surround it by a domain wall with a sur- speculated about similar possibilities [57]. face tension σ, which would provide pressure preventing the exponential expansion of the brain. An investiga- If Boltzmann brains cannot saturate the Bekenstein tion of this situation reveals that one cannot saturate bound, they will be more massive than indicated in the Bekenstein bound using this mechanism unless there Eq. (110), and their rate of production will be smaller −aIBB is a specific relation between IBB, HΛ, and σ [52]: than e . To put another possible bound on the probability of σ I H3 . (114) ∼ BB Λ Boltzmann brain production, let us analyze a simple model based on an ideal gas of massless particles. Drop- If σ is less than this magnitude, it cannot prevent the ex- ping all numerical factors, we consider a box of size R pansion, while a larger σ increases the mass and therefore filled with a gas with maximum entropy S = (RT )3 prevents saturation of the Bekenstein bound. max 3 4 4/3 and energy E = R T = Smax/R, where T is the temper- Regardless of the details leading to Eqs. (113) and ature and we assume there is not an enormous number (114), the important point is that both of them lead to of particle species. The probability of its creation can be constraints on the vacuum hosting the Boltzmann brain. estimated as follows:

For example, the Boltzmann brain stabilized by grav- 4/3 −E/HΛ SBB Smax itational attraction can be produced at a rate approach- ΓBB e e exp , (115) −aIBB −2 ∼ ∼ −HΛR ing e only if IBB HΛ . For a given value of IBB, 16 ∼ say IBB 10 (see the discussion below), this result applies only∼ to vacua with a particular vacuum energy, where we have neglected the Boltzmann brain entropy −16 4/3 Λ 10 . Similarly, according to Eq. (114), for Boltz- factor, since SBB Smax Smax. This probability is ≤ ≪−1 mann∼ brains with I 1016 contained inside a domain maximized by taking R H , which yields BB ∼ Λ wall in a vacuum with Λ∼ 10−120, the Bekenstein bound 4/3 ∼ −Smax on ΓBB cannot be reached unless the tension of the do- ΓBB . e . (116) main wall is incredibly small, σ 10−164. Thus, the maximal Boltzmann brain production∼ rate e−aIBB sat- In case the full information capacity of the gas is used, urating the Bekenstein bound cannot be reached∼ unless one can also write Boltzmann brains are produced on a narrow hypersurface 4/3 −IBB in the landscape. ΓBB . e . (117) This conclusion by itself does not eliminate the dan- For I 1, this estimate leads to a much stronger BB ≫ ger of a rapid Boltzmann brain production rate, ΓBB suppression of Boltzmann brain production as compared e−aIBB . Given the vast number of vacua in the landscape,∼ to our previous estimate, Eq. (111). it seems plausible that this bound could actually be met. Of course, such a hot gas of massless particles can- If this is the case, Eq. (111) offers a stunning increase not think — indeed it is not stable in the sense outlined over previous estimates of ΓBB. below Eq. (111) — so we must add more parts to this Setting aside the issue of Boltzmann brain stabil- construction. Yet it seems likely that this will only de- ity, one can also question the assumption of Bekenstein crease the Boltzmann brain production rate. As a par- bound saturation that is necessary to achieve the rather tial test of this conjecture, one can easily check that if high nucleation rate that is indicated by Eq. (111). Of instead of a gas of massless particles we consider a gas course black holes saturate this bound, but we assume of massive particles, the resulting suppression of Boltz- that a black hole cannot think. Even if a black hole mann brain production will be stronger. Therefore in our can think, it would still be an open question whether subsequent estimates we shall assume that Eq. (117) rep- this information processing could make use of a substan- resents our next “line of defense” against the possibility tial fraction of the degrees of freedom associated with of Boltzmann brain domination, after the one given by the black hole entropy. A variety of other physical sys- Eq. (111). One should note that this is a rather delicate tems are considered in Ref. [56], where the validity of issue; see for example a discussion of several possibili- S (E) 2πER is studied as a function of energy ties to approach the Bekenstein bound in Ref. [58]. A max ≤ 21

more detailed discussion of this issue will be provided in Eq. (111):

Ref. [52]. 16 −10 ΓBB . e . (118) Having related ΓBB to the information content IBB of the brain, we now need to estimate IBB. How much in- If, however, the Bekenstein bound cannot be reached for formation storage must a computer have to be able to systems with IBB 1, then it might be more accurate perform all the functions of the human brain? Since no to use instead the≫ ideal gas model of Eq. (117), yielding one can write a computer program that comes close to imitating a human brain, this is not an easy question to 21 Γ . e−10 . (119) answer. BB One way to proceed is to examine the human brain, Obviously, there are many uncertainties involved in the with the goal of estimating its capacities based on its numerical estimates of the required value of I . Our es- 14 BB biological structure. The human brain contains 10 timate I 1016 concerns the information stored in ∼ 11 BB synapses that may in principle connect to any of 10 the human brain∼ that appears to be relevant for cogni- ∼ 14 neurons [59], suggesting that its information content tion. It certainly does not include all the information might be roughly I 1015–1016. (We are assuming BB ∼ that would be needed to physically construct a human here that the logical functions of the brain depend on the brain, and it therefore does not allow for the information connections among neurons, and not for example on their that might be needed to physically construct a device precise locations, cellular structures, or other information that could emulate the human brain. 15 It is also possi- that might be necessary to actually construct a brain.) ble that extra mass might be required for the mechanical A minimal Boltzmann brain is only required to simulate structure of the emulator, to provide the analogues of a the workings of a real brain for about a second, but with computer’s wires, insulation, cooling systems, etc. On neurons firing typically at 10 to 100 times a second, it is the other hand, it is conceivable that a Boltzmann brain plausible that a substantial fraction of the brain is needed can be relevant even if it has fewer capabilities than what even for only one second of activity. Of course the actual we called the minimal Boltzmann brain. In particular, number of required bits might be somewhat less. if our main requirement is that the Boltzmann brain is An alternative approach is to try to determine how to have the same “perceptions” as a human brain for much information the brain processes, even if one does just one second, then one may argue that this can be not understand much about what the processing involves. In Ref. [60], Landauer attempted to estimate the total content of a person’s long-term memory, using a variety 15 That is, the actual construction of a brain-like device would pre- of experiments. He concluded that a person remembers sumably require large amounts of information that are not part only about 2 bits/second, for a lifetime total in the vicin- of the schematic “circuit diagram” of the brain. Thus there may ity of 109 bits. In a subsequent paper [61], however, he be some significance to the fact that a billion years of evolu- emphatically denied that this number is relevant to the tion on Earth has not produced a human brain with fewer than about 1027 particles, and hence of order 1027 units of entropy. information requirements of a “real or theoretical cog- In counting the information in the synapses, for example, we nitive processor,” because such a device “would have so counted only the information needed to specify which neurons much more to do than simply record new information.” are connected to which, but nothing about the actual path of the axons and dendrites that complete the connections. These Besides long-term memory, one might be interested in are nothing like nearest-neighbor couplings, but instead axons the total amount of information a person receives but from a single neuron can traverse large fractions of the brain, re- does not memorize. A substantial part of this informa- sulting in an extremely intertwined network [62]. To specify even tion is visual; it can be estimated by the information the topology of these connections, still ignoring the precise loca- tions, could involve much more than 1016 bits. For example, the stored on high definition DVDs watched continuously on synaptic “wiring” that connects the neurons will in many cases several monitors over the span of a hundred years. The form closed loops. A specification of the connections would pre- total information received would be about 1016 bits. sumably require a topological winding number for every pair of closed loops in the network. The number of bits required to spec- Since this number is similar to the number obtained ify these winding numbers would be proportional to the square above by counting synapses, it is probably as good an of the number of closed loops, which would be proportional to estimate as we can make for a minimal Boltzmann brain. the square of the number of synapses. Thus, the structural in- 28 If the Bekenstein bound can be saturated, then the es- formation could be something like Istruct ∼ b × 10 , where b is a proportionality constant that is probably a few orders of timated Boltzmann brain nucleation rate for the most magnitude less than 1. In estimating the resulting suppression favorable vacua in the landscape would be given by of the nucleation rate, there is one further complication: since structural information of this sort presumably has no influence on brain function, these choices would contribute to the multi- plicity of Boltzmann brain microstates, thereby multiplying the Istruct 14 11 nucleation rate by e . There would still be a net suppres- Note that the specification of one out of 10 neurons requires ∝ −(a−1)Istruct 11 sion, however, with Eq. (111) leading to ΓBB e , log2 10
= 36.5 bits. where a is generically greater than 1. See Appendix A for further discussion of the value of a. 22

14 18 achieved using much less than 10 synapses. And if one Planck mass, mPlanck 1/√8πG 2.4 10 GeV decreases the required time to a much smaller value re- 4.3 10−6 gram, we find≡ that ΓBB ≈< exp× √2I ≈ × reheat − BB ∼ quired for a single computation to be performed by a exp( 108). Although this is not nearly as much sup- human brain, the required amount of information stored pression− as in the previous case, it is clearly enough to in a Boltzmann brain may become many orders of mag- guarantee that Eq. (120) will be satisfied. nitude smaller than 1016. For the diffuse computer, we can consider an ideal gas We find that regardless of how one estimates the infor- of massless particles, as discussed in Eqs. (115)–(117). mation in a human brain, if Boltzmann brains can be con- The system would have approximately Smax particles, 4/3 structed so as to come near the limit of Eq. (111), their and a total energy of E = Smax/R, so the Boltzmann sup- nucleation rate would provide stringent requirements on 4/3 pression factor is exp Smax/ (RT ) . The Boltz- vacuum decay rates in the landscape. On the other hand, − reheat if no such physical construction exists, we are left with mann brain production can occur at any time during the the less dangerous bound of Eq. (117), perhaps even fur- reheating process, so there is nothing wrong with consid- ther softened by the speculations described in Footnote ering Boltzmann brain production in our universe at the 16 15. Note that none of these bounds is based upon a re- present time. For Treheat =2.7 K and Smax = 10 , this alistic model of a Boltzmann brain. For example, the formula implies that the exponent has magnitude 1 for 4/3 −1 nucleation of an actual human brain is estimated at the R = SmaxTreheat 200 light-years. Thus, the formula vastly smaller rate of Eq. (105). The conclusions of this suggests that diffuse-gas-cloud≈ Boltzmann brains of ra- paragraph apply to the causal patch measures [24, 25] as dius 200 light-years can be thermally produced in our well as the scale-factor cutoff measure. universe, at the present time, without suppression! If this estimate were valid, then Boltzmann brains would In Section III we discussed the possibility of Boltzmann almost certainly dominate the universe. brain production during reheating, stating that this pro- cess would not be a danger. We postponed the numeri- We argue, however, that the gas clouds described above cal discussion, however, so we now return to that issue. would have no possibility of computing, because the According to Eq. (26), the multiverse will be safe from thermal noise would preclude any storage or transfer Boltzmann brains formed during reheating provided that of information. The entire device has energy of order E T , which is divided among approximately 1016 ΓBB ∆τ BB nNO (120) ≈ reheat reheat,ik reheat,ik ≪ ik massless particles. The mean particle energy is there- BB fore 1016 times smaller than that of the thermal particles holds for every pair of vacua i and k, where Γreheat,ik is the peak Boltzmann brain nucleation rate in a pocket in the background radiation, and the density of Boltz- 48 of vacuum i that forms in a parent vacuum of type k, mann brain particles is 10 times smaller than the back- BB ground. To function, it seems reasonable that the diffuse ∆τreheat,ik is the proper time available for such nucle- ation, and nNO is the volume density of normal observers computer needs an energy per particle that is at least ik comparable to the background, which means that the in these pockets, working in the approximation that all 16 observers form at the same time. suppression factor is exp( 10 ) or smaller. Thus, we conclude that for all three− cases, the ratio of Boltzmann Compared to the previous discussion about late-time brains to normal observers is totally negligible. BB de Sitter space nucleation, here Γreheat,ik can be much larger, since the temperature during reheating can be Finally, let us also mention the possibility that Boltz- mann brains might form as quantum fluctuations in sta- much larger than HΛ. On the other hand, safety from Boltzmann brains requires the late-time nucleation rate ble Minkowski vacua. String theory implies at least the to be small compared to the potentially very small vac- existence of a 10D decompactified Minkowski vacuum; uum decay rates, while in this case the quantity on the Minkowski vacua of lower dimension are not excluded, right-hand side of Eq. (120) is not exceptionally small. In but they require precise fine tunings for which motiva- discussing this issue, we will consider in sequence three tion is lacking. While quantum fluctuations in Minkowski descriptions of the Boltzmann brain: a human-like brain, space are certainly less classical than in de Sitter space, a near-black hole computer, and a diffuse computer. they still might be relevant. The possibility of Boltz- mann brains in Minkowski space has been suggested by The nucleation of human-like Boltzmann brains during Page [5, 7, 41]. If ΓBB is nonzero in such vacua, re- reheating was discussed in Ref. [28], where it was pointed gardless of how small it might be, Boltzmann brains will out that such brains could not function at temperatures always dominate in the scale-factor cutoff measure as we much higher than 300 K, and that the nucleation rate have defined it. Even if Minkowski vacua cannot support for a 100 kg object at this temperature is exp( 1040). Boltzmann brains, there might still be a serious problem ∼ − This suppression is clearly more than enough to ensure with what might be called “Boltzmann islands.” That is, that Eq. (120) is satisfied. it is conceivable that a fluctuation in a Minkowski vac- uum can produce a small region of an anthropic vacuum For a near-black hole computer with IBB SBB,max 1016, the minimum mass is 600 grams. If≈ we assume≈ with a Boltzmann brain inside it. The anthropic vacuum that the reheat temperature is no more than the reduced could perhaps even have a different dimension than its 23

Minkowski parent. If such a process has a nonvanish- Therefore, we begin with an investigation of the sim- ing probability to occur, it will also give rise to Boltz- plest decay modes due to the scalar field tunneling. The mann brain domination in the scale-factor cutoff mea- transition to the 10d Minkowski vacuum was analyzed in sure. These problems would be shared by all measures Ref. [64], where it was shown that the decay rate κ is that assign an infinite weight to stable Minkowski vacua. always greater than There is, however, one further complication which might allow Boltzmann brains to form in Minkowski space with- 24π2 κ & e−SD = exp . (121) out dominating the multiverse. If one speculates about − VdS Boltzmann brain production in Minkowski space, one may equally well speculate about spontaneous creation Here SD is the entropy of dS space. For our vacuum, 120 of inflationary universes there, each of which could con- SD 10 , which yields tain infinitely many normal observers [63]. These issues ∼ become complicated, and we will make no attempt to κ & e−SD exp 10120 . (122) ∼ − resolve them here. Fortunately, the estimates of ther- mal Boltzmann brain nucleation rates in de Sitter space Because of the inequality in Eq. (121), we expect the approach zero in the Minkowski space limit Λ 0, so slowest-decaying vacua to typically be those with very the issue of Boltzmann brains formed by quantum→ fluc- small vacuum energies, with the dominant vacuum en- tuations in Minkowski space can be set aside for later ergy density possibly being much smaller than the value study. Hopefully the vague idea that these fluctuations in our universe. are less classical than de Sitter space fluctuations can be The decay to AdS space (or, more accurately, a decay promoted into a persuasive argument that they are not to a collapsing open universe with a negative cosmolog- relevant. ical constant) was studied in Ref. [65]. The results of Ref. [65] are based on investigation of BPS and near- BPS domain walls in string theory, generalizing the re- sults previously obtained in = 1 supergravity [76–79]. N B. Vacuum Decay Rates Here we briefly summarize the main results obtained in Ref. [65]. Consider, for simplicity, the situation where the tun- One of the most developed approaches to the string landscape scenario is based on the KKLT construc- neling occurs between two vacua with very small vacuum energies. For the sake of argument, let us first ignore the tion [64]. In this construction, one begins by finding a set of stabilized supersymmetric AdS and Minkowski vacua. gravitational effects. Then the tunneling always takes place, as long as one vacuum has higher vacuum energy After that, an uplifting is performed, e.g. by adding a D3 brane at the tip of a conifold [64]. This uplifting makes than the other. In the limit when the difference between the vacuum energies goes to zero, the radius of the bubble the vacuum energy density of some of these vacua positive (AdS dS), but in general many vacua remain AdS, and of the new vacuum becomes infinitely large, R (the thin-wall limit). In this limit, the bubble wall→ becomes ∞ the Minkowski→ vacuum corresponding to the uncompact- ified 10d space does not become uplifted. The enormous flat, and its initial acceleration, at the moment when the number of the vacua in the landscape appears because of bubble forms, vanishes. Therefore to find the tension of the domain wall in the thin wall approximation one the large number of different topologies of the compact- ified space, and the large number of different fluxes and should solve an equation for the scalar field describing a static domain wall separating the two vacua. branes associated with it. If the difference between the values of the scalar po- There are many ways in which our low-energy dS vac- uum may decay. First of all, it can always decay into the tential in the two minima is too small, and at least one of them is AdS, then the tunneling between them may Minkowski vacuum corresponding to the uncompactified 10d space [64]. It can also decay to one of the AdS vacua be forbidden because of the gravitational effects [80]. In particular, all supersymmetric vacua, including all KKLT corresponding to the same set of branes and fluxes [65]. More generally, decays occur due to the jumps between vacua prior to the uplifting, are absolutely stable even if other vacua with lower energy density are available [81– vacua with different fluxes, or due to the brane-flux anni- hilation [55, 66–72], and may be accompanied by a change 84]. in the number of compact dimensions [73–75]. If one does It is tempting to make a closely related but opposite not take into account vacuum stabilization, these transi- statement: non-supersymmetric vacua are always unsta- tions are relatively easy to analyze [66–68]. However, in ble. However, this is not always the case. In order to the realistic situations where the moduli fields are deter- study tunneling while taking account of supersymmetry mined by fluxes, branes, etc., these transitions involve a (SUSY), one may start with two different supersymmet- simultaneous change of fluxes and various moduli fields, ric vacua in two different parts of the universe and find which makes a detailed analysis of the tunneling quite a BPS domain wall separating them. One can show that complicated. if the superpotential does not change its sign on the way 24 from one vacuum to the other, then this domain wall which can be reached, e.g., in the models of conformal plays the same role as the flat domain wall in the no- gauge mediation [86]. This implies that for our vacuum gravity case discussed above: it corresponds to the wall 56 60 of the bubble that can be formed once the supersymme- κour & exp( 10 )– exp( 10 ) . (128) − − try is broken in either of the two minima. However, if the superpotential does change its sign, then only a suf- Using Eq. (99), the Boltzmann brain nucleation rate in our universe exceeds the lower bound of the above in- ficiently large supersymmetry breaking will lead to the −9 tunneling [65, 76]. equality only if M . 10 kg. One should keep this fact in mind, but since we are On the other hand, one can imagine universes very discussing a landscape with an extremely large number similar to ours except with much larger vacuum energy of vacua, in what follows we assume that there is at least densities. The vacuum decay rate of Eq. (123) exceeds one direction in which the superpotential does not change the Boltzmann brain nucleation rate of Eq. (99) when its sign on the way from one minimum to another. In m 2 M H−1 what follows we describe tunneling in one such direction. 3/2 Λ & 109α . (129) 10−2 eV 1 kg 108 m Furthermore, we assume that at least some of the AdS vacua to which our dS vacuum may decay are uplifted Note that H−1 108 m corresponds to the smallest de much less than our vacuum. This is a generic situation, Λ ∼ since the uplifting depends on the value of the volume Sitter radius for which the tidal force on a 10 cm brain modulus, which takes different values in each vacuum. does not exceed the gravitational force on the surface of the earth, while m 10−2 eV corresponds to Λ 3/2 ∼ SUSY ∼ In this case the decay rate of a dS vacuum with low 104 GeV. Thus, it appears the decay rate of Eq. (123) energy density and broken supersymmetry can be esti- allows for Boltzmann brain domination. mated as follows [65, 85]: However, we do not really know whether the mod- 8π2α els with low ΛSUSY can successfully describe our world. κ exp , (123) ∼ −3m2 To mention one potential problem: in models of string 3/2 inflation there is a generic constraint that during the last stage of inflation one has H . m3/2 [87]. If we where m3/2 is the gravitino mass in that vacuum and α is a quantity that depends on the parameters of the assume the second and third factors of Eq. (129) can- potential. Generically one can expect α = (1), but it not be made much less than unity, then we only require O m & (102) eV to avoid Boltzmann brain domination. can also be much greater or much smaller than (1). The 3/2 O mass m is set by the scale of SUSY breaking,O While models of string inflation with H . 100 eV are not 3/2 entirely impossible in the string landscape, they are ex- 2 4 tremely difficult to construct [88]. If instead of ΛSUSY 3m3/2 =ΛSUSY , (124) 4 11 ∼ 10 GeV one uses ΛSUSY 10 GeV, as in models ∼ 3 where we recall that we use reduced Planck units, 8πG = with gravity mediation, one finds m3/2 10 GeV and ∼ 1. Therefore the decay rate can be also represented in Eq. (129) is easily satisfied. terms of the SUSY-breaking scale ΛSUSY: These arguments apply when supersymmetry violation is as large or larger than in our universe. If supersym- 24π2α κ exp , (125) metry violation is too small, atomic systems are unsta- ∼ −Λ4 SUSY ble [89], the masses of some of the particles will change dramatically, etc. However, the Boltzmann computers Note that in the KKLT theory, Λ4 corresponds to the SUSY described in the previous subsection do not necessarily depth of the AdS vacuum before the uplifting, so that rely on laws of physics similar to those in our universe (in 24π2α fact, they seem to require very different laws of physics). κ exp . (126) The present authors are unaware of an argument that ∼ − V | AdS| supersymmetry breaking must be so strong that vacuum In this form, the result for the tunneling looks very simi- decay is always faster than the Boltzmann brain produc- lar to the lower bound on the decay rate of a dS vacuum, tion rate of Eq. (118). Eq. (121), with the obvious replacements α 1 and On the other hand, up to this point we have used the V V . → | AdS| → dS estimates of the vacuum decay rate that were obtained Let us apply this result to the question of vacuum de- in Refs. [65, 85] by investigation of the transition where cay in our universe. Clearly, the implications of Eq. (125) only moduli fields changed. As we have already men- depend on the details of SUSY phenomenology. The tioned, the description of a more general class of tran- standard requirement that the gaugino mass and the sitions involving the change of branes or fluxes is much scalar masses are (1) TeV leads to the lower bound more complicated. Investigation of such processes, per- O formed in Refs. [55, 69, 70], indicates that the process 4 5 ΛSUSY & 10 –10 GeV , (127) of vacuum decay for any vacuum in the KKLT scenario 25 should be rather fast, variance [49]. In this paper, we have calculated the ratio of the total number of Boltzmann brains to the number 22 κ & exp( 10 ) . (130) of normal observers, using the scale-factor cutoff. − The general conditions under which Boltzmann brain The results of Refs. [55, 69, 70], like the results of domination is avoided were discussed in Subsection IV F, Refs. [65, 85], are not completely generic. In particu- where we described several alternative criteria that can lar, the investigations of Refs. [55, 69, 70] apply to the be used to ensure safety from Boltzmann brains. We also original version of the KKLT scenario, where the uplift- explored a set of assumptions that allow one to state con- ing of the AdS vacuum occurs due to D3 branes, but ditions that are both necessary and sufficient to avoid not to its generalization proposed in Ref. [90], where the Boltzmann brain domination. One relatively simple way uplifting is achieved due to D7 branes. Neither does it to ensure safety from Boltzmann brains is to require two apply to the recent version of dS stabilization proposed conditions: (1) in any vacuum, the Boltzmann brain nu- in Ref. [91]. Nevertheless, the results of Refs. [55, 69, 70] cleation rate must be less than the decay rate of that show that the decay rate of dS vacua in the landscape can vacuum, and (2) for any anthropic vacuum j with a de- be quite large. The rate κ & exp( 1022) is much greater − cay rate κj q, and for any non-anthropic vacuum j, than the expected rate of Boltzmann brain production one must construct≈ a sequence of transitions from j to given by Eq. (105). However, it is just a bit smaller an anthropic vacuum; if the sequence includes suppressed than the bosonic gas Boltzmann brain production rate upward jumps, then the Boltzmann brain nucleation rate of Eq. (119) and much smaller than our most dangerous in vacuum j must be less than the decay rate of vacuum upper bound on the Boltzmann brain production rate, j times the product of all the suppressed branching ra- given by Eq. (118). tios Bup that appear in the sequence. The condition (2) might not be too difficult to satisfy, since it will gener- ically involve only states with very low vacuum energy VI. CONCLUSIONS densities, which are likely to be nearly supersymmetric and therefore unlikely to support the complex structures needed for Boltzmann brains or normal observers. Con- If the observed accelerating expansion of the universe dition (2) can also be satisfied if there is no unique dom- is driven by constant vacuum energy density and if our inant vacuum, but instead a dominant vacuum system universe does not decay in the next 20 billion years or that consists of a set of nearly degenerate states, some so, then it seems cosmology must explain why we are of which are anthropic, which undergo rapid transitions “normal observers” — who evolve from non-equilibrium to each other, but only slow transitions to other states. processes in the wake of the big bang — as opposed to The condition (1) is perhaps more difficult to satisfy. Al- “Boltzmann brains” — freak observers that arise as a though nearly-supersymmetric string vacua can in princi- result of rare quantum fluctuations [2–4, 8, 9]. Put in ple be long-lived [64, 65, 76–79], with decay rates possibly experimental terms, cosmology must explain why we ob- much smaller than the Boltzmann brain nucleation rate, serve structure formation in a residual cosmic microwave recent investigations suggest that other decay channels background, as opposed to the empty, vacuum-energy may evade this problem [55, 69, 70]. However, the decay dominated environment in which almost all Boltzmann processes studied in [55, 64, 65, 69, 70, 76–79] do not brains nucleate. As vacuum-energy expansion is eter- describe some of the situations which are possible in the nal to the future, the number of Boltzmann brains in an string theory landscape, and the strongest constraints on initially-finite comoving volume is infinite. However, if the decay rate obtained in [55] are still insufficient to there exists a landscape of vacua, then rare transitions guarantee that the vacuum decay rate is always smaller to other vacua populate a diverging number of universes than the fastest estimate of the Boltzmann brain produc- in this comoving volume, creating an infinite number of tion rate, Eq. (118). normal observers. To weigh the relative number of Boltz- mann brains to normal observers requires a spacetime One must emphasize that we are discussing a rapidly measure to regulate the infinities. developing field of knowledge. Our estimates of the Boltzmann brain production rate are exponentially sensi- Recently, the scale-factor cutoff measure was shown tive to our understanding of what exactly the Boltzmann to possess a number of desirable attributes, including brain is. Similarly, the estimates of the decay rate in the avoiding the youngness paradox [29] and the Q (and landscape became possible only five years ago, and this G) catastrophe [31–33], while predicting the cosmolog- subject certainly is going to evolve. Therefore we will ical constant to be measured in a range including the mention here two logical possibilities which may emerge observed value, and excluding values more than about a as a result of the further investigation of these issues. factor of ten larger and smaller than this [40]. The scale- factor cutoff does not itself select for a longer duration If further investigation will demonstrate that the of slow-roll inflation, raising the possibility that a signif- Boltzmann brain production rate is always smaller than icant fraction of observers like us measure cosmic curva- the vacuum decay rate in the landscape, the probabil- ture significantly above the value expected from cosmic ity measure that we are investigating in this paper will 26 be shown not to suffer from the Boltzmann brain prob- Sitter (SdS) metric [92]:16 lem. Conversely, if one believes that this measure is cor- 2GM rect, the fastest Boltzmann brain production rate will ds2 = 1 H2 r2 dt2 give us a rather strong lower bound on the decay rate − − r − Λ of the metastable vacua in the landscape. We expect 2GM −1 that similar conclusions with respect to the Boltzmann + 1 H2 r2 dr2 + r2 dΩ2 . (A1) − r − Λ brain problem should be valid for the causal-patch mea- sures [24, 25]. The SdS metric has two horizons, determined by the pos- On the other hand, if we do not find a sufficiently con- itive zeros of gtt, where the smaller and larger are called vincing theoretical reason to believe that the vacuum de- RSch and RdS, respectively. We assume the Boltzmann cay rate in all vacua in the landscape is always greater brain is stable but not a black hole, so its radius satisfies than the fastest Boltzmann brain production rate, this RSch

cos ξ =3√3 GMHΛ . (A3)

This last equation implies that for a given value of HΛ, there is an upper limit on how much mass can be con- Acknowledgments tained within the de Sitter horizon: M M = (3√3GH )−1 . (A4) ≤ max Λ We thank Raphael Bousso, Ben Freivogel, I-Sheng Eqs. (A2) and (A3) can be inverted to express M and Yang, Shamit Kachru, Renata Kallosh, Delia Schwartz- H in terms of the horizon radii: Perlov, and Lenny Susskind for useful discussion. The Λ work of ADS is supported in part by the INFN “Bruno 1 2 2 Rossi” Fellowship, and in part by the U.S. Department of 2 = RSch + RdS + RSchRdS (A5) HΛ Energy (DoE) under contract No. DE-FG02-05ER41360. RdS 2 2 AHG is supported in part by the DoE under contract M = 1 HΛRdS (A6) No. DE-FG02-05ER41360. AL and MN are supported 2G − by the NSF grant 0756174. MPS and AV are supported RSch 2 2 = 1 HΛRSch . (A7) in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation under 2G − grant NSF 322, and AV is also supported in part by a grant from the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi). We relate the Boltzmann brain nucleation rate to the decrease in total entropy ∆S caused by the the nucleation process,

Γ e−∆S , (A8) BB ∼ where the final entropy is the sum of the entropies of the Appendix A: Boltzmann Brains in Schwarzschild–de Boltzmann brain and the de Sitter horizon. For a Boltz- Sitter Space mann brain with entropy SBB, the change in entropy is given by π π As explained in Subsection V A, Eq. (100) for the pro- ∆S = H−2 R2 + S . (A9) duction rate of Boltzmann brains must be reexamined G Λ − G dS BB when the Boltzmann brain radius becomes comparable Note that for small M one can expand ∆S to find to the de Sitter radius. In this case we need to describe the Boltzmann brain nucleation as a transition from an 2πM ∆S = S + (GM 2) , (A10) initial state of empty de Sitter space with horizon radius H BB −1 Λ − O HΛ to a final state in which the dS space is altered by the presence of an object with mass M. Assuming that the object can be treated as spherically symmetric, the space outside the object is described by the Schwarzschild–de 16 We restore G = 1/8π in this Appendix for clarity. 27

giving a nucleation rate in agreement with Eq. (100).17 To find a bound on the nucleation rate, we need an up- per bound on the entropy that can be attained for a given size and mass. In flat space the entropy is believed to be bounded by Bekenstein’s formula, Eq. (107), a bound which should also be applicable whenever R RdS. More general bounds in de Sitter space have been≪ dis- cussed by Bousso [54], who considers bounds for systems that are allowed to fill the de Sitter space out to the hori- zon R = RdS of an observer located at the origin. For small mass M, Bousso argues that the tightest known bound on S is the D-bound, which states that

π 1 π S S R2 = R2 + R R , ≤ D ≡ G H2 − dS G Sch Sch dS Λ (A11) where the equality of the two expressions follows from Eq. (A5). This bound can be obtained from the princi- ple that the total entropy cannot increase when an ob- FIG. 1: Graph shows the holographic bound, the D-bound, and the m-bound for the entropy of an object that fills de ject disappears through the de Sitter horizon. For larger Sitter space out to the horizon. The holographic and D– values of M, the tightest bound (for R = RdS) is the bounds are each shown as broken lines in the region where holographic bound, which states that they are superseded by the other. Although the m-bound looks very much like a straight line, it is not. π S S R2 . (A12) ≤ H ≡ G dS Bousso suggests the possibility that these bounds have a which we will call the interpolating bound. This bound common origin, in which case one would expect that there agrees exactly with the m-bound when the object is al- exists a valid bound that interpolates smoothly between lowed to fill de Sitter space, with R = RdS. Again we the two. Specifically, he points out that the function have no grounds to assume that the bound is rigorously true, but we do know that it is true in the three limiting π cases where it reduces to the Bekenstein bound, the D- S R R (A13) m ≡ G Sch dS bound, and the holographic bound. The limiting cases are generally the most interesting for us in any case, since is a candidate for such a function. Fig. (1) shows a graph we wish to explore the limiting cases for Boltzmann brain of the holographic bound, the D-bound, and the m-bound nucleation. For parameters in between the limiting cases, (Eq. (A13)) as a function of M/Mmax. While there is it again seems reasonable to assume that the bound is at no reason to assume that Sm is a rigorous bound, it is least a valid estimate, presumably accurate up to a factor known to be valid in the extreme cases where it reduces of order one. We know of no rigorous entropy bounds for to the D– and holographic bounds. In between it might de Sitter space with R comparable to RdS but not equal be valid, but in any case it can be expected to be valid up to it, so we don’t see any way at this time to do better to a correction of order one. In fact, Fig. (1) and the as- than the interpolating bound. sociated equations show that the worst possible violation Proceeding with the I-bound of Eq. (A14), we can use of the m-bound is at the point where the holographic and Eq. (106) to rewrite Eq. (A9) as D– bounds cross, at M/Mmax =3√6/8=0.9186, where the entropy can be no more than (1 + √5)/2=1.6180 π −2 2 ∆S = HΛ RdS SBB,max + IBB , (A15) times as large as Sm. G − − Here we wish to carry the notion of interpolation one which can be combined with SBB,max SI to give step further, because we would like to discuss in the same ≤ formalism systems for which R RdS, where the Beken- π −2 2 ≪ ∆S H RdS RSch R + IBB , (A16) stein bound should apply. Hence we will explore the con- ≥ G Λ − − sequences of the bound which can then be simplified using Eq. (A5) to give π S S R R, (A14) π ≤ I ≡ G Sch ∆S R (R + R R)+ I . (A17) ≥ G Sch Sch dS − BB

To continue, we have to decide what possibilities to 17 We thank Lenny Susskind for explaining this method to us. consider for the radius R of the Boltzmann brain, which 28 is related to the question of Boltzmann brain stabilization but one must keep in mind that the system will func- discussed after Eq. (111). If we assume that stabilization tion as a Boltzmann brain only for very special values of is not a problem, because it can be achieved by a domain the memory state. In the limiting case discussed here, wall or by some other particle physics mechanism, then the “Boltzmann brain” takes the form of a minor pertur- ∆S is minimized by taking R at its maximum value, R = bation of the degrees of freedom associated with the de 2 RdS, so Sitter entropy SdS = π/(GHΛ).

π 2 As a second possibility for the radius R, we can con- ∆S R + IBB . (A18) ≥ G Sch sider the case of strong gravitational binding, R RSch, as discussed following Eq. (111). For this case the→ bound ∆S is then minimized by taking the minimum possible (A17) becomes value of RSch, which is the value that is just large enough to allow the required entropy, SBB,max IBB. Using π ∆S RSchRdS + IBB . (A25) again the I-bound, one finds that saturation≥ of the bound ≥ G occurs at (Interestingly, if we take I = 0 (SBB = Smax) this for- 1 3I˜ mula agrees with the result found in Ref. [93] for black ξ = 3 sin−1 − , (A19) hole nucleation in de Sitter space.) With R = R the sat 2 Sch saturation of the I-bound occurs at where π 3I˜ ξ = 3 sin−1 . (A26) 2 sat IBB GHΛ 2 − 2 I˜ = IBB (A20) ≡ SdS π The saturating value of the mass and the corresponding is the ratio of the Boltzmann brain information to the values of the Schwarzschild radius and de Sitter radius entropy of the unperturbed de Sitter space. Note that are given by I˜ varies from zero to a maximum value of 1/3, which occurs in the limiting case for which RSch = RdS. The I˜ 1 I˜ − saturating value of the mass and the corresponding values Msat = , (A27) of the Schwarzschild radius and de Sitter radius are given 2GH Λ by I˜ RSch,sat = , (A28) HΛ I˜ 1+ I˜ Msat = , (A21) 4 3I˜ I˜ 2GHΛ RdS,sat = − − . (A29) 2HΛ 1+ I˜ 1 3I˜ R = , (A22) Sch,sat − − Using these relations to evaluate ∆S from Eq. (A25), one 2HΛ finds 1 3I˜+ 1+ I˜ RdS,sat = − . (A23) 2HΛ ∆S 4 3I˜+ I˜ = − , (A30) Combining these results with Eq. (A18), one has for this IBB 2 I˜ case (R = RdS) the bound which is also plotted in Figure 2. In this case (R = RSch) ˜ ∆S 1+ I˜ 1+ I˜ 1 3I˜ the smallest ratio ∆S/IBB is 2, occurring at I = 1/3, − − . (A24) where RSch = RdS. For smaller values of I˜ the ratio be- IBB ≥ 2I˜ comes larger, blowing up as 1/ I˜ for small I˜. Thus, the As can be seen in Figure 2, the bound on ∆S/IBB for nucleation rates for this choice of R will be considerably this case varies from 1, in the limit of vanishing I˜ (or smaller than those for Boltzmann brains with R RdS, ≈ equivalently, the limit H 0), to 2, in the limit R but this case would still be relevant in cases where Boltz- Λ → Sch → R . mann brains with R RdS cannot be stabilized. dS ≈ The limiting case of I˜BB 0, with a nucleation rate Another interesting case, which we will consider, is to −IBB → of order e , has some peculiar features that are worth allow the Boltzmann brain to extend to R = Requil, the mentioning. The nucleation rate describes the nucleation point of equilibrium between the gravitational attraction of a Boltzmann brain with some particular memory state, of the Boltzmann brain and the outward gravitational so there would be an extra factor of eIBB in the sum over pull of the de Sitter expansion. This equilibrium occurs all memory states. Thus, a single-state nucleation rate of at the stationary point of gtt, which gives e−IBB indicates that the total nucleation rate, including 1/3 all memory states, is not suppressed at all. It may seem GM R = . (A31) strange that the nucleation rate could be unsuppressed, equil H2 Λ 29

Using these results with Eq. (A17), ∆S is found to be bounded by

3 1 2A(I˜) 3+2A(I˜) 2A(I˜)+1 ∆S − − = , IBB 6I˜ (A38) which is also plotted in Figure 2. As one might expect it is intermediate between the two other cases. Like the R = RSch case, however, the ratio ∆S/IBB blows up for small I˜, in this case behaving as (2/I˜)1/4. In summary, we have found that our study of tunnel- ing in Schwarzschild–de Sitter space confirms the quali- tative conclusions that were described in Subsection V A. In particular, we have found that if the entropy bound can be saturated, then the nucleation rate of a Boltz- mann brain requiring information content IBB is given approximately by e−aIBB , where a is of order a few, as in FIG. 2: Graph shows the ratio of ∆S to IBB, where the nu- − Eq. (111). The coefficient a is always greater than 2 for cleation rate for Boltzmann brains is proportional to e ∆S. All curves are based on the I-bound, as discussed in the text, Boltzmann brains that are small enough to be gravita- but they differ by their assumptions about the size R of the tionally bound. This conclusion applies whether one in- Boltzmann brain. sists that they be near-black holes, or whether one merely requires that they be small enough so that their self- gravity overcomes the de Sitter expansion. If, however, Boltzmann brains within this radius bound would not one considers Boltzmann brains whose radius is allowed be pulled by the de Sitter expansion, so relatively small to extend to the de Sitter horizon, then Figure 2 shows mechanical forces will be sufficient to hold them together. that a can come arbitrarily close to 1. However, one must Again ∆S will be minimized when the I-bound is sat- remember that the R = RdS curve on Figure 2 can be urated, which in this case occurs when reached only if several barriers can be overcome. First, these objects are large and diffuse, becoming more and more diffuse as I˜ approaches zero and a approaches 1. 1 2A(I˜) π −1 There is no known way to saturate the entropy bound ξsat = 3 sin − , (A32) 2 −  2  for such diffuse systems, and Eq. (117) shows that an 1/3   ideal gas model leads to a IBB 1. Furthermore, where Boltzmann brains of this size∼ can function≫ only if some particle physics mechanism is available to stabilize them −1 3 sin 1 27 I˜ against the de Sitter expansion. A domain wall provides A(I˜) sin − . (A33) ≡  3  a simple example of such a mechanism, but Eq. (114) in- dicates that the domain wall solution is an option only if 3   a domain wall exists with tension σ IBBHΛ. Thus, it is The saturating value of the mass and the Schwarzschild not clear how close a can come to its∼ limiting value of 1. and de Sitter radii are given by Finally, we should keep in mind that it is not clear if any of the examples discussed in this appendix can actually ˜ ˜ √3[1 + A(I)] 1 2A(I) be attained, since black holes might be the only objects M = − , (A34) sat 9GH that saturate the entropy bound for S 1. Λ ≫ 1 2A(I˜) RSch,sat = − , (A35) √3 HΛ

√3 3 3+2A(I˜) 1 2A(I˜) − − RdS,sat = . 6HΛ (A36)

The equilibrium radius itself is given by

1/6 1/3 1 2A(I˜) 1+ A(I˜) − Requil,sat = . (A37) √3HΛ 30

[1] G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, “Cosmological event and A. D. Linde, “Stationary solutions in Brans-Dicke horizons, thermodynamics, and particle creation,” Phys. stochastic inflationary cosmology,” Phys. Rev. D 52, Rev. D 15, 2738 (1977). 6730 (1995) [arXiv:gr-qc/9504022]. [2] M. Rees, Before the Beginning, p.221 (Addison-Wesley, [16] A. Vilenkin, “Predictions from quantum cosmology,” 1997). Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 846 (1995) [arXiv:gr-qc/9406010]. [3] A. Albrecht and L. Sorbo, “Can the universe af- [17] A. Vilenkin, “Making predictions in eternally in- ford inflation?,” Phys. Rev. D 70, 063528 (2004) flating universe,” Phys. Rev. D 52, 3365 (1995) [arXiv:hep-th/0405270]; see also A. Albrecht, “Cosmic [arXiv:gr-qc/9505031]. inflation and the arrow of time,” in Science and Ulti- [18] A. Linde, “Sinks in the Landscape, Boltzmann Brains, mate Reality, ed. by J. D. Barrow, P. C. W. Davies, and the Cosmological Constant Problem,” JCAP 0701, and C. L. Harper (Cambridge University Press, 2003) 022 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0611043]. [arXiv:astro-ph/0210527]. [19] A. Linde, “Towards a gauge invariant volume-weighted [4] L. Susskind, as quoted in Ref. [5]; see also Ref. [6]. probability measure for eternal inflation,” JCAP 0706, [5] D. N. Page, “Susskind’s challenge to the Hartle-Hawking 017 (2007) [arXiv:0705.1160 [hep-th]]. no-boundary proposal and possible resolutions,” JCAP [20] J. Garriga, T. Tanaka and A. Vilenkin, “The density pa- 0701, 004 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0610199]. rameter and the Anthropic Principle,” Phys. Rev. D 60, [6] L. Dyson, M. Kleban and L. Susskind, “Disturbing im- 023501 (1999) [arXiv:astro-ph/9803268]. plications of a cosmological constant,” JHEP 0210, 011 [21] A. Vilenkin, “Unambiguous probabilities in an eternally (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0208013]. inflating universe,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5501 (1998) [7] D. N. Page, “The lifetime of the universe,” J. Korean [arXiv:hep-th/9806185]; V. Vanchurin, A. Vilenkin and Phys. Soc. 49, 711 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0510003]. S. Winitzki, “Predictability crisis in inflationary cosmol- [8] D. N. Page, “Is our universe likely to decay within ogy and its resolution,” Phys. Rev. D 61, 083507 (2000) 20 billion years?,” Phys. Rev. D 78, 063535 (2008) [arXiv:gr-qc/9905097]. [arXiv:hep-th/0610079]. [22] J. Garriga, D. Schwartz-Perlov, A. Vilenkin and [9] R. Bousso and B. Freivogel, “A paradox in the global S. Winitzki, “Probabilities in the inflationary multi- description of the multiverse,” JHEP 0706, 018 (2007) verse,” JCAP 0601, 017 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0509184]. [arXiv:hep-th/0610132]. [23] R. Easther, E. A. Lim and M. R. Martin, “Counting [10] For recent reviews of the measure problem, see e.g. pockets with world lines in eternal inflation,” JCAP S. Winitzki, “Predictions in eternal inflation,” Lect. 0603, 016 (2006) [arXiv:astro-ph/0511233]. Notes Phys. 738, 157 (2008) [arXiv:gr-qc/0612164]; [24] R. Bousso, “Holographic probabilities in eternal A. H. Guth, Phys. Rept. 333, 555 (2000); “Eternal in- inflation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 191302 (2006) flation and its implications,” J. Phys. A 40, 6811 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0605263]; R. Bousso, B. Freivogel and [arXiv:hep-th/0702178]; A. Linde, “Inflationary Cosmol- I. S. Yang, “Eternal inflation: The inside story,” Phys. ogy,” Lect. Notes Phys. 738, 1 (2008) [arXiv:0705.0164 Rev. D 74, 103516 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0606114]. [hep-th]]; A. Vilenkin, “A measure of the multiverse,” [25] L. Susskind, “The Census Taker’s Hat,” arXiv:0710.1129 J. Phys. A 40, 6777 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0609193]; [hep-th]. A. Aguirre, S. Gratton and M. C. Johnson, “Measures on [26] V. Vanchurin, “Geodesic measures of the landscape,” transitions for cosmology from eternal inflation,” Phys. Phys. Rev. D 75, 023524 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0612215]. Rev. Lett. 98, 131301 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0612195]. [27] S. Winitzki, “A volume-weighted measure for eter- [11] For progress in this direction, see J. Garriga and nal inflation,” Phys. Rev. D 78, 043501 (2008) A. Vilenkin, “Holographic Multiverse,” JCAP 0901, [arXiv:0803.1300 [gr-qc]]. 021 (2009) [arXiv:0809.4257 [hep-th]]; J. Garriga and [28] A. D. Linde, V. Vanchurin and S. Winitzki, “Station- A. Vilenkin, “Holographic multiverse and conformal in- ary Measure in the Multiverse,” JCAP 0901, 031 (2009) variance,” JCAP 0911, 020 (2009) [arXiv:0905.1509 [arXiv:0812.0005 [hep-th]]. [hep-th]]; R. Bousso, B. Freivogel, S. Leichenauer and [29] M. Tegmark, “What does inflation really predict?,” V. Rosenhaus, “Boundary definition of a multiverse mea- JCAP 0504, 001 (2005) [arXiv:astro-ph/0410281]; see sure,” arXiv:1005.2783 [hep-th]. also Ref. [30]. [12] A. D. Linde, “Eternally existing self-reproducing chaotic [30] R. Bousso, B. Freivogel and I. S. Yang, “Boltzmann inflationary universe,” Phys. Lett. B 175, 395 (1986). babies in the proper time measure,” Phys. Rev. D 77, [13] A. D. Linde and A. Mezhlumian, “Stationary universe,” 103514 (2008) [arXiv:0712.3324 [hep-th]]. Phys. Lett. B 307, 25 (1993) [arXiv:gr-qc/9304015]. [31] B. Feldstein, L. J. Hall and T. Watari, “Density per- [14] A. D. Linde, D. A. Linde and A. Mezhlumian, “From the turbations and the cosmological constant from infla- Big Bang theory to the theory of a stationary universe,” tionary landscapes,” Phys. Rev. D 72, 123506 (2005) Phys. Rev. D 49, 1783 (1994) [arXiv:gr-qc/9306035]. [arXiv:hep-th/0506235]; [15] J. Garcia-Bellido, A. D. Linde and D. A. Linde, “Fluc- [32] J. Garriga and A. Vilenkin, “Anthropic prediction for tuations of the gravitational constant in the infla- Lambda and the Q catastrophe,” Prog. Theor. Phys. tionary Brans-Dicke cosmology,” Phys. Rev. D 50, Suppl. 163, 245 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0508005]. 730 (1994) [arXiv:astro-ph/9312039]; J. Garcia-Bellido [33] M. L. Graesser and M. P. Salem, “The scale of gravity and A. D. Linde, “Stationarity of inflation and pre- and the cosmological constant within a landscape,” Phys. dictions of quantum cosmology,” Phys. Rev. D 51, Rev. D 76, 043506 (2007) [arXiv:astro-ph/0611694]. 429 (1995) [arXiv:hep-th/9408023]; J. Garcia-Bellido [34] M. Tegmark and M. J. Rees, “Why is the CMB fluc- 31

− tuation level 10 5?,” Astrophys. J. 499, 526 (1998) [arXiv:0807.1104 [hep-th]]. [arXiv:astro-ph/9709058]. [56] J. D. Bekenstein, “Entropy Content And Information [35] J. Garcia-Bellido and A. D. Linde, “Stationarity of infla- Flow In Systems With Limited Energy,” Phys. Rev. D tion and predictions of quantum cosmology,” Phys. Rev. 30, 1669 (1984). D 51, 429 (1995) [arXiv:hep-th/9408023]. [57] G. Dvali and G. R. Farrar, “Strong CP Problem with 1032 [36] A. Linde and V. Mukhanov, “The curvaton web,” JCAP Standard Model Copies,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 011801 0604, 009 (2006) [arXiv:astro-ph/0511736]. (2008) [arXiv:0712.3170 [hep-th]]. [37] L. J. Hall, T. Watari and T. T. Yanagida, “Taming the [58] R. Bousso, B. Freivogel and S. Leichenauer, “Saturating runaway problem of inflationary landscapes,” Phys. Rev. the holographic entropy bound,” arXiv:1003.3012 [hep- D 73, 103502 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0601028]. th]. [38] A. A. Starobinsky, “Stochastic De Sitter (Inflationary) [59] B. Pakkenberg et al., “Aging and the human neocortex,” Stage In The Early Universe,” in: Current Topics in Experimental Gerontology 38, 95 (2003). Field Theory, Quantum Gravity and Strings, Lecture [60] T. K. Landauer, “How much do people remember? Some Notes in Physics, eds. H.J. de Vega and N. Sanchez estimates of the quantity of learned information in long- (Springer, Heidelberg 1986) 206, p. 107. term memory,” Cognitive Science 10 477 (1986). [39] T. Clifton, A. Linde and N. Sivanandam, “Is- [61] T. K. Landauer, “An estimate of how much people re- lands in the landscape,” JHEP 0702, 024 (2007) member, not of underlying cognitive capacities,” Cogni- [arXiv:hep-th/0701083]. tive Science 12 293 (1988). [40] A. De Simone, A. H. Guth, M. P. Salem and A. Vilenkin, [62] P. Dayan and L.F. Abbott, Theoretical Neuroscience: “Predicting the cosmological constant with the scale- Computational and Mathematical Modeling of Neural factor cutoff measure,” Phys. Rev. D 78, 063520 (2008) Systems (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2001), [arXiv:0805.2173 [hep-th]]. p. 4. [41] D. N. Page, “Return of the Boltzmann brains,” Phys. [63] A. D. Linde, “Hard art of the universe creation (stochas- Rev. D 78, 063536 (2008) [arXiv:hep-th/0611158]. tic approach to tunneling and baby universe formation),” [42] A. Vilenkin, “Freak observers and the mea- Nucl. Phys. B 372, 421 (1992) [arXiv:hep-th/9110037]. sure of the multiverse,” JHEP 0701, 092 (2007) [64] S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. Linde and S. P. Trivedi, “De [arXiv:hep-th/0611271]. Sitter vacua in string theory,” Phys. Rev. D 68, 046005 [43] R. Bousso, B. Freivogel and I. S. Yang, “Properties of the (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0301240]. scale factor measure,” Phys. Rev. D 79, 063513 (2009) [65] A. Ceresole, G. Dall’Agata, A. Giryavets, R. Kallosh and [arXiv:0808.3770 [hep-th]]. A. Linde, “Domain walls, near-BPS bubbles, and proba- [44] J. Garriga and A. Vilenkin, “Recycling universe,” Phys. bilities in the landscape,” Phys. Rev. D 74, 086010 (2006) Rev. D 57, 2230 (1998) [arXiv:astro-ph/9707292]. [arXiv:hep-th/0605266]. [45] D. Schwartz-Perlov and A. Vilenkin, “Probabili- [66] J. D. Brown and C. Teitelboim, “Dynamical neutraliza- ties in the Bousso-Polchinski multiverse,” JCAP tion of the cosmological constant,” Phys. Lett. B 195, 0606, 010 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0601162]; D. Schwartz- 177 (1987). Perlov, “Probabilities in the Arkani-Hamed-Dimopolous- [67] J. D. Brown and C. Teitelboim, “Neutralization of the Kachru landscape,” J. Phys. A 40, 7363 (2007) Cosmological Constant by Membrane Creation,” Nucl. [arXiv:hep-th/0611237]. K. Olum and D. Schwartz- Phys. B 297, 787 (1988). Perlov, arXiv:gr-qc/0705.2562 [68] R. Bousso and J. Polchinski, “Quantization of four- [46] K. M. Lee and E. J. Weinberg, “Decay of the true vacuum form fluxes and dynamical neutralization of the in curved space-time,” Phys. Rev. D 36, 1088 (1987). cosmological constant,” JHEP 0006, 006 (2000) [47] A. Aguirre, S. Gratton and M. C. Johnson, “Measures on [arXiv:hep-th/0004134]. transitions for cosmology from eternal inflation,” Phys. [69] S. Kachru, J. Pearson and H. L. Verlinde, Rev. Lett. 98, 131301 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0612195]. “Brane/flux annihilation and the string dual of a [48] A. Vilenkin and S. Winitzki, “Probability distribution non-supersymmetric field theory,” JHEP 0206, 021 for Omega in open-universe inflation,” Phys. Rev. D 55, (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0112197]. 548 (1997) [arXiv:astro-ph/9605191]. [70] A. R. Frey, M. Lippert and B. Williams, “The fall of [49] A. De Simone and M. P. Salem, “The distribution of Ωk stringy de Sitter,” Phys. Rev. D 68, 046008 (2003) from the scale-factor cutoff measure,” arXiv:0912.3783 [arXiv:hep-th/0305018]. [hep-th]. [71] M. C. Johnson and M. Larfors, “Field dynamics and tun- [50] E. V. Koonin, “The cosmological model of eternal in- neling in a flux landscape,” Phys. Rev. D 78, 083534 flation and the transition from chance to biological evo- (2008) [arXiv:0805.3705 [hep-th]]. lution in the history of life,” Biology Direct 2007, 2:15 [72] J. J. Blanco-Pillado, D. Schwartz-Perlov and A. Vilenkin, (2007). “Quantum Tunneling in Flux Compactifications,” JCAP [51] See e.g. R. Bousso and J. Polchinski, “The String Theory 0912, 006 (2009) [arXiv:0904.3106 [hep-th]]. Landscape,” Sci. Am. 291, 60 (2004). [73] A. D. Linde and M. I. Zelnikov, “Inflationary Universe [52] A. Linde and M. Noorbala, “The birth of Boltzmann with Fluctuating Dimension,” Phys. Lett. B 215, 59 brains,” (in progress). (1988). [53] S. Lloyd, “Ultimate physical limits to computation,” Na- [74] S. M. Carroll, M. C. Johnson and L. Randall, “Dynamical ture 406, 1047 (2000). compactification from de Sitter space,” JHEP 0911, 094 [54] R. Bousso, “Bekenstein bounds in de Sitter and flat (2009) [arXiv:0904.3115 [hep-th]]. space,” JHEP 0104, 035 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0012052]. [75] J. J. Blanco-Pillado, D. Schwartz-Perlov and A. Vilenkin, [55] B. Freivogel and M. Lippert, “Evidence for a bound on “Transdimensional Tunneling in the Multiverse,” the lifetime of de Sitter space,” JHEP 0812, 096 (2008) arXiv:0912.4082 [hep-th]. 32

[76] M. Cvetic and H. H. Soleng, “Supergravity global supersymmetry,” Commun. Math. Phys. 90, 545 domain walls,” Phys. Rept. 282, 159 (1997) (1983). [arXiv:hep-th/9604090]; M. Cvetic, S. Griffies and [83] E. Witten, “A simple proof of the positive energy theo- S. J. Rey, “Nonperturbative stability of supergravity rem,” Commun. Math. Phys. 80, 381 (1981). and superstring vacua,” Nucl. Phys. B 389, 3 (1993) [84] S. Weinberg, “Does gravitation resolve the ambiguity [arXiv:hep-th/9206004]; M. Cvetic, S. Griffies and among supersymmetry vacua?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, S. J. Rey, “Static domain walls in N=1 supergravity,” 1776 (1982). Nucl. Phys. B 381, 301 (1992) [arXiv:hep-th/9201007]; [85] M. Dine, G. Festuccia, A. Morisse and K. van den Broek, M. Cvetic, S. Griffies and H. H. Soleng, “Local and “Metastable domains of the landscape,” arXiv:0712.1397 global gravitational aspects of domain wall space-times,” [hep-th]. Phys. Rev. D 48, 2613 (1993) [arXiv:gr-qc/9306005]. [86] M. Ibe, Y. Nakayama and T. T. Yanagida, “Conformal [77] A. Ceresole, G. Dall’Agata, R. Kallosh and A. Van gauge mediation and light gravitino of mass m3/2,” Phys. Proeyen, “Hypermultiplets, domain walls and supersym- Lett. B 671, 378 (2009) [arXiv:0804.0636 [hep-ph]]. metric attractors,” Phys. Rev. D 64, 104006 (2001) [87] R. Kallosh and A. Linde, “Landscape, the scale of [arXiv:hep-th/0104056]. SUSY breaking, and inflation,” JHEP 0412, 004 (2004) [78] K. Behrndt, G. Lopes Cardoso and D. L¨ust, “Curved [arXiv:hep-th/0411011]. BPS domain wall solutions in four-dimensional [88] J. P. Conlon, R. Kallosh, A. Linde and F. Quevedo, “Vol- N = 2 supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 607, 391 ume Modulus Inflation and the Gravitino Mass Prob- (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0102128]; G. Lopes Cardoso, lem,” JCAP 0809, 011 (2008) [arXiv:0806.0809 [hep-th]]. G. Dall’Agata and D. L¨ust, “Curved BPS domain [89] L. Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape (Little, Brown, and wall solutions in five-dimensional gauged supergravity,” Company, New York, 2005). JHEP 0107 (2001) 026 [arXiv:hep-th/0104156]; G. Lopes [90] C. P. Burgess, R. Kallosh and F. Quevedo, “De Sit- Cardoso, G. Dall’Agata and D. L¨ust, “Curved BPS ter string vacua from supersymmetric D-terms,” JHEP domain walls and RG flow in five dimensions,” JHEP 0310, 056 (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0309187]. 0203 (2002) 044 [arXiv:hep-th/0201270]; K. Behrndt [91] E. Silverstein, “Simple de Sitter solutions,” Phys. Rev. and M. Cvetic, “Bent BPS domain walls of D = 5 N = 2 D 77, 106006 (2008) [arXiv:0712.1196 [hep-th]]. gauged supergravity coupled to hypermultiplets,” Phys. [92] For a discussion of the Schwarzschild–de Sitter met- Rev. D 65, 126007 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0201272]. ric, see e.g. Z. Stuchlik and J. Kovar, “Pseudo- [79] J. Louis and S. Vaula, “N=1 domain wall solutions of Newtonian gravitational potential for Schwarzschild-de massive type II supergravity as generalized geometries,” Sitter spacetimes,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 17, 2089 (2008) JHEP 0608, 058 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0605063]. [arXiv:0803.3641 [gr-qc]]. [80] S. R. Coleman and F. De Luccia, “Gravitational effects [93] R. Bousso and S. W. Hawking, “Lorentzian con- on and of vacuum decay,” Phys. Rev. D 21, 3305 (1980). dition in quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 59, [81] S. Deser and C. Teitelboim, “Supergravity has positive 103501 (1999) [Erratum-ibid. D 60, 109903 (1999)] energy,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 249 (1977). [arXiv:hep-th/9807148]. [82] C. M. Hull, “The positivity of gravitational energy and