Multiverse Predictions

Transcription

1 Planck 08 Barcelona Multiverse Predictions Yasunori Nomura, LJH arxiv: Brian Feldstein, Taizan Watari, LJH hep-ph/ Raphael Bousso, Yasunori Nomura, LJH...

2 A New Origin for Predictions An Alternative to Symmetries and Naturalness I) The Ideas II) Applications to EWSB, nuclear physics & cosmology

3 Symmetries The foundation of explaining why nature is the way it is & q,u,d,l,e: α,g F,M Z M W,sinθ W,... However... BSM Grand unification Technicolor Supersymmetry Theories of flavor... Limited success over 35 years Gauge coupling unification??? Cosmology Given T CMB, compute contents of universe: B,e SM No BSM leptogenesis? DM No WIMPs? DE ν No Yes -- can t test PGBs?

4 Why so Little Progress? Experiments are hard and take many years. Need patience -- LHC will be the real watershed. Hard to construct theories with n params < n obs (Especially in cosmology) Why no sign of BSM physics at LEP, TeVatron, B factories? All simple theories for EWSB are now unnatural.

5 Why so Little Progress? Experiments are hard and take many years. Need patience -- LHC will be the real watershed. Hard to construct theories with n params < n obs (Especially in cosmology) Why no sign of BSM physics at LEP, TeVatron, B factories? All simple theories for EWSB are now unnatural. Our ideas of naturalness are wrong. Need a new tool

6 The Multiverse Assume: Many universes G G G G G G G G dn = f (x)dx us Parameters of low energy field theory; or important physical quantities eg T e f (x) is strongly varying: landscape, population, transformation to low energy variables Environmental selection dn obs = f (x)n(x)dx Motivated by string landscape and eternal inflation; ignore difficulties in definitions.

7 Catastrophic Boundaries x 2 In many situations there are catastrophic boundaries -- B physics makes a sudden A transition x 1 n(x) The physics in regions A and B is so different that there is a sudden change in n(x) A B x c x

8 Catastrophic Boundaries x 2 In many situations there are catastrophic boundaries -- B physics makes a sudden A transition x 1 n(x) The physics in regions A and B is so different that there is a sudden change in n(x) A B The crucial assumption: x c x f (x) is peaked f (x) towards the boundary x c x

9 Catastrophic Boundaries x 2 In many situations there are catastrophic boundaries -- B physics makes a sudden A transition x 1 n(x) The physics in regions A and B is so different that there is a sudden change in n(x) A B The crucial assumption: x c x f (x) is peaked f (x) towards the boundary Most observers near boundary x c x

10 Comparison Symmetries Multiverse

11 Comparison Symmetries symmetries restrict the parameter space. Multiverse physics of catastrophic boundaries: eg nuclear stability, formation of galaxies.

12 Comparison Symmetries symmetries restrict the parameter space. Assumptions: symmetries, representations, symmetry breaking Multiverse physics of catastrophic boundaries: eg nuclear stability, formation of galaxies. Assumptions: a multiverse force towards the boundary catastrophic nature of boundary

13 Comparison Symmetries symmetries restrict the parameter space. Assumptions: symmetries, representations, symmetry breaking Multiverse physics of catastrophic boundaries: eg nuclear stability, formation of galaxies. Assumptions: a multiverse force towards the boundary x 2 no observers most universes catastrophic nature of boundary x 1

14 Fake and Real Predictions A fake prediction: x obs x

15 Fake and Real Predictions A fake prediction: f (x) x obs x

16 Fake and Real Predictions A fake prediction: f (x) x obs x A real prediction: x obs x

17 Fake and Real Predictions A fake prediction: f (x) x obs x A real prediction: No observers x obs x x c Calculated from the physics of the catastrophic boundary

18 Fake and Real Predictions A fake prediction: f (x) x obs x A real prediction: f (x) No observers Most universes x obs x x c Calculated from the physics of the catastrophic boundary

19 Symmetries & Multiverse Probable that we will find both types of prediction Symmetries Multiverse θ g i /g j m b /m τ Λ ρ vir (m u,m d,m e )/m p

20 Symmetries & Multiverse Probable that we will find both types of prediction Symmetries Multiverse θ g i /g j m b /m τ Λ ρ vir (m u,m d,m e )/m p? v m H m t? T e η B

21 II) Predictions: EWSB Nuclear Cosmology

22 An EW Phase Boundary Assume: SM up to some large scale V (H) Λ SM λ Brian Feldstein, LJH, Taizan Watari; hep-ph/ v H lnµ 4λ2 h 4 t Scan λ(λ SM ) = λ 0 h t (Λ SM ) = h 0 λ 0 h 0 EW phase boundary is catastrophic boundary

23 An EW Phase Boundary Assume: SM up to some large scale V (H) Λ SM λ Brian Feldstein, LJH, Taizan Watari; hep-ph/ v H lnµ 4λ2 h 4 t Scan λ(λ SM ) = λ 0 h t (Λ SM ) = h 0 λ 0 Environmental predictions for m t,m H h 0 EW phase boundary is catastrophic boundary

24 Higgs and Top Mass Predictions m H = [ ( ) mt 171GeV 2GeV 2.6 ( ) αs ± 6 ] GeV + 25GeV p 2 loop running Top and QCD contributions to running running to pole m t = [ ( ) ΛSM log GeV ± 3 ] GeV 35GeV p relatively insensitive to SM cutoff p sufficiently large for a tight Higgs mass prediction What is the future of the field?

25 Tip of the Cone N x N b 1 2 n 1 x c x 1 prediction 2 n

26 Tip of the Cone N x N b 1 2 n x 2 1 x c x 1 prediction x 1 1 prediction, 1 runaway 2 n

27 Tip of the Cone N x N b 1 2 n x 2 1 x c x 1 prediction x 1 1 prediction, 1 runaway 2 x c x 1 prediction n

28 Tip of the Cone N x N b 1 2 n x 2 1 x c x 1 prediction x 1 1 prediction, 1 runaway x 2 2 x c x 1 prediction 2 predictions x 1 n

29 Tip of the Cone N x N b 1 2 n x 2 1 x c x 1 prediction x 1 1 prediction, 1 runaway x 2 2 x c x Tip of the 1 prediction 2 predictions x 1 Cone n

30 Tip of the Cone N x N b 1 2 n x 2 1 x c x 1 prediction x 1 1 prediction, 1 runaway x 2 2 x c x Tip of the Cone 1 prediction 2 predictions x 1 n n predictions

31 Nuclear Boundaries Relevant parameters 2d slice ( α, m e, m u, m ) d m p m p m p Yasunori Nomura, LJH arxiv: me = me,o no complex nuclei m n m p m e > 8MeV md/md,o m n < m p + m e no stars B D < 0 stars exotic mu/mu,o

32 Nuclear Boundaries Relevant parameters 2d slice ( α, m e, m u, m ) d m p m p m p Yasunori Nomura, LJH arxiv: me = me,o no complex nuclei m n m p m e > 8MeV md/md,o m n < m p + m e no stars mu/mu,o B D < 0 stars exotic Closeness to n boundary (10-30)%

33 Nuclear Boundaries Relevant parameters 2d slice ( α, m e, m u, m ) d m p m p m p Yasunori Nomura, LJH arxiv: me = me,o no complex nuclei m n m p m e > 8MeV Damour Donoghue arxiv: md/md,o m n < m p + m e no stars mu/mu,o B D < 0 stars exotic Closeness to n boundary (10-30)%

34 Nuclear Boundaries Relevant parameters 2d slice ( α, m e, m u, m ) d m p m p m p Yasunori Nomura, LJH arxiv: me = me,o no complex nuclei m n m p m e > 8MeV Damour Donoghue arxiv: md/md,o m n < m p + m e no stars mu/mu,o B D < 0 stars exotic Tip of thecone! m u,d,e determined by nuclear physics of boundaries Closeness to n boundary (10-30)%

35 Understanding Coincidences Why are the three contributions to comparable? Q(n peν) Q Q 0.8 MeV 0 m e, m u, m d 0.5 MeV m e δ d u 2.3 ± 0.5 MeV are determined by the physics of the boundary comparable? MeV δ EM

36 Understanding Coincidences Why are the three contributions to comparable? Q(n peν) Q Q 0.8 MeV 0 m e, m u, m d 0.5 MeV m e δ d u 2.3 ± 0.5 MeV are determined by the physics of the boundary comparable? MeV δ EM Simple distributions give m e δ EM m u,d B N, B D

37 Cosmological Coincidences t Λ t vir t cool ( t burn ) Amount of Dark Energy Amount of Dark Matter & Size of primordial QED bremsstrahlung Nuclear burning density perturbations

38 Cosmological Coincidences t Λ t vir t cool ( t burn ) Amount of Dark Energy Amount of Dark Matter & Size of primordial QED bremsstrahlung Nuclear burning density perturbations Why are these time scales all years? Hard to imagine a symmetry explanation

39 The Cosmological Constant Catastrophic boundary: must form non-linear protogalaxies before CC fuels inflation Λ ρ vir Weinberg PRL 1987

40 The Cosmological Constant Catastrophic boundary: Λ Weinberg PRL 1987 must form non-linear protogalaxies before CC fuels inflation Most universes a CC problem solved ρ vir dilute inflating homogeneous gas Amount of Dark Energy predicted Λ ρ vir i.e. t Λ t vir

41 The Cosmological Constant Catastrophic boundary: Λ Weinberg PRL 1987 must form non-linear protogalaxies before CC fuels inflation Most universes a CC problem solved ρ vir dilute inflating homogeneous gas Amount of Dark Energy predicted Λ ρ vir i.e. t Λ t vir n obs n vir B Martell, Shapiro, Weinberg astro-ph/ Probability density !124!123!122!121!120!119 log(! " ) Λ

42 The Cosmological Constant Catastrophic boundary: Λ Weinberg PRL 1987 must form non-linear protogalaxies before CC fuels inflation Most universes a CC problem solved ρ vir dilute inflating homogeneous gas Amount of Dark Energy predicted Λ ρ vir i.e. t Λ t vir n obs n vir B n obs S causal diamond Martell, Shapiro, Weinberg astro-ph/ Probability density Probability density Bousso, Harnik Kribs,Perez hep-th/ !124!123!122!121!120!119 log(! " ) Λ! !125!124!123!122!121!120!119 log(! " ) Λ

43 The CC Runaway Problem Suppose ρ vir scans Λ ρ vir f (ρ vir, Λ) might reach a maximum at some point This preserves Λ ρ vir but the value cannot be predicted Need a second catastrophic boundary

44 e Galaxy Cooling Catastrophe Compute ionization and cooling boundaries M Bremsstrahlung rate too low Relevant parameters α, m e, m p ; ρ vir, M Pl, M no ionization ρ vir

45 e Galaxy Cooling Catastrophe M Compute ionization and cooling boundaries Bremsstrahlung rate too low Relevant parameters M c α, m e, m p ; ρ vir, M Pl, M no ionization ρ virc ρ vir ρ virc predicted from proto-galaxy cooling physics: ρ virc m4 em 2 p α 4 M 2 Pl ( ev) 4

46 e Galaxy Cooling Catastrophe M Compute ionization and cooling boundaries Bremsstrahlung rate too low Relevant parameters M c α, m e, m p ; ρ vir, M Pl, M no ionization ρ virc ρ vir ρ virc predicted from proto-galaxy cooling physics: ρ virc m4 em 2 p α 4 M 2 Pl ( ev) 4 explaining the accident t cool t vir

47 e Galaxy Cooling Catastrophe Compute ionization and cooling boundaries M Bremsstrahlung rate too low Relevant parameters α, m e, m p ; ρ vir, M Pl, M M c no ionization ρ virc ρ vir ρ virc predicted from proto-galaxy cooling physics: ρ virc m4 em 2 p α 4 M 2 Pl ( ev) 4 explaining the accident t cool t vir and as a bonus: M c α5 M 4 Pl m 1/2 e m 5/2 p GeV M

48 Solving the CC Runaway Problem Λ cooling virialization 2 scanning parameters and 2 catastrophic boundaries ρ vir

49 Solving the CC Runaway Problem Λ cooling virialization 2 scanning parameters and 2 catastrophic boundaries Λ c ρ virc ρ vir Λ c m4 e m 2 p α 4 M 2 Pl ( ev) 4

50 Main Sequence H burning Stars N max M3 Pl m 3 p t burnmin α2 M 2 Pl m 2 e m p has same parametric form as t vir t Λ t vir t cool t burn

51 A Rigid Parameter Set Virialization Λ Proto-galaxy cooling: ρ vir, M Nuclear stability m e m p Unification near Planck scale Leaving M Pl m p, α

52 A Rigid Parameter Set Virialization Λ Proto-galaxy cooling: ρ vir, M Nuclear stability m e m p Unification near Planck scale Leaving M Pl m p, α M What determines Pl? m p Since Λ ρ vir ( mp M Pl ) 6 there is a runaway to large M Pl m p

53 A Rigid Parameter Set Virialization Λ Proto-galaxy cooling: ρ vir, M Nuclear stability m e m p Unification near Planck scale Leaving M Pl m p, α M What determines Pl? m p Since Λ ρ vir ( mp M Pl ) 6 there is a runaway to large M Pl m p Discreteness of Λ in string landscape Λ min M Pl

54 Caveat Bremsstrahlung cooling condition t cool < t dyn CC stops merging process, so why not just wait? Anthropic weighting implies a cost to waiting Change of regime; cooling problematic e.g. re-virialization implies that temp of proto-galaxy increases e.g. n Bousso preferred to n Weinberg No discrimination between various n(x)

55 Generic EWSB Sector E Physics of EWSB x i M SM V = m 2 h h h + λ h 2 (h h) 2 m 2 h = (x y)am 2, m 2 h = (g 1(x i ) g 2 (x i )) M 2 y typically O(1) > 0 > 0 Contains SU(2) gauge contribution Contains top contribution v 2 = z AM2 λ h Hierarchy parameter z = y x

56 Scan EWSB Sector z Symmetry View v 2 = z AM2 λ h z = y x 1 z 1 n stable z 1 no nuclei Natural Fine tuned M

57 Scan EWSB Sector z Symmetry View v 2 = z AM2 λ h z = y x 1 z 1 n stable z 1 no nuclei Natural Fine tuned M z Multiverse View z n stable no nuclei Little Hierarchy M n stable no nuclei Large Hierarchy M Strongly varying f hierarchy expected

58 Conclusions x 2 Multiverse force towards catastrophic edges Tip of the Cone x 1

59 Conclusions x 2 Multiverse force towards catastrophic edges Tip of the Cone x 1 A desperate A powerful or last resort new tool

60 Conclusions x 2 Multiverse force towards catastrophic edges Tip of the Cone x 1 A desperate A powerful or last resort new tool m e δ EM m u,d B N, B D t Λ t vir t cool t burn Λ c m4 e m 2 p α 4 M 2 Pl ( ev) 4 M c α5 M 4 Pl m 1/2 e m 5/2 p GeV M

61 Conclusions x 2 Multiverse force towards catastrophic edges Tip of the Cone x 1 A desperate A powerful or last resort new tool m e δ EM m u,d B N, B D t Λ t vir t cool t burn Λ c m4 e m 2 p α 4 M 2 Pl ( ev) 4 M c α5 M 4 Pl m 1/2 e m 5/2 p GeV M Will LHC confirm unnaturalness of EWSB?

62 Even with Symmetries that precisely predict y u,d,e and v 1 g 2 3(M ) e-20 1e-15 1e-10 1e e+10 Λ QCD Λ QCD /Λ QCD,o flat f (g 2 3) P ΛQCD

63 Predicting m e,m u,m d and Closeness to n stability 3 scanning parameters m u = 0 B D < 0 m n < m p + m e < m e >= 1 p 3 δ EM C I < m d m u >= p 1 p 3 δ EM < m d + m u >= 1 2 C 1 C 2 Λ QCD Success

64 Predicting m e,m u,m d and Closeness to n stability 3 scanning parameters m u = 0 B D < 0 f (y e,y u,y d ) (y d y u ) p m n < m p + m e p > 3 < m e >= 1 p 3 δ EM C I < m d m u >= p 1 p 3 δ EM < m d + m u >= 1 2 C 1 C 2 Λ QCD Success

65 The Complex Nuclei Boundary ( α, m e, m u, m ) d m p m p m p Dependence of nuclear force on quark masses. Relevant parameters Keeping α fixed m e m u neutron 0 Damour, Donoghue arxiv: d projections complex nuclei m d m d (MeV ) complex nuclei this constraint is neutron m u (MeV) m e (MeV ) neutron 4 v (26) v phys When combined one finds a very restricted range for the vev, under the stated assumptions: 0.39 v Figure 7: Only The projection v scans of the anthropic constraints 1.64 (27) v of Fig. 6 into the planes phys of each pair of masses. The solid lines denote the total allowed region, while the m u (MeV) m e (MeV ) neutron m d (MeV) complex nuclei