Cosmic bubble collisions by matthew kleban

Post on 10-May-2015

597 Views

Category:

Education

2 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

DESCRIPTION

Cosmic Bubble Collisions by Matthew Kleban I brie y review the physics of cosmic bubble collisions in false- vacuum eternal in ation. My purpose is to provide an introduction to the subject for readers unfamiliar with it, focussing on recent work related to the prospects for observing the e ects of bubble collisions in cosmology. I will attempt to explain the essential physical points as simply and concisely as possible, leaving most technical details to the references. I make no attempt to be comprehensive or complete. I also present a new solution to Einstein's equations that represents a bubble universe after a collision, containing vacuum energy and ingoing null radiation with an arbitrary density profiles.

Transcript

Cosmic Bubble Collisions

Matthew Kleban

Center for Cosmology and Particle PhysicsNew York University

New York NY 10003 USA

Abstract

I briefly review the physics of cosmic bubble collisions in false-vacuum eternal inflation My purpose is to provide an introductionto the subject for readers unfamiliar with it focussing on recent workrelated to the prospects for observing the effects of bubble collisionsin cosmology I will attempt to explain the essential physical points assimply and concisely as possible leaving most technical details to thereferences I make no attempt to be comprehensive or complete I alsopresent a new solution to Einsteinrsquos equations that represents a bubbleuniverse after a collision containing vacuum energy and ingoing nullradiation with an arbitrary density profile

arX

iv1

107

2593

v1 [

astr

o-ph

CO

] 1

3 Ju

l 201

1

Contents

1 Introduction 111 Overview 212 Effective field theory coupled to gravity 413 Decay 414 Motivation 5

2 Earlier work 621 Open inflaton 622 Metrics and solutions 723 Bubblology 924 Curvature and fine-tuning 10

3 Collisions 1131 Thin-wall collision metric 1332 A new solution 14

4 Cosmological effects of collisions 1541 Inflaton perturbation 1642 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe 1843 CMB temperature 1944 CMB polarization 2145 Other cosmological observables 23

5 Probabilities and measures 2351 Observable collisions 2452 Spot sizes 2553 Spot brightness 26

6 Conclusions 27

1 Introduction

This work reviews the physics of cosmic bubble formation and collisions witha focus on recent work It will be as self-contained as possible while avoidingtechnical details with references to the literature where further details can

1

be found I will use natural units (8πG = c = h = 1) throughout Anotherreview of cosmic bubble collisions is [1]

11 Overview

First-order phase transitions are ubiquitous in physics During a first-ordertransition a meta-stable phase (the ldquofalserdquo vacuum) decays to a lower energyphase (the ldquotruerdquo vacuum which may itself be either metastable or trulystable) either by quantum tunneling or because the decay is stimulated bysome external influence The transition begins in a finite regionmdasha bubbleIf the bubble is sufficiently large when it forms it expands into the falsevacuum and collides with other bubbles Therefore in a static spacetimethe transition will eventually percolate and the false vacuum will disappearentirely

The situation is different when gravity is included The energy densityin a meta-stable phase does not change with the expansion of space it isa cosmological ldquoconstantrdquo Therefore if the false vacuum has positive en-ergy it will undergo cosmic inflationmdashthe volume of space containing it willexpand exponentially with time If the timescale for the exponential (thefalse-vacuum Hubble rate) is faster than the rate of bubble formation thefalse vacuum will continually reproduce itself and the transition will neverpercolate Bubbles of true vacuum will expand (but slower than the falsevacuum) and occasionally collide with each other (Fig 1) Contained insideeach bubble is an expanding Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) cosmol-ogy that is homogeneous and isotropic apart from random perturbations andthe aftereffects of collisions

In models consistent with current observations our observable universeis inside such a bubble embedded in and expanding into an eternally inflat-ing parent false vacuum Observational constraints require that our bubbleunderwent its own period of slow-roll inflation after its formation Colli-sions with other bubbles that nucleate in the (otherwise eternal) parent falsevacuum nearby occur with a non-zero probability per unit time and aretherefore guaranteed to happen eventually Their effects have already or willperturb the universe around us creating potentially observable signals Interms of the FRW coordinates describing the cosmology inside our bubblethese collisions occur before slow-roll inflationmdashin fact they occur before the(apparent) big bang of our FRW universe They can be regarded as creatinga special and predictable set of initial conditions at FRW time t = 0

2

Figure 1 A numerical simulation showing the spatial distribution of bubblesat a late time in an eternally inflating false vacuum Bubbles that appearedearlier expanded for longer and are larger but the physical volume of thefalse vacuum is larger at later times so there are more smaller bubblesEventually each bubble collides with an infinite number of others The late-time distribution is a scale-invariant fractal

3

12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity

Any model of spacetime fields coupled to gravity can give rise to bubblecollisions if there exist at least two meta-stable phases of the field theoryAfter forming bubbles expand and collide with each other The goal of thisreview is to describe the physics of the formation expansion and collision ofthese bubbles I will focus exclusively on models in which at least one of thephases (the false vacuum) has a positive vacuum energy

A region of spacetime filled with positive vacuum energy has a metric

ds2 = minusdt2 + a(t)2d~x2 (1)

and obeys Einsteinrsquos equations

(aa)2 = H2f = Vf3 (2)

where Vf is the energy density of the false vacuum and Hf is the associatedHubble constant The solution to (2) is de Sitter space a(t) = eHf t Regionsof space that are dominated by vacuum energy but contaminated by otherforms of matter or energy will exponentially rapidly inflate away the con-taminants and approach the metric (1) Regions not dominated by vacuumenergy will either expand more slowly or collapse into black holes which formany purposes is taken as justification for ignoring them after a few falsevacuum Hubble times (where the Hubble time is tH equiv 1H)

13 Decay

In metastable de Sitter space there is a dimensionless rate of bubble forma-tion γ When γ is small it can be defined as the expected number of bubblenucleations per unit Hubble time per unit Hubble volume that is the di-mensionful decay rate is Γ = H4

fγ Generally γ is the exponential of minusSwhere S is the action for an instanton Hence when S 1 γ is very smalland the rate of bubble nucleations is slow When γ gtsim 1 the semi-classicalmethods reviewed here are not adequate to describe the physics

When γ is small and the meta-stable phase has positive vacuum energythe exponential expansion means that the transition will never percolatemdashthere will always be some regions in which the unstable phase remains Theintuitive reason is simple in one Hubble time the de Sitter region increasesits volume by a factor of e3 In that same Hubble time one expects γ bubbles

4

of another vacuum each of volume less than the Hubble volume to appearTherefore if γ 1 a typical region will double in size many times beforeproducing a bubble The same applies to each ldquochildrdquo region and thereforethe meta-stable phase never ceases to exist This is known as ldquofalse vacuumeternal inflationrdquo (to distinguish it from slow-roll eternal inflation whichcan take place in an models with sufficiently flat positive potential energyfunctionals)

In the end the picture is an exponentially rapidly expanding spacetimein which bubbles of more slowly expanding phases occasionally appear andoccasionally collide It is important to note that this is a generic predictionof any model with multiple positive energy minimamdashwhile it seems to bea prediction of the string theory landscape it is certainly not unique to itNevertheless an observation that confirmed this model would be a confir-mation of a prediction of string theory and an observation that ruled it outwould be at least potentially a falsification

14 Motivation

In the last few years there has been a surge of interest in this problem Thereason is that string theory predicts the existence of many meta-stable min-ima the so-called ldquostring landscaperdquo [2 3] In string theory the geometryand topology of spacetime is dynamical String theories exist in 9 spatial di-mensions Since we observe only three spatial dimensions in string solutionsthat might describe our world six of the spatial dimensions are compactifiedthat is they form a geometry with finite volume while the other three spatialdimensions and time can form Minkowski or de Sitter space

Six dimensional manifolds have many parameters that describe theirshape and size These parameters are dynamical fields in string theory andtheir meta-stable solutions correspond to distinct possibilities for the shapeand size of the manifold Because they are meta-stable small fluctuationsaround these geometries behave like massive particles from the point of viewof the 4 large spacetime dimensions Therefore the low-energy physics asmeasured by a 4D observer is an effective field theory coupled to gravitywith the field content partially determined by which configuration the com-pact manifold is in

The compact manifold can make transitions from one meta-stable config-uration to another Among the parameters that can vary from configurationto configuration is the value of the vacuum energy In non-supersymmetric

5

solutions it will not be zero instead its typical value is set by the stringenergy scalemdashwith both positive and negative values possible [2 4 3] Theexact value in any given phase will depend on the details and if there areenough different phases it is plausible that a small but non-empty subsethave vacuum energies that are consistent with the tiny value we observe[5 6 7] Hence the theory is at least consistent with observation and theextraordinarily small but non-zero value was even predicted a decade in ad-vance in [8] under a set of assumptions that coincide with those just outlined

Because understanding the value of the cosmological constant is consid-ered one of the most important problems in theoretical physics and becausestring theory is our best candidate for a theory of quantum gravity it is worthtaking this scenario seriously One should look for observations beyond thecosmological constant which could test its validity hence this review

2 Earlier work

Alan Guthrsquos original model for inflationmdashnow known as ldquoold inflationrdquomdashwasan inflating false vacuum punctuated by bubbles [9] Inflation was the falsevacuum and the end of inflation was the nucleation of the bubble we inhabitThis model didnrsquot succeed because of difficulties with re-heating the universewhen a bubble first appears it is both strongly negatively curved and emptyReheating could potentially result from collisions with other bubbles butsuch collisions are either raremdashin which case reheating is anisotropicmdashorcommonmdashin which case the phase transition from the false vacuum completesafter order one Hubble time and there is little or no inflation Early studiesof this include [10 11]

21 Open inflaton

Old inflation was replaced by other models in which the inflaton slowly rollsand less attention was paid to models involving bubbles until the mid-90swhen the available data indicated that the universe was underdense and neg-atively curved At that time there was a burst of interest in ldquoopen inflationrdquomodels models in which our universe is inside a bubble that nucleated froma parent false vacuum (and hence is negatively curved) but where the bub-ble nucleation was followed by a period of standard slow-roll inflation Thatperiod of slow-roll produces density perturbations and reduces the curva-

6

ture thereby allowing Ωtotal sim 3 as the data seemed to indicate Therewere a series of papers by several groups of authors that worked out thepower spectrum of perturbations generated during inflation in such bubbles[12 13 14 15 16])

While not all authors agreed on the quantitative effects all agree thatthe power spectrum of inflationary perturbations is significantly modified onscales of order the radius of curvature and larger This can be understoodqualitatively in a simple way As I will review below when a bubble universefirst appears it is dominated by negative curvature As a result it expandswith a scale factor a(t) sim t After a time of orderHminus1i whereHi is the Hubbleconstant during inflation the curvature redshifts to the point it is belowthe inflationary vacuum energy and inflation begins Clearly perturbationsproduced before or during this transitional era will not have a scale-invariantspectrum identical to those produced after it

Mainly because of theoretical developments in string theory (see Sec 14)in the last few years there has been a resurgence of interest in these modelsfocussing both on the physics of individual bubble universes and on collisionsbetween bubbles [17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31]I will review much of that very recent work below A result from someyears back is [17 18] which demonstrate in several models (using argumentsparallel to [8]) that slow-roll inflation after the bubble nucleation is necessaryin order to avoid producing a universe devoid of structure With fixed δρρapproximately as many efolds of inflation N are needed as are necessary tosolve the flatness problem (approximately N sim 60 given typical values forthe reheating temperature etc)

22 Metrics and solutions

The single most important tool in understanding the physics of cosmic bub-bles is their symmetry The standard treatment of bubble formation in fieldtheory coupled to gravity was developed by [32] In that approach both therate of nucleation and the initial conditions just after the bubble forms areset by a solution to the equations of motion of the Euclidean version of thetheory Such solutions are known generally as ldquoinstantonsrdquo The justificationfor their application to this problem goes far beyond the scope of this reviewsee [32] and references therein

Another mechanism by which false vacua can decay is charged membranenucleation in a background 4-form flux [33] These instantons (and the ex-

7

panding bubbles they correspond to) possess the same symmetries as thoseof [32] and I expect most of the results reviewed here to hold for them aswell

In order to understand the symmetries of the bubble spacetime one canstart with the instanton solution of [32] In a model with a single scalar fieldφ coupled to Euclidean Einstein gravity the relevant solution is

ds2 = dψ2 + a(ψ)2dΩ23 φ = φ(ψ) (3)

where dΩ23 = dθ2 + sin2 θdΩ2

2 is the round metric on a 3-dimensional sphereThe functions a(ψ) and φ(ψ) are determined by solving Einsteinrsquos equationsand the equation of motion for the scalar field φ and the solutions depend onthe potential energy for the scalar V (φ) If V has at least two minima solu-tions φ(ψ) that oscillate once around the maximum1 of V (φ) that separatesthe two minima generally exist (but see [34] and [35])

Solutions of this form have a large degree of rotational symmetry they areinvariant under the group of rotations in 4D Euclidean space (in which onecan embed the 3-sphere) namely SO(4) This is a group with 4 times 32 = 6symmetry generators (each corresponding to a rotation in one of the sixplanes of 4D space) The action S(a φ) for a solution is determined by anintegral involving a(ψ) and φ(ψ) and is related to the false vacuum decayrate by γ sim eminusS

Under certain conditions on the potential V (φ) the solutions a φ areldquothin wallrdquo meaning that they vary sharply with ψ In particular in thethin wall limit φ(ψ) sim φ0 + microΘ(ψ minus ψ0) where Θ(ψ) is a step functionand φ0 micro and ψ0 are constants The thin wall limit is convenient it makesit possible to calculate many quantities in closed form However it is notrequired for the validity of most of the physics discussed in this review nordo the symmetries of the solutions discussed here depend on it

To determine the spacetime after the bubble nucleation occurs one cansimply analytically continue (3) back to Lorentzian signature The resultis a spacetime that contains a bubble expanding in a bath of false vacuumThere is more than one choice of analytic continuation different choices givemetrics that cover some part of the full Lorentzian spacetime These metricscan be patched together to determine the global structure of the spacetimeOf most relevance for the cosmology seen by observers inside the bubble isthe continuation that produces a metric that covers (most of) the interior of

1In Euclidean signature the equations of motion have the sign of the potential reversed

8

the bubble Details can be found in eg [18] the result is

ds2 = minusdt2+a(t)2dH23 = minusdt2+a(t)2

(dρ2 + sinh2 ρdΩ2

2

)and φ = φ(t) (4)

where H3 is 3D hyperbolic space (the homogeneous and isotropic 3D spacewith constant negative curvature) As can be seen at a glance this is anFRW metric describing a homogeneous and isotropic cosmology scale factora(t) and scalar field ldquomatterrdquo φ(t) The evolution of a will be determined byV (φ(t)) in the usual way as well as by any other sources of stress-energy

After the continuation the SO(4) invariance of the Euclidean solutionhas been replaced by the SO(3 1) invariance associated with H3 In otherwords the symmetries of the instanton are what give rise to the homogeneityand isotropy of the constant-time surfaces of this FRW cosmology Observersliving inside the bubble live in a negatively curved universe that satisfies thecosmological principle

One of the most intriguing aspects of this result is that the ldquobig bangrdquot = 0 where the scale factor a(0) = 0 vanishes is not a curvature singularityIt is merely a coordinate singularitymdashthe spacetime just outside the surfacet = 0 (which is null) is regular and described by another analytic continuationof the metric Of course there is a quantum nucleation event (a finite distanceoutside the surface t = 0) that may make the description there in terms ofa classical spacetime plus field configuration problematic but so long as theenergy densities involved are sub-Planckian even the region outside the ldquobigbangrdquo surface t = 0 is no more singular than the nucleation of a bubble in afirst-order phase transition in field theory

23 Bubblology

The cosmology inside the bubble in the region described by (4) is fairly simpleto describe The scale factor obeys the Friedmann equation

H2 = (aa)2 = ρ3 + 1a2 (5)

where ρ sim V (φ) + (φ)22 + is the energy density in the scalar plus thatof any other matter or radiation At t = 0 the initial conditions are suchthat φ = 0 As a result the dominant term on the right hand side is thecurvature term 1a2 and one obtains a(t) = t+O(t3) [18]

To produce a cosmology consistent with observations there must be aperiod of slow-roll inflation that begins at some time t gt 0 [18] The most

9

00 02 04 06 08 10Φ

02

04

06

08

10VHΦLM4

Figure 2 A scalar field potential for an open inflation model where a singlefield φ tunnels through a barrier and then drives slow-roll inflation inside theresulting bubble

economical way to accomplish this is to assume that the field that tunneledto produce the bubble in the first place is also the inflaton and that itspotential V (φ) has a slow-roll ldquoplateaurdquo that the field evolves into after thetunneling (see Fig 2)

In such a model inflation begins at a time ti such that 1a(ti)2 sim 1t2i sim

V (φ(ti)) sim H2i Therefore inflation begins at t = ti sim 1Hi From that

time on the scale factor will begin to grow exponentially rapidly diluting thecurvature and (given enough efolds) solving the curvature problem

24 Curvature and fine-tuning

During inflation the radius of spatial curvature of the universe grows expo-nentially In terms of the total energy density Ω the curvature contributionto the Friedmann equation is defined by Ωk equiv 1 minus Ω = minusk(Ha) where

10

k = minus1 for negative curvature As described above Ωk ltsim 1 at the start ofslow-roll inflation Since during inflation H is approximately constant and agrows exponentially by the end of inflation after N efolds Ωk sim eminus2N

After inflation Ωk grows by a very large factor e2Nlowast so that its valuetoday is Ωk sim e2(NlowastminusN) (Nlowast sim 63 depends logarithmically on the reheatingtemperature and various other factors see eg [36])

Therefore in open inflation models the value of Ω today is exponentiallysensitive to the length of inflation As with nearly all relics of the state ofthe universe prior to the start of inflation inflation ldquoinflates awayrdquo curvaturewith exponential efficiency

This raises the question of how fine-tuned an open inflation model withobservable curvature would be The answer depends on the expected numberof efolds of slow-roll inflation As mentioned above [18] demonstrated thattoo little inflation (N lt Nlowast) prevents structure formation at least given afixed (N -independent) value of δρρ The argument parallels that of Wein-berg [8] Negative curvature can be thought of as a velocity for the expansionof the universe that exceeds ldquoescape velocityrdquo As such overdensities col-lapse only if the overdensity exceeds a certain boundmdashin effect in order tocollapse an overdense region must be dense enough that it is locally a closeduniverse Therefore for a given amplitude of δρρ insufficient N makescollapsed structures (ie stars and galaxies) exponentially rare

Following Weinbergrsquos logic [8] one may therefore expect that N is notmuch greater than Nlowast How much greater we expect it to be is a stronglymodel-dependent question in [18] a toy model gave a measure of for theprobability of N efolds P (N) sim Nminus4

3 Collisions

In any given Lorentz frame every bubble must eventually undergo a firstcollision In this section I will discuss the effects on cosmology of a singlecollisionmdashstrictly speaking the analysis does not apply once there are regionsaffected by multiple collisions However if the effects are sufficiently weak inthose regions one can use linear cosmological perturbation theory in whichcase the effects of collisions simply superpose

When two bubbles collide the spacetime region to the future of the col-lision is affected (see Fig 3 for a spacetime diagram of a bubble collision)Precisely what occurs inside that region depends on the model However

11

Figure 3 A spacetime diagram showing the causal structure of a cosmicbubble collision Coordinates are chosen so that light propagating in theplane of the diagram moves along 45 lines

for applications to observational cosmology one is generally interested in re-gions in which the effects are a small perturbation on the spacetime prior tothe collision As I will discuss below the assumption that the perturbationis small plus the symmetries of the collision suffice to extract the genericleading-order effects on cosmology

The most important features of a collision of this type are related to itssymmetries As reviewed above a single bubble has an SO(3 1) isometrya group generated by 6 symmetry generators It turns out that a bubblecollision breaks the SO(3 1) to SO(2 1) a group with 3 generators [11] Thisis enough symmetry to solve Einsteinrsquos equations in a situation in which thestress tensor is locally dominated by vacuum energymdashthe situation is verysimilar to that of a black hole (with three rotation isometries) in a vacuumdominated spacetime (de Sitter Minkowski or anti-de Sitter) As in thoseexamples there is a one parameter family of solutions Details can be foundin eg [11 20 22 23]

We will see that as a result of these symmetries the effects of the collision

12

break isotropy and homogeneity but are azimuthally symmetric (and non-chiral) around a special directionmdashthe axis pointing toward the center of thecolliding bubble

One important feature of these symmetries is that there exists a timeslicing of the collision spacetime in which the entire collision occurs at oneinstant everywhere along a 2 dimensional hyperboloid At later times in thesecoordinates the effects of the collision spread along a light ldquoconerdquo which isreally a region of space bounded by two hyperboloids To visualize this itmay help the reader to visualize the intersection of two lightcones cones orldquohourglass-typerdquo timelike hyperboloids in 2+1 dimensions The intersectionis a (spacelike) hyperbola which can be chosen to correspond to an instantof time and a point in one transverse coordinate (eg t and x in (6))

31 Thin-wall collision metric

In the approximation that the spacetime everywhere away from thin surfacesis dominated by vacuum energy one can write down exact solutions Thesemetrics are of the form

ds2 = minusdt2g(t) + g(t)dx2 + t2dH22 (6)

where dH22 = dρ2 + sinh2 ρdφ2 is the metric on a 2D hyperboloid and

g(t) = 1 +H2t2 minusmt (7)

Here H is the Hubble constant related to the local vacuum energy densityρV by H2 = ρV 3 and m is a constant [34 20 22] With m = 0 this issimply de Sitter space But with m non-zero it represents a solution that isessentially an analytically continued Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole (see[22] for a discussion of the causal structure of these solutions)

Across a wall that separates two vacua (either the wall that separates twocollided bubbles or the walls of the bubbles themselves in the parent falsevacuum) one expects the vacuum energy density ρV to jump along withmany other quantities In the limit the wall is thin regions described by (6)can be ldquogluedrdquo together using Israel matching conditions [37 38 11 20] Thisallows one to determine the trajectory of the domain walls and therefore theconditions under which the domain walls that form in a collision acceleratetowards or away from inertial observers inside the bubbles When the wallaccelerates it rapidly becomes relativistic Anything it collides with will

13

almost certainly not survive as the ultra-relativistic wall typically has avery high energy density even in its rest frame In such cases there are nocosmological observables since the wall arrives almost immediately after itsfirst light signal

The results of this analysis which hold at least when the spacetime oneither side of the domain wall is dominated by vacuum energy are as followsthe domain wall always accelerates away from an inertial observer in thebubble with lower vacuum energy andmdashdepending on the tension in thewall and the difference in the two vacuum energiesmdashit can either acceleratetowards away from or not accelerate with respect to an observer in thebubble with larger vacuum energy [22 23] One interesting implication ofthis result is that inertial observers in bubbles with small positive vacuumenergy are shielded from the walls separating them from regions with highervacuum energy and might be shielded from walls with negative vacuumenergy beyond them if the potential satisfies certain conditions

Generalizing the solution (6) to the case of non-vacuum energy dominatedspacetimes is difficultmdashroughly as difficult as embedding a black hole into anon-trivial FRW cosmology However the basic symmetry structure will notbe affected the metric must still posses SO(2 1) symmetry and therefore canbe written in the form ds2 = ds22 +f(t x)dH2

2 (just as a black hole embeddedin an expanding FRW could be written in a form ds2 = ds22 + f(t r)dΩ2

2 Inparticular the region affected by the collisionmdashwhich takes place at somedefinite values of t and xmdashis still bounded by the future light ldquoconerdquo of thehyperboloid H2 at t x

32 A new solution

The metric (6) is a specific analytic continuation of an anti-de Sitter Schwarzschildblack hole metric There exist generalizations known as de Sitter-Vaidya oranti-de Sitter-Vaidya metrics that represent the formation of a black holein de Sitter or anti-de Sitter spacetime from the collapse of a shell of nullradiation [39 40] The shell does not have to be thinmdashin fact these metricscontain a free function that describes the profile of the ingoing radiationThe only criterion is that the radiation be purely radially ingoing (or purelyoutgoing)

Performing the appropriate analytic continuation one obtains the follow-

14

ing metric2

ds2 = (1minusm(w)t+H2t2)dw2 minus 2dwdt+ t2dH22 (8)

If m(w) = m is constant (8) is equivalent to (6) by a coordinate transfor-mation In general it is easy to check that it represents a spacetime withSO(2 1) isometries that contains both vacuum energy (with energy densitydetermined by H as above) and radiation (with energy flux proportional tomprime(w))mdashbut with all the radiation moving coherently in the same directionAs such it may be a fairly good approximation to the spacetime inside abubble after a collision at least during the curvature domination and slow-roll inflation phases To my knowledge this is the first time this solution hasappeared in print

4 Cosmological effects of collisions

To determine the effects of the collision on cosmological observables I willmake the following assumptions

-1 We are inside a bubble that has been or will be struck by at least oneother bubble

0 The collision preserves SO(2 1) that is one can choose coordinateslike (6) or (8) in which it occurs at one instant everywhere along ahyperboloid

1 The effects of the collision are confined entirely to the interior of thefuture ldquolightconerdquo of the collision event that is inside a region x gtxc(t) where xc(t) is a null geodesic in the (x t) plane transverse to thecollision hyperboloid

2 There was sufficient inflation to make the spatial curvature of the uni-verse and of the hyperbolic collision ldquolightconerdquo negligible

3 The effects on the observable part of our universe are small enough tobe treated using linear perturbation theory

4 The collision affects the inflaton by creating an O(1) perturbation init near the beginning of inflation

2I thank T Levi and S Chang for discussions on this metric

15

5 The inflaton perturbation is generic apart from constraints imposedby the symmetries and assumption 1

Using these assumptions the effects on the cosmic microwave background(CMB) temperature were first worked out in [24] and on CMB polarizationin [30]

41 Inflaton perturbation

Given these assumptions one can simply expand the inflaton perturbationin a power series at a time near the beginning of inflation at which time ththe metric (6) will be a good description of the spacetime Dropping the H2

factor (on which the perturbation is constant) for clarity

ds2 = minusdt2g(t)+g(t)dx2 asymp minusdt2(Hit)2+(Hit)

2dx2 = (Hiτ)minus2(minusdτ 2 + dx2

)

(9)The approximation is valid after the beginning of inflation Hit gt 1 and thecoordinate τ = minus1(H2t) is the conformal time The reader should recallthat τ increases towards zero during inflation and is exponentially small byits end

The constraint from assumption 1 means that the collision perturbationis non-zero only inside the affected region [24 41]

δφ(x τi) = M

( infinsumn=0

anHni (x+ τi)

n

)Θ(x+ τi) (10)

˙δφ(x τi) = M

( infinsumn=0

bnHn+1i (x+ τi)

n

)Θ(x+ τi) (11)

Here δφ is the perturbation in the inflaton field an and bn are dimensionlesscoefficients τi is a time near the start of inflation where the slow-roll approx-imation is valid M is a mass scale associated with the range over which thefield varies and the coordinates are chosen for convenience so that the edgeof the region affected by the collision is located at x = minusτi at that time Notethat this expansion is completely generalmdashit does not assume that the fieldthat tunneled is the inflaton and depends only on the assumptions outlinedjust above It does however ignore the effects of the collision on fields otherthan the inflaton at least in single-field models one expects that primordialperturbations of the inflaton field will have the largest imprint on cosmologytoday

16

Without a model for the inflaton and the field(s) that participated in thetunneling we cannot compute the coefficients an and bn Generically one ex-pects that the perturbation will be at least O(1) on scales corresponding tothe radius of curvature of the universe That is one expects the coefficientsan sim 1 Moreover given enough inflation to solve the flatness problem (andproduce a universe consistent with current constraints on curvature) the ob-

servable universe today corresponds to a region of size |x|Hi simradic

Ωk(t0) 1at the beginning of inflation Therefore we are interested in the perturbation(10) in the limit Hx 1 and so the first term will dominate the observablesignatures (unless for some reason a0 an for some n gt 0) Notice thata0 6= 0 is a spatial discontinuity in δφ

To determine the effects of this initial inflaton perturbation on the CMBand other cosmological observables one can employ the standard machineryof inflationary perturbation theory The first step is to determine the evolu-tion of the perturbation during inflation During slow-roll inflation at lowestorder in the slow-roll parameters inflaton perturbations satisfy the equationof a free massless scalar in de Sitter space (see eg [42]) One can solve thatequation in full generality the solution is [24]

δφ = g(τ + x)minus τgprime(τ + x) + f(τ minus x)minus τf prime(τ minus x) (12)

where g f are arbitrary functions of one variable and gprime f prime their derivativesThis solution may be familiar from the more standard treatment of in-

flationary fluctuations in momentum space the terms proportional to τ arethe usual decaying modes in the expression δφk sim kminus32 (1plusmn ikτ) Evidentlythe τ -dependent terms arise due to the effects of inflation since this solutionis otherwise identical to that of a massless scalar field in 1+1-dimensionalMinkowski space

Given the initial conditions in (10) one can use (12) to determine thesolution for all future times during slow-roll inflation The result can bewritten in closed form [41] but is not particularly illuminating Ratherthan reproduce it here it is easier to instead expand the functions f andg of (12) (which contain the same information as and are determined byδφ and ˙δφ) Since g is purely left-moving and f is purely right-moving forτ gt τi the perturbation near the edge of the lightcone Hi(xminus xc(τ)) 1 isdetermined only by g Therefore the effects on the CMB are determined by

17

the coefficients in the expansion of g

g(x+ τ) =

( infinsumn=1

cn(x+ τ)n)

Θ(x+ τ) (13)

Note that the sum begins with the linear term n = 1 This is because ann = 0 term in this expansion would lead to a δ-function singularity in δφwhich could not be expanded as in (10) and in any case would invalidateperturbation theory Put another way a non-zero c1 corresponds to a per-turbation δφ with a non-zero a0 in (10)

By the end of inflation τ = τe is exponentially small and one can dropthe terms proportional to τ in (12) leaving simply

δφ(x τe) asymp g(x) =

( infinsumn=1

cn(x)n)

Θ(x) (14)

Note the leading term is now a discontinuity in the first derivative not adiscontinuity in the perturbation itself Inflation smooths sub-horizon pri-mordial gradients by effectively integrating them once

42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe

To precisely determine the effect of this perturbation on cosmological observ-ables at later times requires numerically integrating the coupled equationsthat control the perturbations in the various components of the energy den-sity in the early universe There is a standard set of software tools availablefor this purpose [43 44] The results of such a numerical analysis for a bub-ble collision can be found in [45] and analytically (and approximately) in[24 30]

One can understand the qualitative results with a simple analytic ap-proximation A primary component of the collision signal is its effect on theCMB temperature The most important contribution to CMB temperaturefluctuations comes from the Sachs-Wolfe effect [46 47] To first approxima-tion all CMB photons last scattered at redshift zdc sim 1100 when electronsrecombined with protons and photons decoupled from the plasma and thenpropagated freely (without scattering again) until now Their temperatureis determined by the intrinsic temperature T (tdc x y z) at the point in thelast scattering volume at the time tdc corresponding to z = zdc Given that aphoton free-streamed it originated at some point satisfying x2+y2+z2 = D2

dc

18

on a sphere of radius Ddc the radius of the current earthrsquos past lightconeat t = tdc The radius Ddc asymp 14Gpc can be determined from the expansionhistory a(t) by integrating back along a null geodesic in the FRW metric

Because a locally higher temperature at last scattering corresponds to alocally higher density there is a corresponding negative gravitational poten-tial energy fluctation at that location In the Sachs-Wolfe approximation thecurrent temperature of a photon originating from such a point is a combi-nation of the intrinsic temperature of the plasma it last scattered from andthe local gravitational potential at that point as well as an overall redshift(1 + zdc)

minus1 (and some additional contributions from time variations of thepotential along the way the ldquointegrated Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo) A simple cal-culation shows that the negative potential energy contribution is larger thanthe increased intrinsic temperature perturbation Φ(tdc) sim minus(32)δTT (tdc[47] Therefore locally hot spots at last scattering make cold spots on theCMB

43 CMB temperature

Given a perturbation to the Newtonian potential at reheating Φ = λxΘ(x)one can easily estimate the effect on the CMB temperature today Theessential points are the following

bull Perturbations that are linear in the spatial coordinates (such as Φ =λx) remain so regardless of the cosmological evolution (to first order inperturbation theory) because the equations that govern the evolutionof cosmological perturbations are all second-order in spatial derivatives

bull The evolution equations are causalmdashthe effects of an initial perturba-tions are confined to within its light- or sound-cone

bull By the time of last scattering the radius of the sound-cone rsh of a per-turbation present at reheating corresponds to approximately 6 degreeson the CMB sky (rshDdc asymp 01)

Given this one can easily determine the temperature perturbation in theCMB The ldquokinkrdquo at x = 0 will evolve but its effects must be confinedwithin a slab of thickness 2rsh Outside that slab the perturbationmdashwhichwas initially either zero or linear in xmdashcannot evolve in shape although

19

Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

20

its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

Φ(tdc x y z) =

0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

(15)

where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

Ddc

) (16)

The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

(minusxe+rsh

Ddc

)lt θ lt cosminus1

(minusxeminusrsh

Ddc

)near the rim of the disk where

it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

Ddc

) the CMB

temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

44 CMB polarization

The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

21

E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

22

numerically

45 Other cosmological observables

A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

5 Probabilities and measures

The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

23

expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

51 Observable collisions

We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

24

Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

i Puttingthis together gives

〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

2i (18)

We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

In the end the result is [25]

〈N〉 simradic

ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

radicΩk (HfHi)

2 (19)

The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

radicΩk lt 1

Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

52 Spot sizes

Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

25

This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

53 Spot brightness

Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

26

potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

6 Conclusions

Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

Acknowledgements

I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

References

[1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

[2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

[3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

27

[4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

[5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

[6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

[7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

[8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

[9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

[10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

[11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

[12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

28

[13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

[14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

[15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

[16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

[17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

[18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

[19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

[20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

[21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

[22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

[23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

[24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

29

[25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

[26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

[27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

[28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

[29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

[30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

[31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

[32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

[33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

[34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

[35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

[36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

[37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

30

[38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

[39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

[40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

[41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

[42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

[43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

[44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

[45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

[46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

[47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

[48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

[49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

[50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

31

[51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

[52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

[53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

[54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

[55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

[56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

[57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

[58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

[59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

[60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

32

  • 1 Introduction
    • 11 Overview
    • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
    • 13 Decay
    • 14 Motivation
      • 2 Earlier work
        • 21 Open inflaton
        • 22 Metrics and solutions
        • 23 Bubblology
        • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
          • 3 Collisions
            • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
            • 32 A new solution
              • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                • 43 CMB temperature
                • 44 CMB polarization
                • 45 Other cosmological observables
                  • 5 Probabilities and measures
                    • 51 Observable collisions
                    • 52 Spot sizes
                    • 53 Spot brightness
                      • 6 Conclusions

    Contents

    1 Introduction 111 Overview 212 Effective field theory coupled to gravity 413 Decay 414 Motivation 5

    2 Earlier work 621 Open inflaton 622 Metrics and solutions 723 Bubblology 924 Curvature and fine-tuning 10

    3 Collisions 1131 Thin-wall collision metric 1332 A new solution 14

    4 Cosmological effects of collisions 1541 Inflaton perturbation 1642 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe 1843 CMB temperature 1944 CMB polarization 2145 Other cosmological observables 23

    5 Probabilities and measures 2351 Observable collisions 2452 Spot sizes 2553 Spot brightness 26

    6 Conclusions 27

    1 Introduction

    This work reviews the physics of cosmic bubble formation and collisions witha focus on recent work It will be as self-contained as possible while avoidingtechnical details with references to the literature where further details can

    1

    be found I will use natural units (8πG = c = h = 1) throughout Anotherreview of cosmic bubble collisions is [1]

    11 Overview

    First-order phase transitions are ubiquitous in physics During a first-ordertransition a meta-stable phase (the ldquofalserdquo vacuum) decays to a lower energyphase (the ldquotruerdquo vacuum which may itself be either metastable or trulystable) either by quantum tunneling or because the decay is stimulated bysome external influence The transition begins in a finite regionmdasha bubbleIf the bubble is sufficiently large when it forms it expands into the falsevacuum and collides with other bubbles Therefore in a static spacetimethe transition will eventually percolate and the false vacuum will disappearentirely

    The situation is different when gravity is included The energy densityin a meta-stable phase does not change with the expansion of space it isa cosmological ldquoconstantrdquo Therefore if the false vacuum has positive en-ergy it will undergo cosmic inflationmdashthe volume of space containing it willexpand exponentially with time If the timescale for the exponential (thefalse-vacuum Hubble rate) is faster than the rate of bubble formation thefalse vacuum will continually reproduce itself and the transition will neverpercolate Bubbles of true vacuum will expand (but slower than the falsevacuum) and occasionally collide with each other (Fig 1) Contained insideeach bubble is an expanding Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) cosmol-ogy that is homogeneous and isotropic apart from random perturbations andthe aftereffects of collisions

    In models consistent with current observations our observable universeis inside such a bubble embedded in and expanding into an eternally inflat-ing parent false vacuum Observational constraints require that our bubbleunderwent its own period of slow-roll inflation after its formation Colli-sions with other bubbles that nucleate in the (otherwise eternal) parent falsevacuum nearby occur with a non-zero probability per unit time and aretherefore guaranteed to happen eventually Their effects have already or willperturb the universe around us creating potentially observable signals Interms of the FRW coordinates describing the cosmology inside our bubblethese collisions occur before slow-roll inflationmdashin fact they occur before the(apparent) big bang of our FRW universe They can be regarded as creatinga special and predictable set of initial conditions at FRW time t = 0

    2

    Figure 1 A numerical simulation showing the spatial distribution of bubblesat a late time in an eternally inflating false vacuum Bubbles that appearedearlier expanded for longer and are larger but the physical volume of thefalse vacuum is larger at later times so there are more smaller bubblesEventually each bubble collides with an infinite number of others The late-time distribution is a scale-invariant fractal

    3

    12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity

    Any model of spacetime fields coupled to gravity can give rise to bubblecollisions if there exist at least two meta-stable phases of the field theoryAfter forming bubbles expand and collide with each other The goal of thisreview is to describe the physics of the formation expansion and collision ofthese bubbles I will focus exclusively on models in which at least one of thephases (the false vacuum) has a positive vacuum energy

    A region of spacetime filled with positive vacuum energy has a metric

    ds2 = minusdt2 + a(t)2d~x2 (1)

    and obeys Einsteinrsquos equations

    (aa)2 = H2f = Vf3 (2)

    where Vf is the energy density of the false vacuum and Hf is the associatedHubble constant The solution to (2) is de Sitter space a(t) = eHf t Regionsof space that are dominated by vacuum energy but contaminated by otherforms of matter or energy will exponentially rapidly inflate away the con-taminants and approach the metric (1) Regions not dominated by vacuumenergy will either expand more slowly or collapse into black holes which formany purposes is taken as justification for ignoring them after a few falsevacuum Hubble times (where the Hubble time is tH equiv 1H)

    13 Decay

    In metastable de Sitter space there is a dimensionless rate of bubble forma-tion γ When γ is small it can be defined as the expected number of bubblenucleations per unit Hubble time per unit Hubble volume that is the di-mensionful decay rate is Γ = H4

    fγ Generally γ is the exponential of minusSwhere S is the action for an instanton Hence when S 1 γ is very smalland the rate of bubble nucleations is slow When γ gtsim 1 the semi-classicalmethods reviewed here are not adequate to describe the physics

    When γ is small and the meta-stable phase has positive vacuum energythe exponential expansion means that the transition will never percolatemdashthere will always be some regions in which the unstable phase remains Theintuitive reason is simple in one Hubble time the de Sitter region increasesits volume by a factor of e3 In that same Hubble time one expects γ bubbles

    4

    of another vacuum each of volume less than the Hubble volume to appearTherefore if γ 1 a typical region will double in size many times beforeproducing a bubble The same applies to each ldquochildrdquo region and thereforethe meta-stable phase never ceases to exist This is known as ldquofalse vacuumeternal inflationrdquo (to distinguish it from slow-roll eternal inflation whichcan take place in an models with sufficiently flat positive potential energyfunctionals)

    In the end the picture is an exponentially rapidly expanding spacetimein which bubbles of more slowly expanding phases occasionally appear andoccasionally collide It is important to note that this is a generic predictionof any model with multiple positive energy minimamdashwhile it seems to bea prediction of the string theory landscape it is certainly not unique to itNevertheless an observation that confirmed this model would be a confir-mation of a prediction of string theory and an observation that ruled it outwould be at least potentially a falsification

    14 Motivation

    In the last few years there has been a surge of interest in this problem Thereason is that string theory predicts the existence of many meta-stable min-ima the so-called ldquostring landscaperdquo [2 3] In string theory the geometryand topology of spacetime is dynamical String theories exist in 9 spatial di-mensions Since we observe only three spatial dimensions in string solutionsthat might describe our world six of the spatial dimensions are compactifiedthat is they form a geometry with finite volume while the other three spatialdimensions and time can form Minkowski or de Sitter space

    Six dimensional manifolds have many parameters that describe theirshape and size These parameters are dynamical fields in string theory andtheir meta-stable solutions correspond to distinct possibilities for the shapeand size of the manifold Because they are meta-stable small fluctuationsaround these geometries behave like massive particles from the point of viewof the 4 large spacetime dimensions Therefore the low-energy physics asmeasured by a 4D observer is an effective field theory coupled to gravitywith the field content partially determined by which configuration the com-pact manifold is in

    The compact manifold can make transitions from one meta-stable config-uration to another Among the parameters that can vary from configurationto configuration is the value of the vacuum energy In non-supersymmetric

    5

    solutions it will not be zero instead its typical value is set by the stringenergy scalemdashwith both positive and negative values possible [2 4 3] Theexact value in any given phase will depend on the details and if there areenough different phases it is plausible that a small but non-empty subsethave vacuum energies that are consistent with the tiny value we observe[5 6 7] Hence the theory is at least consistent with observation and theextraordinarily small but non-zero value was even predicted a decade in ad-vance in [8] under a set of assumptions that coincide with those just outlined

    Because understanding the value of the cosmological constant is consid-ered one of the most important problems in theoretical physics and becausestring theory is our best candidate for a theory of quantum gravity it is worthtaking this scenario seriously One should look for observations beyond thecosmological constant which could test its validity hence this review

    2 Earlier work

    Alan Guthrsquos original model for inflationmdashnow known as ldquoold inflationrdquomdashwasan inflating false vacuum punctuated by bubbles [9] Inflation was the falsevacuum and the end of inflation was the nucleation of the bubble we inhabitThis model didnrsquot succeed because of difficulties with re-heating the universewhen a bubble first appears it is both strongly negatively curved and emptyReheating could potentially result from collisions with other bubbles butsuch collisions are either raremdashin which case reheating is anisotropicmdashorcommonmdashin which case the phase transition from the false vacuum completesafter order one Hubble time and there is little or no inflation Early studiesof this include [10 11]

    21 Open inflaton

    Old inflation was replaced by other models in which the inflaton slowly rollsand less attention was paid to models involving bubbles until the mid-90swhen the available data indicated that the universe was underdense and neg-atively curved At that time there was a burst of interest in ldquoopen inflationrdquomodels models in which our universe is inside a bubble that nucleated froma parent false vacuum (and hence is negatively curved) but where the bub-ble nucleation was followed by a period of standard slow-roll inflation Thatperiod of slow-roll produces density perturbations and reduces the curva-

    6

    ture thereby allowing Ωtotal sim 3 as the data seemed to indicate Therewere a series of papers by several groups of authors that worked out thepower spectrum of perturbations generated during inflation in such bubbles[12 13 14 15 16])

    While not all authors agreed on the quantitative effects all agree thatthe power spectrum of inflationary perturbations is significantly modified onscales of order the radius of curvature and larger This can be understoodqualitatively in a simple way As I will review below when a bubble universefirst appears it is dominated by negative curvature As a result it expandswith a scale factor a(t) sim t After a time of orderHminus1i whereHi is the Hubbleconstant during inflation the curvature redshifts to the point it is belowthe inflationary vacuum energy and inflation begins Clearly perturbationsproduced before or during this transitional era will not have a scale-invariantspectrum identical to those produced after it

    Mainly because of theoretical developments in string theory (see Sec 14)in the last few years there has been a resurgence of interest in these modelsfocussing both on the physics of individual bubble universes and on collisionsbetween bubbles [17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31]I will review much of that very recent work below A result from someyears back is [17 18] which demonstrate in several models (using argumentsparallel to [8]) that slow-roll inflation after the bubble nucleation is necessaryin order to avoid producing a universe devoid of structure With fixed δρρapproximately as many efolds of inflation N are needed as are necessary tosolve the flatness problem (approximately N sim 60 given typical values forthe reheating temperature etc)

    22 Metrics and solutions

    The single most important tool in understanding the physics of cosmic bub-bles is their symmetry The standard treatment of bubble formation in fieldtheory coupled to gravity was developed by [32] In that approach both therate of nucleation and the initial conditions just after the bubble forms areset by a solution to the equations of motion of the Euclidean version of thetheory Such solutions are known generally as ldquoinstantonsrdquo The justificationfor their application to this problem goes far beyond the scope of this reviewsee [32] and references therein

    Another mechanism by which false vacua can decay is charged membranenucleation in a background 4-form flux [33] These instantons (and the ex-

    7

    panding bubbles they correspond to) possess the same symmetries as thoseof [32] and I expect most of the results reviewed here to hold for them aswell

    In order to understand the symmetries of the bubble spacetime one canstart with the instanton solution of [32] In a model with a single scalar fieldφ coupled to Euclidean Einstein gravity the relevant solution is

    ds2 = dψ2 + a(ψ)2dΩ23 φ = φ(ψ) (3)

    where dΩ23 = dθ2 + sin2 θdΩ2

    2 is the round metric on a 3-dimensional sphereThe functions a(ψ) and φ(ψ) are determined by solving Einsteinrsquos equationsand the equation of motion for the scalar field φ and the solutions depend onthe potential energy for the scalar V (φ) If V has at least two minima solu-tions φ(ψ) that oscillate once around the maximum1 of V (φ) that separatesthe two minima generally exist (but see [34] and [35])

    Solutions of this form have a large degree of rotational symmetry they areinvariant under the group of rotations in 4D Euclidean space (in which onecan embed the 3-sphere) namely SO(4) This is a group with 4 times 32 = 6symmetry generators (each corresponding to a rotation in one of the sixplanes of 4D space) The action S(a φ) for a solution is determined by anintegral involving a(ψ) and φ(ψ) and is related to the false vacuum decayrate by γ sim eminusS

    Under certain conditions on the potential V (φ) the solutions a φ areldquothin wallrdquo meaning that they vary sharply with ψ In particular in thethin wall limit φ(ψ) sim φ0 + microΘ(ψ minus ψ0) where Θ(ψ) is a step functionand φ0 micro and ψ0 are constants The thin wall limit is convenient it makesit possible to calculate many quantities in closed form However it is notrequired for the validity of most of the physics discussed in this review nordo the symmetries of the solutions discussed here depend on it

    To determine the spacetime after the bubble nucleation occurs one cansimply analytically continue (3) back to Lorentzian signature The resultis a spacetime that contains a bubble expanding in a bath of false vacuumThere is more than one choice of analytic continuation different choices givemetrics that cover some part of the full Lorentzian spacetime These metricscan be patched together to determine the global structure of the spacetimeOf most relevance for the cosmology seen by observers inside the bubble isthe continuation that produces a metric that covers (most of) the interior of

    1In Euclidean signature the equations of motion have the sign of the potential reversed

    8

    the bubble Details can be found in eg [18] the result is

    ds2 = minusdt2+a(t)2dH23 = minusdt2+a(t)2

    (dρ2 + sinh2 ρdΩ2

    2

    )and φ = φ(t) (4)

    where H3 is 3D hyperbolic space (the homogeneous and isotropic 3D spacewith constant negative curvature) As can be seen at a glance this is anFRW metric describing a homogeneous and isotropic cosmology scale factora(t) and scalar field ldquomatterrdquo φ(t) The evolution of a will be determined byV (φ(t)) in the usual way as well as by any other sources of stress-energy

    After the continuation the SO(4) invariance of the Euclidean solutionhas been replaced by the SO(3 1) invariance associated with H3 In otherwords the symmetries of the instanton are what give rise to the homogeneityand isotropy of the constant-time surfaces of this FRW cosmology Observersliving inside the bubble live in a negatively curved universe that satisfies thecosmological principle

    One of the most intriguing aspects of this result is that the ldquobig bangrdquot = 0 where the scale factor a(0) = 0 vanishes is not a curvature singularityIt is merely a coordinate singularitymdashthe spacetime just outside the surfacet = 0 (which is null) is regular and described by another analytic continuationof the metric Of course there is a quantum nucleation event (a finite distanceoutside the surface t = 0) that may make the description there in terms ofa classical spacetime plus field configuration problematic but so long as theenergy densities involved are sub-Planckian even the region outside the ldquobigbangrdquo surface t = 0 is no more singular than the nucleation of a bubble in afirst-order phase transition in field theory

    23 Bubblology

    The cosmology inside the bubble in the region described by (4) is fairly simpleto describe The scale factor obeys the Friedmann equation

    H2 = (aa)2 = ρ3 + 1a2 (5)

    where ρ sim V (φ) + (φ)22 + is the energy density in the scalar plus thatof any other matter or radiation At t = 0 the initial conditions are suchthat φ = 0 As a result the dominant term on the right hand side is thecurvature term 1a2 and one obtains a(t) = t+O(t3) [18]

    To produce a cosmology consistent with observations there must be aperiod of slow-roll inflation that begins at some time t gt 0 [18] The most

    9

    00 02 04 06 08 10Φ

    02

    04

    06

    08

    10VHΦLM4

    Figure 2 A scalar field potential for an open inflation model where a singlefield φ tunnels through a barrier and then drives slow-roll inflation inside theresulting bubble

    economical way to accomplish this is to assume that the field that tunneledto produce the bubble in the first place is also the inflaton and that itspotential V (φ) has a slow-roll ldquoplateaurdquo that the field evolves into after thetunneling (see Fig 2)

    In such a model inflation begins at a time ti such that 1a(ti)2 sim 1t2i sim

    V (φ(ti)) sim H2i Therefore inflation begins at t = ti sim 1Hi From that

    time on the scale factor will begin to grow exponentially rapidly diluting thecurvature and (given enough efolds) solving the curvature problem

    24 Curvature and fine-tuning

    During inflation the radius of spatial curvature of the universe grows expo-nentially In terms of the total energy density Ω the curvature contributionto the Friedmann equation is defined by Ωk equiv 1 minus Ω = minusk(Ha) where

    10

    k = minus1 for negative curvature As described above Ωk ltsim 1 at the start ofslow-roll inflation Since during inflation H is approximately constant and agrows exponentially by the end of inflation after N efolds Ωk sim eminus2N

    After inflation Ωk grows by a very large factor e2Nlowast so that its valuetoday is Ωk sim e2(NlowastminusN) (Nlowast sim 63 depends logarithmically on the reheatingtemperature and various other factors see eg [36])

    Therefore in open inflation models the value of Ω today is exponentiallysensitive to the length of inflation As with nearly all relics of the state ofthe universe prior to the start of inflation inflation ldquoinflates awayrdquo curvaturewith exponential efficiency

    This raises the question of how fine-tuned an open inflation model withobservable curvature would be The answer depends on the expected numberof efolds of slow-roll inflation As mentioned above [18] demonstrated thattoo little inflation (N lt Nlowast) prevents structure formation at least given afixed (N -independent) value of δρρ The argument parallels that of Wein-berg [8] Negative curvature can be thought of as a velocity for the expansionof the universe that exceeds ldquoescape velocityrdquo As such overdensities col-lapse only if the overdensity exceeds a certain boundmdashin effect in order tocollapse an overdense region must be dense enough that it is locally a closeduniverse Therefore for a given amplitude of δρρ insufficient N makescollapsed structures (ie stars and galaxies) exponentially rare

    Following Weinbergrsquos logic [8] one may therefore expect that N is notmuch greater than Nlowast How much greater we expect it to be is a stronglymodel-dependent question in [18] a toy model gave a measure of for theprobability of N efolds P (N) sim Nminus4

    3 Collisions

    In any given Lorentz frame every bubble must eventually undergo a firstcollision In this section I will discuss the effects on cosmology of a singlecollisionmdashstrictly speaking the analysis does not apply once there are regionsaffected by multiple collisions However if the effects are sufficiently weak inthose regions one can use linear cosmological perturbation theory in whichcase the effects of collisions simply superpose

    When two bubbles collide the spacetime region to the future of the col-lision is affected (see Fig 3 for a spacetime diagram of a bubble collision)Precisely what occurs inside that region depends on the model However

    11

    Figure 3 A spacetime diagram showing the causal structure of a cosmicbubble collision Coordinates are chosen so that light propagating in theplane of the diagram moves along 45 lines

    for applications to observational cosmology one is generally interested in re-gions in which the effects are a small perturbation on the spacetime prior tothe collision As I will discuss below the assumption that the perturbationis small plus the symmetries of the collision suffice to extract the genericleading-order effects on cosmology

    The most important features of a collision of this type are related to itssymmetries As reviewed above a single bubble has an SO(3 1) isometrya group generated by 6 symmetry generators It turns out that a bubblecollision breaks the SO(3 1) to SO(2 1) a group with 3 generators [11] Thisis enough symmetry to solve Einsteinrsquos equations in a situation in which thestress tensor is locally dominated by vacuum energymdashthe situation is verysimilar to that of a black hole (with three rotation isometries) in a vacuumdominated spacetime (de Sitter Minkowski or anti-de Sitter) As in thoseexamples there is a one parameter family of solutions Details can be foundin eg [11 20 22 23]

    We will see that as a result of these symmetries the effects of the collision

    12

    break isotropy and homogeneity but are azimuthally symmetric (and non-chiral) around a special directionmdashthe axis pointing toward the center of thecolliding bubble

    One important feature of these symmetries is that there exists a timeslicing of the collision spacetime in which the entire collision occurs at oneinstant everywhere along a 2 dimensional hyperboloid At later times in thesecoordinates the effects of the collision spread along a light ldquoconerdquo which isreally a region of space bounded by two hyperboloids To visualize this itmay help the reader to visualize the intersection of two lightcones cones orldquohourglass-typerdquo timelike hyperboloids in 2+1 dimensions The intersectionis a (spacelike) hyperbola which can be chosen to correspond to an instantof time and a point in one transverse coordinate (eg t and x in (6))

    31 Thin-wall collision metric

    In the approximation that the spacetime everywhere away from thin surfacesis dominated by vacuum energy one can write down exact solutions Thesemetrics are of the form

    ds2 = minusdt2g(t) + g(t)dx2 + t2dH22 (6)

    where dH22 = dρ2 + sinh2 ρdφ2 is the metric on a 2D hyperboloid and

    g(t) = 1 +H2t2 minusmt (7)

    Here H is the Hubble constant related to the local vacuum energy densityρV by H2 = ρV 3 and m is a constant [34 20 22] With m = 0 this issimply de Sitter space But with m non-zero it represents a solution that isessentially an analytically continued Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole (see[22] for a discussion of the causal structure of these solutions)

    Across a wall that separates two vacua (either the wall that separates twocollided bubbles or the walls of the bubbles themselves in the parent falsevacuum) one expects the vacuum energy density ρV to jump along withmany other quantities In the limit the wall is thin regions described by (6)can be ldquogluedrdquo together using Israel matching conditions [37 38 11 20] Thisallows one to determine the trajectory of the domain walls and therefore theconditions under which the domain walls that form in a collision acceleratetowards or away from inertial observers inside the bubbles When the wallaccelerates it rapidly becomes relativistic Anything it collides with will

    13

    almost certainly not survive as the ultra-relativistic wall typically has avery high energy density even in its rest frame In such cases there are nocosmological observables since the wall arrives almost immediately after itsfirst light signal

    The results of this analysis which hold at least when the spacetime oneither side of the domain wall is dominated by vacuum energy are as followsthe domain wall always accelerates away from an inertial observer in thebubble with lower vacuum energy andmdashdepending on the tension in thewall and the difference in the two vacuum energiesmdashit can either acceleratetowards away from or not accelerate with respect to an observer in thebubble with larger vacuum energy [22 23] One interesting implication ofthis result is that inertial observers in bubbles with small positive vacuumenergy are shielded from the walls separating them from regions with highervacuum energy and might be shielded from walls with negative vacuumenergy beyond them if the potential satisfies certain conditions

    Generalizing the solution (6) to the case of non-vacuum energy dominatedspacetimes is difficultmdashroughly as difficult as embedding a black hole into anon-trivial FRW cosmology However the basic symmetry structure will notbe affected the metric must still posses SO(2 1) symmetry and therefore canbe written in the form ds2 = ds22 +f(t x)dH2

    2 (just as a black hole embeddedin an expanding FRW could be written in a form ds2 = ds22 + f(t r)dΩ2

    2 Inparticular the region affected by the collisionmdashwhich takes place at somedefinite values of t and xmdashis still bounded by the future light ldquoconerdquo of thehyperboloid H2 at t x

    32 A new solution

    The metric (6) is a specific analytic continuation of an anti-de Sitter Schwarzschildblack hole metric There exist generalizations known as de Sitter-Vaidya oranti-de Sitter-Vaidya metrics that represent the formation of a black holein de Sitter or anti-de Sitter spacetime from the collapse of a shell of nullradiation [39 40] The shell does not have to be thinmdashin fact these metricscontain a free function that describes the profile of the ingoing radiationThe only criterion is that the radiation be purely radially ingoing (or purelyoutgoing)

    Performing the appropriate analytic continuation one obtains the follow-

    14

    ing metric2

    ds2 = (1minusm(w)t+H2t2)dw2 minus 2dwdt+ t2dH22 (8)

    If m(w) = m is constant (8) is equivalent to (6) by a coordinate transfor-mation In general it is easy to check that it represents a spacetime withSO(2 1) isometries that contains both vacuum energy (with energy densitydetermined by H as above) and radiation (with energy flux proportional tomprime(w))mdashbut with all the radiation moving coherently in the same directionAs such it may be a fairly good approximation to the spacetime inside abubble after a collision at least during the curvature domination and slow-roll inflation phases To my knowledge this is the first time this solution hasappeared in print

    4 Cosmological effects of collisions

    To determine the effects of the collision on cosmological observables I willmake the following assumptions

    -1 We are inside a bubble that has been or will be struck by at least oneother bubble

    0 The collision preserves SO(2 1) that is one can choose coordinateslike (6) or (8) in which it occurs at one instant everywhere along ahyperboloid

    1 The effects of the collision are confined entirely to the interior of thefuture ldquolightconerdquo of the collision event that is inside a region x gtxc(t) where xc(t) is a null geodesic in the (x t) plane transverse to thecollision hyperboloid

    2 There was sufficient inflation to make the spatial curvature of the uni-verse and of the hyperbolic collision ldquolightconerdquo negligible

    3 The effects on the observable part of our universe are small enough tobe treated using linear perturbation theory

    4 The collision affects the inflaton by creating an O(1) perturbation init near the beginning of inflation

    2I thank T Levi and S Chang for discussions on this metric

    15

    5 The inflaton perturbation is generic apart from constraints imposedby the symmetries and assumption 1

    Using these assumptions the effects on the cosmic microwave background(CMB) temperature were first worked out in [24] and on CMB polarizationin [30]

    41 Inflaton perturbation

    Given these assumptions one can simply expand the inflaton perturbationin a power series at a time near the beginning of inflation at which time ththe metric (6) will be a good description of the spacetime Dropping the H2

    factor (on which the perturbation is constant) for clarity

    ds2 = minusdt2g(t)+g(t)dx2 asymp minusdt2(Hit)2+(Hit)

    2dx2 = (Hiτ)minus2(minusdτ 2 + dx2

    )

    (9)The approximation is valid after the beginning of inflation Hit gt 1 and thecoordinate τ = minus1(H2t) is the conformal time The reader should recallthat τ increases towards zero during inflation and is exponentially small byits end

    The constraint from assumption 1 means that the collision perturbationis non-zero only inside the affected region [24 41]

    δφ(x τi) = M

    ( infinsumn=0

    anHni (x+ τi)

    n

    )Θ(x+ τi) (10)

    ˙δφ(x τi) = M

    ( infinsumn=0

    bnHn+1i (x+ τi)

    n

    )Θ(x+ τi) (11)

    Here δφ is the perturbation in the inflaton field an and bn are dimensionlesscoefficients τi is a time near the start of inflation where the slow-roll approx-imation is valid M is a mass scale associated with the range over which thefield varies and the coordinates are chosen for convenience so that the edgeof the region affected by the collision is located at x = minusτi at that time Notethat this expansion is completely generalmdashit does not assume that the fieldthat tunneled is the inflaton and depends only on the assumptions outlinedjust above It does however ignore the effects of the collision on fields otherthan the inflaton at least in single-field models one expects that primordialperturbations of the inflaton field will have the largest imprint on cosmologytoday

    16

    Without a model for the inflaton and the field(s) that participated in thetunneling we cannot compute the coefficients an and bn Generically one ex-pects that the perturbation will be at least O(1) on scales corresponding tothe radius of curvature of the universe That is one expects the coefficientsan sim 1 Moreover given enough inflation to solve the flatness problem (andproduce a universe consistent with current constraints on curvature) the ob-

    servable universe today corresponds to a region of size |x|Hi simradic

    Ωk(t0) 1at the beginning of inflation Therefore we are interested in the perturbation(10) in the limit Hx 1 and so the first term will dominate the observablesignatures (unless for some reason a0 an for some n gt 0) Notice thata0 6= 0 is a spatial discontinuity in δφ

    To determine the effects of this initial inflaton perturbation on the CMBand other cosmological observables one can employ the standard machineryof inflationary perturbation theory The first step is to determine the evolu-tion of the perturbation during inflation During slow-roll inflation at lowestorder in the slow-roll parameters inflaton perturbations satisfy the equationof a free massless scalar in de Sitter space (see eg [42]) One can solve thatequation in full generality the solution is [24]

    δφ = g(τ + x)minus τgprime(τ + x) + f(τ minus x)minus τf prime(τ minus x) (12)

    where g f are arbitrary functions of one variable and gprime f prime their derivativesThis solution may be familiar from the more standard treatment of in-

    flationary fluctuations in momentum space the terms proportional to τ arethe usual decaying modes in the expression δφk sim kminus32 (1plusmn ikτ) Evidentlythe τ -dependent terms arise due to the effects of inflation since this solutionis otherwise identical to that of a massless scalar field in 1+1-dimensionalMinkowski space

    Given the initial conditions in (10) one can use (12) to determine thesolution for all future times during slow-roll inflation The result can bewritten in closed form [41] but is not particularly illuminating Ratherthan reproduce it here it is easier to instead expand the functions f andg of (12) (which contain the same information as and are determined byδφ and ˙δφ) Since g is purely left-moving and f is purely right-moving forτ gt τi the perturbation near the edge of the lightcone Hi(xminus xc(τ)) 1 isdetermined only by g Therefore the effects on the CMB are determined by

    17

    the coefficients in the expansion of g

    g(x+ τ) =

    ( infinsumn=1

    cn(x+ τ)n)

    Θ(x+ τ) (13)

    Note that the sum begins with the linear term n = 1 This is because ann = 0 term in this expansion would lead to a δ-function singularity in δφwhich could not be expanded as in (10) and in any case would invalidateperturbation theory Put another way a non-zero c1 corresponds to a per-turbation δφ with a non-zero a0 in (10)

    By the end of inflation τ = τe is exponentially small and one can dropthe terms proportional to τ in (12) leaving simply

    δφ(x τe) asymp g(x) =

    ( infinsumn=1

    cn(x)n)

    Θ(x) (14)

    Note the leading term is now a discontinuity in the first derivative not adiscontinuity in the perturbation itself Inflation smooths sub-horizon pri-mordial gradients by effectively integrating them once

    42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe

    To precisely determine the effect of this perturbation on cosmological observ-ables at later times requires numerically integrating the coupled equationsthat control the perturbations in the various components of the energy den-sity in the early universe There is a standard set of software tools availablefor this purpose [43 44] The results of such a numerical analysis for a bub-ble collision can be found in [45] and analytically (and approximately) in[24 30]

    One can understand the qualitative results with a simple analytic ap-proximation A primary component of the collision signal is its effect on theCMB temperature The most important contribution to CMB temperaturefluctuations comes from the Sachs-Wolfe effect [46 47] To first approxima-tion all CMB photons last scattered at redshift zdc sim 1100 when electronsrecombined with protons and photons decoupled from the plasma and thenpropagated freely (without scattering again) until now Their temperatureis determined by the intrinsic temperature T (tdc x y z) at the point in thelast scattering volume at the time tdc corresponding to z = zdc Given that aphoton free-streamed it originated at some point satisfying x2+y2+z2 = D2

    dc

    18

    on a sphere of radius Ddc the radius of the current earthrsquos past lightconeat t = tdc The radius Ddc asymp 14Gpc can be determined from the expansionhistory a(t) by integrating back along a null geodesic in the FRW metric

    Because a locally higher temperature at last scattering corresponds to alocally higher density there is a corresponding negative gravitational poten-tial energy fluctation at that location In the Sachs-Wolfe approximation thecurrent temperature of a photon originating from such a point is a combi-nation of the intrinsic temperature of the plasma it last scattered from andthe local gravitational potential at that point as well as an overall redshift(1 + zdc)

    minus1 (and some additional contributions from time variations of thepotential along the way the ldquointegrated Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo) A simple cal-culation shows that the negative potential energy contribution is larger thanthe increased intrinsic temperature perturbation Φ(tdc) sim minus(32)δTT (tdc[47] Therefore locally hot spots at last scattering make cold spots on theCMB

    43 CMB temperature

    Given a perturbation to the Newtonian potential at reheating Φ = λxΘ(x)one can easily estimate the effect on the CMB temperature today Theessential points are the following

    bull Perturbations that are linear in the spatial coordinates (such as Φ =λx) remain so regardless of the cosmological evolution (to first order inperturbation theory) because the equations that govern the evolutionof cosmological perturbations are all second-order in spatial derivatives

    bull The evolution equations are causalmdashthe effects of an initial perturba-tions are confined to within its light- or sound-cone

    bull By the time of last scattering the radius of the sound-cone rsh of a per-turbation present at reheating corresponds to approximately 6 degreeson the CMB sky (rshDdc asymp 01)

    Given this one can easily determine the temperature perturbation in theCMB The ldquokinkrdquo at x = 0 will evolve but its effects must be confinedwithin a slab of thickness 2rsh Outside that slab the perturbationmdashwhichwas initially either zero or linear in xmdashcannot evolve in shape although

    19

    Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

    20

    its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

    Φ(tdc x y z) =

    0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

    (15)

    where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

    To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

    θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

    Ddc

    ) (16)

    The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

    (minusxe+rsh

    Ddc

    )lt θ lt cosminus1

    (minusxeminusrsh

    Ddc

    )near the rim of the disk where

    it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

    Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

    Ddc

    ) the CMB

    temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

    44 CMB polarization

    The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

    21

    E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

    However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

    Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

    To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

    Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

    22

    numerically

    45 Other cosmological observables

    A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

    5 Probabilities and measures

    The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

    To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

    At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

    23

    expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

    〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

    where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

    To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

    51 Observable collisions

    We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

    i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

    lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

    The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

    intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

    during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

    During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

    24

    Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

    i Puttingthis together gives

    〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

    2i (18)

    We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

    Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

    taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

    Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

    In the end the result is [25]

    〈N〉 simradic

    ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

    radicΩk (HfHi)

    2 (19)

    The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

    2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

    2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

    must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

    radicΩk lt 1

    Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

    52 Spot sizes

    Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

    25

    This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

    However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

    The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

    radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

    the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

    Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

    One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

    53 Spot brightness

    Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

    26

    potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

    timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

    6 Conclusions

    Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

    Acknowledgements

    I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

    References

    [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

    [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

    [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

    27

    [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

    [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

    [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

    [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

    [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

    [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

    [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

    [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

    [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

    28

    [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

    [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

    [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

    [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

    [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

    [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

    [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

    [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

    [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

    [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

    [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

    [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

    29

    [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

    [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

    [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

    [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

    [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

    [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

    [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

    [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

    [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

    [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

    [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

    [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

    [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

    30

    [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

    [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

    [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

    [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

    [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

    [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

    [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

    [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

    [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

    [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

    [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

    [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

    [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

    31

    [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

    [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

    [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

    [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

    [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

    [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

    [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

    [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

    [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

    [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

    32

    • 1 Introduction
      • 11 Overview
      • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
      • 13 Decay
      • 14 Motivation
        • 2 Earlier work
          • 21 Open inflaton
          • 22 Metrics and solutions
          • 23 Bubblology
          • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
            • 3 Collisions
              • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
              • 32 A new solution
                • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                  • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                  • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                  • 43 CMB temperature
                  • 44 CMB polarization
                  • 45 Other cosmological observables
                    • 5 Probabilities and measures
                      • 51 Observable collisions
                      • 52 Spot sizes
                      • 53 Spot brightness
                        • 6 Conclusions

      be found I will use natural units (8πG = c = h = 1) throughout Anotherreview of cosmic bubble collisions is [1]

      11 Overview

      First-order phase transitions are ubiquitous in physics During a first-ordertransition a meta-stable phase (the ldquofalserdquo vacuum) decays to a lower energyphase (the ldquotruerdquo vacuum which may itself be either metastable or trulystable) either by quantum tunneling or because the decay is stimulated bysome external influence The transition begins in a finite regionmdasha bubbleIf the bubble is sufficiently large when it forms it expands into the falsevacuum and collides with other bubbles Therefore in a static spacetimethe transition will eventually percolate and the false vacuum will disappearentirely

      The situation is different when gravity is included The energy densityin a meta-stable phase does not change with the expansion of space it isa cosmological ldquoconstantrdquo Therefore if the false vacuum has positive en-ergy it will undergo cosmic inflationmdashthe volume of space containing it willexpand exponentially with time If the timescale for the exponential (thefalse-vacuum Hubble rate) is faster than the rate of bubble formation thefalse vacuum will continually reproduce itself and the transition will neverpercolate Bubbles of true vacuum will expand (but slower than the falsevacuum) and occasionally collide with each other (Fig 1) Contained insideeach bubble is an expanding Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) cosmol-ogy that is homogeneous and isotropic apart from random perturbations andthe aftereffects of collisions

      In models consistent with current observations our observable universeis inside such a bubble embedded in and expanding into an eternally inflat-ing parent false vacuum Observational constraints require that our bubbleunderwent its own period of slow-roll inflation after its formation Colli-sions with other bubbles that nucleate in the (otherwise eternal) parent falsevacuum nearby occur with a non-zero probability per unit time and aretherefore guaranteed to happen eventually Their effects have already or willperturb the universe around us creating potentially observable signals Interms of the FRW coordinates describing the cosmology inside our bubblethese collisions occur before slow-roll inflationmdashin fact they occur before the(apparent) big bang of our FRW universe They can be regarded as creatinga special and predictable set of initial conditions at FRW time t = 0

      2

      Figure 1 A numerical simulation showing the spatial distribution of bubblesat a late time in an eternally inflating false vacuum Bubbles that appearedearlier expanded for longer and are larger but the physical volume of thefalse vacuum is larger at later times so there are more smaller bubblesEventually each bubble collides with an infinite number of others The late-time distribution is a scale-invariant fractal

      3

      12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity

      Any model of spacetime fields coupled to gravity can give rise to bubblecollisions if there exist at least two meta-stable phases of the field theoryAfter forming bubbles expand and collide with each other The goal of thisreview is to describe the physics of the formation expansion and collision ofthese bubbles I will focus exclusively on models in which at least one of thephases (the false vacuum) has a positive vacuum energy

      A region of spacetime filled with positive vacuum energy has a metric

      ds2 = minusdt2 + a(t)2d~x2 (1)

      and obeys Einsteinrsquos equations

      (aa)2 = H2f = Vf3 (2)

      where Vf is the energy density of the false vacuum and Hf is the associatedHubble constant The solution to (2) is de Sitter space a(t) = eHf t Regionsof space that are dominated by vacuum energy but contaminated by otherforms of matter or energy will exponentially rapidly inflate away the con-taminants and approach the metric (1) Regions not dominated by vacuumenergy will either expand more slowly or collapse into black holes which formany purposes is taken as justification for ignoring them after a few falsevacuum Hubble times (where the Hubble time is tH equiv 1H)

      13 Decay

      In metastable de Sitter space there is a dimensionless rate of bubble forma-tion γ When γ is small it can be defined as the expected number of bubblenucleations per unit Hubble time per unit Hubble volume that is the di-mensionful decay rate is Γ = H4

      fγ Generally γ is the exponential of minusSwhere S is the action for an instanton Hence when S 1 γ is very smalland the rate of bubble nucleations is slow When γ gtsim 1 the semi-classicalmethods reviewed here are not adequate to describe the physics

      When γ is small and the meta-stable phase has positive vacuum energythe exponential expansion means that the transition will never percolatemdashthere will always be some regions in which the unstable phase remains Theintuitive reason is simple in one Hubble time the de Sitter region increasesits volume by a factor of e3 In that same Hubble time one expects γ bubbles

      4

      of another vacuum each of volume less than the Hubble volume to appearTherefore if γ 1 a typical region will double in size many times beforeproducing a bubble The same applies to each ldquochildrdquo region and thereforethe meta-stable phase never ceases to exist This is known as ldquofalse vacuumeternal inflationrdquo (to distinguish it from slow-roll eternal inflation whichcan take place in an models with sufficiently flat positive potential energyfunctionals)

      In the end the picture is an exponentially rapidly expanding spacetimein which bubbles of more slowly expanding phases occasionally appear andoccasionally collide It is important to note that this is a generic predictionof any model with multiple positive energy minimamdashwhile it seems to bea prediction of the string theory landscape it is certainly not unique to itNevertheless an observation that confirmed this model would be a confir-mation of a prediction of string theory and an observation that ruled it outwould be at least potentially a falsification

      14 Motivation

      In the last few years there has been a surge of interest in this problem Thereason is that string theory predicts the existence of many meta-stable min-ima the so-called ldquostring landscaperdquo [2 3] In string theory the geometryand topology of spacetime is dynamical String theories exist in 9 spatial di-mensions Since we observe only three spatial dimensions in string solutionsthat might describe our world six of the spatial dimensions are compactifiedthat is they form a geometry with finite volume while the other three spatialdimensions and time can form Minkowski or de Sitter space

      Six dimensional manifolds have many parameters that describe theirshape and size These parameters are dynamical fields in string theory andtheir meta-stable solutions correspond to distinct possibilities for the shapeand size of the manifold Because they are meta-stable small fluctuationsaround these geometries behave like massive particles from the point of viewof the 4 large spacetime dimensions Therefore the low-energy physics asmeasured by a 4D observer is an effective field theory coupled to gravitywith the field content partially determined by which configuration the com-pact manifold is in

      The compact manifold can make transitions from one meta-stable config-uration to another Among the parameters that can vary from configurationto configuration is the value of the vacuum energy In non-supersymmetric

      5

      solutions it will not be zero instead its typical value is set by the stringenergy scalemdashwith both positive and negative values possible [2 4 3] Theexact value in any given phase will depend on the details and if there areenough different phases it is plausible that a small but non-empty subsethave vacuum energies that are consistent with the tiny value we observe[5 6 7] Hence the theory is at least consistent with observation and theextraordinarily small but non-zero value was even predicted a decade in ad-vance in [8] under a set of assumptions that coincide with those just outlined

      Because understanding the value of the cosmological constant is consid-ered one of the most important problems in theoretical physics and becausestring theory is our best candidate for a theory of quantum gravity it is worthtaking this scenario seriously One should look for observations beyond thecosmological constant which could test its validity hence this review

      2 Earlier work

      Alan Guthrsquos original model for inflationmdashnow known as ldquoold inflationrdquomdashwasan inflating false vacuum punctuated by bubbles [9] Inflation was the falsevacuum and the end of inflation was the nucleation of the bubble we inhabitThis model didnrsquot succeed because of difficulties with re-heating the universewhen a bubble first appears it is both strongly negatively curved and emptyReheating could potentially result from collisions with other bubbles butsuch collisions are either raremdashin which case reheating is anisotropicmdashorcommonmdashin which case the phase transition from the false vacuum completesafter order one Hubble time and there is little or no inflation Early studiesof this include [10 11]

      21 Open inflaton

      Old inflation was replaced by other models in which the inflaton slowly rollsand less attention was paid to models involving bubbles until the mid-90swhen the available data indicated that the universe was underdense and neg-atively curved At that time there was a burst of interest in ldquoopen inflationrdquomodels models in which our universe is inside a bubble that nucleated froma parent false vacuum (and hence is negatively curved) but where the bub-ble nucleation was followed by a period of standard slow-roll inflation Thatperiod of slow-roll produces density perturbations and reduces the curva-

      6

      ture thereby allowing Ωtotal sim 3 as the data seemed to indicate Therewere a series of papers by several groups of authors that worked out thepower spectrum of perturbations generated during inflation in such bubbles[12 13 14 15 16])

      While not all authors agreed on the quantitative effects all agree thatthe power spectrum of inflationary perturbations is significantly modified onscales of order the radius of curvature and larger This can be understoodqualitatively in a simple way As I will review below when a bubble universefirst appears it is dominated by negative curvature As a result it expandswith a scale factor a(t) sim t After a time of orderHminus1i whereHi is the Hubbleconstant during inflation the curvature redshifts to the point it is belowthe inflationary vacuum energy and inflation begins Clearly perturbationsproduced before or during this transitional era will not have a scale-invariantspectrum identical to those produced after it

      Mainly because of theoretical developments in string theory (see Sec 14)in the last few years there has been a resurgence of interest in these modelsfocussing both on the physics of individual bubble universes and on collisionsbetween bubbles [17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31]I will review much of that very recent work below A result from someyears back is [17 18] which demonstrate in several models (using argumentsparallel to [8]) that slow-roll inflation after the bubble nucleation is necessaryin order to avoid producing a universe devoid of structure With fixed δρρapproximately as many efolds of inflation N are needed as are necessary tosolve the flatness problem (approximately N sim 60 given typical values forthe reheating temperature etc)

      22 Metrics and solutions

      The single most important tool in understanding the physics of cosmic bub-bles is their symmetry The standard treatment of bubble formation in fieldtheory coupled to gravity was developed by [32] In that approach both therate of nucleation and the initial conditions just after the bubble forms areset by a solution to the equations of motion of the Euclidean version of thetheory Such solutions are known generally as ldquoinstantonsrdquo The justificationfor their application to this problem goes far beyond the scope of this reviewsee [32] and references therein

      Another mechanism by which false vacua can decay is charged membranenucleation in a background 4-form flux [33] These instantons (and the ex-

      7

      panding bubbles they correspond to) possess the same symmetries as thoseof [32] and I expect most of the results reviewed here to hold for them aswell

      In order to understand the symmetries of the bubble spacetime one canstart with the instanton solution of [32] In a model with a single scalar fieldφ coupled to Euclidean Einstein gravity the relevant solution is

      ds2 = dψ2 + a(ψ)2dΩ23 φ = φ(ψ) (3)

      where dΩ23 = dθ2 + sin2 θdΩ2

      2 is the round metric on a 3-dimensional sphereThe functions a(ψ) and φ(ψ) are determined by solving Einsteinrsquos equationsand the equation of motion for the scalar field φ and the solutions depend onthe potential energy for the scalar V (φ) If V has at least two minima solu-tions φ(ψ) that oscillate once around the maximum1 of V (φ) that separatesthe two minima generally exist (but see [34] and [35])

      Solutions of this form have a large degree of rotational symmetry they areinvariant under the group of rotations in 4D Euclidean space (in which onecan embed the 3-sphere) namely SO(4) This is a group with 4 times 32 = 6symmetry generators (each corresponding to a rotation in one of the sixplanes of 4D space) The action S(a φ) for a solution is determined by anintegral involving a(ψ) and φ(ψ) and is related to the false vacuum decayrate by γ sim eminusS

      Under certain conditions on the potential V (φ) the solutions a φ areldquothin wallrdquo meaning that they vary sharply with ψ In particular in thethin wall limit φ(ψ) sim φ0 + microΘ(ψ minus ψ0) where Θ(ψ) is a step functionand φ0 micro and ψ0 are constants The thin wall limit is convenient it makesit possible to calculate many quantities in closed form However it is notrequired for the validity of most of the physics discussed in this review nordo the symmetries of the solutions discussed here depend on it

      To determine the spacetime after the bubble nucleation occurs one cansimply analytically continue (3) back to Lorentzian signature The resultis a spacetime that contains a bubble expanding in a bath of false vacuumThere is more than one choice of analytic continuation different choices givemetrics that cover some part of the full Lorentzian spacetime These metricscan be patched together to determine the global structure of the spacetimeOf most relevance for the cosmology seen by observers inside the bubble isthe continuation that produces a metric that covers (most of) the interior of

      1In Euclidean signature the equations of motion have the sign of the potential reversed

      8

      the bubble Details can be found in eg [18] the result is

      ds2 = minusdt2+a(t)2dH23 = minusdt2+a(t)2

      (dρ2 + sinh2 ρdΩ2

      2

      )and φ = φ(t) (4)

      where H3 is 3D hyperbolic space (the homogeneous and isotropic 3D spacewith constant negative curvature) As can be seen at a glance this is anFRW metric describing a homogeneous and isotropic cosmology scale factora(t) and scalar field ldquomatterrdquo φ(t) The evolution of a will be determined byV (φ(t)) in the usual way as well as by any other sources of stress-energy

      After the continuation the SO(4) invariance of the Euclidean solutionhas been replaced by the SO(3 1) invariance associated with H3 In otherwords the symmetries of the instanton are what give rise to the homogeneityand isotropy of the constant-time surfaces of this FRW cosmology Observersliving inside the bubble live in a negatively curved universe that satisfies thecosmological principle

      One of the most intriguing aspects of this result is that the ldquobig bangrdquot = 0 where the scale factor a(0) = 0 vanishes is not a curvature singularityIt is merely a coordinate singularitymdashthe spacetime just outside the surfacet = 0 (which is null) is regular and described by another analytic continuationof the metric Of course there is a quantum nucleation event (a finite distanceoutside the surface t = 0) that may make the description there in terms ofa classical spacetime plus field configuration problematic but so long as theenergy densities involved are sub-Planckian even the region outside the ldquobigbangrdquo surface t = 0 is no more singular than the nucleation of a bubble in afirst-order phase transition in field theory

      23 Bubblology

      The cosmology inside the bubble in the region described by (4) is fairly simpleto describe The scale factor obeys the Friedmann equation

      H2 = (aa)2 = ρ3 + 1a2 (5)

      where ρ sim V (φ) + (φ)22 + is the energy density in the scalar plus thatof any other matter or radiation At t = 0 the initial conditions are suchthat φ = 0 As a result the dominant term on the right hand side is thecurvature term 1a2 and one obtains a(t) = t+O(t3) [18]

      To produce a cosmology consistent with observations there must be aperiod of slow-roll inflation that begins at some time t gt 0 [18] The most

      9

      00 02 04 06 08 10Φ

      02

      04

      06

      08

      10VHΦLM4

      Figure 2 A scalar field potential for an open inflation model where a singlefield φ tunnels through a barrier and then drives slow-roll inflation inside theresulting bubble

      economical way to accomplish this is to assume that the field that tunneledto produce the bubble in the first place is also the inflaton and that itspotential V (φ) has a slow-roll ldquoplateaurdquo that the field evolves into after thetunneling (see Fig 2)

      In such a model inflation begins at a time ti such that 1a(ti)2 sim 1t2i sim

      V (φ(ti)) sim H2i Therefore inflation begins at t = ti sim 1Hi From that

      time on the scale factor will begin to grow exponentially rapidly diluting thecurvature and (given enough efolds) solving the curvature problem

      24 Curvature and fine-tuning

      During inflation the radius of spatial curvature of the universe grows expo-nentially In terms of the total energy density Ω the curvature contributionto the Friedmann equation is defined by Ωk equiv 1 minus Ω = minusk(Ha) where

      10

      k = minus1 for negative curvature As described above Ωk ltsim 1 at the start ofslow-roll inflation Since during inflation H is approximately constant and agrows exponentially by the end of inflation after N efolds Ωk sim eminus2N

      After inflation Ωk grows by a very large factor e2Nlowast so that its valuetoday is Ωk sim e2(NlowastminusN) (Nlowast sim 63 depends logarithmically on the reheatingtemperature and various other factors see eg [36])

      Therefore in open inflation models the value of Ω today is exponentiallysensitive to the length of inflation As with nearly all relics of the state ofthe universe prior to the start of inflation inflation ldquoinflates awayrdquo curvaturewith exponential efficiency

      This raises the question of how fine-tuned an open inflation model withobservable curvature would be The answer depends on the expected numberof efolds of slow-roll inflation As mentioned above [18] demonstrated thattoo little inflation (N lt Nlowast) prevents structure formation at least given afixed (N -independent) value of δρρ The argument parallels that of Wein-berg [8] Negative curvature can be thought of as a velocity for the expansionof the universe that exceeds ldquoescape velocityrdquo As such overdensities col-lapse only if the overdensity exceeds a certain boundmdashin effect in order tocollapse an overdense region must be dense enough that it is locally a closeduniverse Therefore for a given amplitude of δρρ insufficient N makescollapsed structures (ie stars and galaxies) exponentially rare

      Following Weinbergrsquos logic [8] one may therefore expect that N is notmuch greater than Nlowast How much greater we expect it to be is a stronglymodel-dependent question in [18] a toy model gave a measure of for theprobability of N efolds P (N) sim Nminus4

      3 Collisions

      In any given Lorentz frame every bubble must eventually undergo a firstcollision In this section I will discuss the effects on cosmology of a singlecollisionmdashstrictly speaking the analysis does not apply once there are regionsaffected by multiple collisions However if the effects are sufficiently weak inthose regions one can use linear cosmological perturbation theory in whichcase the effects of collisions simply superpose

      When two bubbles collide the spacetime region to the future of the col-lision is affected (see Fig 3 for a spacetime diagram of a bubble collision)Precisely what occurs inside that region depends on the model However

      11

      Figure 3 A spacetime diagram showing the causal structure of a cosmicbubble collision Coordinates are chosen so that light propagating in theplane of the diagram moves along 45 lines

      for applications to observational cosmology one is generally interested in re-gions in which the effects are a small perturbation on the spacetime prior tothe collision As I will discuss below the assumption that the perturbationis small plus the symmetries of the collision suffice to extract the genericleading-order effects on cosmology

      The most important features of a collision of this type are related to itssymmetries As reviewed above a single bubble has an SO(3 1) isometrya group generated by 6 symmetry generators It turns out that a bubblecollision breaks the SO(3 1) to SO(2 1) a group with 3 generators [11] Thisis enough symmetry to solve Einsteinrsquos equations in a situation in which thestress tensor is locally dominated by vacuum energymdashthe situation is verysimilar to that of a black hole (with three rotation isometries) in a vacuumdominated spacetime (de Sitter Minkowski or anti-de Sitter) As in thoseexamples there is a one parameter family of solutions Details can be foundin eg [11 20 22 23]

      We will see that as a result of these symmetries the effects of the collision

      12

      break isotropy and homogeneity but are azimuthally symmetric (and non-chiral) around a special directionmdashthe axis pointing toward the center of thecolliding bubble

      One important feature of these symmetries is that there exists a timeslicing of the collision spacetime in which the entire collision occurs at oneinstant everywhere along a 2 dimensional hyperboloid At later times in thesecoordinates the effects of the collision spread along a light ldquoconerdquo which isreally a region of space bounded by two hyperboloids To visualize this itmay help the reader to visualize the intersection of two lightcones cones orldquohourglass-typerdquo timelike hyperboloids in 2+1 dimensions The intersectionis a (spacelike) hyperbola which can be chosen to correspond to an instantof time and a point in one transverse coordinate (eg t and x in (6))

      31 Thin-wall collision metric

      In the approximation that the spacetime everywhere away from thin surfacesis dominated by vacuum energy one can write down exact solutions Thesemetrics are of the form

      ds2 = minusdt2g(t) + g(t)dx2 + t2dH22 (6)

      where dH22 = dρ2 + sinh2 ρdφ2 is the metric on a 2D hyperboloid and

      g(t) = 1 +H2t2 minusmt (7)

      Here H is the Hubble constant related to the local vacuum energy densityρV by H2 = ρV 3 and m is a constant [34 20 22] With m = 0 this issimply de Sitter space But with m non-zero it represents a solution that isessentially an analytically continued Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole (see[22] for a discussion of the causal structure of these solutions)

      Across a wall that separates two vacua (either the wall that separates twocollided bubbles or the walls of the bubbles themselves in the parent falsevacuum) one expects the vacuum energy density ρV to jump along withmany other quantities In the limit the wall is thin regions described by (6)can be ldquogluedrdquo together using Israel matching conditions [37 38 11 20] Thisallows one to determine the trajectory of the domain walls and therefore theconditions under which the domain walls that form in a collision acceleratetowards or away from inertial observers inside the bubbles When the wallaccelerates it rapidly becomes relativistic Anything it collides with will

      13

      almost certainly not survive as the ultra-relativistic wall typically has avery high energy density even in its rest frame In such cases there are nocosmological observables since the wall arrives almost immediately after itsfirst light signal

      The results of this analysis which hold at least when the spacetime oneither side of the domain wall is dominated by vacuum energy are as followsthe domain wall always accelerates away from an inertial observer in thebubble with lower vacuum energy andmdashdepending on the tension in thewall and the difference in the two vacuum energiesmdashit can either acceleratetowards away from or not accelerate with respect to an observer in thebubble with larger vacuum energy [22 23] One interesting implication ofthis result is that inertial observers in bubbles with small positive vacuumenergy are shielded from the walls separating them from regions with highervacuum energy and might be shielded from walls with negative vacuumenergy beyond them if the potential satisfies certain conditions

      Generalizing the solution (6) to the case of non-vacuum energy dominatedspacetimes is difficultmdashroughly as difficult as embedding a black hole into anon-trivial FRW cosmology However the basic symmetry structure will notbe affected the metric must still posses SO(2 1) symmetry and therefore canbe written in the form ds2 = ds22 +f(t x)dH2

      2 (just as a black hole embeddedin an expanding FRW could be written in a form ds2 = ds22 + f(t r)dΩ2

      2 Inparticular the region affected by the collisionmdashwhich takes place at somedefinite values of t and xmdashis still bounded by the future light ldquoconerdquo of thehyperboloid H2 at t x

      32 A new solution

      The metric (6) is a specific analytic continuation of an anti-de Sitter Schwarzschildblack hole metric There exist generalizations known as de Sitter-Vaidya oranti-de Sitter-Vaidya metrics that represent the formation of a black holein de Sitter or anti-de Sitter spacetime from the collapse of a shell of nullradiation [39 40] The shell does not have to be thinmdashin fact these metricscontain a free function that describes the profile of the ingoing radiationThe only criterion is that the radiation be purely radially ingoing (or purelyoutgoing)

      Performing the appropriate analytic continuation one obtains the follow-

      14

      ing metric2

      ds2 = (1minusm(w)t+H2t2)dw2 minus 2dwdt+ t2dH22 (8)

      If m(w) = m is constant (8) is equivalent to (6) by a coordinate transfor-mation In general it is easy to check that it represents a spacetime withSO(2 1) isometries that contains both vacuum energy (with energy densitydetermined by H as above) and radiation (with energy flux proportional tomprime(w))mdashbut with all the radiation moving coherently in the same directionAs such it may be a fairly good approximation to the spacetime inside abubble after a collision at least during the curvature domination and slow-roll inflation phases To my knowledge this is the first time this solution hasappeared in print

      4 Cosmological effects of collisions

      To determine the effects of the collision on cosmological observables I willmake the following assumptions

      -1 We are inside a bubble that has been or will be struck by at least oneother bubble

      0 The collision preserves SO(2 1) that is one can choose coordinateslike (6) or (8) in which it occurs at one instant everywhere along ahyperboloid

      1 The effects of the collision are confined entirely to the interior of thefuture ldquolightconerdquo of the collision event that is inside a region x gtxc(t) where xc(t) is a null geodesic in the (x t) plane transverse to thecollision hyperboloid

      2 There was sufficient inflation to make the spatial curvature of the uni-verse and of the hyperbolic collision ldquolightconerdquo negligible

      3 The effects on the observable part of our universe are small enough tobe treated using linear perturbation theory

      4 The collision affects the inflaton by creating an O(1) perturbation init near the beginning of inflation

      2I thank T Levi and S Chang for discussions on this metric

      15

      5 The inflaton perturbation is generic apart from constraints imposedby the symmetries and assumption 1

      Using these assumptions the effects on the cosmic microwave background(CMB) temperature were first worked out in [24] and on CMB polarizationin [30]

      41 Inflaton perturbation

      Given these assumptions one can simply expand the inflaton perturbationin a power series at a time near the beginning of inflation at which time ththe metric (6) will be a good description of the spacetime Dropping the H2

      factor (on which the perturbation is constant) for clarity

      ds2 = minusdt2g(t)+g(t)dx2 asymp minusdt2(Hit)2+(Hit)

      2dx2 = (Hiτ)minus2(minusdτ 2 + dx2

      )

      (9)The approximation is valid after the beginning of inflation Hit gt 1 and thecoordinate τ = minus1(H2t) is the conformal time The reader should recallthat τ increases towards zero during inflation and is exponentially small byits end

      The constraint from assumption 1 means that the collision perturbationis non-zero only inside the affected region [24 41]

      δφ(x τi) = M

      ( infinsumn=0

      anHni (x+ τi)

      n

      )Θ(x+ τi) (10)

      ˙δφ(x τi) = M

      ( infinsumn=0

      bnHn+1i (x+ τi)

      n

      )Θ(x+ τi) (11)

      Here δφ is the perturbation in the inflaton field an and bn are dimensionlesscoefficients τi is a time near the start of inflation where the slow-roll approx-imation is valid M is a mass scale associated with the range over which thefield varies and the coordinates are chosen for convenience so that the edgeof the region affected by the collision is located at x = minusτi at that time Notethat this expansion is completely generalmdashit does not assume that the fieldthat tunneled is the inflaton and depends only on the assumptions outlinedjust above It does however ignore the effects of the collision on fields otherthan the inflaton at least in single-field models one expects that primordialperturbations of the inflaton field will have the largest imprint on cosmologytoday

      16

      Without a model for the inflaton and the field(s) that participated in thetunneling we cannot compute the coefficients an and bn Generically one ex-pects that the perturbation will be at least O(1) on scales corresponding tothe radius of curvature of the universe That is one expects the coefficientsan sim 1 Moreover given enough inflation to solve the flatness problem (andproduce a universe consistent with current constraints on curvature) the ob-

      servable universe today corresponds to a region of size |x|Hi simradic

      Ωk(t0) 1at the beginning of inflation Therefore we are interested in the perturbation(10) in the limit Hx 1 and so the first term will dominate the observablesignatures (unless for some reason a0 an for some n gt 0) Notice thata0 6= 0 is a spatial discontinuity in δφ

      To determine the effects of this initial inflaton perturbation on the CMBand other cosmological observables one can employ the standard machineryof inflationary perturbation theory The first step is to determine the evolu-tion of the perturbation during inflation During slow-roll inflation at lowestorder in the slow-roll parameters inflaton perturbations satisfy the equationof a free massless scalar in de Sitter space (see eg [42]) One can solve thatequation in full generality the solution is [24]

      δφ = g(τ + x)minus τgprime(τ + x) + f(τ minus x)minus τf prime(τ minus x) (12)

      where g f are arbitrary functions of one variable and gprime f prime their derivativesThis solution may be familiar from the more standard treatment of in-

      flationary fluctuations in momentum space the terms proportional to τ arethe usual decaying modes in the expression δφk sim kminus32 (1plusmn ikτ) Evidentlythe τ -dependent terms arise due to the effects of inflation since this solutionis otherwise identical to that of a massless scalar field in 1+1-dimensionalMinkowski space

      Given the initial conditions in (10) one can use (12) to determine thesolution for all future times during slow-roll inflation The result can bewritten in closed form [41] but is not particularly illuminating Ratherthan reproduce it here it is easier to instead expand the functions f andg of (12) (which contain the same information as and are determined byδφ and ˙δφ) Since g is purely left-moving and f is purely right-moving forτ gt τi the perturbation near the edge of the lightcone Hi(xminus xc(τ)) 1 isdetermined only by g Therefore the effects on the CMB are determined by

      17

      the coefficients in the expansion of g

      g(x+ τ) =

      ( infinsumn=1

      cn(x+ τ)n)

      Θ(x+ τ) (13)

      Note that the sum begins with the linear term n = 1 This is because ann = 0 term in this expansion would lead to a δ-function singularity in δφwhich could not be expanded as in (10) and in any case would invalidateperturbation theory Put another way a non-zero c1 corresponds to a per-turbation δφ with a non-zero a0 in (10)

      By the end of inflation τ = τe is exponentially small and one can dropthe terms proportional to τ in (12) leaving simply

      δφ(x τe) asymp g(x) =

      ( infinsumn=1

      cn(x)n)

      Θ(x) (14)

      Note the leading term is now a discontinuity in the first derivative not adiscontinuity in the perturbation itself Inflation smooths sub-horizon pri-mordial gradients by effectively integrating them once

      42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe

      To precisely determine the effect of this perturbation on cosmological observ-ables at later times requires numerically integrating the coupled equationsthat control the perturbations in the various components of the energy den-sity in the early universe There is a standard set of software tools availablefor this purpose [43 44] The results of such a numerical analysis for a bub-ble collision can be found in [45] and analytically (and approximately) in[24 30]

      One can understand the qualitative results with a simple analytic ap-proximation A primary component of the collision signal is its effect on theCMB temperature The most important contribution to CMB temperaturefluctuations comes from the Sachs-Wolfe effect [46 47] To first approxima-tion all CMB photons last scattered at redshift zdc sim 1100 when electronsrecombined with protons and photons decoupled from the plasma and thenpropagated freely (without scattering again) until now Their temperatureis determined by the intrinsic temperature T (tdc x y z) at the point in thelast scattering volume at the time tdc corresponding to z = zdc Given that aphoton free-streamed it originated at some point satisfying x2+y2+z2 = D2

      dc

      18

      on a sphere of radius Ddc the radius of the current earthrsquos past lightconeat t = tdc The radius Ddc asymp 14Gpc can be determined from the expansionhistory a(t) by integrating back along a null geodesic in the FRW metric

      Because a locally higher temperature at last scattering corresponds to alocally higher density there is a corresponding negative gravitational poten-tial energy fluctation at that location In the Sachs-Wolfe approximation thecurrent temperature of a photon originating from such a point is a combi-nation of the intrinsic temperature of the plasma it last scattered from andthe local gravitational potential at that point as well as an overall redshift(1 + zdc)

      minus1 (and some additional contributions from time variations of thepotential along the way the ldquointegrated Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo) A simple cal-culation shows that the negative potential energy contribution is larger thanthe increased intrinsic temperature perturbation Φ(tdc) sim minus(32)δTT (tdc[47] Therefore locally hot spots at last scattering make cold spots on theCMB

      43 CMB temperature

      Given a perturbation to the Newtonian potential at reheating Φ = λxΘ(x)one can easily estimate the effect on the CMB temperature today Theessential points are the following

      bull Perturbations that are linear in the spatial coordinates (such as Φ =λx) remain so regardless of the cosmological evolution (to first order inperturbation theory) because the equations that govern the evolutionof cosmological perturbations are all second-order in spatial derivatives

      bull The evolution equations are causalmdashthe effects of an initial perturba-tions are confined to within its light- or sound-cone

      bull By the time of last scattering the radius of the sound-cone rsh of a per-turbation present at reheating corresponds to approximately 6 degreeson the CMB sky (rshDdc asymp 01)

      Given this one can easily determine the temperature perturbation in theCMB The ldquokinkrdquo at x = 0 will evolve but its effects must be confinedwithin a slab of thickness 2rsh Outside that slab the perturbationmdashwhichwas initially either zero or linear in xmdashcannot evolve in shape although

      19

      Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

      20

      its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

      Φ(tdc x y z) =

      0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

      (15)

      where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

      To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

      θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

      Ddc

      ) (16)

      The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

      (minusxe+rsh

      Ddc

      )lt θ lt cosminus1

      (minusxeminusrsh

      Ddc

      )near the rim of the disk where

      it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

      Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

      Ddc

      ) the CMB

      temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

      44 CMB polarization

      The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

      21

      E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

      However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

      Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

      To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

      Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

      22

      numerically

      45 Other cosmological observables

      A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

      5 Probabilities and measures

      The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

      To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

      At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

      23

      expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

      〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

      where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

      To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

      51 Observable collisions

      We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

      i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

      lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

      The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

      intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

      during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

      During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

      24

      Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

      i Puttingthis together gives

      〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

      2i (18)

      We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

      Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

      taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

      Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

      In the end the result is [25]

      〈N〉 simradic

      ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

      radicΩk (HfHi)

      2 (19)

      The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

      2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

      2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

      must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

      radicΩk lt 1

      Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

      52 Spot sizes

      Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

      25

      This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

      However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

      The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

      radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

      the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

      Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

      One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

      53 Spot brightness

      Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

      26

      potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

      timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

      6 Conclusions

      Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

      Acknowledgements

      I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

      References

      [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

      [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

      [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

      27

      [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

      [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

      [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

      [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

      [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

      [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

      [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

      [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

      [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

      28

      [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

      [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

      [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

      [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

      [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

      [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

      [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

      [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

      [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

      [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

      [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

      [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

      29

      [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

      [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

      [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

      [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

      [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

      [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

      [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

      [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

      [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

      [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

      [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

      [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

      [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

      30

      [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

      [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

      [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

      [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

      [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

      [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

      [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

      [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

      [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

      [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

      [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

      [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

      [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

      31

      [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

      [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

      [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

      [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

      [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

      [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

      [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

      [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

      [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

      [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

      32

      • 1 Introduction
        • 11 Overview
        • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
        • 13 Decay
        • 14 Motivation
          • 2 Earlier work
            • 21 Open inflaton
            • 22 Metrics and solutions
            • 23 Bubblology
            • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
              • 3 Collisions
                • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                • 32 A new solution
                  • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                    • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                    • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                    • 43 CMB temperature
                    • 44 CMB polarization
                    • 45 Other cosmological observables
                      • 5 Probabilities and measures
                        • 51 Observable collisions
                        • 52 Spot sizes
                        • 53 Spot brightness
                          • 6 Conclusions

        Figure 1 A numerical simulation showing the spatial distribution of bubblesat a late time in an eternally inflating false vacuum Bubbles that appearedearlier expanded for longer and are larger but the physical volume of thefalse vacuum is larger at later times so there are more smaller bubblesEventually each bubble collides with an infinite number of others The late-time distribution is a scale-invariant fractal

        3

        12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity

        Any model of spacetime fields coupled to gravity can give rise to bubblecollisions if there exist at least two meta-stable phases of the field theoryAfter forming bubbles expand and collide with each other The goal of thisreview is to describe the physics of the formation expansion and collision ofthese bubbles I will focus exclusively on models in which at least one of thephases (the false vacuum) has a positive vacuum energy

        A region of spacetime filled with positive vacuum energy has a metric

        ds2 = minusdt2 + a(t)2d~x2 (1)

        and obeys Einsteinrsquos equations

        (aa)2 = H2f = Vf3 (2)

        where Vf is the energy density of the false vacuum and Hf is the associatedHubble constant The solution to (2) is de Sitter space a(t) = eHf t Regionsof space that are dominated by vacuum energy but contaminated by otherforms of matter or energy will exponentially rapidly inflate away the con-taminants and approach the metric (1) Regions not dominated by vacuumenergy will either expand more slowly or collapse into black holes which formany purposes is taken as justification for ignoring them after a few falsevacuum Hubble times (where the Hubble time is tH equiv 1H)

        13 Decay

        In metastable de Sitter space there is a dimensionless rate of bubble forma-tion γ When γ is small it can be defined as the expected number of bubblenucleations per unit Hubble time per unit Hubble volume that is the di-mensionful decay rate is Γ = H4

        fγ Generally γ is the exponential of minusSwhere S is the action for an instanton Hence when S 1 γ is very smalland the rate of bubble nucleations is slow When γ gtsim 1 the semi-classicalmethods reviewed here are not adequate to describe the physics

        When γ is small and the meta-stable phase has positive vacuum energythe exponential expansion means that the transition will never percolatemdashthere will always be some regions in which the unstable phase remains Theintuitive reason is simple in one Hubble time the de Sitter region increasesits volume by a factor of e3 In that same Hubble time one expects γ bubbles

        4

        of another vacuum each of volume less than the Hubble volume to appearTherefore if γ 1 a typical region will double in size many times beforeproducing a bubble The same applies to each ldquochildrdquo region and thereforethe meta-stable phase never ceases to exist This is known as ldquofalse vacuumeternal inflationrdquo (to distinguish it from slow-roll eternal inflation whichcan take place in an models with sufficiently flat positive potential energyfunctionals)

        In the end the picture is an exponentially rapidly expanding spacetimein which bubbles of more slowly expanding phases occasionally appear andoccasionally collide It is important to note that this is a generic predictionof any model with multiple positive energy minimamdashwhile it seems to bea prediction of the string theory landscape it is certainly not unique to itNevertheless an observation that confirmed this model would be a confir-mation of a prediction of string theory and an observation that ruled it outwould be at least potentially a falsification

        14 Motivation

        In the last few years there has been a surge of interest in this problem Thereason is that string theory predicts the existence of many meta-stable min-ima the so-called ldquostring landscaperdquo [2 3] In string theory the geometryand topology of spacetime is dynamical String theories exist in 9 spatial di-mensions Since we observe only three spatial dimensions in string solutionsthat might describe our world six of the spatial dimensions are compactifiedthat is they form a geometry with finite volume while the other three spatialdimensions and time can form Minkowski or de Sitter space

        Six dimensional manifolds have many parameters that describe theirshape and size These parameters are dynamical fields in string theory andtheir meta-stable solutions correspond to distinct possibilities for the shapeand size of the manifold Because they are meta-stable small fluctuationsaround these geometries behave like massive particles from the point of viewof the 4 large spacetime dimensions Therefore the low-energy physics asmeasured by a 4D observer is an effective field theory coupled to gravitywith the field content partially determined by which configuration the com-pact manifold is in

        The compact manifold can make transitions from one meta-stable config-uration to another Among the parameters that can vary from configurationto configuration is the value of the vacuum energy In non-supersymmetric

        5

        solutions it will not be zero instead its typical value is set by the stringenergy scalemdashwith both positive and negative values possible [2 4 3] Theexact value in any given phase will depend on the details and if there areenough different phases it is plausible that a small but non-empty subsethave vacuum energies that are consistent with the tiny value we observe[5 6 7] Hence the theory is at least consistent with observation and theextraordinarily small but non-zero value was even predicted a decade in ad-vance in [8] under a set of assumptions that coincide with those just outlined

        Because understanding the value of the cosmological constant is consid-ered one of the most important problems in theoretical physics and becausestring theory is our best candidate for a theory of quantum gravity it is worthtaking this scenario seriously One should look for observations beyond thecosmological constant which could test its validity hence this review

        2 Earlier work

        Alan Guthrsquos original model for inflationmdashnow known as ldquoold inflationrdquomdashwasan inflating false vacuum punctuated by bubbles [9] Inflation was the falsevacuum and the end of inflation was the nucleation of the bubble we inhabitThis model didnrsquot succeed because of difficulties with re-heating the universewhen a bubble first appears it is both strongly negatively curved and emptyReheating could potentially result from collisions with other bubbles butsuch collisions are either raremdashin which case reheating is anisotropicmdashorcommonmdashin which case the phase transition from the false vacuum completesafter order one Hubble time and there is little or no inflation Early studiesof this include [10 11]

        21 Open inflaton

        Old inflation was replaced by other models in which the inflaton slowly rollsand less attention was paid to models involving bubbles until the mid-90swhen the available data indicated that the universe was underdense and neg-atively curved At that time there was a burst of interest in ldquoopen inflationrdquomodels models in which our universe is inside a bubble that nucleated froma parent false vacuum (and hence is negatively curved) but where the bub-ble nucleation was followed by a period of standard slow-roll inflation Thatperiod of slow-roll produces density perturbations and reduces the curva-

        6

        ture thereby allowing Ωtotal sim 3 as the data seemed to indicate Therewere a series of papers by several groups of authors that worked out thepower spectrum of perturbations generated during inflation in such bubbles[12 13 14 15 16])

        While not all authors agreed on the quantitative effects all agree thatthe power spectrum of inflationary perturbations is significantly modified onscales of order the radius of curvature and larger This can be understoodqualitatively in a simple way As I will review below when a bubble universefirst appears it is dominated by negative curvature As a result it expandswith a scale factor a(t) sim t After a time of orderHminus1i whereHi is the Hubbleconstant during inflation the curvature redshifts to the point it is belowthe inflationary vacuum energy and inflation begins Clearly perturbationsproduced before or during this transitional era will not have a scale-invariantspectrum identical to those produced after it

        Mainly because of theoretical developments in string theory (see Sec 14)in the last few years there has been a resurgence of interest in these modelsfocussing both on the physics of individual bubble universes and on collisionsbetween bubbles [17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31]I will review much of that very recent work below A result from someyears back is [17 18] which demonstrate in several models (using argumentsparallel to [8]) that slow-roll inflation after the bubble nucleation is necessaryin order to avoid producing a universe devoid of structure With fixed δρρapproximately as many efolds of inflation N are needed as are necessary tosolve the flatness problem (approximately N sim 60 given typical values forthe reheating temperature etc)

        22 Metrics and solutions

        The single most important tool in understanding the physics of cosmic bub-bles is their symmetry The standard treatment of bubble formation in fieldtheory coupled to gravity was developed by [32] In that approach both therate of nucleation and the initial conditions just after the bubble forms areset by a solution to the equations of motion of the Euclidean version of thetheory Such solutions are known generally as ldquoinstantonsrdquo The justificationfor their application to this problem goes far beyond the scope of this reviewsee [32] and references therein

        Another mechanism by which false vacua can decay is charged membranenucleation in a background 4-form flux [33] These instantons (and the ex-

        7

        panding bubbles they correspond to) possess the same symmetries as thoseof [32] and I expect most of the results reviewed here to hold for them aswell

        In order to understand the symmetries of the bubble spacetime one canstart with the instanton solution of [32] In a model with a single scalar fieldφ coupled to Euclidean Einstein gravity the relevant solution is

        ds2 = dψ2 + a(ψ)2dΩ23 φ = φ(ψ) (3)

        where dΩ23 = dθ2 + sin2 θdΩ2

        2 is the round metric on a 3-dimensional sphereThe functions a(ψ) and φ(ψ) are determined by solving Einsteinrsquos equationsand the equation of motion for the scalar field φ and the solutions depend onthe potential energy for the scalar V (φ) If V has at least two minima solu-tions φ(ψ) that oscillate once around the maximum1 of V (φ) that separatesthe two minima generally exist (but see [34] and [35])

        Solutions of this form have a large degree of rotational symmetry they areinvariant under the group of rotations in 4D Euclidean space (in which onecan embed the 3-sphere) namely SO(4) This is a group with 4 times 32 = 6symmetry generators (each corresponding to a rotation in one of the sixplanes of 4D space) The action S(a φ) for a solution is determined by anintegral involving a(ψ) and φ(ψ) and is related to the false vacuum decayrate by γ sim eminusS

        Under certain conditions on the potential V (φ) the solutions a φ areldquothin wallrdquo meaning that they vary sharply with ψ In particular in thethin wall limit φ(ψ) sim φ0 + microΘ(ψ minus ψ0) where Θ(ψ) is a step functionand φ0 micro and ψ0 are constants The thin wall limit is convenient it makesit possible to calculate many quantities in closed form However it is notrequired for the validity of most of the physics discussed in this review nordo the symmetries of the solutions discussed here depend on it

        To determine the spacetime after the bubble nucleation occurs one cansimply analytically continue (3) back to Lorentzian signature The resultis a spacetime that contains a bubble expanding in a bath of false vacuumThere is more than one choice of analytic continuation different choices givemetrics that cover some part of the full Lorentzian spacetime These metricscan be patched together to determine the global structure of the spacetimeOf most relevance for the cosmology seen by observers inside the bubble isthe continuation that produces a metric that covers (most of) the interior of

        1In Euclidean signature the equations of motion have the sign of the potential reversed

        8

        the bubble Details can be found in eg [18] the result is

        ds2 = minusdt2+a(t)2dH23 = minusdt2+a(t)2

        (dρ2 + sinh2 ρdΩ2

        2

        )and φ = φ(t) (4)

        where H3 is 3D hyperbolic space (the homogeneous and isotropic 3D spacewith constant negative curvature) As can be seen at a glance this is anFRW metric describing a homogeneous and isotropic cosmology scale factora(t) and scalar field ldquomatterrdquo φ(t) The evolution of a will be determined byV (φ(t)) in the usual way as well as by any other sources of stress-energy

        After the continuation the SO(4) invariance of the Euclidean solutionhas been replaced by the SO(3 1) invariance associated with H3 In otherwords the symmetries of the instanton are what give rise to the homogeneityand isotropy of the constant-time surfaces of this FRW cosmology Observersliving inside the bubble live in a negatively curved universe that satisfies thecosmological principle

        One of the most intriguing aspects of this result is that the ldquobig bangrdquot = 0 where the scale factor a(0) = 0 vanishes is not a curvature singularityIt is merely a coordinate singularitymdashthe spacetime just outside the surfacet = 0 (which is null) is regular and described by another analytic continuationof the metric Of course there is a quantum nucleation event (a finite distanceoutside the surface t = 0) that may make the description there in terms ofa classical spacetime plus field configuration problematic but so long as theenergy densities involved are sub-Planckian even the region outside the ldquobigbangrdquo surface t = 0 is no more singular than the nucleation of a bubble in afirst-order phase transition in field theory

        23 Bubblology

        The cosmology inside the bubble in the region described by (4) is fairly simpleto describe The scale factor obeys the Friedmann equation

        H2 = (aa)2 = ρ3 + 1a2 (5)

        where ρ sim V (φ) + (φ)22 + is the energy density in the scalar plus thatof any other matter or radiation At t = 0 the initial conditions are suchthat φ = 0 As a result the dominant term on the right hand side is thecurvature term 1a2 and one obtains a(t) = t+O(t3) [18]

        To produce a cosmology consistent with observations there must be aperiod of slow-roll inflation that begins at some time t gt 0 [18] The most

        9

        00 02 04 06 08 10Φ

        02

        04

        06

        08

        10VHΦLM4

        Figure 2 A scalar field potential for an open inflation model where a singlefield φ tunnels through a barrier and then drives slow-roll inflation inside theresulting bubble

        economical way to accomplish this is to assume that the field that tunneledto produce the bubble in the first place is also the inflaton and that itspotential V (φ) has a slow-roll ldquoplateaurdquo that the field evolves into after thetunneling (see Fig 2)

        In such a model inflation begins at a time ti such that 1a(ti)2 sim 1t2i sim

        V (φ(ti)) sim H2i Therefore inflation begins at t = ti sim 1Hi From that

        time on the scale factor will begin to grow exponentially rapidly diluting thecurvature and (given enough efolds) solving the curvature problem

        24 Curvature and fine-tuning

        During inflation the radius of spatial curvature of the universe grows expo-nentially In terms of the total energy density Ω the curvature contributionto the Friedmann equation is defined by Ωk equiv 1 minus Ω = minusk(Ha) where

        10

        k = minus1 for negative curvature As described above Ωk ltsim 1 at the start ofslow-roll inflation Since during inflation H is approximately constant and agrows exponentially by the end of inflation after N efolds Ωk sim eminus2N

        After inflation Ωk grows by a very large factor e2Nlowast so that its valuetoday is Ωk sim e2(NlowastminusN) (Nlowast sim 63 depends logarithmically on the reheatingtemperature and various other factors see eg [36])

        Therefore in open inflation models the value of Ω today is exponentiallysensitive to the length of inflation As with nearly all relics of the state ofthe universe prior to the start of inflation inflation ldquoinflates awayrdquo curvaturewith exponential efficiency

        This raises the question of how fine-tuned an open inflation model withobservable curvature would be The answer depends on the expected numberof efolds of slow-roll inflation As mentioned above [18] demonstrated thattoo little inflation (N lt Nlowast) prevents structure formation at least given afixed (N -independent) value of δρρ The argument parallels that of Wein-berg [8] Negative curvature can be thought of as a velocity for the expansionof the universe that exceeds ldquoescape velocityrdquo As such overdensities col-lapse only if the overdensity exceeds a certain boundmdashin effect in order tocollapse an overdense region must be dense enough that it is locally a closeduniverse Therefore for a given amplitude of δρρ insufficient N makescollapsed structures (ie stars and galaxies) exponentially rare

        Following Weinbergrsquos logic [8] one may therefore expect that N is notmuch greater than Nlowast How much greater we expect it to be is a stronglymodel-dependent question in [18] a toy model gave a measure of for theprobability of N efolds P (N) sim Nminus4

        3 Collisions

        In any given Lorentz frame every bubble must eventually undergo a firstcollision In this section I will discuss the effects on cosmology of a singlecollisionmdashstrictly speaking the analysis does not apply once there are regionsaffected by multiple collisions However if the effects are sufficiently weak inthose regions one can use linear cosmological perturbation theory in whichcase the effects of collisions simply superpose

        When two bubbles collide the spacetime region to the future of the col-lision is affected (see Fig 3 for a spacetime diagram of a bubble collision)Precisely what occurs inside that region depends on the model However

        11

        Figure 3 A spacetime diagram showing the causal structure of a cosmicbubble collision Coordinates are chosen so that light propagating in theplane of the diagram moves along 45 lines

        for applications to observational cosmology one is generally interested in re-gions in which the effects are a small perturbation on the spacetime prior tothe collision As I will discuss below the assumption that the perturbationis small plus the symmetries of the collision suffice to extract the genericleading-order effects on cosmology

        The most important features of a collision of this type are related to itssymmetries As reviewed above a single bubble has an SO(3 1) isometrya group generated by 6 symmetry generators It turns out that a bubblecollision breaks the SO(3 1) to SO(2 1) a group with 3 generators [11] Thisis enough symmetry to solve Einsteinrsquos equations in a situation in which thestress tensor is locally dominated by vacuum energymdashthe situation is verysimilar to that of a black hole (with three rotation isometries) in a vacuumdominated spacetime (de Sitter Minkowski or anti-de Sitter) As in thoseexamples there is a one parameter family of solutions Details can be foundin eg [11 20 22 23]

        We will see that as a result of these symmetries the effects of the collision

        12

        break isotropy and homogeneity but are azimuthally symmetric (and non-chiral) around a special directionmdashthe axis pointing toward the center of thecolliding bubble

        One important feature of these symmetries is that there exists a timeslicing of the collision spacetime in which the entire collision occurs at oneinstant everywhere along a 2 dimensional hyperboloid At later times in thesecoordinates the effects of the collision spread along a light ldquoconerdquo which isreally a region of space bounded by two hyperboloids To visualize this itmay help the reader to visualize the intersection of two lightcones cones orldquohourglass-typerdquo timelike hyperboloids in 2+1 dimensions The intersectionis a (spacelike) hyperbola which can be chosen to correspond to an instantof time and a point in one transverse coordinate (eg t and x in (6))

        31 Thin-wall collision metric

        In the approximation that the spacetime everywhere away from thin surfacesis dominated by vacuum energy one can write down exact solutions Thesemetrics are of the form

        ds2 = minusdt2g(t) + g(t)dx2 + t2dH22 (6)

        where dH22 = dρ2 + sinh2 ρdφ2 is the metric on a 2D hyperboloid and

        g(t) = 1 +H2t2 minusmt (7)

        Here H is the Hubble constant related to the local vacuum energy densityρV by H2 = ρV 3 and m is a constant [34 20 22] With m = 0 this issimply de Sitter space But with m non-zero it represents a solution that isessentially an analytically continued Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole (see[22] for a discussion of the causal structure of these solutions)

        Across a wall that separates two vacua (either the wall that separates twocollided bubbles or the walls of the bubbles themselves in the parent falsevacuum) one expects the vacuum energy density ρV to jump along withmany other quantities In the limit the wall is thin regions described by (6)can be ldquogluedrdquo together using Israel matching conditions [37 38 11 20] Thisallows one to determine the trajectory of the domain walls and therefore theconditions under which the domain walls that form in a collision acceleratetowards or away from inertial observers inside the bubbles When the wallaccelerates it rapidly becomes relativistic Anything it collides with will

        13

        almost certainly not survive as the ultra-relativistic wall typically has avery high energy density even in its rest frame In such cases there are nocosmological observables since the wall arrives almost immediately after itsfirst light signal

        The results of this analysis which hold at least when the spacetime oneither side of the domain wall is dominated by vacuum energy are as followsthe domain wall always accelerates away from an inertial observer in thebubble with lower vacuum energy andmdashdepending on the tension in thewall and the difference in the two vacuum energiesmdashit can either acceleratetowards away from or not accelerate with respect to an observer in thebubble with larger vacuum energy [22 23] One interesting implication ofthis result is that inertial observers in bubbles with small positive vacuumenergy are shielded from the walls separating them from regions with highervacuum energy and might be shielded from walls with negative vacuumenergy beyond them if the potential satisfies certain conditions

        Generalizing the solution (6) to the case of non-vacuum energy dominatedspacetimes is difficultmdashroughly as difficult as embedding a black hole into anon-trivial FRW cosmology However the basic symmetry structure will notbe affected the metric must still posses SO(2 1) symmetry and therefore canbe written in the form ds2 = ds22 +f(t x)dH2

        2 (just as a black hole embeddedin an expanding FRW could be written in a form ds2 = ds22 + f(t r)dΩ2

        2 Inparticular the region affected by the collisionmdashwhich takes place at somedefinite values of t and xmdashis still bounded by the future light ldquoconerdquo of thehyperboloid H2 at t x

        32 A new solution

        The metric (6) is a specific analytic continuation of an anti-de Sitter Schwarzschildblack hole metric There exist generalizations known as de Sitter-Vaidya oranti-de Sitter-Vaidya metrics that represent the formation of a black holein de Sitter or anti-de Sitter spacetime from the collapse of a shell of nullradiation [39 40] The shell does not have to be thinmdashin fact these metricscontain a free function that describes the profile of the ingoing radiationThe only criterion is that the radiation be purely radially ingoing (or purelyoutgoing)

        Performing the appropriate analytic continuation one obtains the follow-

        14

        ing metric2

        ds2 = (1minusm(w)t+H2t2)dw2 minus 2dwdt+ t2dH22 (8)

        If m(w) = m is constant (8) is equivalent to (6) by a coordinate transfor-mation In general it is easy to check that it represents a spacetime withSO(2 1) isometries that contains both vacuum energy (with energy densitydetermined by H as above) and radiation (with energy flux proportional tomprime(w))mdashbut with all the radiation moving coherently in the same directionAs such it may be a fairly good approximation to the spacetime inside abubble after a collision at least during the curvature domination and slow-roll inflation phases To my knowledge this is the first time this solution hasappeared in print

        4 Cosmological effects of collisions

        To determine the effects of the collision on cosmological observables I willmake the following assumptions

        -1 We are inside a bubble that has been or will be struck by at least oneother bubble

        0 The collision preserves SO(2 1) that is one can choose coordinateslike (6) or (8) in which it occurs at one instant everywhere along ahyperboloid

        1 The effects of the collision are confined entirely to the interior of thefuture ldquolightconerdquo of the collision event that is inside a region x gtxc(t) where xc(t) is a null geodesic in the (x t) plane transverse to thecollision hyperboloid

        2 There was sufficient inflation to make the spatial curvature of the uni-verse and of the hyperbolic collision ldquolightconerdquo negligible

        3 The effects on the observable part of our universe are small enough tobe treated using linear perturbation theory

        4 The collision affects the inflaton by creating an O(1) perturbation init near the beginning of inflation

        2I thank T Levi and S Chang for discussions on this metric

        15

        5 The inflaton perturbation is generic apart from constraints imposedby the symmetries and assumption 1

        Using these assumptions the effects on the cosmic microwave background(CMB) temperature were first worked out in [24] and on CMB polarizationin [30]

        41 Inflaton perturbation

        Given these assumptions one can simply expand the inflaton perturbationin a power series at a time near the beginning of inflation at which time ththe metric (6) will be a good description of the spacetime Dropping the H2

        factor (on which the perturbation is constant) for clarity

        ds2 = minusdt2g(t)+g(t)dx2 asymp minusdt2(Hit)2+(Hit)

        2dx2 = (Hiτ)minus2(minusdτ 2 + dx2

        )

        (9)The approximation is valid after the beginning of inflation Hit gt 1 and thecoordinate τ = minus1(H2t) is the conformal time The reader should recallthat τ increases towards zero during inflation and is exponentially small byits end

        The constraint from assumption 1 means that the collision perturbationis non-zero only inside the affected region [24 41]

        δφ(x τi) = M

        ( infinsumn=0

        anHni (x+ τi)

        n

        )Θ(x+ τi) (10)

        ˙δφ(x τi) = M

        ( infinsumn=0

        bnHn+1i (x+ τi)

        n

        )Θ(x+ τi) (11)

        Here δφ is the perturbation in the inflaton field an and bn are dimensionlesscoefficients τi is a time near the start of inflation where the slow-roll approx-imation is valid M is a mass scale associated with the range over which thefield varies and the coordinates are chosen for convenience so that the edgeof the region affected by the collision is located at x = minusτi at that time Notethat this expansion is completely generalmdashit does not assume that the fieldthat tunneled is the inflaton and depends only on the assumptions outlinedjust above It does however ignore the effects of the collision on fields otherthan the inflaton at least in single-field models one expects that primordialperturbations of the inflaton field will have the largest imprint on cosmologytoday

        16

        Without a model for the inflaton and the field(s) that participated in thetunneling we cannot compute the coefficients an and bn Generically one ex-pects that the perturbation will be at least O(1) on scales corresponding tothe radius of curvature of the universe That is one expects the coefficientsan sim 1 Moreover given enough inflation to solve the flatness problem (andproduce a universe consistent with current constraints on curvature) the ob-

        servable universe today corresponds to a region of size |x|Hi simradic

        Ωk(t0) 1at the beginning of inflation Therefore we are interested in the perturbation(10) in the limit Hx 1 and so the first term will dominate the observablesignatures (unless for some reason a0 an for some n gt 0) Notice thata0 6= 0 is a spatial discontinuity in δφ

        To determine the effects of this initial inflaton perturbation on the CMBand other cosmological observables one can employ the standard machineryof inflationary perturbation theory The first step is to determine the evolu-tion of the perturbation during inflation During slow-roll inflation at lowestorder in the slow-roll parameters inflaton perturbations satisfy the equationof a free massless scalar in de Sitter space (see eg [42]) One can solve thatequation in full generality the solution is [24]

        δφ = g(τ + x)minus τgprime(τ + x) + f(τ minus x)minus τf prime(τ minus x) (12)

        where g f are arbitrary functions of one variable and gprime f prime their derivativesThis solution may be familiar from the more standard treatment of in-

        flationary fluctuations in momentum space the terms proportional to τ arethe usual decaying modes in the expression δφk sim kminus32 (1plusmn ikτ) Evidentlythe τ -dependent terms arise due to the effects of inflation since this solutionis otherwise identical to that of a massless scalar field in 1+1-dimensionalMinkowski space

        Given the initial conditions in (10) one can use (12) to determine thesolution for all future times during slow-roll inflation The result can bewritten in closed form [41] but is not particularly illuminating Ratherthan reproduce it here it is easier to instead expand the functions f andg of (12) (which contain the same information as and are determined byδφ and ˙δφ) Since g is purely left-moving and f is purely right-moving forτ gt τi the perturbation near the edge of the lightcone Hi(xminus xc(τ)) 1 isdetermined only by g Therefore the effects on the CMB are determined by

        17

        the coefficients in the expansion of g

        g(x+ τ) =

        ( infinsumn=1

        cn(x+ τ)n)

        Θ(x+ τ) (13)

        Note that the sum begins with the linear term n = 1 This is because ann = 0 term in this expansion would lead to a δ-function singularity in δφwhich could not be expanded as in (10) and in any case would invalidateperturbation theory Put another way a non-zero c1 corresponds to a per-turbation δφ with a non-zero a0 in (10)

        By the end of inflation τ = τe is exponentially small and one can dropthe terms proportional to τ in (12) leaving simply

        δφ(x τe) asymp g(x) =

        ( infinsumn=1

        cn(x)n)

        Θ(x) (14)

        Note the leading term is now a discontinuity in the first derivative not adiscontinuity in the perturbation itself Inflation smooths sub-horizon pri-mordial gradients by effectively integrating them once

        42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe

        To precisely determine the effect of this perturbation on cosmological observ-ables at later times requires numerically integrating the coupled equationsthat control the perturbations in the various components of the energy den-sity in the early universe There is a standard set of software tools availablefor this purpose [43 44] The results of such a numerical analysis for a bub-ble collision can be found in [45] and analytically (and approximately) in[24 30]

        One can understand the qualitative results with a simple analytic ap-proximation A primary component of the collision signal is its effect on theCMB temperature The most important contribution to CMB temperaturefluctuations comes from the Sachs-Wolfe effect [46 47] To first approxima-tion all CMB photons last scattered at redshift zdc sim 1100 when electronsrecombined with protons and photons decoupled from the plasma and thenpropagated freely (without scattering again) until now Their temperatureis determined by the intrinsic temperature T (tdc x y z) at the point in thelast scattering volume at the time tdc corresponding to z = zdc Given that aphoton free-streamed it originated at some point satisfying x2+y2+z2 = D2

        dc

        18

        on a sphere of radius Ddc the radius of the current earthrsquos past lightconeat t = tdc The radius Ddc asymp 14Gpc can be determined from the expansionhistory a(t) by integrating back along a null geodesic in the FRW metric

        Because a locally higher temperature at last scattering corresponds to alocally higher density there is a corresponding negative gravitational poten-tial energy fluctation at that location In the Sachs-Wolfe approximation thecurrent temperature of a photon originating from such a point is a combi-nation of the intrinsic temperature of the plasma it last scattered from andthe local gravitational potential at that point as well as an overall redshift(1 + zdc)

        minus1 (and some additional contributions from time variations of thepotential along the way the ldquointegrated Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo) A simple cal-culation shows that the negative potential energy contribution is larger thanthe increased intrinsic temperature perturbation Φ(tdc) sim minus(32)δTT (tdc[47] Therefore locally hot spots at last scattering make cold spots on theCMB

        43 CMB temperature

        Given a perturbation to the Newtonian potential at reheating Φ = λxΘ(x)one can easily estimate the effect on the CMB temperature today Theessential points are the following

        bull Perturbations that are linear in the spatial coordinates (such as Φ =λx) remain so regardless of the cosmological evolution (to first order inperturbation theory) because the equations that govern the evolutionof cosmological perturbations are all second-order in spatial derivatives

        bull The evolution equations are causalmdashthe effects of an initial perturba-tions are confined to within its light- or sound-cone

        bull By the time of last scattering the radius of the sound-cone rsh of a per-turbation present at reheating corresponds to approximately 6 degreeson the CMB sky (rshDdc asymp 01)

        Given this one can easily determine the temperature perturbation in theCMB The ldquokinkrdquo at x = 0 will evolve but its effects must be confinedwithin a slab of thickness 2rsh Outside that slab the perturbationmdashwhichwas initially either zero or linear in xmdashcannot evolve in shape although

        19

        Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

        20

        its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

        Φ(tdc x y z) =

        0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

        (15)

        where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

        To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

        θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

        Ddc

        ) (16)

        The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

        (minusxe+rsh

        Ddc

        )lt θ lt cosminus1

        (minusxeminusrsh

        Ddc

        )near the rim of the disk where

        it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

        Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

        Ddc

        ) the CMB

        temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

        44 CMB polarization

        The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

        21

        E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

        However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

        Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

        To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

        Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

        22

        numerically

        45 Other cosmological observables

        A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

        5 Probabilities and measures

        The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

        To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

        At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

        23

        expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

        〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

        where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

        To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

        51 Observable collisions

        We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

        i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

        lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

        The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

        intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

        during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

        During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

        24

        Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

        i Puttingthis together gives

        〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

        2i (18)

        We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

        Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

        taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

        Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

        In the end the result is [25]

        〈N〉 simradic

        ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

        radicΩk (HfHi)

        2 (19)

        The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

        2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

        2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

        must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

        radicΩk lt 1

        Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

        52 Spot sizes

        Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

        25

        This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

        However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

        The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

        radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

        the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

        Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

        One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

        53 Spot brightness

        Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

        26

        potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

        timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

        6 Conclusions

        Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

        Acknowledgements

        I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

        References

        [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

        [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

        [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

        27

        [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

        [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

        [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

        [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

        [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

        [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

        [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

        [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

        [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

        28

        [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

        [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

        [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

        [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

        [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

        [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

        [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

        [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

        [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

        [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

        [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

        [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

        29

        [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

        [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

        [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

        [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

        [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

        [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

        [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

        [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

        [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

        [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

        [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

        [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

        [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

        30

        [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

        [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

        [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

        [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

        [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

        [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

        [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

        [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

        [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

        [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

        [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

        [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

        [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

        31

        [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

        [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

        [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

        [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

        [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

        [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

        [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

        [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

        [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

        [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

        32

        • 1 Introduction
          • 11 Overview
          • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
          • 13 Decay
          • 14 Motivation
            • 2 Earlier work
              • 21 Open inflaton
              • 22 Metrics and solutions
              • 23 Bubblology
              • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                • 3 Collisions
                  • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                  • 32 A new solution
                    • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                      • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                      • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                      • 43 CMB temperature
                      • 44 CMB polarization
                      • 45 Other cosmological observables
                        • 5 Probabilities and measures
                          • 51 Observable collisions
                          • 52 Spot sizes
                          • 53 Spot brightness
                            • 6 Conclusions

          12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity

          Any model of spacetime fields coupled to gravity can give rise to bubblecollisions if there exist at least two meta-stable phases of the field theoryAfter forming bubbles expand and collide with each other The goal of thisreview is to describe the physics of the formation expansion and collision ofthese bubbles I will focus exclusively on models in which at least one of thephases (the false vacuum) has a positive vacuum energy

          A region of spacetime filled with positive vacuum energy has a metric

          ds2 = minusdt2 + a(t)2d~x2 (1)

          and obeys Einsteinrsquos equations

          (aa)2 = H2f = Vf3 (2)

          where Vf is the energy density of the false vacuum and Hf is the associatedHubble constant The solution to (2) is de Sitter space a(t) = eHf t Regionsof space that are dominated by vacuum energy but contaminated by otherforms of matter or energy will exponentially rapidly inflate away the con-taminants and approach the metric (1) Regions not dominated by vacuumenergy will either expand more slowly or collapse into black holes which formany purposes is taken as justification for ignoring them after a few falsevacuum Hubble times (where the Hubble time is tH equiv 1H)

          13 Decay

          In metastable de Sitter space there is a dimensionless rate of bubble forma-tion γ When γ is small it can be defined as the expected number of bubblenucleations per unit Hubble time per unit Hubble volume that is the di-mensionful decay rate is Γ = H4

          fγ Generally γ is the exponential of minusSwhere S is the action for an instanton Hence when S 1 γ is very smalland the rate of bubble nucleations is slow When γ gtsim 1 the semi-classicalmethods reviewed here are not adequate to describe the physics

          When γ is small and the meta-stable phase has positive vacuum energythe exponential expansion means that the transition will never percolatemdashthere will always be some regions in which the unstable phase remains Theintuitive reason is simple in one Hubble time the de Sitter region increasesits volume by a factor of e3 In that same Hubble time one expects γ bubbles

          4

          of another vacuum each of volume less than the Hubble volume to appearTherefore if γ 1 a typical region will double in size many times beforeproducing a bubble The same applies to each ldquochildrdquo region and thereforethe meta-stable phase never ceases to exist This is known as ldquofalse vacuumeternal inflationrdquo (to distinguish it from slow-roll eternal inflation whichcan take place in an models with sufficiently flat positive potential energyfunctionals)

          In the end the picture is an exponentially rapidly expanding spacetimein which bubbles of more slowly expanding phases occasionally appear andoccasionally collide It is important to note that this is a generic predictionof any model with multiple positive energy minimamdashwhile it seems to bea prediction of the string theory landscape it is certainly not unique to itNevertheless an observation that confirmed this model would be a confir-mation of a prediction of string theory and an observation that ruled it outwould be at least potentially a falsification

          14 Motivation

          In the last few years there has been a surge of interest in this problem Thereason is that string theory predicts the existence of many meta-stable min-ima the so-called ldquostring landscaperdquo [2 3] In string theory the geometryand topology of spacetime is dynamical String theories exist in 9 spatial di-mensions Since we observe only three spatial dimensions in string solutionsthat might describe our world six of the spatial dimensions are compactifiedthat is they form a geometry with finite volume while the other three spatialdimensions and time can form Minkowski or de Sitter space

          Six dimensional manifolds have many parameters that describe theirshape and size These parameters are dynamical fields in string theory andtheir meta-stable solutions correspond to distinct possibilities for the shapeand size of the manifold Because they are meta-stable small fluctuationsaround these geometries behave like massive particles from the point of viewof the 4 large spacetime dimensions Therefore the low-energy physics asmeasured by a 4D observer is an effective field theory coupled to gravitywith the field content partially determined by which configuration the com-pact manifold is in

          The compact manifold can make transitions from one meta-stable config-uration to another Among the parameters that can vary from configurationto configuration is the value of the vacuum energy In non-supersymmetric

          5

          solutions it will not be zero instead its typical value is set by the stringenergy scalemdashwith both positive and negative values possible [2 4 3] Theexact value in any given phase will depend on the details and if there areenough different phases it is plausible that a small but non-empty subsethave vacuum energies that are consistent with the tiny value we observe[5 6 7] Hence the theory is at least consistent with observation and theextraordinarily small but non-zero value was even predicted a decade in ad-vance in [8] under a set of assumptions that coincide with those just outlined

          Because understanding the value of the cosmological constant is consid-ered one of the most important problems in theoretical physics and becausestring theory is our best candidate for a theory of quantum gravity it is worthtaking this scenario seriously One should look for observations beyond thecosmological constant which could test its validity hence this review

          2 Earlier work

          Alan Guthrsquos original model for inflationmdashnow known as ldquoold inflationrdquomdashwasan inflating false vacuum punctuated by bubbles [9] Inflation was the falsevacuum and the end of inflation was the nucleation of the bubble we inhabitThis model didnrsquot succeed because of difficulties with re-heating the universewhen a bubble first appears it is both strongly negatively curved and emptyReheating could potentially result from collisions with other bubbles butsuch collisions are either raremdashin which case reheating is anisotropicmdashorcommonmdashin which case the phase transition from the false vacuum completesafter order one Hubble time and there is little or no inflation Early studiesof this include [10 11]

          21 Open inflaton

          Old inflation was replaced by other models in which the inflaton slowly rollsand less attention was paid to models involving bubbles until the mid-90swhen the available data indicated that the universe was underdense and neg-atively curved At that time there was a burst of interest in ldquoopen inflationrdquomodels models in which our universe is inside a bubble that nucleated froma parent false vacuum (and hence is negatively curved) but where the bub-ble nucleation was followed by a period of standard slow-roll inflation Thatperiod of slow-roll produces density perturbations and reduces the curva-

          6

          ture thereby allowing Ωtotal sim 3 as the data seemed to indicate Therewere a series of papers by several groups of authors that worked out thepower spectrum of perturbations generated during inflation in such bubbles[12 13 14 15 16])

          While not all authors agreed on the quantitative effects all agree thatthe power spectrum of inflationary perturbations is significantly modified onscales of order the radius of curvature and larger This can be understoodqualitatively in a simple way As I will review below when a bubble universefirst appears it is dominated by negative curvature As a result it expandswith a scale factor a(t) sim t After a time of orderHminus1i whereHi is the Hubbleconstant during inflation the curvature redshifts to the point it is belowthe inflationary vacuum energy and inflation begins Clearly perturbationsproduced before or during this transitional era will not have a scale-invariantspectrum identical to those produced after it

          Mainly because of theoretical developments in string theory (see Sec 14)in the last few years there has been a resurgence of interest in these modelsfocussing both on the physics of individual bubble universes and on collisionsbetween bubbles [17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31]I will review much of that very recent work below A result from someyears back is [17 18] which demonstrate in several models (using argumentsparallel to [8]) that slow-roll inflation after the bubble nucleation is necessaryin order to avoid producing a universe devoid of structure With fixed δρρapproximately as many efolds of inflation N are needed as are necessary tosolve the flatness problem (approximately N sim 60 given typical values forthe reheating temperature etc)

          22 Metrics and solutions

          The single most important tool in understanding the physics of cosmic bub-bles is their symmetry The standard treatment of bubble formation in fieldtheory coupled to gravity was developed by [32] In that approach both therate of nucleation and the initial conditions just after the bubble forms areset by a solution to the equations of motion of the Euclidean version of thetheory Such solutions are known generally as ldquoinstantonsrdquo The justificationfor their application to this problem goes far beyond the scope of this reviewsee [32] and references therein

          Another mechanism by which false vacua can decay is charged membranenucleation in a background 4-form flux [33] These instantons (and the ex-

          7

          panding bubbles they correspond to) possess the same symmetries as thoseof [32] and I expect most of the results reviewed here to hold for them aswell

          In order to understand the symmetries of the bubble spacetime one canstart with the instanton solution of [32] In a model with a single scalar fieldφ coupled to Euclidean Einstein gravity the relevant solution is

          ds2 = dψ2 + a(ψ)2dΩ23 φ = φ(ψ) (3)

          where dΩ23 = dθ2 + sin2 θdΩ2

          2 is the round metric on a 3-dimensional sphereThe functions a(ψ) and φ(ψ) are determined by solving Einsteinrsquos equationsand the equation of motion for the scalar field φ and the solutions depend onthe potential energy for the scalar V (φ) If V has at least two minima solu-tions φ(ψ) that oscillate once around the maximum1 of V (φ) that separatesthe two minima generally exist (but see [34] and [35])

          Solutions of this form have a large degree of rotational symmetry they areinvariant under the group of rotations in 4D Euclidean space (in which onecan embed the 3-sphere) namely SO(4) This is a group with 4 times 32 = 6symmetry generators (each corresponding to a rotation in one of the sixplanes of 4D space) The action S(a φ) for a solution is determined by anintegral involving a(ψ) and φ(ψ) and is related to the false vacuum decayrate by γ sim eminusS

          Under certain conditions on the potential V (φ) the solutions a φ areldquothin wallrdquo meaning that they vary sharply with ψ In particular in thethin wall limit φ(ψ) sim φ0 + microΘ(ψ minus ψ0) where Θ(ψ) is a step functionand φ0 micro and ψ0 are constants The thin wall limit is convenient it makesit possible to calculate many quantities in closed form However it is notrequired for the validity of most of the physics discussed in this review nordo the symmetries of the solutions discussed here depend on it

          To determine the spacetime after the bubble nucleation occurs one cansimply analytically continue (3) back to Lorentzian signature The resultis a spacetime that contains a bubble expanding in a bath of false vacuumThere is more than one choice of analytic continuation different choices givemetrics that cover some part of the full Lorentzian spacetime These metricscan be patched together to determine the global structure of the spacetimeOf most relevance for the cosmology seen by observers inside the bubble isthe continuation that produces a metric that covers (most of) the interior of

          1In Euclidean signature the equations of motion have the sign of the potential reversed

          8

          the bubble Details can be found in eg [18] the result is

          ds2 = minusdt2+a(t)2dH23 = minusdt2+a(t)2

          (dρ2 + sinh2 ρdΩ2

          2

          )and φ = φ(t) (4)

          where H3 is 3D hyperbolic space (the homogeneous and isotropic 3D spacewith constant negative curvature) As can be seen at a glance this is anFRW metric describing a homogeneous and isotropic cosmology scale factora(t) and scalar field ldquomatterrdquo φ(t) The evolution of a will be determined byV (φ(t)) in the usual way as well as by any other sources of stress-energy

          After the continuation the SO(4) invariance of the Euclidean solutionhas been replaced by the SO(3 1) invariance associated with H3 In otherwords the symmetries of the instanton are what give rise to the homogeneityand isotropy of the constant-time surfaces of this FRW cosmology Observersliving inside the bubble live in a negatively curved universe that satisfies thecosmological principle

          One of the most intriguing aspects of this result is that the ldquobig bangrdquot = 0 where the scale factor a(0) = 0 vanishes is not a curvature singularityIt is merely a coordinate singularitymdashthe spacetime just outside the surfacet = 0 (which is null) is regular and described by another analytic continuationof the metric Of course there is a quantum nucleation event (a finite distanceoutside the surface t = 0) that may make the description there in terms ofa classical spacetime plus field configuration problematic but so long as theenergy densities involved are sub-Planckian even the region outside the ldquobigbangrdquo surface t = 0 is no more singular than the nucleation of a bubble in afirst-order phase transition in field theory

          23 Bubblology

          The cosmology inside the bubble in the region described by (4) is fairly simpleto describe The scale factor obeys the Friedmann equation

          H2 = (aa)2 = ρ3 + 1a2 (5)

          where ρ sim V (φ) + (φ)22 + is the energy density in the scalar plus thatof any other matter or radiation At t = 0 the initial conditions are suchthat φ = 0 As a result the dominant term on the right hand side is thecurvature term 1a2 and one obtains a(t) = t+O(t3) [18]

          To produce a cosmology consistent with observations there must be aperiod of slow-roll inflation that begins at some time t gt 0 [18] The most

          9

          00 02 04 06 08 10Φ

          02

          04

          06

          08

          10VHΦLM4

          Figure 2 A scalar field potential for an open inflation model where a singlefield φ tunnels through a barrier and then drives slow-roll inflation inside theresulting bubble

          economical way to accomplish this is to assume that the field that tunneledto produce the bubble in the first place is also the inflaton and that itspotential V (φ) has a slow-roll ldquoplateaurdquo that the field evolves into after thetunneling (see Fig 2)

          In such a model inflation begins at a time ti such that 1a(ti)2 sim 1t2i sim

          V (φ(ti)) sim H2i Therefore inflation begins at t = ti sim 1Hi From that

          time on the scale factor will begin to grow exponentially rapidly diluting thecurvature and (given enough efolds) solving the curvature problem

          24 Curvature and fine-tuning

          During inflation the radius of spatial curvature of the universe grows expo-nentially In terms of the total energy density Ω the curvature contributionto the Friedmann equation is defined by Ωk equiv 1 minus Ω = minusk(Ha) where

          10

          k = minus1 for negative curvature As described above Ωk ltsim 1 at the start ofslow-roll inflation Since during inflation H is approximately constant and agrows exponentially by the end of inflation after N efolds Ωk sim eminus2N

          After inflation Ωk grows by a very large factor e2Nlowast so that its valuetoday is Ωk sim e2(NlowastminusN) (Nlowast sim 63 depends logarithmically on the reheatingtemperature and various other factors see eg [36])

          Therefore in open inflation models the value of Ω today is exponentiallysensitive to the length of inflation As with nearly all relics of the state ofthe universe prior to the start of inflation inflation ldquoinflates awayrdquo curvaturewith exponential efficiency

          This raises the question of how fine-tuned an open inflation model withobservable curvature would be The answer depends on the expected numberof efolds of slow-roll inflation As mentioned above [18] demonstrated thattoo little inflation (N lt Nlowast) prevents structure formation at least given afixed (N -independent) value of δρρ The argument parallels that of Wein-berg [8] Negative curvature can be thought of as a velocity for the expansionof the universe that exceeds ldquoescape velocityrdquo As such overdensities col-lapse only if the overdensity exceeds a certain boundmdashin effect in order tocollapse an overdense region must be dense enough that it is locally a closeduniverse Therefore for a given amplitude of δρρ insufficient N makescollapsed structures (ie stars and galaxies) exponentially rare

          Following Weinbergrsquos logic [8] one may therefore expect that N is notmuch greater than Nlowast How much greater we expect it to be is a stronglymodel-dependent question in [18] a toy model gave a measure of for theprobability of N efolds P (N) sim Nminus4

          3 Collisions

          In any given Lorentz frame every bubble must eventually undergo a firstcollision In this section I will discuss the effects on cosmology of a singlecollisionmdashstrictly speaking the analysis does not apply once there are regionsaffected by multiple collisions However if the effects are sufficiently weak inthose regions one can use linear cosmological perturbation theory in whichcase the effects of collisions simply superpose

          When two bubbles collide the spacetime region to the future of the col-lision is affected (see Fig 3 for a spacetime diagram of a bubble collision)Precisely what occurs inside that region depends on the model However

          11

          Figure 3 A spacetime diagram showing the causal structure of a cosmicbubble collision Coordinates are chosen so that light propagating in theplane of the diagram moves along 45 lines

          for applications to observational cosmology one is generally interested in re-gions in which the effects are a small perturbation on the spacetime prior tothe collision As I will discuss below the assumption that the perturbationis small plus the symmetries of the collision suffice to extract the genericleading-order effects on cosmology

          The most important features of a collision of this type are related to itssymmetries As reviewed above a single bubble has an SO(3 1) isometrya group generated by 6 symmetry generators It turns out that a bubblecollision breaks the SO(3 1) to SO(2 1) a group with 3 generators [11] Thisis enough symmetry to solve Einsteinrsquos equations in a situation in which thestress tensor is locally dominated by vacuum energymdashthe situation is verysimilar to that of a black hole (with three rotation isometries) in a vacuumdominated spacetime (de Sitter Minkowski or anti-de Sitter) As in thoseexamples there is a one parameter family of solutions Details can be foundin eg [11 20 22 23]

          We will see that as a result of these symmetries the effects of the collision

          12

          break isotropy and homogeneity but are azimuthally symmetric (and non-chiral) around a special directionmdashthe axis pointing toward the center of thecolliding bubble

          One important feature of these symmetries is that there exists a timeslicing of the collision spacetime in which the entire collision occurs at oneinstant everywhere along a 2 dimensional hyperboloid At later times in thesecoordinates the effects of the collision spread along a light ldquoconerdquo which isreally a region of space bounded by two hyperboloids To visualize this itmay help the reader to visualize the intersection of two lightcones cones orldquohourglass-typerdquo timelike hyperboloids in 2+1 dimensions The intersectionis a (spacelike) hyperbola which can be chosen to correspond to an instantof time and a point in one transverse coordinate (eg t and x in (6))

          31 Thin-wall collision metric

          In the approximation that the spacetime everywhere away from thin surfacesis dominated by vacuum energy one can write down exact solutions Thesemetrics are of the form

          ds2 = minusdt2g(t) + g(t)dx2 + t2dH22 (6)

          where dH22 = dρ2 + sinh2 ρdφ2 is the metric on a 2D hyperboloid and

          g(t) = 1 +H2t2 minusmt (7)

          Here H is the Hubble constant related to the local vacuum energy densityρV by H2 = ρV 3 and m is a constant [34 20 22] With m = 0 this issimply de Sitter space But with m non-zero it represents a solution that isessentially an analytically continued Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole (see[22] for a discussion of the causal structure of these solutions)

          Across a wall that separates two vacua (either the wall that separates twocollided bubbles or the walls of the bubbles themselves in the parent falsevacuum) one expects the vacuum energy density ρV to jump along withmany other quantities In the limit the wall is thin regions described by (6)can be ldquogluedrdquo together using Israel matching conditions [37 38 11 20] Thisallows one to determine the trajectory of the domain walls and therefore theconditions under which the domain walls that form in a collision acceleratetowards or away from inertial observers inside the bubbles When the wallaccelerates it rapidly becomes relativistic Anything it collides with will

          13

          almost certainly not survive as the ultra-relativistic wall typically has avery high energy density even in its rest frame In such cases there are nocosmological observables since the wall arrives almost immediately after itsfirst light signal

          The results of this analysis which hold at least when the spacetime oneither side of the domain wall is dominated by vacuum energy are as followsthe domain wall always accelerates away from an inertial observer in thebubble with lower vacuum energy andmdashdepending on the tension in thewall and the difference in the two vacuum energiesmdashit can either acceleratetowards away from or not accelerate with respect to an observer in thebubble with larger vacuum energy [22 23] One interesting implication ofthis result is that inertial observers in bubbles with small positive vacuumenergy are shielded from the walls separating them from regions with highervacuum energy and might be shielded from walls with negative vacuumenergy beyond them if the potential satisfies certain conditions

          Generalizing the solution (6) to the case of non-vacuum energy dominatedspacetimes is difficultmdashroughly as difficult as embedding a black hole into anon-trivial FRW cosmology However the basic symmetry structure will notbe affected the metric must still posses SO(2 1) symmetry and therefore canbe written in the form ds2 = ds22 +f(t x)dH2

          2 (just as a black hole embeddedin an expanding FRW could be written in a form ds2 = ds22 + f(t r)dΩ2

          2 Inparticular the region affected by the collisionmdashwhich takes place at somedefinite values of t and xmdashis still bounded by the future light ldquoconerdquo of thehyperboloid H2 at t x

          32 A new solution

          The metric (6) is a specific analytic continuation of an anti-de Sitter Schwarzschildblack hole metric There exist generalizations known as de Sitter-Vaidya oranti-de Sitter-Vaidya metrics that represent the formation of a black holein de Sitter or anti-de Sitter spacetime from the collapse of a shell of nullradiation [39 40] The shell does not have to be thinmdashin fact these metricscontain a free function that describes the profile of the ingoing radiationThe only criterion is that the radiation be purely radially ingoing (or purelyoutgoing)

          Performing the appropriate analytic continuation one obtains the follow-

          14

          ing metric2

          ds2 = (1minusm(w)t+H2t2)dw2 minus 2dwdt+ t2dH22 (8)

          If m(w) = m is constant (8) is equivalent to (6) by a coordinate transfor-mation In general it is easy to check that it represents a spacetime withSO(2 1) isometries that contains both vacuum energy (with energy densitydetermined by H as above) and radiation (with energy flux proportional tomprime(w))mdashbut with all the radiation moving coherently in the same directionAs such it may be a fairly good approximation to the spacetime inside abubble after a collision at least during the curvature domination and slow-roll inflation phases To my knowledge this is the first time this solution hasappeared in print

          4 Cosmological effects of collisions

          To determine the effects of the collision on cosmological observables I willmake the following assumptions

          -1 We are inside a bubble that has been or will be struck by at least oneother bubble

          0 The collision preserves SO(2 1) that is one can choose coordinateslike (6) or (8) in which it occurs at one instant everywhere along ahyperboloid

          1 The effects of the collision are confined entirely to the interior of thefuture ldquolightconerdquo of the collision event that is inside a region x gtxc(t) where xc(t) is a null geodesic in the (x t) plane transverse to thecollision hyperboloid

          2 There was sufficient inflation to make the spatial curvature of the uni-verse and of the hyperbolic collision ldquolightconerdquo negligible

          3 The effects on the observable part of our universe are small enough tobe treated using linear perturbation theory

          4 The collision affects the inflaton by creating an O(1) perturbation init near the beginning of inflation

          2I thank T Levi and S Chang for discussions on this metric

          15

          5 The inflaton perturbation is generic apart from constraints imposedby the symmetries and assumption 1

          Using these assumptions the effects on the cosmic microwave background(CMB) temperature were first worked out in [24] and on CMB polarizationin [30]

          41 Inflaton perturbation

          Given these assumptions one can simply expand the inflaton perturbationin a power series at a time near the beginning of inflation at which time ththe metric (6) will be a good description of the spacetime Dropping the H2

          factor (on which the perturbation is constant) for clarity

          ds2 = minusdt2g(t)+g(t)dx2 asymp minusdt2(Hit)2+(Hit)

          2dx2 = (Hiτ)minus2(minusdτ 2 + dx2

          )

          (9)The approximation is valid after the beginning of inflation Hit gt 1 and thecoordinate τ = minus1(H2t) is the conformal time The reader should recallthat τ increases towards zero during inflation and is exponentially small byits end

          The constraint from assumption 1 means that the collision perturbationis non-zero only inside the affected region [24 41]

          δφ(x τi) = M

          ( infinsumn=0

          anHni (x+ τi)

          n

          )Θ(x+ τi) (10)

          ˙δφ(x τi) = M

          ( infinsumn=0

          bnHn+1i (x+ τi)

          n

          )Θ(x+ τi) (11)

          Here δφ is the perturbation in the inflaton field an and bn are dimensionlesscoefficients τi is a time near the start of inflation where the slow-roll approx-imation is valid M is a mass scale associated with the range over which thefield varies and the coordinates are chosen for convenience so that the edgeof the region affected by the collision is located at x = minusτi at that time Notethat this expansion is completely generalmdashit does not assume that the fieldthat tunneled is the inflaton and depends only on the assumptions outlinedjust above It does however ignore the effects of the collision on fields otherthan the inflaton at least in single-field models one expects that primordialperturbations of the inflaton field will have the largest imprint on cosmologytoday

          16

          Without a model for the inflaton and the field(s) that participated in thetunneling we cannot compute the coefficients an and bn Generically one ex-pects that the perturbation will be at least O(1) on scales corresponding tothe radius of curvature of the universe That is one expects the coefficientsan sim 1 Moreover given enough inflation to solve the flatness problem (andproduce a universe consistent with current constraints on curvature) the ob-

          servable universe today corresponds to a region of size |x|Hi simradic

          Ωk(t0) 1at the beginning of inflation Therefore we are interested in the perturbation(10) in the limit Hx 1 and so the first term will dominate the observablesignatures (unless for some reason a0 an for some n gt 0) Notice thata0 6= 0 is a spatial discontinuity in δφ

          To determine the effects of this initial inflaton perturbation on the CMBand other cosmological observables one can employ the standard machineryof inflationary perturbation theory The first step is to determine the evolu-tion of the perturbation during inflation During slow-roll inflation at lowestorder in the slow-roll parameters inflaton perturbations satisfy the equationof a free massless scalar in de Sitter space (see eg [42]) One can solve thatequation in full generality the solution is [24]

          δφ = g(τ + x)minus τgprime(τ + x) + f(τ minus x)minus τf prime(τ minus x) (12)

          where g f are arbitrary functions of one variable and gprime f prime their derivativesThis solution may be familiar from the more standard treatment of in-

          flationary fluctuations in momentum space the terms proportional to τ arethe usual decaying modes in the expression δφk sim kminus32 (1plusmn ikτ) Evidentlythe τ -dependent terms arise due to the effects of inflation since this solutionis otherwise identical to that of a massless scalar field in 1+1-dimensionalMinkowski space

          Given the initial conditions in (10) one can use (12) to determine thesolution for all future times during slow-roll inflation The result can bewritten in closed form [41] but is not particularly illuminating Ratherthan reproduce it here it is easier to instead expand the functions f andg of (12) (which contain the same information as and are determined byδφ and ˙δφ) Since g is purely left-moving and f is purely right-moving forτ gt τi the perturbation near the edge of the lightcone Hi(xminus xc(τ)) 1 isdetermined only by g Therefore the effects on the CMB are determined by

          17

          the coefficients in the expansion of g

          g(x+ τ) =

          ( infinsumn=1

          cn(x+ τ)n)

          Θ(x+ τ) (13)

          Note that the sum begins with the linear term n = 1 This is because ann = 0 term in this expansion would lead to a δ-function singularity in δφwhich could not be expanded as in (10) and in any case would invalidateperturbation theory Put another way a non-zero c1 corresponds to a per-turbation δφ with a non-zero a0 in (10)

          By the end of inflation τ = τe is exponentially small and one can dropthe terms proportional to τ in (12) leaving simply

          δφ(x τe) asymp g(x) =

          ( infinsumn=1

          cn(x)n)

          Θ(x) (14)

          Note the leading term is now a discontinuity in the first derivative not adiscontinuity in the perturbation itself Inflation smooths sub-horizon pri-mordial gradients by effectively integrating them once

          42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe

          To precisely determine the effect of this perturbation on cosmological observ-ables at later times requires numerically integrating the coupled equationsthat control the perturbations in the various components of the energy den-sity in the early universe There is a standard set of software tools availablefor this purpose [43 44] The results of such a numerical analysis for a bub-ble collision can be found in [45] and analytically (and approximately) in[24 30]

          One can understand the qualitative results with a simple analytic ap-proximation A primary component of the collision signal is its effect on theCMB temperature The most important contribution to CMB temperaturefluctuations comes from the Sachs-Wolfe effect [46 47] To first approxima-tion all CMB photons last scattered at redshift zdc sim 1100 when electronsrecombined with protons and photons decoupled from the plasma and thenpropagated freely (without scattering again) until now Their temperatureis determined by the intrinsic temperature T (tdc x y z) at the point in thelast scattering volume at the time tdc corresponding to z = zdc Given that aphoton free-streamed it originated at some point satisfying x2+y2+z2 = D2

          dc

          18

          on a sphere of radius Ddc the radius of the current earthrsquos past lightconeat t = tdc The radius Ddc asymp 14Gpc can be determined from the expansionhistory a(t) by integrating back along a null geodesic in the FRW metric

          Because a locally higher temperature at last scattering corresponds to alocally higher density there is a corresponding negative gravitational poten-tial energy fluctation at that location In the Sachs-Wolfe approximation thecurrent temperature of a photon originating from such a point is a combi-nation of the intrinsic temperature of the plasma it last scattered from andthe local gravitational potential at that point as well as an overall redshift(1 + zdc)

          minus1 (and some additional contributions from time variations of thepotential along the way the ldquointegrated Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo) A simple cal-culation shows that the negative potential energy contribution is larger thanthe increased intrinsic temperature perturbation Φ(tdc) sim minus(32)δTT (tdc[47] Therefore locally hot spots at last scattering make cold spots on theCMB

          43 CMB temperature

          Given a perturbation to the Newtonian potential at reheating Φ = λxΘ(x)one can easily estimate the effect on the CMB temperature today Theessential points are the following

          bull Perturbations that are linear in the spatial coordinates (such as Φ =λx) remain so regardless of the cosmological evolution (to first order inperturbation theory) because the equations that govern the evolutionof cosmological perturbations are all second-order in spatial derivatives

          bull The evolution equations are causalmdashthe effects of an initial perturba-tions are confined to within its light- or sound-cone

          bull By the time of last scattering the radius of the sound-cone rsh of a per-turbation present at reheating corresponds to approximately 6 degreeson the CMB sky (rshDdc asymp 01)

          Given this one can easily determine the temperature perturbation in theCMB The ldquokinkrdquo at x = 0 will evolve but its effects must be confinedwithin a slab of thickness 2rsh Outside that slab the perturbationmdashwhichwas initially either zero or linear in xmdashcannot evolve in shape although

          19

          Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

          20

          its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

          Φ(tdc x y z) =

          0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

          (15)

          where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

          To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

          θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

          Ddc

          ) (16)

          The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

          (minusxe+rsh

          Ddc

          )lt θ lt cosminus1

          (minusxeminusrsh

          Ddc

          )near the rim of the disk where

          it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

          Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

          Ddc

          ) the CMB

          temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

          44 CMB polarization

          The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

          21

          E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

          However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

          Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

          To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

          Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

          22

          numerically

          45 Other cosmological observables

          A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

          5 Probabilities and measures

          The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

          To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

          At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

          23

          expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

          〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

          where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

          To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

          51 Observable collisions

          We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

          i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

          lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

          The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

          intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

          during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

          During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

          24

          Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

          i Puttingthis together gives

          〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

          2i (18)

          We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

          Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

          taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

          Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

          In the end the result is [25]

          〈N〉 simradic

          ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

          radicΩk (HfHi)

          2 (19)

          The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

          2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

          2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

          must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

          radicΩk lt 1

          Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

          52 Spot sizes

          Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

          25

          This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

          However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

          The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

          radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

          the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

          Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

          One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

          53 Spot brightness

          Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

          26

          potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

          timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

          6 Conclusions

          Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

          Acknowledgements

          I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

          References

          [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

          [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

          [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

          27

          [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

          [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

          [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

          [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

          [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

          [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

          [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

          [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

          [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

          28

          [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

          [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

          [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

          [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

          [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

          [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

          [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

          [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

          [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

          [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

          [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

          [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

          29

          [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

          [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

          [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

          [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

          [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

          [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

          [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

          [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

          [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

          [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

          [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

          [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

          [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

          30

          [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

          [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

          [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

          [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

          [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

          [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

          [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

          [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

          [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

          [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

          [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

          [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

          [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

          31

          [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

          [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

          [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

          [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

          [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

          [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

          [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

          [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

          [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

          [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

          32

          • 1 Introduction
            • 11 Overview
            • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
            • 13 Decay
            • 14 Motivation
              • 2 Earlier work
                • 21 Open inflaton
                • 22 Metrics and solutions
                • 23 Bubblology
                • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                  • 3 Collisions
                    • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                    • 32 A new solution
                      • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                        • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                        • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                        • 43 CMB temperature
                        • 44 CMB polarization
                        • 45 Other cosmological observables
                          • 5 Probabilities and measures
                            • 51 Observable collisions
                            • 52 Spot sizes
                            • 53 Spot brightness
                              • 6 Conclusions

            of another vacuum each of volume less than the Hubble volume to appearTherefore if γ 1 a typical region will double in size many times beforeproducing a bubble The same applies to each ldquochildrdquo region and thereforethe meta-stable phase never ceases to exist This is known as ldquofalse vacuumeternal inflationrdquo (to distinguish it from slow-roll eternal inflation whichcan take place in an models with sufficiently flat positive potential energyfunctionals)

            In the end the picture is an exponentially rapidly expanding spacetimein which bubbles of more slowly expanding phases occasionally appear andoccasionally collide It is important to note that this is a generic predictionof any model with multiple positive energy minimamdashwhile it seems to bea prediction of the string theory landscape it is certainly not unique to itNevertheless an observation that confirmed this model would be a confir-mation of a prediction of string theory and an observation that ruled it outwould be at least potentially a falsification

            14 Motivation

            In the last few years there has been a surge of interest in this problem Thereason is that string theory predicts the existence of many meta-stable min-ima the so-called ldquostring landscaperdquo [2 3] In string theory the geometryand topology of spacetime is dynamical String theories exist in 9 spatial di-mensions Since we observe only three spatial dimensions in string solutionsthat might describe our world six of the spatial dimensions are compactifiedthat is they form a geometry with finite volume while the other three spatialdimensions and time can form Minkowski or de Sitter space

            Six dimensional manifolds have many parameters that describe theirshape and size These parameters are dynamical fields in string theory andtheir meta-stable solutions correspond to distinct possibilities for the shapeand size of the manifold Because they are meta-stable small fluctuationsaround these geometries behave like massive particles from the point of viewof the 4 large spacetime dimensions Therefore the low-energy physics asmeasured by a 4D observer is an effective field theory coupled to gravitywith the field content partially determined by which configuration the com-pact manifold is in

            The compact manifold can make transitions from one meta-stable config-uration to another Among the parameters that can vary from configurationto configuration is the value of the vacuum energy In non-supersymmetric

            5

            solutions it will not be zero instead its typical value is set by the stringenergy scalemdashwith both positive and negative values possible [2 4 3] Theexact value in any given phase will depend on the details and if there areenough different phases it is plausible that a small but non-empty subsethave vacuum energies that are consistent with the tiny value we observe[5 6 7] Hence the theory is at least consistent with observation and theextraordinarily small but non-zero value was even predicted a decade in ad-vance in [8] under a set of assumptions that coincide with those just outlined

            Because understanding the value of the cosmological constant is consid-ered one of the most important problems in theoretical physics and becausestring theory is our best candidate for a theory of quantum gravity it is worthtaking this scenario seriously One should look for observations beyond thecosmological constant which could test its validity hence this review

            2 Earlier work

            Alan Guthrsquos original model for inflationmdashnow known as ldquoold inflationrdquomdashwasan inflating false vacuum punctuated by bubbles [9] Inflation was the falsevacuum and the end of inflation was the nucleation of the bubble we inhabitThis model didnrsquot succeed because of difficulties with re-heating the universewhen a bubble first appears it is both strongly negatively curved and emptyReheating could potentially result from collisions with other bubbles butsuch collisions are either raremdashin which case reheating is anisotropicmdashorcommonmdashin which case the phase transition from the false vacuum completesafter order one Hubble time and there is little or no inflation Early studiesof this include [10 11]

            21 Open inflaton

            Old inflation was replaced by other models in which the inflaton slowly rollsand less attention was paid to models involving bubbles until the mid-90swhen the available data indicated that the universe was underdense and neg-atively curved At that time there was a burst of interest in ldquoopen inflationrdquomodels models in which our universe is inside a bubble that nucleated froma parent false vacuum (and hence is negatively curved) but where the bub-ble nucleation was followed by a period of standard slow-roll inflation Thatperiod of slow-roll produces density perturbations and reduces the curva-

            6

            ture thereby allowing Ωtotal sim 3 as the data seemed to indicate Therewere a series of papers by several groups of authors that worked out thepower spectrum of perturbations generated during inflation in such bubbles[12 13 14 15 16])

            While not all authors agreed on the quantitative effects all agree thatthe power spectrum of inflationary perturbations is significantly modified onscales of order the radius of curvature and larger This can be understoodqualitatively in a simple way As I will review below when a bubble universefirst appears it is dominated by negative curvature As a result it expandswith a scale factor a(t) sim t After a time of orderHminus1i whereHi is the Hubbleconstant during inflation the curvature redshifts to the point it is belowthe inflationary vacuum energy and inflation begins Clearly perturbationsproduced before or during this transitional era will not have a scale-invariantspectrum identical to those produced after it

            Mainly because of theoretical developments in string theory (see Sec 14)in the last few years there has been a resurgence of interest in these modelsfocussing both on the physics of individual bubble universes and on collisionsbetween bubbles [17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31]I will review much of that very recent work below A result from someyears back is [17 18] which demonstrate in several models (using argumentsparallel to [8]) that slow-roll inflation after the bubble nucleation is necessaryin order to avoid producing a universe devoid of structure With fixed δρρapproximately as many efolds of inflation N are needed as are necessary tosolve the flatness problem (approximately N sim 60 given typical values forthe reheating temperature etc)

            22 Metrics and solutions

            The single most important tool in understanding the physics of cosmic bub-bles is their symmetry The standard treatment of bubble formation in fieldtheory coupled to gravity was developed by [32] In that approach both therate of nucleation and the initial conditions just after the bubble forms areset by a solution to the equations of motion of the Euclidean version of thetheory Such solutions are known generally as ldquoinstantonsrdquo The justificationfor their application to this problem goes far beyond the scope of this reviewsee [32] and references therein

            Another mechanism by which false vacua can decay is charged membranenucleation in a background 4-form flux [33] These instantons (and the ex-

            7

            panding bubbles they correspond to) possess the same symmetries as thoseof [32] and I expect most of the results reviewed here to hold for them aswell

            In order to understand the symmetries of the bubble spacetime one canstart with the instanton solution of [32] In a model with a single scalar fieldφ coupled to Euclidean Einstein gravity the relevant solution is

            ds2 = dψ2 + a(ψ)2dΩ23 φ = φ(ψ) (3)

            where dΩ23 = dθ2 + sin2 θdΩ2

            2 is the round metric on a 3-dimensional sphereThe functions a(ψ) and φ(ψ) are determined by solving Einsteinrsquos equationsand the equation of motion for the scalar field φ and the solutions depend onthe potential energy for the scalar V (φ) If V has at least two minima solu-tions φ(ψ) that oscillate once around the maximum1 of V (φ) that separatesthe two minima generally exist (but see [34] and [35])

            Solutions of this form have a large degree of rotational symmetry they areinvariant under the group of rotations in 4D Euclidean space (in which onecan embed the 3-sphere) namely SO(4) This is a group with 4 times 32 = 6symmetry generators (each corresponding to a rotation in one of the sixplanes of 4D space) The action S(a φ) for a solution is determined by anintegral involving a(ψ) and φ(ψ) and is related to the false vacuum decayrate by γ sim eminusS

            Under certain conditions on the potential V (φ) the solutions a φ areldquothin wallrdquo meaning that they vary sharply with ψ In particular in thethin wall limit φ(ψ) sim φ0 + microΘ(ψ minus ψ0) where Θ(ψ) is a step functionand φ0 micro and ψ0 are constants The thin wall limit is convenient it makesit possible to calculate many quantities in closed form However it is notrequired for the validity of most of the physics discussed in this review nordo the symmetries of the solutions discussed here depend on it

            To determine the spacetime after the bubble nucleation occurs one cansimply analytically continue (3) back to Lorentzian signature The resultis a spacetime that contains a bubble expanding in a bath of false vacuumThere is more than one choice of analytic continuation different choices givemetrics that cover some part of the full Lorentzian spacetime These metricscan be patched together to determine the global structure of the spacetimeOf most relevance for the cosmology seen by observers inside the bubble isthe continuation that produces a metric that covers (most of) the interior of

            1In Euclidean signature the equations of motion have the sign of the potential reversed

            8

            the bubble Details can be found in eg [18] the result is

            ds2 = minusdt2+a(t)2dH23 = minusdt2+a(t)2

            (dρ2 + sinh2 ρdΩ2

            2

            )and φ = φ(t) (4)

            where H3 is 3D hyperbolic space (the homogeneous and isotropic 3D spacewith constant negative curvature) As can be seen at a glance this is anFRW metric describing a homogeneous and isotropic cosmology scale factora(t) and scalar field ldquomatterrdquo φ(t) The evolution of a will be determined byV (φ(t)) in the usual way as well as by any other sources of stress-energy

            After the continuation the SO(4) invariance of the Euclidean solutionhas been replaced by the SO(3 1) invariance associated with H3 In otherwords the symmetries of the instanton are what give rise to the homogeneityand isotropy of the constant-time surfaces of this FRW cosmology Observersliving inside the bubble live in a negatively curved universe that satisfies thecosmological principle

            One of the most intriguing aspects of this result is that the ldquobig bangrdquot = 0 where the scale factor a(0) = 0 vanishes is not a curvature singularityIt is merely a coordinate singularitymdashthe spacetime just outside the surfacet = 0 (which is null) is regular and described by another analytic continuationof the metric Of course there is a quantum nucleation event (a finite distanceoutside the surface t = 0) that may make the description there in terms ofa classical spacetime plus field configuration problematic but so long as theenergy densities involved are sub-Planckian even the region outside the ldquobigbangrdquo surface t = 0 is no more singular than the nucleation of a bubble in afirst-order phase transition in field theory

            23 Bubblology

            The cosmology inside the bubble in the region described by (4) is fairly simpleto describe The scale factor obeys the Friedmann equation

            H2 = (aa)2 = ρ3 + 1a2 (5)

            where ρ sim V (φ) + (φ)22 + is the energy density in the scalar plus thatof any other matter or radiation At t = 0 the initial conditions are suchthat φ = 0 As a result the dominant term on the right hand side is thecurvature term 1a2 and one obtains a(t) = t+O(t3) [18]

            To produce a cosmology consistent with observations there must be aperiod of slow-roll inflation that begins at some time t gt 0 [18] The most

            9

            00 02 04 06 08 10Φ

            02

            04

            06

            08

            10VHΦLM4

            Figure 2 A scalar field potential for an open inflation model where a singlefield φ tunnels through a barrier and then drives slow-roll inflation inside theresulting bubble

            economical way to accomplish this is to assume that the field that tunneledto produce the bubble in the first place is also the inflaton and that itspotential V (φ) has a slow-roll ldquoplateaurdquo that the field evolves into after thetunneling (see Fig 2)

            In such a model inflation begins at a time ti such that 1a(ti)2 sim 1t2i sim

            V (φ(ti)) sim H2i Therefore inflation begins at t = ti sim 1Hi From that

            time on the scale factor will begin to grow exponentially rapidly diluting thecurvature and (given enough efolds) solving the curvature problem

            24 Curvature and fine-tuning

            During inflation the radius of spatial curvature of the universe grows expo-nentially In terms of the total energy density Ω the curvature contributionto the Friedmann equation is defined by Ωk equiv 1 minus Ω = minusk(Ha) where

            10

            k = minus1 for negative curvature As described above Ωk ltsim 1 at the start ofslow-roll inflation Since during inflation H is approximately constant and agrows exponentially by the end of inflation after N efolds Ωk sim eminus2N

            After inflation Ωk grows by a very large factor e2Nlowast so that its valuetoday is Ωk sim e2(NlowastminusN) (Nlowast sim 63 depends logarithmically on the reheatingtemperature and various other factors see eg [36])

            Therefore in open inflation models the value of Ω today is exponentiallysensitive to the length of inflation As with nearly all relics of the state ofthe universe prior to the start of inflation inflation ldquoinflates awayrdquo curvaturewith exponential efficiency

            This raises the question of how fine-tuned an open inflation model withobservable curvature would be The answer depends on the expected numberof efolds of slow-roll inflation As mentioned above [18] demonstrated thattoo little inflation (N lt Nlowast) prevents structure formation at least given afixed (N -independent) value of δρρ The argument parallels that of Wein-berg [8] Negative curvature can be thought of as a velocity for the expansionof the universe that exceeds ldquoescape velocityrdquo As such overdensities col-lapse only if the overdensity exceeds a certain boundmdashin effect in order tocollapse an overdense region must be dense enough that it is locally a closeduniverse Therefore for a given amplitude of δρρ insufficient N makescollapsed structures (ie stars and galaxies) exponentially rare

            Following Weinbergrsquos logic [8] one may therefore expect that N is notmuch greater than Nlowast How much greater we expect it to be is a stronglymodel-dependent question in [18] a toy model gave a measure of for theprobability of N efolds P (N) sim Nminus4

            3 Collisions

            In any given Lorentz frame every bubble must eventually undergo a firstcollision In this section I will discuss the effects on cosmology of a singlecollisionmdashstrictly speaking the analysis does not apply once there are regionsaffected by multiple collisions However if the effects are sufficiently weak inthose regions one can use linear cosmological perturbation theory in whichcase the effects of collisions simply superpose

            When two bubbles collide the spacetime region to the future of the col-lision is affected (see Fig 3 for a spacetime diagram of a bubble collision)Precisely what occurs inside that region depends on the model However

            11

            Figure 3 A spacetime diagram showing the causal structure of a cosmicbubble collision Coordinates are chosen so that light propagating in theplane of the diagram moves along 45 lines

            for applications to observational cosmology one is generally interested in re-gions in which the effects are a small perturbation on the spacetime prior tothe collision As I will discuss below the assumption that the perturbationis small plus the symmetries of the collision suffice to extract the genericleading-order effects on cosmology

            The most important features of a collision of this type are related to itssymmetries As reviewed above a single bubble has an SO(3 1) isometrya group generated by 6 symmetry generators It turns out that a bubblecollision breaks the SO(3 1) to SO(2 1) a group with 3 generators [11] Thisis enough symmetry to solve Einsteinrsquos equations in a situation in which thestress tensor is locally dominated by vacuum energymdashthe situation is verysimilar to that of a black hole (with three rotation isometries) in a vacuumdominated spacetime (de Sitter Minkowski or anti-de Sitter) As in thoseexamples there is a one parameter family of solutions Details can be foundin eg [11 20 22 23]

            We will see that as a result of these symmetries the effects of the collision

            12

            break isotropy and homogeneity but are azimuthally symmetric (and non-chiral) around a special directionmdashthe axis pointing toward the center of thecolliding bubble

            One important feature of these symmetries is that there exists a timeslicing of the collision spacetime in which the entire collision occurs at oneinstant everywhere along a 2 dimensional hyperboloid At later times in thesecoordinates the effects of the collision spread along a light ldquoconerdquo which isreally a region of space bounded by two hyperboloids To visualize this itmay help the reader to visualize the intersection of two lightcones cones orldquohourglass-typerdquo timelike hyperboloids in 2+1 dimensions The intersectionis a (spacelike) hyperbola which can be chosen to correspond to an instantof time and a point in one transverse coordinate (eg t and x in (6))

            31 Thin-wall collision metric

            In the approximation that the spacetime everywhere away from thin surfacesis dominated by vacuum energy one can write down exact solutions Thesemetrics are of the form

            ds2 = minusdt2g(t) + g(t)dx2 + t2dH22 (6)

            where dH22 = dρ2 + sinh2 ρdφ2 is the metric on a 2D hyperboloid and

            g(t) = 1 +H2t2 minusmt (7)

            Here H is the Hubble constant related to the local vacuum energy densityρV by H2 = ρV 3 and m is a constant [34 20 22] With m = 0 this issimply de Sitter space But with m non-zero it represents a solution that isessentially an analytically continued Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole (see[22] for a discussion of the causal structure of these solutions)

            Across a wall that separates two vacua (either the wall that separates twocollided bubbles or the walls of the bubbles themselves in the parent falsevacuum) one expects the vacuum energy density ρV to jump along withmany other quantities In the limit the wall is thin regions described by (6)can be ldquogluedrdquo together using Israel matching conditions [37 38 11 20] Thisallows one to determine the trajectory of the domain walls and therefore theconditions under which the domain walls that form in a collision acceleratetowards or away from inertial observers inside the bubbles When the wallaccelerates it rapidly becomes relativistic Anything it collides with will

            13

            almost certainly not survive as the ultra-relativistic wall typically has avery high energy density even in its rest frame In such cases there are nocosmological observables since the wall arrives almost immediately after itsfirst light signal

            The results of this analysis which hold at least when the spacetime oneither side of the domain wall is dominated by vacuum energy are as followsthe domain wall always accelerates away from an inertial observer in thebubble with lower vacuum energy andmdashdepending on the tension in thewall and the difference in the two vacuum energiesmdashit can either acceleratetowards away from or not accelerate with respect to an observer in thebubble with larger vacuum energy [22 23] One interesting implication ofthis result is that inertial observers in bubbles with small positive vacuumenergy are shielded from the walls separating them from regions with highervacuum energy and might be shielded from walls with negative vacuumenergy beyond them if the potential satisfies certain conditions

            Generalizing the solution (6) to the case of non-vacuum energy dominatedspacetimes is difficultmdashroughly as difficult as embedding a black hole into anon-trivial FRW cosmology However the basic symmetry structure will notbe affected the metric must still posses SO(2 1) symmetry and therefore canbe written in the form ds2 = ds22 +f(t x)dH2

            2 (just as a black hole embeddedin an expanding FRW could be written in a form ds2 = ds22 + f(t r)dΩ2

            2 Inparticular the region affected by the collisionmdashwhich takes place at somedefinite values of t and xmdashis still bounded by the future light ldquoconerdquo of thehyperboloid H2 at t x

            32 A new solution

            The metric (6) is a specific analytic continuation of an anti-de Sitter Schwarzschildblack hole metric There exist generalizations known as de Sitter-Vaidya oranti-de Sitter-Vaidya metrics that represent the formation of a black holein de Sitter or anti-de Sitter spacetime from the collapse of a shell of nullradiation [39 40] The shell does not have to be thinmdashin fact these metricscontain a free function that describes the profile of the ingoing radiationThe only criterion is that the radiation be purely radially ingoing (or purelyoutgoing)

            Performing the appropriate analytic continuation one obtains the follow-

            14

            ing metric2

            ds2 = (1minusm(w)t+H2t2)dw2 minus 2dwdt+ t2dH22 (8)

            If m(w) = m is constant (8) is equivalent to (6) by a coordinate transfor-mation In general it is easy to check that it represents a spacetime withSO(2 1) isometries that contains both vacuum energy (with energy densitydetermined by H as above) and radiation (with energy flux proportional tomprime(w))mdashbut with all the radiation moving coherently in the same directionAs such it may be a fairly good approximation to the spacetime inside abubble after a collision at least during the curvature domination and slow-roll inflation phases To my knowledge this is the first time this solution hasappeared in print

            4 Cosmological effects of collisions

            To determine the effects of the collision on cosmological observables I willmake the following assumptions

            -1 We are inside a bubble that has been or will be struck by at least oneother bubble

            0 The collision preserves SO(2 1) that is one can choose coordinateslike (6) or (8) in which it occurs at one instant everywhere along ahyperboloid

            1 The effects of the collision are confined entirely to the interior of thefuture ldquolightconerdquo of the collision event that is inside a region x gtxc(t) where xc(t) is a null geodesic in the (x t) plane transverse to thecollision hyperboloid

            2 There was sufficient inflation to make the spatial curvature of the uni-verse and of the hyperbolic collision ldquolightconerdquo negligible

            3 The effects on the observable part of our universe are small enough tobe treated using linear perturbation theory

            4 The collision affects the inflaton by creating an O(1) perturbation init near the beginning of inflation

            2I thank T Levi and S Chang for discussions on this metric

            15

            5 The inflaton perturbation is generic apart from constraints imposedby the symmetries and assumption 1

            Using these assumptions the effects on the cosmic microwave background(CMB) temperature were first worked out in [24] and on CMB polarizationin [30]

            41 Inflaton perturbation

            Given these assumptions one can simply expand the inflaton perturbationin a power series at a time near the beginning of inflation at which time ththe metric (6) will be a good description of the spacetime Dropping the H2

            factor (on which the perturbation is constant) for clarity

            ds2 = minusdt2g(t)+g(t)dx2 asymp minusdt2(Hit)2+(Hit)

            2dx2 = (Hiτ)minus2(minusdτ 2 + dx2

            )

            (9)The approximation is valid after the beginning of inflation Hit gt 1 and thecoordinate τ = minus1(H2t) is the conformal time The reader should recallthat τ increases towards zero during inflation and is exponentially small byits end

            The constraint from assumption 1 means that the collision perturbationis non-zero only inside the affected region [24 41]

            δφ(x τi) = M

            ( infinsumn=0

            anHni (x+ τi)

            n

            )Θ(x+ τi) (10)

            ˙δφ(x τi) = M

            ( infinsumn=0

            bnHn+1i (x+ τi)

            n

            )Θ(x+ τi) (11)

            Here δφ is the perturbation in the inflaton field an and bn are dimensionlesscoefficients τi is a time near the start of inflation where the slow-roll approx-imation is valid M is a mass scale associated with the range over which thefield varies and the coordinates are chosen for convenience so that the edgeof the region affected by the collision is located at x = minusτi at that time Notethat this expansion is completely generalmdashit does not assume that the fieldthat tunneled is the inflaton and depends only on the assumptions outlinedjust above It does however ignore the effects of the collision on fields otherthan the inflaton at least in single-field models one expects that primordialperturbations of the inflaton field will have the largest imprint on cosmologytoday

            16

            Without a model for the inflaton and the field(s) that participated in thetunneling we cannot compute the coefficients an and bn Generically one ex-pects that the perturbation will be at least O(1) on scales corresponding tothe radius of curvature of the universe That is one expects the coefficientsan sim 1 Moreover given enough inflation to solve the flatness problem (andproduce a universe consistent with current constraints on curvature) the ob-

            servable universe today corresponds to a region of size |x|Hi simradic

            Ωk(t0) 1at the beginning of inflation Therefore we are interested in the perturbation(10) in the limit Hx 1 and so the first term will dominate the observablesignatures (unless for some reason a0 an for some n gt 0) Notice thata0 6= 0 is a spatial discontinuity in δφ

            To determine the effects of this initial inflaton perturbation on the CMBand other cosmological observables one can employ the standard machineryof inflationary perturbation theory The first step is to determine the evolu-tion of the perturbation during inflation During slow-roll inflation at lowestorder in the slow-roll parameters inflaton perturbations satisfy the equationof a free massless scalar in de Sitter space (see eg [42]) One can solve thatequation in full generality the solution is [24]

            δφ = g(τ + x)minus τgprime(τ + x) + f(τ minus x)minus τf prime(τ minus x) (12)

            where g f are arbitrary functions of one variable and gprime f prime their derivativesThis solution may be familiar from the more standard treatment of in-

            flationary fluctuations in momentum space the terms proportional to τ arethe usual decaying modes in the expression δφk sim kminus32 (1plusmn ikτ) Evidentlythe τ -dependent terms arise due to the effects of inflation since this solutionis otherwise identical to that of a massless scalar field in 1+1-dimensionalMinkowski space

            Given the initial conditions in (10) one can use (12) to determine thesolution for all future times during slow-roll inflation The result can bewritten in closed form [41] but is not particularly illuminating Ratherthan reproduce it here it is easier to instead expand the functions f andg of (12) (which contain the same information as and are determined byδφ and ˙δφ) Since g is purely left-moving and f is purely right-moving forτ gt τi the perturbation near the edge of the lightcone Hi(xminus xc(τ)) 1 isdetermined only by g Therefore the effects on the CMB are determined by

            17

            the coefficients in the expansion of g

            g(x+ τ) =

            ( infinsumn=1

            cn(x+ τ)n)

            Θ(x+ τ) (13)

            Note that the sum begins with the linear term n = 1 This is because ann = 0 term in this expansion would lead to a δ-function singularity in δφwhich could not be expanded as in (10) and in any case would invalidateperturbation theory Put another way a non-zero c1 corresponds to a per-turbation δφ with a non-zero a0 in (10)

            By the end of inflation τ = τe is exponentially small and one can dropthe terms proportional to τ in (12) leaving simply

            δφ(x τe) asymp g(x) =

            ( infinsumn=1

            cn(x)n)

            Θ(x) (14)

            Note the leading term is now a discontinuity in the first derivative not adiscontinuity in the perturbation itself Inflation smooths sub-horizon pri-mordial gradients by effectively integrating them once

            42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe

            To precisely determine the effect of this perturbation on cosmological observ-ables at later times requires numerically integrating the coupled equationsthat control the perturbations in the various components of the energy den-sity in the early universe There is a standard set of software tools availablefor this purpose [43 44] The results of such a numerical analysis for a bub-ble collision can be found in [45] and analytically (and approximately) in[24 30]

            One can understand the qualitative results with a simple analytic ap-proximation A primary component of the collision signal is its effect on theCMB temperature The most important contribution to CMB temperaturefluctuations comes from the Sachs-Wolfe effect [46 47] To first approxima-tion all CMB photons last scattered at redshift zdc sim 1100 when electronsrecombined with protons and photons decoupled from the plasma and thenpropagated freely (without scattering again) until now Their temperatureis determined by the intrinsic temperature T (tdc x y z) at the point in thelast scattering volume at the time tdc corresponding to z = zdc Given that aphoton free-streamed it originated at some point satisfying x2+y2+z2 = D2

            dc

            18

            on a sphere of radius Ddc the radius of the current earthrsquos past lightconeat t = tdc The radius Ddc asymp 14Gpc can be determined from the expansionhistory a(t) by integrating back along a null geodesic in the FRW metric

            Because a locally higher temperature at last scattering corresponds to alocally higher density there is a corresponding negative gravitational poten-tial energy fluctation at that location In the Sachs-Wolfe approximation thecurrent temperature of a photon originating from such a point is a combi-nation of the intrinsic temperature of the plasma it last scattered from andthe local gravitational potential at that point as well as an overall redshift(1 + zdc)

            minus1 (and some additional contributions from time variations of thepotential along the way the ldquointegrated Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo) A simple cal-culation shows that the negative potential energy contribution is larger thanthe increased intrinsic temperature perturbation Φ(tdc) sim minus(32)δTT (tdc[47] Therefore locally hot spots at last scattering make cold spots on theCMB

            43 CMB temperature

            Given a perturbation to the Newtonian potential at reheating Φ = λxΘ(x)one can easily estimate the effect on the CMB temperature today Theessential points are the following

            bull Perturbations that are linear in the spatial coordinates (such as Φ =λx) remain so regardless of the cosmological evolution (to first order inperturbation theory) because the equations that govern the evolutionof cosmological perturbations are all second-order in spatial derivatives

            bull The evolution equations are causalmdashthe effects of an initial perturba-tions are confined to within its light- or sound-cone

            bull By the time of last scattering the radius of the sound-cone rsh of a per-turbation present at reheating corresponds to approximately 6 degreeson the CMB sky (rshDdc asymp 01)

            Given this one can easily determine the temperature perturbation in theCMB The ldquokinkrdquo at x = 0 will evolve but its effects must be confinedwithin a slab of thickness 2rsh Outside that slab the perturbationmdashwhichwas initially either zero or linear in xmdashcannot evolve in shape although

            19

            Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

            20

            its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

            Φ(tdc x y z) =

            0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

            (15)

            where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

            To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

            θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

            Ddc

            ) (16)

            The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

            (minusxe+rsh

            Ddc

            )lt θ lt cosminus1

            (minusxeminusrsh

            Ddc

            )near the rim of the disk where

            it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

            Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

            Ddc

            ) the CMB

            temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

            44 CMB polarization

            The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

            21

            E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

            However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

            Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

            To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

            Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

            22

            numerically

            45 Other cosmological observables

            A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

            5 Probabilities and measures

            The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

            To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

            At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

            23

            expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

            〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

            where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

            To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

            51 Observable collisions

            We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

            i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

            lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

            The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

            intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

            during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

            During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

            24

            Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

            i Puttingthis together gives

            〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

            2i (18)

            We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

            Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

            taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

            Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

            In the end the result is [25]

            〈N〉 simradic

            ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

            radicΩk (HfHi)

            2 (19)

            The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

            2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

            2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

            must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

            radicΩk lt 1

            Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

            52 Spot sizes

            Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

            25

            This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

            However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

            The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

            radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

            the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

            Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

            One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

            53 Spot brightness

            Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

            26

            potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

            timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

            6 Conclusions

            Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

            Acknowledgements

            I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

            References

            [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

            [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

            [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

            27

            [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

            [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

            [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

            [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

            [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

            [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

            [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

            [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

            [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

            28

            [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

            [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

            [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

            [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

            [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

            [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

            [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

            [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

            [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

            [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

            [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

            [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

            29

            [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

            [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

            [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

            [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

            [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

            [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

            [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

            [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

            [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

            [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

            [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

            [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

            [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

            30

            [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

            [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

            [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

            [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

            [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

            [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

            [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

            [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

            [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

            [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

            [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

            [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

            [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

            31

            [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

            [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

            [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

            [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

            [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

            [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

            [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

            [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

            [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

            [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

            32

            • 1 Introduction
              • 11 Overview
              • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
              • 13 Decay
              • 14 Motivation
                • 2 Earlier work
                  • 21 Open inflaton
                  • 22 Metrics and solutions
                  • 23 Bubblology
                  • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                    • 3 Collisions
                      • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                      • 32 A new solution
                        • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                          • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                          • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                          • 43 CMB temperature
                          • 44 CMB polarization
                          • 45 Other cosmological observables
                            • 5 Probabilities and measures
                              • 51 Observable collisions
                              • 52 Spot sizes
                              • 53 Spot brightness
                                • 6 Conclusions

              solutions it will not be zero instead its typical value is set by the stringenergy scalemdashwith both positive and negative values possible [2 4 3] Theexact value in any given phase will depend on the details and if there areenough different phases it is plausible that a small but non-empty subsethave vacuum energies that are consistent with the tiny value we observe[5 6 7] Hence the theory is at least consistent with observation and theextraordinarily small but non-zero value was even predicted a decade in ad-vance in [8] under a set of assumptions that coincide with those just outlined

              Because understanding the value of the cosmological constant is consid-ered one of the most important problems in theoretical physics and becausestring theory is our best candidate for a theory of quantum gravity it is worthtaking this scenario seriously One should look for observations beyond thecosmological constant which could test its validity hence this review

              2 Earlier work

              Alan Guthrsquos original model for inflationmdashnow known as ldquoold inflationrdquomdashwasan inflating false vacuum punctuated by bubbles [9] Inflation was the falsevacuum and the end of inflation was the nucleation of the bubble we inhabitThis model didnrsquot succeed because of difficulties with re-heating the universewhen a bubble first appears it is both strongly negatively curved and emptyReheating could potentially result from collisions with other bubbles butsuch collisions are either raremdashin which case reheating is anisotropicmdashorcommonmdashin which case the phase transition from the false vacuum completesafter order one Hubble time and there is little or no inflation Early studiesof this include [10 11]

              21 Open inflaton

              Old inflation was replaced by other models in which the inflaton slowly rollsand less attention was paid to models involving bubbles until the mid-90swhen the available data indicated that the universe was underdense and neg-atively curved At that time there was a burst of interest in ldquoopen inflationrdquomodels models in which our universe is inside a bubble that nucleated froma parent false vacuum (and hence is negatively curved) but where the bub-ble nucleation was followed by a period of standard slow-roll inflation Thatperiod of slow-roll produces density perturbations and reduces the curva-

              6

              ture thereby allowing Ωtotal sim 3 as the data seemed to indicate Therewere a series of papers by several groups of authors that worked out thepower spectrum of perturbations generated during inflation in such bubbles[12 13 14 15 16])

              While not all authors agreed on the quantitative effects all agree thatthe power spectrum of inflationary perturbations is significantly modified onscales of order the radius of curvature and larger This can be understoodqualitatively in a simple way As I will review below when a bubble universefirst appears it is dominated by negative curvature As a result it expandswith a scale factor a(t) sim t After a time of orderHminus1i whereHi is the Hubbleconstant during inflation the curvature redshifts to the point it is belowthe inflationary vacuum energy and inflation begins Clearly perturbationsproduced before or during this transitional era will not have a scale-invariantspectrum identical to those produced after it

              Mainly because of theoretical developments in string theory (see Sec 14)in the last few years there has been a resurgence of interest in these modelsfocussing both on the physics of individual bubble universes and on collisionsbetween bubbles [17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31]I will review much of that very recent work below A result from someyears back is [17 18] which demonstrate in several models (using argumentsparallel to [8]) that slow-roll inflation after the bubble nucleation is necessaryin order to avoid producing a universe devoid of structure With fixed δρρapproximately as many efolds of inflation N are needed as are necessary tosolve the flatness problem (approximately N sim 60 given typical values forthe reheating temperature etc)

              22 Metrics and solutions

              The single most important tool in understanding the physics of cosmic bub-bles is their symmetry The standard treatment of bubble formation in fieldtheory coupled to gravity was developed by [32] In that approach both therate of nucleation and the initial conditions just after the bubble forms areset by a solution to the equations of motion of the Euclidean version of thetheory Such solutions are known generally as ldquoinstantonsrdquo The justificationfor their application to this problem goes far beyond the scope of this reviewsee [32] and references therein

              Another mechanism by which false vacua can decay is charged membranenucleation in a background 4-form flux [33] These instantons (and the ex-

              7

              panding bubbles they correspond to) possess the same symmetries as thoseof [32] and I expect most of the results reviewed here to hold for them aswell

              In order to understand the symmetries of the bubble spacetime one canstart with the instanton solution of [32] In a model with a single scalar fieldφ coupled to Euclidean Einstein gravity the relevant solution is

              ds2 = dψ2 + a(ψ)2dΩ23 φ = φ(ψ) (3)

              where dΩ23 = dθ2 + sin2 θdΩ2

              2 is the round metric on a 3-dimensional sphereThe functions a(ψ) and φ(ψ) are determined by solving Einsteinrsquos equationsand the equation of motion for the scalar field φ and the solutions depend onthe potential energy for the scalar V (φ) If V has at least two minima solu-tions φ(ψ) that oscillate once around the maximum1 of V (φ) that separatesthe two minima generally exist (but see [34] and [35])

              Solutions of this form have a large degree of rotational symmetry they areinvariant under the group of rotations in 4D Euclidean space (in which onecan embed the 3-sphere) namely SO(4) This is a group with 4 times 32 = 6symmetry generators (each corresponding to a rotation in one of the sixplanes of 4D space) The action S(a φ) for a solution is determined by anintegral involving a(ψ) and φ(ψ) and is related to the false vacuum decayrate by γ sim eminusS

              Under certain conditions on the potential V (φ) the solutions a φ areldquothin wallrdquo meaning that they vary sharply with ψ In particular in thethin wall limit φ(ψ) sim φ0 + microΘ(ψ minus ψ0) where Θ(ψ) is a step functionand φ0 micro and ψ0 are constants The thin wall limit is convenient it makesit possible to calculate many quantities in closed form However it is notrequired for the validity of most of the physics discussed in this review nordo the symmetries of the solutions discussed here depend on it

              To determine the spacetime after the bubble nucleation occurs one cansimply analytically continue (3) back to Lorentzian signature The resultis a spacetime that contains a bubble expanding in a bath of false vacuumThere is more than one choice of analytic continuation different choices givemetrics that cover some part of the full Lorentzian spacetime These metricscan be patched together to determine the global structure of the spacetimeOf most relevance for the cosmology seen by observers inside the bubble isthe continuation that produces a metric that covers (most of) the interior of

              1In Euclidean signature the equations of motion have the sign of the potential reversed

              8

              the bubble Details can be found in eg [18] the result is

              ds2 = minusdt2+a(t)2dH23 = minusdt2+a(t)2

              (dρ2 + sinh2 ρdΩ2

              2

              )and φ = φ(t) (4)

              where H3 is 3D hyperbolic space (the homogeneous and isotropic 3D spacewith constant negative curvature) As can be seen at a glance this is anFRW metric describing a homogeneous and isotropic cosmology scale factora(t) and scalar field ldquomatterrdquo φ(t) The evolution of a will be determined byV (φ(t)) in the usual way as well as by any other sources of stress-energy

              After the continuation the SO(4) invariance of the Euclidean solutionhas been replaced by the SO(3 1) invariance associated with H3 In otherwords the symmetries of the instanton are what give rise to the homogeneityand isotropy of the constant-time surfaces of this FRW cosmology Observersliving inside the bubble live in a negatively curved universe that satisfies thecosmological principle

              One of the most intriguing aspects of this result is that the ldquobig bangrdquot = 0 where the scale factor a(0) = 0 vanishes is not a curvature singularityIt is merely a coordinate singularitymdashthe spacetime just outside the surfacet = 0 (which is null) is regular and described by another analytic continuationof the metric Of course there is a quantum nucleation event (a finite distanceoutside the surface t = 0) that may make the description there in terms ofa classical spacetime plus field configuration problematic but so long as theenergy densities involved are sub-Planckian even the region outside the ldquobigbangrdquo surface t = 0 is no more singular than the nucleation of a bubble in afirst-order phase transition in field theory

              23 Bubblology

              The cosmology inside the bubble in the region described by (4) is fairly simpleto describe The scale factor obeys the Friedmann equation

              H2 = (aa)2 = ρ3 + 1a2 (5)

              where ρ sim V (φ) + (φ)22 + is the energy density in the scalar plus thatof any other matter or radiation At t = 0 the initial conditions are suchthat φ = 0 As a result the dominant term on the right hand side is thecurvature term 1a2 and one obtains a(t) = t+O(t3) [18]

              To produce a cosmology consistent with observations there must be aperiod of slow-roll inflation that begins at some time t gt 0 [18] The most

              9

              00 02 04 06 08 10Φ

              02

              04

              06

              08

              10VHΦLM4

              Figure 2 A scalar field potential for an open inflation model where a singlefield φ tunnels through a barrier and then drives slow-roll inflation inside theresulting bubble

              economical way to accomplish this is to assume that the field that tunneledto produce the bubble in the first place is also the inflaton and that itspotential V (φ) has a slow-roll ldquoplateaurdquo that the field evolves into after thetunneling (see Fig 2)

              In such a model inflation begins at a time ti such that 1a(ti)2 sim 1t2i sim

              V (φ(ti)) sim H2i Therefore inflation begins at t = ti sim 1Hi From that

              time on the scale factor will begin to grow exponentially rapidly diluting thecurvature and (given enough efolds) solving the curvature problem

              24 Curvature and fine-tuning

              During inflation the radius of spatial curvature of the universe grows expo-nentially In terms of the total energy density Ω the curvature contributionto the Friedmann equation is defined by Ωk equiv 1 minus Ω = minusk(Ha) where

              10

              k = minus1 for negative curvature As described above Ωk ltsim 1 at the start ofslow-roll inflation Since during inflation H is approximately constant and agrows exponentially by the end of inflation after N efolds Ωk sim eminus2N

              After inflation Ωk grows by a very large factor e2Nlowast so that its valuetoday is Ωk sim e2(NlowastminusN) (Nlowast sim 63 depends logarithmically on the reheatingtemperature and various other factors see eg [36])

              Therefore in open inflation models the value of Ω today is exponentiallysensitive to the length of inflation As with nearly all relics of the state ofthe universe prior to the start of inflation inflation ldquoinflates awayrdquo curvaturewith exponential efficiency

              This raises the question of how fine-tuned an open inflation model withobservable curvature would be The answer depends on the expected numberof efolds of slow-roll inflation As mentioned above [18] demonstrated thattoo little inflation (N lt Nlowast) prevents structure formation at least given afixed (N -independent) value of δρρ The argument parallels that of Wein-berg [8] Negative curvature can be thought of as a velocity for the expansionof the universe that exceeds ldquoescape velocityrdquo As such overdensities col-lapse only if the overdensity exceeds a certain boundmdashin effect in order tocollapse an overdense region must be dense enough that it is locally a closeduniverse Therefore for a given amplitude of δρρ insufficient N makescollapsed structures (ie stars and galaxies) exponentially rare

              Following Weinbergrsquos logic [8] one may therefore expect that N is notmuch greater than Nlowast How much greater we expect it to be is a stronglymodel-dependent question in [18] a toy model gave a measure of for theprobability of N efolds P (N) sim Nminus4

              3 Collisions

              In any given Lorentz frame every bubble must eventually undergo a firstcollision In this section I will discuss the effects on cosmology of a singlecollisionmdashstrictly speaking the analysis does not apply once there are regionsaffected by multiple collisions However if the effects are sufficiently weak inthose regions one can use linear cosmological perturbation theory in whichcase the effects of collisions simply superpose

              When two bubbles collide the spacetime region to the future of the col-lision is affected (see Fig 3 for a spacetime diagram of a bubble collision)Precisely what occurs inside that region depends on the model However

              11

              Figure 3 A spacetime diagram showing the causal structure of a cosmicbubble collision Coordinates are chosen so that light propagating in theplane of the diagram moves along 45 lines

              for applications to observational cosmology one is generally interested in re-gions in which the effects are a small perturbation on the spacetime prior tothe collision As I will discuss below the assumption that the perturbationis small plus the symmetries of the collision suffice to extract the genericleading-order effects on cosmology

              The most important features of a collision of this type are related to itssymmetries As reviewed above a single bubble has an SO(3 1) isometrya group generated by 6 symmetry generators It turns out that a bubblecollision breaks the SO(3 1) to SO(2 1) a group with 3 generators [11] Thisis enough symmetry to solve Einsteinrsquos equations in a situation in which thestress tensor is locally dominated by vacuum energymdashthe situation is verysimilar to that of a black hole (with three rotation isometries) in a vacuumdominated spacetime (de Sitter Minkowski or anti-de Sitter) As in thoseexamples there is a one parameter family of solutions Details can be foundin eg [11 20 22 23]

              We will see that as a result of these symmetries the effects of the collision

              12

              break isotropy and homogeneity but are azimuthally symmetric (and non-chiral) around a special directionmdashthe axis pointing toward the center of thecolliding bubble

              One important feature of these symmetries is that there exists a timeslicing of the collision spacetime in which the entire collision occurs at oneinstant everywhere along a 2 dimensional hyperboloid At later times in thesecoordinates the effects of the collision spread along a light ldquoconerdquo which isreally a region of space bounded by two hyperboloids To visualize this itmay help the reader to visualize the intersection of two lightcones cones orldquohourglass-typerdquo timelike hyperboloids in 2+1 dimensions The intersectionis a (spacelike) hyperbola which can be chosen to correspond to an instantof time and a point in one transverse coordinate (eg t and x in (6))

              31 Thin-wall collision metric

              In the approximation that the spacetime everywhere away from thin surfacesis dominated by vacuum energy one can write down exact solutions Thesemetrics are of the form

              ds2 = minusdt2g(t) + g(t)dx2 + t2dH22 (6)

              where dH22 = dρ2 + sinh2 ρdφ2 is the metric on a 2D hyperboloid and

              g(t) = 1 +H2t2 minusmt (7)

              Here H is the Hubble constant related to the local vacuum energy densityρV by H2 = ρV 3 and m is a constant [34 20 22] With m = 0 this issimply de Sitter space But with m non-zero it represents a solution that isessentially an analytically continued Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole (see[22] for a discussion of the causal structure of these solutions)

              Across a wall that separates two vacua (either the wall that separates twocollided bubbles or the walls of the bubbles themselves in the parent falsevacuum) one expects the vacuum energy density ρV to jump along withmany other quantities In the limit the wall is thin regions described by (6)can be ldquogluedrdquo together using Israel matching conditions [37 38 11 20] Thisallows one to determine the trajectory of the domain walls and therefore theconditions under which the domain walls that form in a collision acceleratetowards or away from inertial observers inside the bubbles When the wallaccelerates it rapidly becomes relativistic Anything it collides with will

              13

              almost certainly not survive as the ultra-relativistic wall typically has avery high energy density even in its rest frame In such cases there are nocosmological observables since the wall arrives almost immediately after itsfirst light signal

              The results of this analysis which hold at least when the spacetime oneither side of the domain wall is dominated by vacuum energy are as followsthe domain wall always accelerates away from an inertial observer in thebubble with lower vacuum energy andmdashdepending on the tension in thewall and the difference in the two vacuum energiesmdashit can either acceleratetowards away from or not accelerate with respect to an observer in thebubble with larger vacuum energy [22 23] One interesting implication ofthis result is that inertial observers in bubbles with small positive vacuumenergy are shielded from the walls separating them from regions with highervacuum energy and might be shielded from walls with negative vacuumenergy beyond them if the potential satisfies certain conditions

              Generalizing the solution (6) to the case of non-vacuum energy dominatedspacetimes is difficultmdashroughly as difficult as embedding a black hole into anon-trivial FRW cosmology However the basic symmetry structure will notbe affected the metric must still posses SO(2 1) symmetry and therefore canbe written in the form ds2 = ds22 +f(t x)dH2

              2 (just as a black hole embeddedin an expanding FRW could be written in a form ds2 = ds22 + f(t r)dΩ2

              2 Inparticular the region affected by the collisionmdashwhich takes place at somedefinite values of t and xmdashis still bounded by the future light ldquoconerdquo of thehyperboloid H2 at t x

              32 A new solution

              The metric (6) is a specific analytic continuation of an anti-de Sitter Schwarzschildblack hole metric There exist generalizations known as de Sitter-Vaidya oranti-de Sitter-Vaidya metrics that represent the formation of a black holein de Sitter or anti-de Sitter spacetime from the collapse of a shell of nullradiation [39 40] The shell does not have to be thinmdashin fact these metricscontain a free function that describes the profile of the ingoing radiationThe only criterion is that the radiation be purely radially ingoing (or purelyoutgoing)

              Performing the appropriate analytic continuation one obtains the follow-

              14

              ing metric2

              ds2 = (1minusm(w)t+H2t2)dw2 minus 2dwdt+ t2dH22 (8)

              If m(w) = m is constant (8) is equivalent to (6) by a coordinate transfor-mation In general it is easy to check that it represents a spacetime withSO(2 1) isometries that contains both vacuum energy (with energy densitydetermined by H as above) and radiation (with energy flux proportional tomprime(w))mdashbut with all the radiation moving coherently in the same directionAs such it may be a fairly good approximation to the spacetime inside abubble after a collision at least during the curvature domination and slow-roll inflation phases To my knowledge this is the first time this solution hasappeared in print

              4 Cosmological effects of collisions

              To determine the effects of the collision on cosmological observables I willmake the following assumptions

              -1 We are inside a bubble that has been or will be struck by at least oneother bubble

              0 The collision preserves SO(2 1) that is one can choose coordinateslike (6) or (8) in which it occurs at one instant everywhere along ahyperboloid

              1 The effects of the collision are confined entirely to the interior of thefuture ldquolightconerdquo of the collision event that is inside a region x gtxc(t) where xc(t) is a null geodesic in the (x t) plane transverse to thecollision hyperboloid

              2 There was sufficient inflation to make the spatial curvature of the uni-verse and of the hyperbolic collision ldquolightconerdquo negligible

              3 The effects on the observable part of our universe are small enough tobe treated using linear perturbation theory

              4 The collision affects the inflaton by creating an O(1) perturbation init near the beginning of inflation

              2I thank T Levi and S Chang for discussions on this metric

              15

              5 The inflaton perturbation is generic apart from constraints imposedby the symmetries and assumption 1

              Using these assumptions the effects on the cosmic microwave background(CMB) temperature were first worked out in [24] and on CMB polarizationin [30]

              41 Inflaton perturbation

              Given these assumptions one can simply expand the inflaton perturbationin a power series at a time near the beginning of inflation at which time ththe metric (6) will be a good description of the spacetime Dropping the H2

              factor (on which the perturbation is constant) for clarity

              ds2 = minusdt2g(t)+g(t)dx2 asymp minusdt2(Hit)2+(Hit)

              2dx2 = (Hiτ)minus2(minusdτ 2 + dx2

              )

              (9)The approximation is valid after the beginning of inflation Hit gt 1 and thecoordinate τ = minus1(H2t) is the conformal time The reader should recallthat τ increases towards zero during inflation and is exponentially small byits end

              The constraint from assumption 1 means that the collision perturbationis non-zero only inside the affected region [24 41]

              δφ(x τi) = M

              ( infinsumn=0

              anHni (x+ τi)

              n

              )Θ(x+ τi) (10)

              ˙δφ(x τi) = M

              ( infinsumn=0

              bnHn+1i (x+ τi)

              n

              )Θ(x+ τi) (11)

              Here δφ is the perturbation in the inflaton field an and bn are dimensionlesscoefficients τi is a time near the start of inflation where the slow-roll approx-imation is valid M is a mass scale associated with the range over which thefield varies and the coordinates are chosen for convenience so that the edgeof the region affected by the collision is located at x = minusτi at that time Notethat this expansion is completely generalmdashit does not assume that the fieldthat tunneled is the inflaton and depends only on the assumptions outlinedjust above It does however ignore the effects of the collision on fields otherthan the inflaton at least in single-field models one expects that primordialperturbations of the inflaton field will have the largest imprint on cosmologytoday

              16

              Without a model for the inflaton and the field(s) that participated in thetunneling we cannot compute the coefficients an and bn Generically one ex-pects that the perturbation will be at least O(1) on scales corresponding tothe radius of curvature of the universe That is one expects the coefficientsan sim 1 Moreover given enough inflation to solve the flatness problem (andproduce a universe consistent with current constraints on curvature) the ob-

              servable universe today corresponds to a region of size |x|Hi simradic

              Ωk(t0) 1at the beginning of inflation Therefore we are interested in the perturbation(10) in the limit Hx 1 and so the first term will dominate the observablesignatures (unless for some reason a0 an for some n gt 0) Notice thata0 6= 0 is a spatial discontinuity in δφ

              To determine the effects of this initial inflaton perturbation on the CMBand other cosmological observables one can employ the standard machineryof inflationary perturbation theory The first step is to determine the evolu-tion of the perturbation during inflation During slow-roll inflation at lowestorder in the slow-roll parameters inflaton perturbations satisfy the equationof a free massless scalar in de Sitter space (see eg [42]) One can solve thatequation in full generality the solution is [24]

              δφ = g(τ + x)minus τgprime(τ + x) + f(τ minus x)minus τf prime(τ minus x) (12)

              where g f are arbitrary functions of one variable and gprime f prime their derivativesThis solution may be familiar from the more standard treatment of in-

              flationary fluctuations in momentum space the terms proportional to τ arethe usual decaying modes in the expression δφk sim kminus32 (1plusmn ikτ) Evidentlythe τ -dependent terms arise due to the effects of inflation since this solutionis otherwise identical to that of a massless scalar field in 1+1-dimensionalMinkowski space

              Given the initial conditions in (10) one can use (12) to determine thesolution for all future times during slow-roll inflation The result can bewritten in closed form [41] but is not particularly illuminating Ratherthan reproduce it here it is easier to instead expand the functions f andg of (12) (which contain the same information as and are determined byδφ and ˙δφ) Since g is purely left-moving and f is purely right-moving forτ gt τi the perturbation near the edge of the lightcone Hi(xminus xc(τ)) 1 isdetermined only by g Therefore the effects on the CMB are determined by

              17

              the coefficients in the expansion of g

              g(x+ τ) =

              ( infinsumn=1

              cn(x+ τ)n)

              Θ(x+ τ) (13)

              Note that the sum begins with the linear term n = 1 This is because ann = 0 term in this expansion would lead to a δ-function singularity in δφwhich could not be expanded as in (10) and in any case would invalidateperturbation theory Put another way a non-zero c1 corresponds to a per-turbation δφ with a non-zero a0 in (10)

              By the end of inflation τ = τe is exponentially small and one can dropthe terms proportional to τ in (12) leaving simply

              δφ(x τe) asymp g(x) =

              ( infinsumn=1

              cn(x)n)

              Θ(x) (14)

              Note the leading term is now a discontinuity in the first derivative not adiscontinuity in the perturbation itself Inflation smooths sub-horizon pri-mordial gradients by effectively integrating them once

              42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe

              To precisely determine the effect of this perturbation on cosmological observ-ables at later times requires numerically integrating the coupled equationsthat control the perturbations in the various components of the energy den-sity in the early universe There is a standard set of software tools availablefor this purpose [43 44] The results of such a numerical analysis for a bub-ble collision can be found in [45] and analytically (and approximately) in[24 30]

              One can understand the qualitative results with a simple analytic ap-proximation A primary component of the collision signal is its effect on theCMB temperature The most important contribution to CMB temperaturefluctuations comes from the Sachs-Wolfe effect [46 47] To first approxima-tion all CMB photons last scattered at redshift zdc sim 1100 when electronsrecombined with protons and photons decoupled from the plasma and thenpropagated freely (without scattering again) until now Their temperatureis determined by the intrinsic temperature T (tdc x y z) at the point in thelast scattering volume at the time tdc corresponding to z = zdc Given that aphoton free-streamed it originated at some point satisfying x2+y2+z2 = D2

              dc

              18

              on a sphere of radius Ddc the radius of the current earthrsquos past lightconeat t = tdc The radius Ddc asymp 14Gpc can be determined from the expansionhistory a(t) by integrating back along a null geodesic in the FRW metric

              Because a locally higher temperature at last scattering corresponds to alocally higher density there is a corresponding negative gravitational poten-tial energy fluctation at that location In the Sachs-Wolfe approximation thecurrent temperature of a photon originating from such a point is a combi-nation of the intrinsic temperature of the plasma it last scattered from andthe local gravitational potential at that point as well as an overall redshift(1 + zdc)

              minus1 (and some additional contributions from time variations of thepotential along the way the ldquointegrated Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo) A simple cal-culation shows that the negative potential energy contribution is larger thanthe increased intrinsic temperature perturbation Φ(tdc) sim minus(32)δTT (tdc[47] Therefore locally hot spots at last scattering make cold spots on theCMB

              43 CMB temperature

              Given a perturbation to the Newtonian potential at reheating Φ = λxΘ(x)one can easily estimate the effect on the CMB temperature today Theessential points are the following

              bull Perturbations that are linear in the spatial coordinates (such as Φ =λx) remain so regardless of the cosmological evolution (to first order inperturbation theory) because the equations that govern the evolutionof cosmological perturbations are all second-order in spatial derivatives

              bull The evolution equations are causalmdashthe effects of an initial perturba-tions are confined to within its light- or sound-cone

              bull By the time of last scattering the radius of the sound-cone rsh of a per-turbation present at reheating corresponds to approximately 6 degreeson the CMB sky (rshDdc asymp 01)

              Given this one can easily determine the temperature perturbation in theCMB The ldquokinkrdquo at x = 0 will evolve but its effects must be confinedwithin a slab of thickness 2rsh Outside that slab the perturbationmdashwhichwas initially either zero or linear in xmdashcannot evolve in shape although

              19

              Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

              20

              its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

              Φ(tdc x y z) =

              0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

              (15)

              where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

              To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

              θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

              Ddc

              ) (16)

              The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

              (minusxe+rsh

              Ddc

              )lt θ lt cosminus1

              (minusxeminusrsh

              Ddc

              )near the rim of the disk where

              it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

              Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

              Ddc

              ) the CMB

              temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

              44 CMB polarization

              The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

              21

              E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

              However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

              Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

              To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

              Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

              22

              numerically

              45 Other cosmological observables

              A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

              5 Probabilities and measures

              The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

              To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

              At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

              23

              expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

              〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

              where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

              To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

              51 Observable collisions

              We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

              i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

              lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

              The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

              intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

              during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

              During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

              24

              Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

              i Puttingthis together gives

              〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

              2i (18)

              We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

              Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

              taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

              Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

              In the end the result is [25]

              〈N〉 simradic

              ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

              radicΩk (HfHi)

              2 (19)

              The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

              2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

              2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

              must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

              radicΩk lt 1

              Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

              52 Spot sizes

              Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

              25

              This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

              However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

              The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

              radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

              the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

              Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

              One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

              53 Spot brightness

              Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

              26

              potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

              timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

              6 Conclusions

              Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

              Acknowledgements

              I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

              References

              [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

              [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

              [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

              27

              [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

              [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

              [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

              [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

              [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

              [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

              [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

              [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

              [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

              28

              [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

              [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

              [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

              [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

              [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

              [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

              [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

              [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

              [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

              [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

              [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

              [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

              29

              [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

              [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

              [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

              [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

              [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

              [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

              [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

              [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

              [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

              [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

              [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

              [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

              [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

              30

              [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

              [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

              [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

              [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

              [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

              [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

              [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

              [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

              [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

              [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

              [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

              [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

              [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

              31

              [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

              [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

              [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

              [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

              [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

              [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

              [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

              [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

              [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

              [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

              32

              • 1 Introduction
                • 11 Overview
                • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                • 13 Decay
                • 14 Motivation
                  • 2 Earlier work
                    • 21 Open inflaton
                    • 22 Metrics and solutions
                    • 23 Bubblology
                    • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                      • 3 Collisions
                        • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                        • 32 A new solution
                          • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                            • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                            • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                            • 43 CMB temperature
                            • 44 CMB polarization
                            • 45 Other cosmological observables
                              • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                • 51 Observable collisions
                                • 52 Spot sizes
                                • 53 Spot brightness
                                  • 6 Conclusions

                ture thereby allowing Ωtotal sim 3 as the data seemed to indicate Therewere a series of papers by several groups of authors that worked out thepower spectrum of perturbations generated during inflation in such bubbles[12 13 14 15 16])

                While not all authors agreed on the quantitative effects all agree thatthe power spectrum of inflationary perturbations is significantly modified onscales of order the radius of curvature and larger This can be understoodqualitatively in a simple way As I will review below when a bubble universefirst appears it is dominated by negative curvature As a result it expandswith a scale factor a(t) sim t After a time of orderHminus1i whereHi is the Hubbleconstant during inflation the curvature redshifts to the point it is belowthe inflationary vacuum energy and inflation begins Clearly perturbationsproduced before or during this transitional era will not have a scale-invariantspectrum identical to those produced after it

                Mainly because of theoretical developments in string theory (see Sec 14)in the last few years there has been a resurgence of interest in these modelsfocussing both on the physics of individual bubble universes and on collisionsbetween bubbles [17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31]I will review much of that very recent work below A result from someyears back is [17 18] which demonstrate in several models (using argumentsparallel to [8]) that slow-roll inflation after the bubble nucleation is necessaryin order to avoid producing a universe devoid of structure With fixed δρρapproximately as many efolds of inflation N are needed as are necessary tosolve the flatness problem (approximately N sim 60 given typical values forthe reheating temperature etc)

                22 Metrics and solutions

                The single most important tool in understanding the physics of cosmic bub-bles is their symmetry The standard treatment of bubble formation in fieldtheory coupled to gravity was developed by [32] In that approach both therate of nucleation and the initial conditions just after the bubble forms areset by a solution to the equations of motion of the Euclidean version of thetheory Such solutions are known generally as ldquoinstantonsrdquo The justificationfor their application to this problem goes far beyond the scope of this reviewsee [32] and references therein

                Another mechanism by which false vacua can decay is charged membranenucleation in a background 4-form flux [33] These instantons (and the ex-

                7

                panding bubbles they correspond to) possess the same symmetries as thoseof [32] and I expect most of the results reviewed here to hold for them aswell

                In order to understand the symmetries of the bubble spacetime one canstart with the instanton solution of [32] In a model with a single scalar fieldφ coupled to Euclidean Einstein gravity the relevant solution is

                ds2 = dψ2 + a(ψ)2dΩ23 φ = φ(ψ) (3)

                where dΩ23 = dθ2 + sin2 θdΩ2

                2 is the round metric on a 3-dimensional sphereThe functions a(ψ) and φ(ψ) are determined by solving Einsteinrsquos equationsand the equation of motion for the scalar field φ and the solutions depend onthe potential energy for the scalar V (φ) If V has at least two minima solu-tions φ(ψ) that oscillate once around the maximum1 of V (φ) that separatesthe two minima generally exist (but see [34] and [35])

                Solutions of this form have a large degree of rotational symmetry they areinvariant under the group of rotations in 4D Euclidean space (in which onecan embed the 3-sphere) namely SO(4) This is a group with 4 times 32 = 6symmetry generators (each corresponding to a rotation in one of the sixplanes of 4D space) The action S(a φ) for a solution is determined by anintegral involving a(ψ) and φ(ψ) and is related to the false vacuum decayrate by γ sim eminusS

                Under certain conditions on the potential V (φ) the solutions a φ areldquothin wallrdquo meaning that they vary sharply with ψ In particular in thethin wall limit φ(ψ) sim φ0 + microΘ(ψ minus ψ0) where Θ(ψ) is a step functionand φ0 micro and ψ0 are constants The thin wall limit is convenient it makesit possible to calculate many quantities in closed form However it is notrequired for the validity of most of the physics discussed in this review nordo the symmetries of the solutions discussed here depend on it

                To determine the spacetime after the bubble nucleation occurs one cansimply analytically continue (3) back to Lorentzian signature The resultis a spacetime that contains a bubble expanding in a bath of false vacuumThere is more than one choice of analytic continuation different choices givemetrics that cover some part of the full Lorentzian spacetime These metricscan be patched together to determine the global structure of the spacetimeOf most relevance for the cosmology seen by observers inside the bubble isthe continuation that produces a metric that covers (most of) the interior of

                1In Euclidean signature the equations of motion have the sign of the potential reversed

                8

                the bubble Details can be found in eg [18] the result is

                ds2 = minusdt2+a(t)2dH23 = minusdt2+a(t)2

                (dρ2 + sinh2 ρdΩ2

                2

                )and φ = φ(t) (4)

                where H3 is 3D hyperbolic space (the homogeneous and isotropic 3D spacewith constant negative curvature) As can be seen at a glance this is anFRW metric describing a homogeneous and isotropic cosmology scale factora(t) and scalar field ldquomatterrdquo φ(t) The evolution of a will be determined byV (φ(t)) in the usual way as well as by any other sources of stress-energy

                After the continuation the SO(4) invariance of the Euclidean solutionhas been replaced by the SO(3 1) invariance associated with H3 In otherwords the symmetries of the instanton are what give rise to the homogeneityand isotropy of the constant-time surfaces of this FRW cosmology Observersliving inside the bubble live in a negatively curved universe that satisfies thecosmological principle

                One of the most intriguing aspects of this result is that the ldquobig bangrdquot = 0 where the scale factor a(0) = 0 vanishes is not a curvature singularityIt is merely a coordinate singularitymdashthe spacetime just outside the surfacet = 0 (which is null) is regular and described by another analytic continuationof the metric Of course there is a quantum nucleation event (a finite distanceoutside the surface t = 0) that may make the description there in terms ofa classical spacetime plus field configuration problematic but so long as theenergy densities involved are sub-Planckian even the region outside the ldquobigbangrdquo surface t = 0 is no more singular than the nucleation of a bubble in afirst-order phase transition in field theory

                23 Bubblology

                The cosmology inside the bubble in the region described by (4) is fairly simpleto describe The scale factor obeys the Friedmann equation

                H2 = (aa)2 = ρ3 + 1a2 (5)

                where ρ sim V (φ) + (φ)22 + is the energy density in the scalar plus thatof any other matter or radiation At t = 0 the initial conditions are suchthat φ = 0 As a result the dominant term on the right hand side is thecurvature term 1a2 and one obtains a(t) = t+O(t3) [18]

                To produce a cosmology consistent with observations there must be aperiod of slow-roll inflation that begins at some time t gt 0 [18] The most

                9

                00 02 04 06 08 10Φ

                02

                04

                06

                08

                10VHΦLM4

                Figure 2 A scalar field potential for an open inflation model where a singlefield φ tunnels through a barrier and then drives slow-roll inflation inside theresulting bubble

                economical way to accomplish this is to assume that the field that tunneledto produce the bubble in the first place is also the inflaton and that itspotential V (φ) has a slow-roll ldquoplateaurdquo that the field evolves into after thetunneling (see Fig 2)

                In such a model inflation begins at a time ti such that 1a(ti)2 sim 1t2i sim

                V (φ(ti)) sim H2i Therefore inflation begins at t = ti sim 1Hi From that

                time on the scale factor will begin to grow exponentially rapidly diluting thecurvature and (given enough efolds) solving the curvature problem

                24 Curvature and fine-tuning

                During inflation the radius of spatial curvature of the universe grows expo-nentially In terms of the total energy density Ω the curvature contributionto the Friedmann equation is defined by Ωk equiv 1 minus Ω = minusk(Ha) where

                10

                k = minus1 for negative curvature As described above Ωk ltsim 1 at the start ofslow-roll inflation Since during inflation H is approximately constant and agrows exponentially by the end of inflation after N efolds Ωk sim eminus2N

                After inflation Ωk grows by a very large factor e2Nlowast so that its valuetoday is Ωk sim e2(NlowastminusN) (Nlowast sim 63 depends logarithmically on the reheatingtemperature and various other factors see eg [36])

                Therefore in open inflation models the value of Ω today is exponentiallysensitive to the length of inflation As with nearly all relics of the state ofthe universe prior to the start of inflation inflation ldquoinflates awayrdquo curvaturewith exponential efficiency

                This raises the question of how fine-tuned an open inflation model withobservable curvature would be The answer depends on the expected numberof efolds of slow-roll inflation As mentioned above [18] demonstrated thattoo little inflation (N lt Nlowast) prevents structure formation at least given afixed (N -independent) value of δρρ The argument parallels that of Wein-berg [8] Negative curvature can be thought of as a velocity for the expansionof the universe that exceeds ldquoescape velocityrdquo As such overdensities col-lapse only if the overdensity exceeds a certain boundmdashin effect in order tocollapse an overdense region must be dense enough that it is locally a closeduniverse Therefore for a given amplitude of δρρ insufficient N makescollapsed structures (ie stars and galaxies) exponentially rare

                Following Weinbergrsquos logic [8] one may therefore expect that N is notmuch greater than Nlowast How much greater we expect it to be is a stronglymodel-dependent question in [18] a toy model gave a measure of for theprobability of N efolds P (N) sim Nminus4

                3 Collisions

                In any given Lorentz frame every bubble must eventually undergo a firstcollision In this section I will discuss the effects on cosmology of a singlecollisionmdashstrictly speaking the analysis does not apply once there are regionsaffected by multiple collisions However if the effects are sufficiently weak inthose regions one can use linear cosmological perturbation theory in whichcase the effects of collisions simply superpose

                When two bubbles collide the spacetime region to the future of the col-lision is affected (see Fig 3 for a spacetime diagram of a bubble collision)Precisely what occurs inside that region depends on the model However

                11

                Figure 3 A spacetime diagram showing the causal structure of a cosmicbubble collision Coordinates are chosen so that light propagating in theplane of the diagram moves along 45 lines

                for applications to observational cosmology one is generally interested in re-gions in which the effects are a small perturbation on the spacetime prior tothe collision As I will discuss below the assumption that the perturbationis small plus the symmetries of the collision suffice to extract the genericleading-order effects on cosmology

                The most important features of a collision of this type are related to itssymmetries As reviewed above a single bubble has an SO(3 1) isometrya group generated by 6 symmetry generators It turns out that a bubblecollision breaks the SO(3 1) to SO(2 1) a group with 3 generators [11] Thisis enough symmetry to solve Einsteinrsquos equations in a situation in which thestress tensor is locally dominated by vacuum energymdashthe situation is verysimilar to that of a black hole (with three rotation isometries) in a vacuumdominated spacetime (de Sitter Minkowski or anti-de Sitter) As in thoseexamples there is a one parameter family of solutions Details can be foundin eg [11 20 22 23]

                We will see that as a result of these symmetries the effects of the collision

                12

                break isotropy and homogeneity but are azimuthally symmetric (and non-chiral) around a special directionmdashthe axis pointing toward the center of thecolliding bubble

                One important feature of these symmetries is that there exists a timeslicing of the collision spacetime in which the entire collision occurs at oneinstant everywhere along a 2 dimensional hyperboloid At later times in thesecoordinates the effects of the collision spread along a light ldquoconerdquo which isreally a region of space bounded by two hyperboloids To visualize this itmay help the reader to visualize the intersection of two lightcones cones orldquohourglass-typerdquo timelike hyperboloids in 2+1 dimensions The intersectionis a (spacelike) hyperbola which can be chosen to correspond to an instantof time and a point in one transverse coordinate (eg t and x in (6))

                31 Thin-wall collision metric

                In the approximation that the spacetime everywhere away from thin surfacesis dominated by vacuum energy one can write down exact solutions Thesemetrics are of the form

                ds2 = minusdt2g(t) + g(t)dx2 + t2dH22 (6)

                where dH22 = dρ2 + sinh2 ρdφ2 is the metric on a 2D hyperboloid and

                g(t) = 1 +H2t2 minusmt (7)

                Here H is the Hubble constant related to the local vacuum energy densityρV by H2 = ρV 3 and m is a constant [34 20 22] With m = 0 this issimply de Sitter space But with m non-zero it represents a solution that isessentially an analytically continued Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole (see[22] for a discussion of the causal structure of these solutions)

                Across a wall that separates two vacua (either the wall that separates twocollided bubbles or the walls of the bubbles themselves in the parent falsevacuum) one expects the vacuum energy density ρV to jump along withmany other quantities In the limit the wall is thin regions described by (6)can be ldquogluedrdquo together using Israel matching conditions [37 38 11 20] Thisallows one to determine the trajectory of the domain walls and therefore theconditions under which the domain walls that form in a collision acceleratetowards or away from inertial observers inside the bubbles When the wallaccelerates it rapidly becomes relativistic Anything it collides with will

                13

                almost certainly not survive as the ultra-relativistic wall typically has avery high energy density even in its rest frame In such cases there are nocosmological observables since the wall arrives almost immediately after itsfirst light signal

                The results of this analysis which hold at least when the spacetime oneither side of the domain wall is dominated by vacuum energy are as followsthe domain wall always accelerates away from an inertial observer in thebubble with lower vacuum energy andmdashdepending on the tension in thewall and the difference in the two vacuum energiesmdashit can either acceleratetowards away from or not accelerate with respect to an observer in thebubble with larger vacuum energy [22 23] One interesting implication ofthis result is that inertial observers in bubbles with small positive vacuumenergy are shielded from the walls separating them from regions with highervacuum energy and might be shielded from walls with negative vacuumenergy beyond them if the potential satisfies certain conditions

                Generalizing the solution (6) to the case of non-vacuum energy dominatedspacetimes is difficultmdashroughly as difficult as embedding a black hole into anon-trivial FRW cosmology However the basic symmetry structure will notbe affected the metric must still posses SO(2 1) symmetry and therefore canbe written in the form ds2 = ds22 +f(t x)dH2

                2 (just as a black hole embeddedin an expanding FRW could be written in a form ds2 = ds22 + f(t r)dΩ2

                2 Inparticular the region affected by the collisionmdashwhich takes place at somedefinite values of t and xmdashis still bounded by the future light ldquoconerdquo of thehyperboloid H2 at t x

                32 A new solution

                The metric (6) is a specific analytic continuation of an anti-de Sitter Schwarzschildblack hole metric There exist generalizations known as de Sitter-Vaidya oranti-de Sitter-Vaidya metrics that represent the formation of a black holein de Sitter or anti-de Sitter spacetime from the collapse of a shell of nullradiation [39 40] The shell does not have to be thinmdashin fact these metricscontain a free function that describes the profile of the ingoing radiationThe only criterion is that the radiation be purely radially ingoing (or purelyoutgoing)

                Performing the appropriate analytic continuation one obtains the follow-

                14

                ing metric2

                ds2 = (1minusm(w)t+H2t2)dw2 minus 2dwdt+ t2dH22 (8)

                If m(w) = m is constant (8) is equivalent to (6) by a coordinate transfor-mation In general it is easy to check that it represents a spacetime withSO(2 1) isometries that contains both vacuum energy (with energy densitydetermined by H as above) and radiation (with energy flux proportional tomprime(w))mdashbut with all the radiation moving coherently in the same directionAs such it may be a fairly good approximation to the spacetime inside abubble after a collision at least during the curvature domination and slow-roll inflation phases To my knowledge this is the first time this solution hasappeared in print

                4 Cosmological effects of collisions

                To determine the effects of the collision on cosmological observables I willmake the following assumptions

                -1 We are inside a bubble that has been or will be struck by at least oneother bubble

                0 The collision preserves SO(2 1) that is one can choose coordinateslike (6) or (8) in which it occurs at one instant everywhere along ahyperboloid

                1 The effects of the collision are confined entirely to the interior of thefuture ldquolightconerdquo of the collision event that is inside a region x gtxc(t) where xc(t) is a null geodesic in the (x t) plane transverse to thecollision hyperboloid

                2 There was sufficient inflation to make the spatial curvature of the uni-verse and of the hyperbolic collision ldquolightconerdquo negligible

                3 The effects on the observable part of our universe are small enough tobe treated using linear perturbation theory

                4 The collision affects the inflaton by creating an O(1) perturbation init near the beginning of inflation

                2I thank T Levi and S Chang for discussions on this metric

                15

                5 The inflaton perturbation is generic apart from constraints imposedby the symmetries and assumption 1

                Using these assumptions the effects on the cosmic microwave background(CMB) temperature were first worked out in [24] and on CMB polarizationin [30]

                41 Inflaton perturbation

                Given these assumptions one can simply expand the inflaton perturbationin a power series at a time near the beginning of inflation at which time ththe metric (6) will be a good description of the spacetime Dropping the H2

                factor (on which the perturbation is constant) for clarity

                ds2 = minusdt2g(t)+g(t)dx2 asymp minusdt2(Hit)2+(Hit)

                2dx2 = (Hiτ)minus2(minusdτ 2 + dx2

                )

                (9)The approximation is valid after the beginning of inflation Hit gt 1 and thecoordinate τ = minus1(H2t) is the conformal time The reader should recallthat τ increases towards zero during inflation and is exponentially small byits end

                The constraint from assumption 1 means that the collision perturbationis non-zero only inside the affected region [24 41]

                δφ(x τi) = M

                ( infinsumn=0

                anHni (x+ τi)

                n

                )Θ(x+ τi) (10)

                ˙δφ(x τi) = M

                ( infinsumn=0

                bnHn+1i (x+ τi)

                n

                )Θ(x+ τi) (11)

                Here δφ is the perturbation in the inflaton field an and bn are dimensionlesscoefficients τi is a time near the start of inflation where the slow-roll approx-imation is valid M is a mass scale associated with the range over which thefield varies and the coordinates are chosen for convenience so that the edgeof the region affected by the collision is located at x = minusτi at that time Notethat this expansion is completely generalmdashit does not assume that the fieldthat tunneled is the inflaton and depends only on the assumptions outlinedjust above It does however ignore the effects of the collision on fields otherthan the inflaton at least in single-field models one expects that primordialperturbations of the inflaton field will have the largest imprint on cosmologytoday

                16

                Without a model for the inflaton and the field(s) that participated in thetunneling we cannot compute the coefficients an and bn Generically one ex-pects that the perturbation will be at least O(1) on scales corresponding tothe radius of curvature of the universe That is one expects the coefficientsan sim 1 Moreover given enough inflation to solve the flatness problem (andproduce a universe consistent with current constraints on curvature) the ob-

                servable universe today corresponds to a region of size |x|Hi simradic

                Ωk(t0) 1at the beginning of inflation Therefore we are interested in the perturbation(10) in the limit Hx 1 and so the first term will dominate the observablesignatures (unless for some reason a0 an for some n gt 0) Notice thata0 6= 0 is a spatial discontinuity in δφ

                To determine the effects of this initial inflaton perturbation on the CMBand other cosmological observables one can employ the standard machineryof inflationary perturbation theory The first step is to determine the evolu-tion of the perturbation during inflation During slow-roll inflation at lowestorder in the slow-roll parameters inflaton perturbations satisfy the equationof a free massless scalar in de Sitter space (see eg [42]) One can solve thatequation in full generality the solution is [24]

                δφ = g(τ + x)minus τgprime(τ + x) + f(τ minus x)minus τf prime(τ minus x) (12)

                where g f are arbitrary functions of one variable and gprime f prime their derivativesThis solution may be familiar from the more standard treatment of in-

                flationary fluctuations in momentum space the terms proportional to τ arethe usual decaying modes in the expression δφk sim kminus32 (1plusmn ikτ) Evidentlythe τ -dependent terms arise due to the effects of inflation since this solutionis otherwise identical to that of a massless scalar field in 1+1-dimensionalMinkowski space

                Given the initial conditions in (10) one can use (12) to determine thesolution for all future times during slow-roll inflation The result can bewritten in closed form [41] but is not particularly illuminating Ratherthan reproduce it here it is easier to instead expand the functions f andg of (12) (which contain the same information as and are determined byδφ and ˙δφ) Since g is purely left-moving and f is purely right-moving forτ gt τi the perturbation near the edge of the lightcone Hi(xminus xc(τ)) 1 isdetermined only by g Therefore the effects on the CMB are determined by

                17

                the coefficients in the expansion of g

                g(x+ τ) =

                ( infinsumn=1

                cn(x+ τ)n)

                Θ(x+ τ) (13)

                Note that the sum begins with the linear term n = 1 This is because ann = 0 term in this expansion would lead to a δ-function singularity in δφwhich could not be expanded as in (10) and in any case would invalidateperturbation theory Put another way a non-zero c1 corresponds to a per-turbation δφ with a non-zero a0 in (10)

                By the end of inflation τ = τe is exponentially small and one can dropthe terms proportional to τ in (12) leaving simply

                δφ(x τe) asymp g(x) =

                ( infinsumn=1

                cn(x)n)

                Θ(x) (14)

                Note the leading term is now a discontinuity in the first derivative not adiscontinuity in the perturbation itself Inflation smooths sub-horizon pri-mordial gradients by effectively integrating them once

                42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe

                To precisely determine the effect of this perturbation on cosmological observ-ables at later times requires numerically integrating the coupled equationsthat control the perturbations in the various components of the energy den-sity in the early universe There is a standard set of software tools availablefor this purpose [43 44] The results of such a numerical analysis for a bub-ble collision can be found in [45] and analytically (and approximately) in[24 30]

                One can understand the qualitative results with a simple analytic ap-proximation A primary component of the collision signal is its effect on theCMB temperature The most important contribution to CMB temperaturefluctuations comes from the Sachs-Wolfe effect [46 47] To first approxima-tion all CMB photons last scattered at redshift zdc sim 1100 when electronsrecombined with protons and photons decoupled from the plasma and thenpropagated freely (without scattering again) until now Their temperatureis determined by the intrinsic temperature T (tdc x y z) at the point in thelast scattering volume at the time tdc corresponding to z = zdc Given that aphoton free-streamed it originated at some point satisfying x2+y2+z2 = D2

                dc

                18

                on a sphere of radius Ddc the radius of the current earthrsquos past lightconeat t = tdc The radius Ddc asymp 14Gpc can be determined from the expansionhistory a(t) by integrating back along a null geodesic in the FRW metric

                Because a locally higher temperature at last scattering corresponds to alocally higher density there is a corresponding negative gravitational poten-tial energy fluctation at that location In the Sachs-Wolfe approximation thecurrent temperature of a photon originating from such a point is a combi-nation of the intrinsic temperature of the plasma it last scattered from andthe local gravitational potential at that point as well as an overall redshift(1 + zdc)

                minus1 (and some additional contributions from time variations of thepotential along the way the ldquointegrated Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo) A simple cal-culation shows that the negative potential energy contribution is larger thanthe increased intrinsic temperature perturbation Φ(tdc) sim minus(32)δTT (tdc[47] Therefore locally hot spots at last scattering make cold spots on theCMB

                43 CMB temperature

                Given a perturbation to the Newtonian potential at reheating Φ = λxΘ(x)one can easily estimate the effect on the CMB temperature today Theessential points are the following

                bull Perturbations that are linear in the spatial coordinates (such as Φ =λx) remain so regardless of the cosmological evolution (to first order inperturbation theory) because the equations that govern the evolutionof cosmological perturbations are all second-order in spatial derivatives

                bull The evolution equations are causalmdashthe effects of an initial perturba-tions are confined to within its light- or sound-cone

                bull By the time of last scattering the radius of the sound-cone rsh of a per-turbation present at reheating corresponds to approximately 6 degreeson the CMB sky (rshDdc asymp 01)

                Given this one can easily determine the temperature perturbation in theCMB The ldquokinkrdquo at x = 0 will evolve but its effects must be confinedwithin a slab of thickness 2rsh Outside that slab the perturbationmdashwhichwas initially either zero or linear in xmdashcannot evolve in shape although

                19

                Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

                20

                its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

                Φ(tdc x y z) =

                0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

                (15)

                where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

                To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

                θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

                Ddc

                ) (16)

                The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

                (minusxe+rsh

                Ddc

                )lt θ lt cosminus1

                (minusxeminusrsh

                Ddc

                )near the rim of the disk where

                it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

                Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

                Ddc

                ) the CMB

                temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

                44 CMB polarization

                The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

                21

                E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

                However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

                Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

                To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

                Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

                22

                numerically

                45 Other cosmological observables

                A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

                5 Probabilities and measures

                The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

                To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

                At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

                23

                expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

                〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

                where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

                To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

                51 Observable collisions

                We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

                i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

                lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

                The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

                intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

                during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

                During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

                24

                Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

                i Puttingthis together gives

                〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

                2i (18)

                We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

                Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

                taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

                Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

                In the end the result is [25]

                〈N〉 simradic

                ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

                radicΩk (HfHi)

                2 (19)

                The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

                2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

                2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

                must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

                radicΩk lt 1

                Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

                52 Spot sizes

                Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

                25

                This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

                However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

                The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

                radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

                the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

                Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

                One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

                53 Spot brightness

                Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

                26

                potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                6 Conclusions

                Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                Acknowledgements

                I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                References

                [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                27

                [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                28

                [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                29

                [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                30

                [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                31

                [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                32

                • 1 Introduction
                  • 11 Overview
                  • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                  • 13 Decay
                  • 14 Motivation
                    • 2 Earlier work
                      • 21 Open inflaton
                      • 22 Metrics and solutions
                      • 23 Bubblology
                      • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                        • 3 Collisions
                          • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                          • 32 A new solution
                            • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                              • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                              • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                              • 43 CMB temperature
                              • 44 CMB polarization
                              • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                  • 51 Observable collisions
                                  • 52 Spot sizes
                                  • 53 Spot brightness
                                    • 6 Conclusions

                  panding bubbles they correspond to) possess the same symmetries as thoseof [32] and I expect most of the results reviewed here to hold for them aswell

                  In order to understand the symmetries of the bubble spacetime one canstart with the instanton solution of [32] In a model with a single scalar fieldφ coupled to Euclidean Einstein gravity the relevant solution is

                  ds2 = dψ2 + a(ψ)2dΩ23 φ = φ(ψ) (3)

                  where dΩ23 = dθ2 + sin2 θdΩ2

                  2 is the round metric on a 3-dimensional sphereThe functions a(ψ) and φ(ψ) are determined by solving Einsteinrsquos equationsand the equation of motion for the scalar field φ and the solutions depend onthe potential energy for the scalar V (φ) If V has at least two minima solu-tions φ(ψ) that oscillate once around the maximum1 of V (φ) that separatesthe two minima generally exist (but see [34] and [35])

                  Solutions of this form have a large degree of rotational symmetry they areinvariant under the group of rotations in 4D Euclidean space (in which onecan embed the 3-sphere) namely SO(4) This is a group with 4 times 32 = 6symmetry generators (each corresponding to a rotation in one of the sixplanes of 4D space) The action S(a φ) for a solution is determined by anintegral involving a(ψ) and φ(ψ) and is related to the false vacuum decayrate by γ sim eminusS

                  Under certain conditions on the potential V (φ) the solutions a φ areldquothin wallrdquo meaning that they vary sharply with ψ In particular in thethin wall limit φ(ψ) sim φ0 + microΘ(ψ minus ψ0) where Θ(ψ) is a step functionand φ0 micro and ψ0 are constants The thin wall limit is convenient it makesit possible to calculate many quantities in closed form However it is notrequired for the validity of most of the physics discussed in this review nordo the symmetries of the solutions discussed here depend on it

                  To determine the spacetime after the bubble nucleation occurs one cansimply analytically continue (3) back to Lorentzian signature The resultis a spacetime that contains a bubble expanding in a bath of false vacuumThere is more than one choice of analytic continuation different choices givemetrics that cover some part of the full Lorentzian spacetime These metricscan be patched together to determine the global structure of the spacetimeOf most relevance for the cosmology seen by observers inside the bubble isthe continuation that produces a metric that covers (most of) the interior of

                  1In Euclidean signature the equations of motion have the sign of the potential reversed

                  8

                  the bubble Details can be found in eg [18] the result is

                  ds2 = minusdt2+a(t)2dH23 = minusdt2+a(t)2

                  (dρ2 + sinh2 ρdΩ2

                  2

                  )and φ = φ(t) (4)

                  where H3 is 3D hyperbolic space (the homogeneous and isotropic 3D spacewith constant negative curvature) As can be seen at a glance this is anFRW metric describing a homogeneous and isotropic cosmology scale factora(t) and scalar field ldquomatterrdquo φ(t) The evolution of a will be determined byV (φ(t)) in the usual way as well as by any other sources of stress-energy

                  After the continuation the SO(4) invariance of the Euclidean solutionhas been replaced by the SO(3 1) invariance associated with H3 In otherwords the symmetries of the instanton are what give rise to the homogeneityand isotropy of the constant-time surfaces of this FRW cosmology Observersliving inside the bubble live in a negatively curved universe that satisfies thecosmological principle

                  One of the most intriguing aspects of this result is that the ldquobig bangrdquot = 0 where the scale factor a(0) = 0 vanishes is not a curvature singularityIt is merely a coordinate singularitymdashthe spacetime just outside the surfacet = 0 (which is null) is regular and described by another analytic continuationof the metric Of course there is a quantum nucleation event (a finite distanceoutside the surface t = 0) that may make the description there in terms ofa classical spacetime plus field configuration problematic but so long as theenergy densities involved are sub-Planckian even the region outside the ldquobigbangrdquo surface t = 0 is no more singular than the nucleation of a bubble in afirst-order phase transition in field theory

                  23 Bubblology

                  The cosmology inside the bubble in the region described by (4) is fairly simpleto describe The scale factor obeys the Friedmann equation

                  H2 = (aa)2 = ρ3 + 1a2 (5)

                  where ρ sim V (φ) + (φ)22 + is the energy density in the scalar plus thatof any other matter or radiation At t = 0 the initial conditions are suchthat φ = 0 As a result the dominant term on the right hand side is thecurvature term 1a2 and one obtains a(t) = t+O(t3) [18]

                  To produce a cosmology consistent with observations there must be aperiod of slow-roll inflation that begins at some time t gt 0 [18] The most

                  9

                  00 02 04 06 08 10Φ

                  02

                  04

                  06

                  08

                  10VHΦLM4

                  Figure 2 A scalar field potential for an open inflation model where a singlefield φ tunnels through a barrier and then drives slow-roll inflation inside theresulting bubble

                  economical way to accomplish this is to assume that the field that tunneledto produce the bubble in the first place is also the inflaton and that itspotential V (φ) has a slow-roll ldquoplateaurdquo that the field evolves into after thetunneling (see Fig 2)

                  In such a model inflation begins at a time ti such that 1a(ti)2 sim 1t2i sim

                  V (φ(ti)) sim H2i Therefore inflation begins at t = ti sim 1Hi From that

                  time on the scale factor will begin to grow exponentially rapidly diluting thecurvature and (given enough efolds) solving the curvature problem

                  24 Curvature and fine-tuning

                  During inflation the radius of spatial curvature of the universe grows expo-nentially In terms of the total energy density Ω the curvature contributionto the Friedmann equation is defined by Ωk equiv 1 minus Ω = minusk(Ha) where

                  10

                  k = minus1 for negative curvature As described above Ωk ltsim 1 at the start ofslow-roll inflation Since during inflation H is approximately constant and agrows exponentially by the end of inflation after N efolds Ωk sim eminus2N

                  After inflation Ωk grows by a very large factor e2Nlowast so that its valuetoday is Ωk sim e2(NlowastminusN) (Nlowast sim 63 depends logarithmically on the reheatingtemperature and various other factors see eg [36])

                  Therefore in open inflation models the value of Ω today is exponentiallysensitive to the length of inflation As with nearly all relics of the state ofthe universe prior to the start of inflation inflation ldquoinflates awayrdquo curvaturewith exponential efficiency

                  This raises the question of how fine-tuned an open inflation model withobservable curvature would be The answer depends on the expected numberof efolds of slow-roll inflation As mentioned above [18] demonstrated thattoo little inflation (N lt Nlowast) prevents structure formation at least given afixed (N -independent) value of δρρ The argument parallels that of Wein-berg [8] Negative curvature can be thought of as a velocity for the expansionof the universe that exceeds ldquoescape velocityrdquo As such overdensities col-lapse only if the overdensity exceeds a certain boundmdashin effect in order tocollapse an overdense region must be dense enough that it is locally a closeduniverse Therefore for a given amplitude of δρρ insufficient N makescollapsed structures (ie stars and galaxies) exponentially rare

                  Following Weinbergrsquos logic [8] one may therefore expect that N is notmuch greater than Nlowast How much greater we expect it to be is a stronglymodel-dependent question in [18] a toy model gave a measure of for theprobability of N efolds P (N) sim Nminus4

                  3 Collisions

                  In any given Lorentz frame every bubble must eventually undergo a firstcollision In this section I will discuss the effects on cosmology of a singlecollisionmdashstrictly speaking the analysis does not apply once there are regionsaffected by multiple collisions However if the effects are sufficiently weak inthose regions one can use linear cosmological perturbation theory in whichcase the effects of collisions simply superpose

                  When two bubbles collide the spacetime region to the future of the col-lision is affected (see Fig 3 for a spacetime diagram of a bubble collision)Precisely what occurs inside that region depends on the model However

                  11

                  Figure 3 A spacetime diagram showing the causal structure of a cosmicbubble collision Coordinates are chosen so that light propagating in theplane of the diagram moves along 45 lines

                  for applications to observational cosmology one is generally interested in re-gions in which the effects are a small perturbation on the spacetime prior tothe collision As I will discuss below the assumption that the perturbationis small plus the symmetries of the collision suffice to extract the genericleading-order effects on cosmology

                  The most important features of a collision of this type are related to itssymmetries As reviewed above a single bubble has an SO(3 1) isometrya group generated by 6 symmetry generators It turns out that a bubblecollision breaks the SO(3 1) to SO(2 1) a group with 3 generators [11] Thisis enough symmetry to solve Einsteinrsquos equations in a situation in which thestress tensor is locally dominated by vacuum energymdashthe situation is verysimilar to that of a black hole (with three rotation isometries) in a vacuumdominated spacetime (de Sitter Minkowski or anti-de Sitter) As in thoseexamples there is a one parameter family of solutions Details can be foundin eg [11 20 22 23]

                  We will see that as a result of these symmetries the effects of the collision

                  12

                  break isotropy and homogeneity but are azimuthally symmetric (and non-chiral) around a special directionmdashthe axis pointing toward the center of thecolliding bubble

                  One important feature of these symmetries is that there exists a timeslicing of the collision spacetime in which the entire collision occurs at oneinstant everywhere along a 2 dimensional hyperboloid At later times in thesecoordinates the effects of the collision spread along a light ldquoconerdquo which isreally a region of space bounded by two hyperboloids To visualize this itmay help the reader to visualize the intersection of two lightcones cones orldquohourglass-typerdquo timelike hyperboloids in 2+1 dimensions The intersectionis a (spacelike) hyperbola which can be chosen to correspond to an instantof time and a point in one transverse coordinate (eg t and x in (6))

                  31 Thin-wall collision metric

                  In the approximation that the spacetime everywhere away from thin surfacesis dominated by vacuum energy one can write down exact solutions Thesemetrics are of the form

                  ds2 = minusdt2g(t) + g(t)dx2 + t2dH22 (6)

                  where dH22 = dρ2 + sinh2 ρdφ2 is the metric on a 2D hyperboloid and

                  g(t) = 1 +H2t2 minusmt (7)

                  Here H is the Hubble constant related to the local vacuum energy densityρV by H2 = ρV 3 and m is a constant [34 20 22] With m = 0 this issimply de Sitter space But with m non-zero it represents a solution that isessentially an analytically continued Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole (see[22] for a discussion of the causal structure of these solutions)

                  Across a wall that separates two vacua (either the wall that separates twocollided bubbles or the walls of the bubbles themselves in the parent falsevacuum) one expects the vacuum energy density ρV to jump along withmany other quantities In the limit the wall is thin regions described by (6)can be ldquogluedrdquo together using Israel matching conditions [37 38 11 20] Thisallows one to determine the trajectory of the domain walls and therefore theconditions under which the domain walls that form in a collision acceleratetowards or away from inertial observers inside the bubbles When the wallaccelerates it rapidly becomes relativistic Anything it collides with will

                  13

                  almost certainly not survive as the ultra-relativistic wall typically has avery high energy density even in its rest frame In such cases there are nocosmological observables since the wall arrives almost immediately after itsfirst light signal

                  The results of this analysis which hold at least when the spacetime oneither side of the domain wall is dominated by vacuum energy are as followsthe domain wall always accelerates away from an inertial observer in thebubble with lower vacuum energy andmdashdepending on the tension in thewall and the difference in the two vacuum energiesmdashit can either acceleratetowards away from or not accelerate with respect to an observer in thebubble with larger vacuum energy [22 23] One interesting implication ofthis result is that inertial observers in bubbles with small positive vacuumenergy are shielded from the walls separating them from regions with highervacuum energy and might be shielded from walls with negative vacuumenergy beyond them if the potential satisfies certain conditions

                  Generalizing the solution (6) to the case of non-vacuum energy dominatedspacetimes is difficultmdashroughly as difficult as embedding a black hole into anon-trivial FRW cosmology However the basic symmetry structure will notbe affected the metric must still posses SO(2 1) symmetry and therefore canbe written in the form ds2 = ds22 +f(t x)dH2

                  2 (just as a black hole embeddedin an expanding FRW could be written in a form ds2 = ds22 + f(t r)dΩ2

                  2 Inparticular the region affected by the collisionmdashwhich takes place at somedefinite values of t and xmdashis still bounded by the future light ldquoconerdquo of thehyperboloid H2 at t x

                  32 A new solution

                  The metric (6) is a specific analytic continuation of an anti-de Sitter Schwarzschildblack hole metric There exist generalizations known as de Sitter-Vaidya oranti-de Sitter-Vaidya metrics that represent the formation of a black holein de Sitter or anti-de Sitter spacetime from the collapse of a shell of nullradiation [39 40] The shell does not have to be thinmdashin fact these metricscontain a free function that describes the profile of the ingoing radiationThe only criterion is that the radiation be purely radially ingoing (or purelyoutgoing)

                  Performing the appropriate analytic continuation one obtains the follow-

                  14

                  ing metric2

                  ds2 = (1minusm(w)t+H2t2)dw2 minus 2dwdt+ t2dH22 (8)

                  If m(w) = m is constant (8) is equivalent to (6) by a coordinate transfor-mation In general it is easy to check that it represents a spacetime withSO(2 1) isometries that contains both vacuum energy (with energy densitydetermined by H as above) and radiation (with energy flux proportional tomprime(w))mdashbut with all the radiation moving coherently in the same directionAs such it may be a fairly good approximation to the spacetime inside abubble after a collision at least during the curvature domination and slow-roll inflation phases To my knowledge this is the first time this solution hasappeared in print

                  4 Cosmological effects of collisions

                  To determine the effects of the collision on cosmological observables I willmake the following assumptions

                  -1 We are inside a bubble that has been or will be struck by at least oneother bubble

                  0 The collision preserves SO(2 1) that is one can choose coordinateslike (6) or (8) in which it occurs at one instant everywhere along ahyperboloid

                  1 The effects of the collision are confined entirely to the interior of thefuture ldquolightconerdquo of the collision event that is inside a region x gtxc(t) where xc(t) is a null geodesic in the (x t) plane transverse to thecollision hyperboloid

                  2 There was sufficient inflation to make the spatial curvature of the uni-verse and of the hyperbolic collision ldquolightconerdquo negligible

                  3 The effects on the observable part of our universe are small enough tobe treated using linear perturbation theory

                  4 The collision affects the inflaton by creating an O(1) perturbation init near the beginning of inflation

                  2I thank T Levi and S Chang for discussions on this metric

                  15

                  5 The inflaton perturbation is generic apart from constraints imposedby the symmetries and assumption 1

                  Using these assumptions the effects on the cosmic microwave background(CMB) temperature were first worked out in [24] and on CMB polarizationin [30]

                  41 Inflaton perturbation

                  Given these assumptions one can simply expand the inflaton perturbationin a power series at a time near the beginning of inflation at which time ththe metric (6) will be a good description of the spacetime Dropping the H2

                  factor (on which the perturbation is constant) for clarity

                  ds2 = minusdt2g(t)+g(t)dx2 asymp minusdt2(Hit)2+(Hit)

                  2dx2 = (Hiτ)minus2(minusdτ 2 + dx2

                  )

                  (9)The approximation is valid after the beginning of inflation Hit gt 1 and thecoordinate τ = minus1(H2t) is the conformal time The reader should recallthat τ increases towards zero during inflation and is exponentially small byits end

                  The constraint from assumption 1 means that the collision perturbationis non-zero only inside the affected region [24 41]

                  δφ(x τi) = M

                  ( infinsumn=0

                  anHni (x+ τi)

                  n

                  )Θ(x+ τi) (10)

                  ˙δφ(x τi) = M

                  ( infinsumn=0

                  bnHn+1i (x+ τi)

                  n

                  )Θ(x+ τi) (11)

                  Here δφ is the perturbation in the inflaton field an and bn are dimensionlesscoefficients τi is a time near the start of inflation where the slow-roll approx-imation is valid M is a mass scale associated with the range over which thefield varies and the coordinates are chosen for convenience so that the edgeof the region affected by the collision is located at x = minusτi at that time Notethat this expansion is completely generalmdashit does not assume that the fieldthat tunneled is the inflaton and depends only on the assumptions outlinedjust above It does however ignore the effects of the collision on fields otherthan the inflaton at least in single-field models one expects that primordialperturbations of the inflaton field will have the largest imprint on cosmologytoday

                  16

                  Without a model for the inflaton and the field(s) that participated in thetunneling we cannot compute the coefficients an and bn Generically one ex-pects that the perturbation will be at least O(1) on scales corresponding tothe radius of curvature of the universe That is one expects the coefficientsan sim 1 Moreover given enough inflation to solve the flatness problem (andproduce a universe consistent with current constraints on curvature) the ob-

                  servable universe today corresponds to a region of size |x|Hi simradic

                  Ωk(t0) 1at the beginning of inflation Therefore we are interested in the perturbation(10) in the limit Hx 1 and so the first term will dominate the observablesignatures (unless for some reason a0 an for some n gt 0) Notice thata0 6= 0 is a spatial discontinuity in δφ

                  To determine the effects of this initial inflaton perturbation on the CMBand other cosmological observables one can employ the standard machineryof inflationary perturbation theory The first step is to determine the evolu-tion of the perturbation during inflation During slow-roll inflation at lowestorder in the slow-roll parameters inflaton perturbations satisfy the equationof a free massless scalar in de Sitter space (see eg [42]) One can solve thatequation in full generality the solution is [24]

                  δφ = g(τ + x)minus τgprime(τ + x) + f(τ minus x)minus τf prime(τ minus x) (12)

                  where g f are arbitrary functions of one variable and gprime f prime their derivativesThis solution may be familiar from the more standard treatment of in-

                  flationary fluctuations in momentum space the terms proportional to τ arethe usual decaying modes in the expression δφk sim kminus32 (1plusmn ikτ) Evidentlythe τ -dependent terms arise due to the effects of inflation since this solutionis otherwise identical to that of a massless scalar field in 1+1-dimensionalMinkowski space

                  Given the initial conditions in (10) one can use (12) to determine thesolution for all future times during slow-roll inflation The result can bewritten in closed form [41] but is not particularly illuminating Ratherthan reproduce it here it is easier to instead expand the functions f andg of (12) (which contain the same information as and are determined byδφ and ˙δφ) Since g is purely left-moving and f is purely right-moving forτ gt τi the perturbation near the edge of the lightcone Hi(xminus xc(τ)) 1 isdetermined only by g Therefore the effects on the CMB are determined by

                  17

                  the coefficients in the expansion of g

                  g(x+ τ) =

                  ( infinsumn=1

                  cn(x+ τ)n)

                  Θ(x+ τ) (13)

                  Note that the sum begins with the linear term n = 1 This is because ann = 0 term in this expansion would lead to a δ-function singularity in δφwhich could not be expanded as in (10) and in any case would invalidateperturbation theory Put another way a non-zero c1 corresponds to a per-turbation δφ with a non-zero a0 in (10)

                  By the end of inflation τ = τe is exponentially small and one can dropthe terms proportional to τ in (12) leaving simply

                  δφ(x τe) asymp g(x) =

                  ( infinsumn=1

                  cn(x)n)

                  Θ(x) (14)

                  Note the leading term is now a discontinuity in the first derivative not adiscontinuity in the perturbation itself Inflation smooths sub-horizon pri-mordial gradients by effectively integrating them once

                  42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe

                  To precisely determine the effect of this perturbation on cosmological observ-ables at later times requires numerically integrating the coupled equationsthat control the perturbations in the various components of the energy den-sity in the early universe There is a standard set of software tools availablefor this purpose [43 44] The results of such a numerical analysis for a bub-ble collision can be found in [45] and analytically (and approximately) in[24 30]

                  One can understand the qualitative results with a simple analytic ap-proximation A primary component of the collision signal is its effect on theCMB temperature The most important contribution to CMB temperaturefluctuations comes from the Sachs-Wolfe effect [46 47] To first approxima-tion all CMB photons last scattered at redshift zdc sim 1100 when electronsrecombined with protons and photons decoupled from the plasma and thenpropagated freely (without scattering again) until now Their temperatureis determined by the intrinsic temperature T (tdc x y z) at the point in thelast scattering volume at the time tdc corresponding to z = zdc Given that aphoton free-streamed it originated at some point satisfying x2+y2+z2 = D2

                  dc

                  18

                  on a sphere of radius Ddc the radius of the current earthrsquos past lightconeat t = tdc The radius Ddc asymp 14Gpc can be determined from the expansionhistory a(t) by integrating back along a null geodesic in the FRW metric

                  Because a locally higher temperature at last scattering corresponds to alocally higher density there is a corresponding negative gravitational poten-tial energy fluctation at that location In the Sachs-Wolfe approximation thecurrent temperature of a photon originating from such a point is a combi-nation of the intrinsic temperature of the plasma it last scattered from andthe local gravitational potential at that point as well as an overall redshift(1 + zdc)

                  minus1 (and some additional contributions from time variations of thepotential along the way the ldquointegrated Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo) A simple cal-culation shows that the negative potential energy contribution is larger thanthe increased intrinsic temperature perturbation Φ(tdc) sim minus(32)δTT (tdc[47] Therefore locally hot spots at last scattering make cold spots on theCMB

                  43 CMB temperature

                  Given a perturbation to the Newtonian potential at reheating Φ = λxΘ(x)one can easily estimate the effect on the CMB temperature today Theessential points are the following

                  bull Perturbations that are linear in the spatial coordinates (such as Φ =λx) remain so regardless of the cosmological evolution (to first order inperturbation theory) because the equations that govern the evolutionof cosmological perturbations are all second-order in spatial derivatives

                  bull The evolution equations are causalmdashthe effects of an initial perturba-tions are confined to within its light- or sound-cone

                  bull By the time of last scattering the radius of the sound-cone rsh of a per-turbation present at reheating corresponds to approximately 6 degreeson the CMB sky (rshDdc asymp 01)

                  Given this one can easily determine the temperature perturbation in theCMB The ldquokinkrdquo at x = 0 will evolve but its effects must be confinedwithin a slab of thickness 2rsh Outside that slab the perturbationmdashwhichwas initially either zero or linear in xmdashcannot evolve in shape although

                  19

                  Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

                  20

                  its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

                  Φ(tdc x y z) =

                  0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

                  (15)

                  where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

                  To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

                  θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

                  Ddc

                  ) (16)

                  The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

                  (minusxe+rsh

                  Ddc

                  )lt θ lt cosminus1

                  (minusxeminusrsh

                  Ddc

                  )near the rim of the disk where

                  it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

                  Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

                  Ddc

                  ) the CMB

                  temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

                  44 CMB polarization

                  The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

                  21

                  E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

                  However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

                  Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

                  To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

                  Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

                  22

                  numerically

                  45 Other cosmological observables

                  A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

                  5 Probabilities and measures

                  The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

                  To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

                  At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

                  23

                  expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

                  〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

                  where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

                  To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

                  51 Observable collisions

                  We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

                  i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

                  lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

                  The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

                  intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

                  during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

                  During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

                  24

                  Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

                  i Puttingthis together gives

                  〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

                  2i (18)

                  We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

                  Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

                  taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

                  Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

                  In the end the result is [25]

                  〈N〉 simradic

                  ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

                  radicΩk (HfHi)

                  2 (19)

                  The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

                  2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

                  2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

                  must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

                  radicΩk lt 1

                  Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

                  52 Spot sizes

                  Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

                  25

                  This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

                  However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

                  The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

                  radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

                  the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

                  Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

                  One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

                  53 Spot brightness

                  Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

                  26

                  potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                  timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                  6 Conclusions

                  Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                  Acknowledgements

                  I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                  References

                  [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                  [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                  [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                  27

                  [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                  [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                  [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                  [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                  [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                  [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                  [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                  [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                  [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                  28

                  [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                  [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                  [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                  [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                  [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                  [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                  [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                  [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                  [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                  [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                  [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                  [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                  29

                  [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                  [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                  [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                  [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                  [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                  [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                  [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                  [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                  [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                  [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                  [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                  [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                  [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                  30

                  [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                  [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                  [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                  [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                  [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                  [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                  [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                  [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                  [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                  [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                  [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                  [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                  [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                  31

                  [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                  [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                  [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                  [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                  [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                  [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                  [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                  [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                  [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                  [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                  32

                  • 1 Introduction
                    • 11 Overview
                    • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                    • 13 Decay
                    • 14 Motivation
                      • 2 Earlier work
                        • 21 Open inflaton
                        • 22 Metrics and solutions
                        • 23 Bubblology
                        • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                          • 3 Collisions
                            • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                            • 32 A new solution
                              • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                • 43 CMB temperature
                                • 44 CMB polarization
                                • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                  • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                    • 51 Observable collisions
                                    • 52 Spot sizes
                                    • 53 Spot brightness
                                      • 6 Conclusions

                    the bubble Details can be found in eg [18] the result is

                    ds2 = minusdt2+a(t)2dH23 = minusdt2+a(t)2

                    (dρ2 + sinh2 ρdΩ2

                    2

                    )and φ = φ(t) (4)

                    where H3 is 3D hyperbolic space (the homogeneous and isotropic 3D spacewith constant negative curvature) As can be seen at a glance this is anFRW metric describing a homogeneous and isotropic cosmology scale factora(t) and scalar field ldquomatterrdquo φ(t) The evolution of a will be determined byV (φ(t)) in the usual way as well as by any other sources of stress-energy

                    After the continuation the SO(4) invariance of the Euclidean solutionhas been replaced by the SO(3 1) invariance associated with H3 In otherwords the symmetries of the instanton are what give rise to the homogeneityand isotropy of the constant-time surfaces of this FRW cosmology Observersliving inside the bubble live in a negatively curved universe that satisfies thecosmological principle

                    One of the most intriguing aspects of this result is that the ldquobig bangrdquot = 0 where the scale factor a(0) = 0 vanishes is not a curvature singularityIt is merely a coordinate singularitymdashthe spacetime just outside the surfacet = 0 (which is null) is regular and described by another analytic continuationof the metric Of course there is a quantum nucleation event (a finite distanceoutside the surface t = 0) that may make the description there in terms ofa classical spacetime plus field configuration problematic but so long as theenergy densities involved are sub-Planckian even the region outside the ldquobigbangrdquo surface t = 0 is no more singular than the nucleation of a bubble in afirst-order phase transition in field theory

                    23 Bubblology

                    The cosmology inside the bubble in the region described by (4) is fairly simpleto describe The scale factor obeys the Friedmann equation

                    H2 = (aa)2 = ρ3 + 1a2 (5)

                    where ρ sim V (φ) + (φ)22 + is the energy density in the scalar plus thatof any other matter or radiation At t = 0 the initial conditions are suchthat φ = 0 As a result the dominant term on the right hand side is thecurvature term 1a2 and one obtains a(t) = t+O(t3) [18]

                    To produce a cosmology consistent with observations there must be aperiod of slow-roll inflation that begins at some time t gt 0 [18] The most

                    9

                    00 02 04 06 08 10Φ

                    02

                    04

                    06

                    08

                    10VHΦLM4

                    Figure 2 A scalar field potential for an open inflation model where a singlefield φ tunnels through a barrier and then drives slow-roll inflation inside theresulting bubble

                    economical way to accomplish this is to assume that the field that tunneledto produce the bubble in the first place is also the inflaton and that itspotential V (φ) has a slow-roll ldquoplateaurdquo that the field evolves into after thetunneling (see Fig 2)

                    In such a model inflation begins at a time ti such that 1a(ti)2 sim 1t2i sim

                    V (φ(ti)) sim H2i Therefore inflation begins at t = ti sim 1Hi From that

                    time on the scale factor will begin to grow exponentially rapidly diluting thecurvature and (given enough efolds) solving the curvature problem

                    24 Curvature and fine-tuning

                    During inflation the radius of spatial curvature of the universe grows expo-nentially In terms of the total energy density Ω the curvature contributionto the Friedmann equation is defined by Ωk equiv 1 minus Ω = minusk(Ha) where

                    10

                    k = minus1 for negative curvature As described above Ωk ltsim 1 at the start ofslow-roll inflation Since during inflation H is approximately constant and agrows exponentially by the end of inflation after N efolds Ωk sim eminus2N

                    After inflation Ωk grows by a very large factor e2Nlowast so that its valuetoday is Ωk sim e2(NlowastminusN) (Nlowast sim 63 depends logarithmically on the reheatingtemperature and various other factors see eg [36])

                    Therefore in open inflation models the value of Ω today is exponentiallysensitive to the length of inflation As with nearly all relics of the state ofthe universe prior to the start of inflation inflation ldquoinflates awayrdquo curvaturewith exponential efficiency

                    This raises the question of how fine-tuned an open inflation model withobservable curvature would be The answer depends on the expected numberof efolds of slow-roll inflation As mentioned above [18] demonstrated thattoo little inflation (N lt Nlowast) prevents structure formation at least given afixed (N -independent) value of δρρ The argument parallels that of Wein-berg [8] Negative curvature can be thought of as a velocity for the expansionof the universe that exceeds ldquoescape velocityrdquo As such overdensities col-lapse only if the overdensity exceeds a certain boundmdashin effect in order tocollapse an overdense region must be dense enough that it is locally a closeduniverse Therefore for a given amplitude of δρρ insufficient N makescollapsed structures (ie stars and galaxies) exponentially rare

                    Following Weinbergrsquos logic [8] one may therefore expect that N is notmuch greater than Nlowast How much greater we expect it to be is a stronglymodel-dependent question in [18] a toy model gave a measure of for theprobability of N efolds P (N) sim Nminus4

                    3 Collisions

                    In any given Lorentz frame every bubble must eventually undergo a firstcollision In this section I will discuss the effects on cosmology of a singlecollisionmdashstrictly speaking the analysis does not apply once there are regionsaffected by multiple collisions However if the effects are sufficiently weak inthose regions one can use linear cosmological perturbation theory in whichcase the effects of collisions simply superpose

                    When two bubbles collide the spacetime region to the future of the col-lision is affected (see Fig 3 for a spacetime diagram of a bubble collision)Precisely what occurs inside that region depends on the model However

                    11

                    Figure 3 A spacetime diagram showing the causal structure of a cosmicbubble collision Coordinates are chosen so that light propagating in theplane of the diagram moves along 45 lines

                    for applications to observational cosmology one is generally interested in re-gions in which the effects are a small perturbation on the spacetime prior tothe collision As I will discuss below the assumption that the perturbationis small plus the symmetries of the collision suffice to extract the genericleading-order effects on cosmology

                    The most important features of a collision of this type are related to itssymmetries As reviewed above a single bubble has an SO(3 1) isometrya group generated by 6 symmetry generators It turns out that a bubblecollision breaks the SO(3 1) to SO(2 1) a group with 3 generators [11] Thisis enough symmetry to solve Einsteinrsquos equations in a situation in which thestress tensor is locally dominated by vacuum energymdashthe situation is verysimilar to that of a black hole (with three rotation isometries) in a vacuumdominated spacetime (de Sitter Minkowski or anti-de Sitter) As in thoseexamples there is a one parameter family of solutions Details can be foundin eg [11 20 22 23]

                    We will see that as a result of these symmetries the effects of the collision

                    12

                    break isotropy and homogeneity but are azimuthally symmetric (and non-chiral) around a special directionmdashthe axis pointing toward the center of thecolliding bubble

                    One important feature of these symmetries is that there exists a timeslicing of the collision spacetime in which the entire collision occurs at oneinstant everywhere along a 2 dimensional hyperboloid At later times in thesecoordinates the effects of the collision spread along a light ldquoconerdquo which isreally a region of space bounded by two hyperboloids To visualize this itmay help the reader to visualize the intersection of two lightcones cones orldquohourglass-typerdquo timelike hyperboloids in 2+1 dimensions The intersectionis a (spacelike) hyperbola which can be chosen to correspond to an instantof time and a point in one transverse coordinate (eg t and x in (6))

                    31 Thin-wall collision metric

                    In the approximation that the spacetime everywhere away from thin surfacesis dominated by vacuum energy one can write down exact solutions Thesemetrics are of the form

                    ds2 = minusdt2g(t) + g(t)dx2 + t2dH22 (6)

                    where dH22 = dρ2 + sinh2 ρdφ2 is the metric on a 2D hyperboloid and

                    g(t) = 1 +H2t2 minusmt (7)

                    Here H is the Hubble constant related to the local vacuum energy densityρV by H2 = ρV 3 and m is a constant [34 20 22] With m = 0 this issimply de Sitter space But with m non-zero it represents a solution that isessentially an analytically continued Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole (see[22] for a discussion of the causal structure of these solutions)

                    Across a wall that separates two vacua (either the wall that separates twocollided bubbles or the walls of the bubbles themselves in the parent falsevacuum) one expects the vacuum energy density ρV to jump along withmany other quantities In the limit the wall is thin regions described by (6)can be ldquogluedrdquo together using Israel matching conditions [37 38 11 20] Thisallows one to determine the trajectory of the domain walls and therefore theconditions under which the domain walls that form in a collision acceleratetowards or away from inertial observers inside the bubbles When the wallaccelerates it rapidly becomes relativistic Anything it collides with will

                    13

                    almost certainly not survive as the ultra-relativistic wall typically has avery high energy density even in its rest frame In such cases there are nocosmological observables since the wall arrives almost immediately after itsfirst light signal

                    The results of this analysis which hold at least when the spacetime oneither side of the domain wall is dominated by vacuum energy are as followsthe domain wall always accelerates away from an inertial observer in thebubble with lower vacuum energy andmdashdepending on the tension in thewall and the difference in the two vacuum energiesmdashit can either acceleratetowards away from or not accelerate with respect to an observer in thebubble with larger vacuum energy [22 23] One interesting implication ofthis result is that inertial observers in bubbles with small positive vacuumenergy are shielded from the walls separating them from regions with highervacuum energy and might be shielded from walls with negative vacuumenergy beyond them if the potential satisfies certain conditions

                    Generalizing the solution (6) to the case of non-vacuum energy dominatedspacetimes is difficultmdashroughly as difficult as embedding a black hole into anon-trivial FRW cosmology However the basic symmetry structure will notbe affected the metric must still posses SO(2 1) symmetry and therefore canbe written in the form ds2 = ds22 +f(t x)dH2

                    2 (just as a black hole embeddedin an expanding FRW could be written in a form ds2 = ds22 + f(t r)dΩ2

                    2 Inparticular the region affected by the collisionmdashwhich takes place at somedefinite values of t and xmdashis still bounded by the future light ldquoconerdquo of thehyperboloid H2 at t x

                    32 A new solution

                    The metric (6) is a specific analytic continuation of an anti-de Sitter Schwarzschildblack hole metric There exist generalizations known as de Sitter-Vaidya oranti-de Sitter-Vaidya metrics that represent the formation of a black holein de Sitter or anti-de Sitter spacetime from the collapse of a shell of nullradiation [39 40] The shell does not have to be thinmdashin fact these metricscontain a free function that describes the profile of the ingoing radiationThe only criterion is that the radiation be purely radially ingoing (or purelyoutgoing)

                    Performing the appropriate analytic continuation one obtains the follow-

                    14

                    ing metric2

                    ds2 = (1minusm(w)t+H2t2)dw2 minus 2dwdt+ t2dH22 (8)

                    If m(w) = m is constant (8) is equivalent to (6) by a coordinate transfor-mation In general it is easy to check that it represents a spacetime withSO(2 1) isometries that contains both vacuum energy (with energy densitydetermined by H as above) and radiation (with energy flux proportional tomprime(w))mdashbut with all the radiation moving coherently in the same directionAs such it may be a fairly good approximation to the spacetime inside abubble after a collision at least during the curvature domination and slow-roll inflation phases To my knowledge this is the first time this solution hasappeared in print

                    4 Cosmological effects of collisions

                    To determine the effects of the collision on cosmological observables I willmake the following assumptions

                    -1 We are inside a bubble that has been or will be struck by at least oneother bubble

                    0 The collision preserves SO(2 1) that is one can choose coordinateslike (6) or (8) in which it occurs at one instant everywhere along ahyperboloid

                    1 The effects of the collision are confined entirely to the interior of thefuture ldquolightconerdquo of the collision event that is inside a region x gtxc(t) where xc(t) is a null geodesic in the (x t) plane transverse to thecollision hyperboloid

                    2 There was sufficient inflation to make the spatial curvature of the uni-verse and of the hyperbolic collision ldquolightconerdquo negligible

                    3 The effects on the observable part of our universe are small enough tobe treated using linear perturbation theory

                    4 The collision affects the inflaton by creating an O(1) perturbation init near the beginning of inflation

                    2I thank T Levi and S Chang for discussions on this metric

                    15

                    5 The inflaton perturbation is generic apart from constraints imposedby the symmetries and assumption 1

                    Using these assumptions the effects on the cosmic microwave background(CMB) temperature were first worked out in [24] and on CMB polarizationin [30]

                    41 Inflaton perturbation

                    Given these assumptions one can simply expand the inflaton perturbationin a power series at a time near the beginning of inflation at which time ththe metric (6) will be a good description of the spacetime Dropping the H2

                    factor (on which the perturbation is constant) for clarity

                    ds2 = minusdt2g(t)+g(t)dx2 asymp minusdt2(Hit)2+(Hit)

                    2dx2 = (Hiτ)minus2(minusdτ 2 + dx2

                    )

                    (9)The approximation is valid after the beginning of inflation Hit gt 1 and thecoordinate τ = minus1(H2t) is the conformal time The reader should recallthat τ increases towards zero during inflation and is exponentially small byits end

                    The constraint from assumption 1 means that the collision perturbationis non-zero only inside the affected region [24 41]

                    δφ(x τi) = M

                    ( infinsumn=0

                    anHni (x+ τi)

                    n

                    )Θ(x+ τi) (10)

                    ˙δφ(x τi) = M

                    ( infinsumn=0

                    bnHn+1i (x+ τi)

                    n

                    )Θ(x+ τi) (11)

                    Here δφ is the perturbation in the inflaton field an and bn are dimensionlesscoefficients τi is a time near the start of inflation where the slow-roll approx-imation is valid M is a mass scale associated with the range over which thefield varies and the coordinates are chosen for convenience so that the edgeof the region affected by the collision is located at x = minusτi at that time Notethat this expansion is completely generalmdashit does not assume that the fieldthat tunneled is the inflaton and depends only on the assumptions outlinedjust above It does however ignore the effects of the collision on fields otherthan the inflaton at least in single-field models one expects that primordialperturbations of the inflaton field will have the largest imprint on cosmologytoday

                    16

                    Without a model for the inflaton and the field(s) that participated in thetunneling we cannot compute the coefficients an and bn Generically one ex-pects that the perturbation will be at least O(1) on scales corresponding tothe radius of curvature of the universe That is one expects the coefficientsan sim 1 Moreover given enough inflation to solve the flatness problem (andproduce a universe consistent with current constraints on curvature) the ob-

                    servable universe today corresponds to a region of size |x|Hi simradic

                    Ωk(t0) 1at the beginning of inflation Therefore we are interested in the perturbation(10) in the limit Hx 1 and so the first term will dominate the observablesignatures (unless for some reason a0 an for some n gt 0) Notice thata0 6= 0 is a spatial discontinuity in δφ

                    To determine the effects of this initial inflaton perturbation on the CMBand other cosmological observables one can employ the standard machineryof inflationary perturbation theory The first step is to determine the evolu-tion of the perturbation during inflation During slow-roll inflation at lowestorder in the slow-roll parameters inflaton perturbations satisfy the equationof a free massless scalar in de Sitter space (see eg [42]) One can solve thatequation in full generality the solution is [24]

                    δφ = g(τ + x)minus τgprime(τ + x) + f(τ minus x)minus τf prime(τ minus x) (12)

                    where g f are arbitrary functions of one variable and gprime f prime their derivativesThis solution may be familiar from the more standard treatment of in-

                    flationary fluctuations in momentum space the terms proportional to τ arethe usual decaying modes in the expression δφk sim kminus32 (1plusmn ikτ) Evidentlythe τ -dependent terms arise due to the effects of inflation since this solutionis otherwise identical to that of a massless scalar field in 1+1-dimensionalMinkowski space

                    Given the initial conditions in (10) one can use (12) to determine thesolution for all future times during slow-roll inflation The result can bewritten in closed form [41] but is not particularly illuminating Ratherthan reproduce it here it is easier to instead expand the functions f andg of (12) (which contain the same information as and are determined byδφ and ˙δφ) Since g is purely left-moving and f is purely right-moving forτ gt τi the perturbation near the edge of the lightcone Hi(xminus xc(τ)) 1 isdetermined only by g Therefore the effects on the CMB are determined by

                    17

                    the coefficients in the expansion of g

                    g(x+ τ) =

                    ( infinsumn=1

                    cn(x+ τ)n)

                    Θ(x+ τ) (13)

                    Note that the sum begins with the linear term n = 1 This is because ann = 0 term in this expansion would lead to a δ-function singularity in δφwhich could not be expanded as in (10) and in any case would invalidateperturbation theory Put another way a non-zero c1 corresponds to a per-turbation δφ with a non-zero a0 in (10)

                    By the end of inflation τ = τe is exponentially small and one can dropthe terms proportional to τ in (12) leaving simply

                    δφ(x τe) asymp g(x) =

                    ( infinsumn=1

                    cn(x)n)

                    Θ(x) (14)

                    Note the leading term is now a discontinuity in the first derivative not adiscontinuity in the perturbation itself Inflation smooths sub-horizon pri-mordial gradients by effectively integrating them once

                    42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe

                    To precisely determine the effect of this perturbation on cosmological observ-ables at later times requires numerically integrating the coupled equationsthat control the perturbations in the various components of the energy den-sity in the early universe There is a standard set of software tools availablefor this purpose [43 44] The results of such a numerical analysis for a bub-ble collision can be found in [45] and analytically (and approximately) in[24 30]

                    One can understand the qualitative results with a simple analytic ap-proximation A primary component of the collision signal is its effect on theCMB temperature The most important contribution to CMB temperaturefluctuations comes from the Sachs-Wolfe effect [46 47] To first approxima-tion all CMB photons last scattered at redshift zdc sim 1100 when electronsrecombined with protons and photons decoupled from the plasma and thenpropagated freely (without scattering again) until now Their temperatureis determined by the intrinsic temperature T (tdc x y z) at the point in thelast scattering volume at the time tdc corresponding to z = zdc Given that aphoton free-streamed it originated at some point satisfying x2+y2+z2 = D2

                    dc

                    18

                    on a sphere of radius Ddc the radius of the current earthrsquos past lightconeat t = tdc The radius Ddc asymp 14Gpc can be determined from the expansionhistory a(t) by integrating back along a null geodesic in the FRW metric

                    Because a locally higher temperature at last scattering corresponds to alocally higher density there is a corresponding negative gravitational poten-tial energy fluctation at that location In the Sachs-Wolfe approximation thecurrent temperature of a photon originating from such a point is a combi-nation of the intrinsic temperature of the plasma it last scattered from andthe local gravitational potential at that point as well as an overall redshift(1 + zdc)

                    minus1 (and some additional contributions from time variations of thepotential along the way the ldquointegrated Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo) A simple cal-culation shows that the negative potential energy contribution is larger thanthe increased intrinsic temperature perturbation Φ(tdc) sim minus(32)δTT (tdc[47] Therefore locally hot spots at last scattering make cold spots on theCMB

                    43 CMB temperature

                    Given a perturbation to the Newtonian potential at reheating Φ = λxΘ(x)one can easily estimate the effect on the CMB temperature today Theessential points are the following

                    bull Perturbations that are linear in the spatial coordinates (such as Φ =λx) remain so regardless of the cosmological evolution (to first order inperturbation theory) because the equations that govern the evolutionof cosmological perturbations are all second-order in spatial derivatives

                    bull The evolution equations are causalmdashthe effects of an initial perturba-tions are confined to within its light- or sound-cone

                    bull By the time of last scattering the radius of the sound-cone rsh of a per-turbation present at reheating corresponds to approximately 6 degreeson the CMB sky (rshDdc asymp 01)

                    Given this one can easily determine the temperature perturbation in theCMB The ldquokinkrdquo at x = 0 will evolve but its effects must be confinedwithin a slab of thickness 2rsh Outside that slab the perturbationmdashwhichwas initially either zero or linear in xmdashcannot evolve in shape although

                    19

                    Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

                    20

                    its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

                    Φ(tdc x y z) =

                    0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

                    (15)

                    where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

                    To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

                    θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

                    Ddc

                    ) (16)

                    The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

                    (minusxe+rsh

                    Ddc

                    )lt θ lt cosminus1

                    (minusxeminusrsh

                    Ddc

                    )near the rim of the disk where

                    it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

                    Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

                    Ddc

                    ) the CMB

                    temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

                    44 CMB polarization

                    The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

                    21

                    E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

                    However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

                    Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

                    To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

                    Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

                    22

                    numerically

                    45 Other cosmological observables

                    A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

                    5 Probabilities and measures

                    The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

                    To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

                    At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

                    23

                    expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

                    〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

                    where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

                    To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

                    51 Observable collisions

                    We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

                    i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

                    lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

                    The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

                    intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

                    during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

                    During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

                    24

                    Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

                    i Puttingthis together gives

                    〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

                    2i (18)

                    We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

                    Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

                    taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

                    Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

                    In the end the result is [25]

                    〈N〉 simradic

                    ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

                    radicΩk (HfHi)

                    2 (19)

                    The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

                    2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

                    2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

                    must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

                    radicΩk lt 1

                    Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

                    52 Spot sizes

                    Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

                    25

                    This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

                    However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

                    The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

                    radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

                    the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

                    Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

                    One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

                    53 Spot brightness

                    Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

                    26

                    potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                    timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                    6 Conclusions

                    Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                    Acknowledgements

                    I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                    References

                    [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                    [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                    [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                    27

                    [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                    [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                    [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                    [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                    [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                    [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                    [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                    [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                    [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                    28

                    [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                    [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                    [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                    [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                    [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                    [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                    [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                    [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                    [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                    [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                    [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                    [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                    29

                    [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                    [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                    [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                    [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                    [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                    [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                    [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                    [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                    [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                    [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                    [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                    [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                    [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                    30

                    [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                    [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                    [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                    [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                    [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                    [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                    [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                    [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                    [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                    [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                    [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                    [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                    [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                    31

                    [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                    [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                    [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                    [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                    [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                    [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                    [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                    [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                    [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                    [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                    32

                    • 1 Introduction
                      • 11 Overview
                      • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                      • 13 Decay
                      • 14 Motivation
                        • 2 Earlier work
                          • 21 Open inflaton
                          • 22 Metrics and solutions
                          • 23 Bubblology
                          • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                            • 3 Collisions
                              • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                              • 32 A new solution
                                • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                  • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                  • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                  • 43 CMB temperature
                                  • 44 CMB polarization
                                  • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                    • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                      • 51 Observable collisions
                                      • 52 Spot sizes
                                      • 53 Spot brightness
                                        • 6 Conclusions

                      00 02 04 06 08 10Φ

                      02

                      04

                      06

                      08

                      10VHΦLM4

                      Figure 2 A scalar field potential for an open inflation model where a singlefield φ tunnels through a barrier and then drives slow-roll inflation inside theresulting bubble

                      economical way to accomplish this is to assume that the field that tunneledto produce the bubble in the first place is also the inflaton and that itspotential V (φ) has a slow-roll ldquoplateaurdquo that the field evolves into after thetunneling (see Fig 2)

                      In such a model inflation begins at a time ti such that 1a(ti)2 sim 1t2i sim

                      V (φ(ti)) sim H2i Therefore inflation begins at t = ti sim 1Hi From that

                      time on the scale factor will begin to grow exponentially rapidly diluting thecurvature and (given enough efolds) solving the curvature problem

                      24 Curvature and fine-tuning

                      During inflation the radius of spatial curvature of the universe grows expo-nentially In terms of the total energy density Ω the curvature contributionto the Friedmann equation is defined by Ωk equiv 1 minus Ω = minusk(Ha) where

                      10

                      k = minus1 for negative curvature As described above Ωk ltsim 1 at the start ofslow-roll inflation Since during inflation H is approximately constant and agrows exponentially by the end of inflation after N efolds Ωk sim eminus2N

                      After inflation Ωk grows by a very large factor e2Nlowast so that its valuetoday is Ωk sim e2(NlowastminusN) (Nlowast sim 63 depends logarithmically on the reheatingtemperature and various other factors see eg [36])

                      Therefore in open inflation models the value of Ω today is exponentiallysensitive to the length of inflation As with nearly all relics of the state ofthe universe prior to the start of inflation inflation ldquoinflates awayrdquo curvaturewith exponential efficiency

                      This raises the question of how fine-tuned an open inflation model withobservable curvature would be The answer depends on the expected numberof efolds of slow-roll inflation As mentioned above [18] demonstrated thattoo little inflation (N lt Nlowast) prevents structure formation at least given afixed (N -independent) value of δρρ The argument parallels that of Wein-berg [8] Negative curvature can be thought of as a velocity for the expansionof the universe that exceeds ldquoescape velocityrdquo As such overdensities col-lapse only if the overdensity exceeds a certain boundmdashin effect in order tocollapse an overdense region must be dense enough that it is locally a closeduniverse Therefore for a given amplitude of δρρ insufficient N makescollapsed structures (ie stars and galaxies) exponentially rare

                      Following Weinbergrsquos logic [8] one may therefore expect that N is notmuch greater than Nlowast How much greater we expect it to be is a stronglymodel-dependent question in [18] a toy model gave a measure of for theprobability of N efolds P (N) sim Nminus4

                      3 Collisions

                      In any given Lorentz frame every bubble must eventually undergo a firstcollision In this section I will discuss the effects on cosmology of a singlecollisionmdashstrictly speaking the analysis does not apply once there are regionsaffected by multiple collisions However if the effects are sufficiently weak inthose regions one can use linear cosmological perturbation theory in whichcase the effects of collisions simply superpose

                      When two bubbles collide the spacetime region to the future of the col-lision is affected (see Fig 3 for a spacetime diagram of a bubble collision)Precisely what occurs inside that region depends on the model However

                      11

                      Figure 3 A spacetime diagram showing the causal structure of a cosmicbubble collision Coordinates are chosen so that light propagating in theplane of the diagram moves along 45 lines

                      for applications to observational cosmology one is generally interested in re-gions in which the effects are a small perturbation on the spacetime prior tothe collision As I will discuss below the assumption that the perturbationis small plus the symmetries of the collision suffice to extract the genericleading-order effects on cosmology

                      The most important features of a collision of this type are related to itssymmetries As reviewed above a single bubble has an SO(3 1) isometrya group generated by 6 symmetry generators It turns out that a bubblecollision breaks the SO(3 1) to SO(2 1) a group with 3 generators [11] Thisis enough symmetry to solve Einsteinrsquos equations in a situation in which thestress tensor is locally dominated by vacuum energymdashthe situation is verysimilar to that of a black hole (with three rotation isometries) in a vacuumdominated spacetime (de Sitter Minkowski or anti-de Sitter) As in thoseexamples there is a one parameter family of solutions Details can be foundin eg [11 20 22 23]

                      We will see that as a result of these symmetries the effects of the collision

                      12

                      break isotropy and homogeneity but are azimuthally symmetric (and non-chiral) around a special directionmdashthe axis pointing toward the center of thecolliding bubble

                      One important feature of these symmetries is that there exists a timeslicing of the collision spacetime in which the entire collision occurs at oneinstant everywhere along a 2 dimensional hyperboloid At later times in thesecoordinates the effects of the collision spread along a light ldquoconerdquo which isreally a region of space bounded by two hyperboloids To visualize this itmay help the reader to visualize the intersection of two lightcones cones orldquohourglass-typerdquo timelike hyperboloids in 2+1 dimensions The intersectionis a (spacelike) hyperbola which can be chosen to correspond to an instantof time and a point in one transverse coordinate (eg t and x in (6))

                      31 Thin-wall collision metric

                      In the approximation that the spacetime everywhere away from thin surfacesis dominated by vacuum energy one can write down exact solutions Thesemetrics are of the form

                      ds2 = minusdt2g(t) + g(t)dx2 + t2dH22 (6)

                      where dH22 = dρ2 + sinh2 ρdφ2 is the metric on a 2D hyperboloid and

                      g(t) = 1 +H2t2 minusmt (7)

                      Here H is the Hubble constant related to the local vacuum energy densityρV by H2 = ρV 3 and m is a constant [34 20 22] With m = 0 this issimply de Sitter space But with m non-zero it represents a solution that isessentially an analytically continued Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole (see[22] for a discussion of the causal structure of these solutions)

                      Across a wall that separates two vacua (either the wall that separates twocollided bubbles or the walls of the bubbles themselves in the parent falsevacuum) one expects the vacuum energy density ρV to jump along withmany other quantities In the limit the wall is thin regions described by (6)can be ldquogluedrdquo together using Israel matching conditions [37 38 11 20] Thisallows one to determine the trajectory of the domain walls and therefore theconditions under which the domain walls that form in a collision acceleratetowards or away from inertial observers inside the bubbles When the wallaccelerates it rapidly becomes relativistic Anything it collides with will

                      13

                      almost certainly not survive as the ultra-relativistic wall typically has avery high energy density even in its rest frame In such cases there are nocosmological observables since the wall arrives almost immediately after itsfirst light signal

                      The results of this analysis which hold at least when the spacetime oneither side of the domain wall is dominated by vacuum energy are as followsthe domain wall always accelerates away from an inertial observer in thebubble with lower vacuum energy andmdashdepending on the tension in thewall and the difference in the two vacuum energiesmdashit can either acceleratetowards away from or not accelerate with respect to an observer in thebubble with larger vacuum energy [22 23] One interesting implication ofthis result is that inertial observers in bubbles with small positive vacuumenergy are shielded from the walls separating them from regions with highervacuum energy and might be shielded from walls with negative vacuumenergy beyond them if the potential satisfies certain conditions

                      Generalizing the solution (6) to the case of non-vacuum energy dominatedspacetimes is difficultmdashroughly as difficult as embedding a black hole into anon-trivial FRW cosmology However the basic symmetry structure will notbe affected the metric must still posses SO(2 1) symmetry and therefore canbe written in the form ds2 = ds22 +f(t x)dH2

                      2 (just as a black hole embeddedin an expanding FRW could be written in a form ds2 = ds22 + f(t r)dΩ2

                      2 Inparticular the region affected by the collisionmdashwhich takes place at somedefinite values of t and xmdashis still bounded by the future light ldquoconerdquo of thehyperboloid H2 at t x

                      32 A new solution

                      The metric (6) is a specific analytic continuation of an anti-de Sitter Schwarzschildblack hole metric There exist generalizations known as de Sitter-Vaidya oranti-de Sitter-Vaidya metrics that represent the formation of a black holein de Sitter or anti-de Sitter spacetime from the collapse of a shell of nullradiation [39 40] The shell does not have to be thinmdashin fact these metricscontain a free function that describes the profile of the ingoing radiationThe only criterion is that the radiation be purely radially ingoing (or purelyoutgoing)

                      Performing the appropriate analytic continuation one obtains the follow-

                      14

                      ing metric2

                      ds2 = (1minusm(w)t+H2t2)dw2 minus 2dwdt+ t2dH22 (8)

                      If m(w) = m is constant (8) is equivalent to (6) by a coordinate transfor-mation In general it is easy to check that it represents a spacetime withSO(2 1) isometries that contains both vacuum energy (with energy densitydetermined by H as above) and radiation (with energy flux proportional tomprime(w))mdashbut with all the radiation moving coherently in the same directionAs such it may be a fairly good approximation to the spacetime inside abubble after a collision at least during the curvature domination and slow-roll inflation phases To my knowledge this is the first time this solution hasappeared in print

                      4 Cosmological effects of collisions

                      To determine the effects of the collision on cosmological observables I willmake the following assumptions

                      -1 We are inside a bubble that has been or will be struck by at least oneother bubble

                      0 The collision preserves SO(2 1) that is one can choose coordinateslike (6) or (8) in which it occurs at one instant everywhere along ahyperboloid

                      1 The effects of the collision are confined entirely to the interior of thefuture ldquolightconerdquo of the collision event that is inside a region x gtxc(t) where xc(t) is a null geodesic in the (x t) plane transverse to thecollision hyperboloid

                      2 There was sufficient inflation to make the spatial curvature of the uni-verse and of the hyperbolic collision ldquolightconerdquo negligible

                      3 The effects on the observable part of our universe are small enough tobe treated using linear perturbation theory

                      4 The collision affects the inflaton by creating an O(1) perturbation init near the beginning of inflation

                      2I thank T Levi and S Chang for discussions on this metric

                      15

                      5 The inflaton perturbation is generic apart from constraints imposedby the symmetries and assumption 1

                      Using these assumptions the effects on the cosmic microwave background(CMB) temperature were first worked out in [24] and on CMB polarizationin [30]

                      41 Inflaton perturbation

                      Given these assumptions one can simply expand the inflaton perturbationin a power series at a time near the beginning of inflation at which time ththe metric (6) will be a good description of the spacetime Dropping the H2

                      factor (on which the perturbation is constant) for clarity

                      ds2 = minusdt2g(t)+g(t)dx2 asymp minusdt2(Hit)2+(Hit)

                      2dx2 = (Hiτ)minus2(minusdτ 2 + dx2

                      )

                      (9)The approximation is valid after the beginning of inflation Hit gt 1 and thecoordinate τ = minus1(H2t) is the conformal time The reader should recallthat τ increases towards zero during inflation and is exponentially small byits end

                      The constraint from assumption 1 means that the collision perturbationis non-zero only inside the affected region [24 41]

                      δφ(x τi) = M

                      ( infinsumn=0

                      anHni (x+ τi)

                      n

                      )Θ(x+ τi) (10)

                      ˙δφ(x τi) = M

                      ( infinsumn=0

                      bnHn+1i (x+ τi)

                      n

                      )Θ(x+ τi) (11)

                      Here δφ is the perturbation in the inflaton field an and bn are dimensionlesscoefficients τi is a time near the start of inflation where the slow-roll approx-imation is valid M is a mass scale associated with the range over which thefield varies and the coordinates are chosen for convenience so that the edgeof the region affected by the collision is located at x = minusτi at that time Notethat this expansion is completely generalmdashit does not assume that the fieldthat tunneled is the inflaton and depends only on the assumptions outlinedjust above It does however ignore the effects of the collision on fields otherthan the inflaton at least in single-field models one expects that primordialperturbations of the inflaton field will have the largest imprint on cosmologytoday

                      16

                      Without a model for the inflaton and the field(s) that participated in thetunneling we cannot compute the coefficients an and bn Generically one ex-pects that the perturbation will be at least O(1) on scales corresponding tothe radius of curvature of the universe That is one expects the coefficientsan sim 1 Moreover given enough inflation to solve the flatness problem (andproduce a universe consistent with current constraints on curvature) the ob-

                      servable universe today corresponds to a region of size |x|Hi simradic

                      Ωk(t0) 1at the beginning of inflation Therefore we are interested in the perturbation(10) in the limit Hx 1 and so the first term will dominate the observablesignatures (unless for some reason a0 an for some n gt 0) Notice thata0 6= 0 is a spatial discontinuity in δφ

                      To determine the effects of this initial inflaton perturbation on the CMBand other cosmological observables one can employ the standard machineryof inflationary perturbation theory The first step is to determine the evolu-tion of the perturbation during inflation During slow-roll inflation at lowestorder in the slow-roll parameters inflaton perturbations satisfy the equationof a free massless scalar in de Sitter space (see eg [42]) One can solve thatequation in full generality the solution is [24]

                      δφ = g(τ + x)minus τgprime(τ + x) + f(τ minus x)minus τf prime(τ minus x) (12)

                      where g f are arbitrary functions of one variable and gprime f prime their derivativesThis solution may be familiar from the more standard treatment of in-

                      flationary fluctuations in momentum space the terms proportional to τ arethe usual decaying modes in the expression δφk sim kminus32 (1plusmn ikτ) Evidentlythe τ -dependent terms arise due to the effects of inflation since this solutionis otherwise identical to that of a massless scalar field in 1+1-dimensionalMinkowski space

                      Given the initial conditions in (10) one can use (12) to determine thesolution for all future times during slow-roll inflation The result can bewritten in closed form [41] but is not particularly illuminating Ratherthan reproduce it here it is easier to instead expand the functions f andg of (12) (which contain the same information as and are determined byδφ and ˙δφ) Since g is purely left-moving and f is purely right-moving forτ gt τi the perturbation near the edge of the lightcone Hi(xminus xc(τ)) 1 isdetermined only by g Therefore the effects on the CMB are determined by

                      17

                      the coefficients in the expansion of g

                      g(x+ τ) =

                      ( infinsumn=1

                      cn(x+ τ)n)

                      Θ(x+ τ) (13)

                      Note that the sum begins with the linear term n = 1 This is because ann = 0 term in this expansion would lead to a δ-function singularity in δφwhich could not be expanded as in (10) and in any case would invalidateperturbation theory Put another way a non-zero c1 corresponds to a per-turbation δφ with a non-zero a0 in (10)

                      By the end of inflation τ = τe is exponentially small and one can dropthe terms proportional to τ in (12) leaving simply

                      δφ(x τe) asymp g(x) =

                      ( infinsumn=1

                      cn(x)n)

                      Θ(x) (14)

                      Note the leading term is now a discontinuity in the first derivative not adiscontinuity in the perturbation itself Inflation smooths sub-horizon pri-mordial gradients by effectively integrating them once

                      42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe

                      To precisely determine the effect of this perturbation on cosmological observ-ables at later times requires numerically integrating the coupled equationsthat control the perturbations in the various components of the energy den-sity in the early universe There is a standard set of software tools availablefor this purpose [43 44] The results of such a numerical analysis for a bub-ble collision can be found in [45] and analytically (and approximately) in[24 30]

                      One can understand the qualitative results with a simple analytic ap-proximation A primary component of the collision signal is its effect on theCMB temperature The most important contribution to CMB temperaturefluctuations comes from the Sachs-Wolfe effect [46 47] To first approxima-tion all CMB photons last scattered at redshift zdc sim 1100 when electronsrecombined with protons and photons decoupled from the plasma and thenpropagated freely (without scattering again) until now Their temperatureis determined by the intrinsic temperature T (tdc x y z) at the point in thelast scattering volume at the time tdc corresponding to z = zdc Given that aphoton free-streamed it originated at some point satisfying x2+y2+z2 = D2

                      dc

                      18

                      on a sphere of radius Ddc the radius of the current earthrsquos past lightconeat t = tdc The radius Ddc asymp 14Gpc can be determined from the expansionhistory a(t) by integrating back along a null geodesic in the FRW metric

                      Because a locally higher temperature at last scattering corresponds to alocally higher density there is a corresponding negative gravitational poten-tial energy fluctation at that location In the Sachs-Wolfe approximation thecurrent temperature of a photon originating from such a point is a combi-nation of the intrinsic temperature of the plasma it last scattered from andthe local gravitational potential at that point as well as an overall redshift(1 + zdc)

                      minus1 (and some additional contributions from time variations of thepotential along the way the ldquointegrated Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo) A simple cal-culation shows that the negative potential energy contribution is larger thanthe increased intrinsic temperature perturbation Φ(tdc) sim minus(32)δTT (tdc[47] Therefore locally hot spots at last scattering make cold spots on theCMB

                      43 CMB temperature

                      Given a perturbation to the Newtonian potential at reheating Φ = λxΘ(x)one can easily estimate the effect on the CMB temperature today Theessential points are the following

                      bull Perturbations that are linear in the spatial coordinates (such as Φ =λx) remain so regardless of the cosmological evolution (to first order inperturbation theory) because the equations that govern the evolutionof cosmological perturbations are all second-order in spatial derivatives

                      bull The evolution equations are causalmdashthe effects of an initial perturba-tions are confined to within its light- or sound-cone

                      bull By the time of last scattering the radius of the sound-cone rsh of a per-turbation present at reheating corresponds to approximately 6 degreeson the CMB sky (rshDdc asymp 01)

                      Given this one can easily determine the temperature perturbation in theCMB The ldquokinkrdquo at x = 0 will evolve but its effects must be confinedwithin a slab of thickness 2rsh Outside that slab the perturbationmdashwhichwas initially either zero or linear in xmdashcannot evolve in shape although

                      19

                      Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

                      20

                      its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

                      Φ(tdc x y z) =

                      0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

                      (15)

                      where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

                      To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

                      θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

                      Ddc

                      ) (16)

                      The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

                      (minusxe+rsh

                      Ddc

                      )lt θ lt cosminus1

                      (minusxeminusrsh

                      Ddc

                      )near the rim of the disk where

                      it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

                      Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

                      Ddc

                      ) the CMB

                      temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

                      44 CMB polarization

                      The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

                      21

                      E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

                      However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

                      Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

                      To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

                      Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

                      22

                      numerically

                      45 Other cosmological observables

                      A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

                      5 Probabilities and measures

                      The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

                      To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

                      At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

                      23

                      expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

                      〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

                      where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

                      To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

                      51 Observable collisions

                      We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

                      i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

                      lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

                      The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

                      intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

                      during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

                      During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

                      24

                      Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

                      i Puttingthis together gives

                      〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

                      2i (18)

                      We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

                      Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

                      taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

                      Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

                      In the end the result is [25]

                      〈N〉 simradic

                      ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

                      radicΩk (HfHi)

                      2 (19)

                      The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

                      2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

                      2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

                      must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

                      radicΩk lt 1

                      Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

                      52 Spot sizes

                      Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

                      25

                      This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

                      However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

                      The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

                      radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

                      the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

                      Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

                      One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

                      53 Spot brightness

                      Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

                      26

                      potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                      timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                      6 Conclusions

                      Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                      Acknowledgements

                      I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                      References

                      [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                      [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                      [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                      27

                      [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                      [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                      [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                      [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                      [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                      [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                      [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                      [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                      [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                      28

                      [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                      [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                      [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                      [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                      [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                      [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                      [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                      [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                      [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                      [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                      [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                      [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                      29

                      [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                      [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                      [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                      [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                      [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                      [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                      [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                      [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                      [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                      [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                      [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                      [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                      [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                      30

                      [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                      [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                      [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                      [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                      [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                      [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                      [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                      [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                      [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                      [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                      [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                      [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                      [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                      31

                      [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                      [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                      [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                      [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                      [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                      [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                      [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                      [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                      [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                      [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                      32

                      • 1 Introduction
                        • 11 Overview
                        • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                        • 13 Decay
                        • 14 Motivation
                          • 2 Earlier work
                            • 21 Open inflaton
                            • 22 Metrics and solutions
                            • 23 Bubblology
                            • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                              • 3 Collisions
                                • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                • 32 A new solution
                                  • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                    • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                    • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                    • 43 CMB temperature
                                    • 44 CMB polarization
                                    • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                      • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                        • 51 Observable collisions
                                        • 52 Spot sizes
                                        • 53 Spot brightness
                                          • 6 Conclusions

                        k = minus1 for negative curvature As described above Ωk ltsim 1 at the start ofslow-roll inflation Since during inflation H is approximately constant and agrows exponentially by the end of inflation after N efolds Ωk sim eminus2N

                        After inflation Ωk grows by a very large factor e2Nlowast so that its valuetoday is Ωk sim e2(NlowastminusN) (Nlowast sim 63 depends logarithmically on the reheatingtemperature and various other factors see eg [36])

                        Therefore in open inflation models the value of Ω today is exponentiallysensitive to the length of inflation As with nearly all relics of the state ofthe universe prior to the start of inflation inflation ldquoinflates awayrdquo curvaturewith exponential efficiency

                        This raises the question of how fine-tuned an open inflation model withobservable curvature would be The answer depends on the expected numberof efolds of slow-roll inflation As mentioned above [18] demonstrated thattoo little inflation (N lt Nlowast) prevents structure formation at least given afixed (N -independent) value of δρρ The argument parallels that of Wein-berg [8] Negative curvature can be thought of as a velocity for the expansionof the universe that exceeds ldquoescape velocityrdquo As such overdensities col-lapse only if the overdensity exceeds a certain boundmdashin effect in order tocollapse an overdense region must be dense enough that it is locally a closeduniverse Therefore for a given amplitude of δρρ insufficient N makescollapsed structures (ie stars and galaxies) exponentially rare

                        Following Weinbergrsquos logic [8] one may therefore expect that N is notmuch greater than Nlowast How much greater we expect it to be is a stronglymodel-dependent question in [18] a toy model gave a measure of for theprobability of N efolds P (N) sim Nminus4

                        3 Collisions

                        In any given Lorentz frame every bubble must eventually undergo a firstcollision In this section I will discuss the effects on cosmology of a singlecollisionmdashstrictly speaking the analysis does not apply once there are regionsaffected by multiple collisions However if the effects are sufficiently weak inthose regions one can use linear cosmological perturbation theory in whichcase the effects of collisions simply superpose

                        When two bubbles collide the spacetime region to the future of the col-lision is affected (see Fig 3 for a spacetime diagram of a bubble collision)Precisely what occurs inside that region depends on the model However

                        11

                        Figure 3 A spacetime diagram showing the causal structure of a cosmicbubble collision Coordinates are chosen so that light propagating in theplane of the diagram moves along 45 lines

                        for applications to observational cosmology one is generally interested in re-gions in which the effects are a small perturbation on the spacetime prior tothe collision As I will discuss below the assumption that the perturbationis small plus the symmetries of the collision suffice to extract the genericleading-order effects on cosmology

                        The most important features of a collision of this type are related to itssymmetries As reviewed above a single bubble has an SO(3 1) isometrya group generated by 6 symmetry generators It turns out that a bubblecollision breaks the SO(3 1) to SO(2 1) a group with 3 generators [11] Thisis enough symmetry to solve Einsteinrsquos equations in a situation in which thestress tensor is locally dominated by vacuum energymdashthe situation is verysimilar to that of a black hole (with three rotation isometries) in a vacuumdominated spacetime (de Sitter Minkowski or anti-de Sitter) As in thoseexamples there is a one parameter family of solutions Details can be foundin eg [11 20 22 23]

                        We will see that as a result of these symmetries the effects of the collision

                        12

                        break isotropy and homogeneity but are azimuthally symmetric (and non-chiral) around a special directionmdashthe axis pointing toward the center of thecolliding bubble

                        One important feature of these symmetries is that there exists a timeslicing of the collision spacetime in which the entire collision occurs at oneinstant everywhere along a 2 dimensional hyperboloid At later times in thesecoordinates the effects of the collision spread along a light ldquoconerdquo which isreally a region of space bounded by two hyperboloids To visualize this itmay help the reader to visualize the intersection of two lightcones cones orldquohourglass-typerdquo timelike hyperboloids in 2+1 dimensions The intersectionis a (spacelike) hyperbola which can be chosen to correspond to an instantof time and a point in one transverse coordinate (eg t and x in (6))

                        31 Thin-wall collision metric

                        In the approximation that the spacetime everywhere away from thin surfacesis dominated by vacuum energy one can write down exact solutions Thesemetrics are of the form

                        ds2 = minusdt2g(t) + g(t)dx2 + t2dH22 (6)

                        where dH22 = dρ2 + sinh2 ρdφ2 is the metric on a 2D hyperboloid and

                        g(t) = 1 +H2t2 minusmt (7)

                        Here H is the Hubble constant related to the local vacuum energy densityρV by H2 = ρV 3 and m is a constant [34 20 22] With m = 0 this issimply de Sitter space But with m non-zero it represents a solution that isessentially an analytically continued Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole (see[22] for a discussion of the causal structure of these solutions)

                        Across a wall that separates two vacua (either the wall that separates twocollided bubbles or the walls of the bubbles themselves in the parent falsevacuum) one expects the vacuum energy density ρV to jump along withmany other quantities In the limit the wall is thin regions described by (6)can be ldquogluedrdquo together using Israel matching conditions [37 38 11 20] Thisallows one to determine the trajectory of the domain walls and therefore theconditions under which the domain walls that form in a collision acceleratetowards or away from inertial observers inside the bubbles When the wallaccelerates it rapidly becomes relativistic Anything it collides with will

                        13

                        almost certainly not survive as the ultra-relativistic wall typically has avery high energy density even in its rest frame In such cases there are nocosmological observables since the wall arrives almost immediately after itsfirst light signal

                        The results of this analysis which hold at least when the spacetime oneither side of the domain wall is dominated by vacuum energy are as followsthe domain wall always accelerates away from an inertial observer in thebubble with lower vacuum energy andmdashdepending on the tension in thewall and the difference in the two vacuum energiesmdashit can either acceleratetowards away from or not accelerate with respect to an observer in thebubble with larger vacuum energy [22 23] One interesting implication ofthis result is that inertial observers in bubbles with small positive vacuumenergy are shielded from the walls separating them from regions with highervacuum energy and might be shielded from walls with negative vacuumenergy beyond them if the potential satisfies certain conditions

                        Generalizing the solution (6) to the case of non-vacuum energy dominatedspacetimes is difficultmdashroughly as difficult as embedding a black hole into anon-trivial FRW cosmology However the basic symmetry structure will notbe affected the metric must still posses SO(2 1) symmetry and therefore canbe written in the form ds2 = ds22 +f(t x)dH2

                        2 (just as a black hole embeddedin an expanding FRW could be written in a form ds2 = ds22 + f(t r)dΩ2

                        2 Inparticular the region affected by the collisionmdashwhich takes place at somedefinite values of t and xmdashis still bounded by the future light ldquoconerdquo of thehyperboloid H2 at t x

                        32 A new solution

                        The metric (6) is a specific analytic continuation of an anti-de Sitter Schwarzschildblack hole metric There exist generalizations known as de Sitter-Vaidya oranti-de Sitter-Vaidya metrics that represent the formation of a black holein de Sitter or anti-de Sitter spacetime from the collapse of a shell of nullradiation [39 40] The shell does not have to be thinmdashin fact these metricscontain a free function that describes the profile of the ingoing radiationThe only criterion is that the radiation be purely radially ingoing (or purelyoutgoing)

                        Performing the appropriate analytic continuation one obtains the follow-

                        14

                        ing metric2

                        ds2 = (1minusm(w)t+H2t2)dw2 minus 2dwdt+ t2dH22 (8)

                        If m(w) = m is constant (8) is equivalent to (6) by a coordinate transfor-mation In general it is easy to check that it represents a spacetime withSO(2 1) isometries that contains both vacuum energy (with energy densitydetermined by H as above) and radiation (with energy flux proportional tomprime(w))mdashbut with all the radiation moving coherently in the same directionAs such it may be a fairly good approximation to the spacetime inside abubble after a collision at least during the curvature domination and slow-roll inflation phases To my knowledge this is the first time this solution hasappeared in print

                        4 Cosmological effects of collisions

                        To determine the effects of the collision on cosmological observables I willmake the following assumptions

                        -1 We are inside a bubble that has been or will be struck by at least oneother bubble

                        0 The collision preserves SO(2 1) that is one can choose coordinateslike (6) or (8) in which it occurs at one instant everywhere along ahyperboloid

                        1 The effects of the collision are confined entirely to the interior of thefuture ldquolightconerdquo of the collision event that is inside a region x gtxc(t) where xc(t) is a null geodesic in the (x t) plane transverse to thecollision hyperboloid

                        2 There was sufficient inflation to make the spatial curvature of the uni-verse and of the hyperbolic collision ldquolightconerdquo negligible

                        3 The effects on the observable part of our universe are small enough tobe treated using linear perturbation theory

                        4 The collision affects the inflaton by creating an O(1) perturbation init near the beginning of inflation

                        2I thank T Levi and S Chang for discussions on this metric

                        15

                        5 The inflaton perturbation is generic apart from constraints imposedby the symmetries and assumption 1

                        Using these assumptions the effects on the cosmic microwave background(CMB) temperature were first worked out in [24] and on CMB polarizationin [30]

                        41 Inflaton perturbation

                        Given these assumptions one can simply expand the inflaton perturbationin a power series at a time near the beginning of inflation at which time ththe metric (6) will be a good description of the spacetime Dropping the H2

                        factor (on which the perturbation is constant) for clarity

                        ds2 = minusdt2g(t)+g(t)dx2 asymp minusdt2(Hit)2+(Hit)

                        2dx2 = (Hiτ)minus2(minusdτ 2 + dx2

                        )

                        (9)The approximation is valid after the beginning of inflation Hit gt 1 and thecoordinate τ = minus1(H2t) is the conformal time The reader should recallthat τ increases towards zero during inflation and is exponentially small byits end

                        The constraint from assumption 1 means that the collision perturbationis non-zero only inside the affected region [24 41]

                        δφ(x τi) = M

                        ( infinsumn=0

                        anHni (x+ τi)

                        n

                        )Θ(x+ τi) (10)

                        ˙δφ(x τi) = M

                        ( infinsumn=0

                        bnHn+1i (x+ τi)

                        n

                        )Θ(x+ τi) (11)

                        Here δφ is the perturbation in the inflaton field an and bn are dimensionlesscoefficients τi is a time near the start of inflation where the slow-roll approx-imation is valid M is a mass scale associated with the range over which thefield varies and the coordinates are chosen for convenience so that the edgeof the region affected by the collision is located at x = minusτi at that time Notethat this expansion is completely generalmdashit does not assume that the fieldthat tunneled is the inflaton and depends only on the assumptions outlinedjust above It does however ignore the effects of the collision on fields otherthan the inflaton at least in single-field models one expects that primordialperturbations of the inflaton field will have the largest imprint on cosmologytoday

                        16

                        Without a model for the inflaton and the field(s) that participated in thetunneling we cannot compute the coefficients an and bn Generically one ex-pects that the perturbation will be at least O(1) on scales corresponding tothe radius of curvature of the universe That is one expects the coefficientsan sim 1 Moreover given enough inflation to solve the flatness problem (andproduce a universe consistent with current constraints on curvature) the ob-

                        servable universe today corresponds to a region of size |x|Hi simradic

                        Ωk(t0) 1at the beginning of inflation Therefore we are interested in the perturbation(10) in the limit Hx 1 and so the first term will dominate the observablesignatures (unless for some reason a0 an for some n gt 0) Notice thata0 6= 0 is a spatial discontinuity in δφ

                        To determine the effects of this initial inflaton perturbation on the CMBand other cosmological observables one can employ the standard machineryof inflationary perturbation theory The first step is to determine the evolu-tion of the perturbation during inflation During slow-roll inflation at lowestorder in the slow-roll parameters inflaton perturbations satisfy the equationof a free massless scalar in de Sitter space (see eg [42]) One can solve thatequation in full generality the solution is [24]

                        δφ = g(τ + x)minus τgprime(τ + x) + f(τ minus x)minus τf prime(τ minus x) (12)

                        where g f are arbitrary functions of one variable and gprime f prime their derivativesThis solution may be familiar from the more standard treatment of in-

                        flationary fluctuations in momentum space the terms proportional to τ arethe usual decaying modes in the expression δφk sim kminus32 (1plusmn ikτ) Evidentlythe τ -dependent terms arise due to the effects of inflation since this solutionis otherwise identical to that of a massless scalar field in 1+1-dimensionalMinkowski space

                        Given the initial conditions in (10) one can use (12) to determine thesolution for all future times during slow-roll inflation The result can bewritten in closed form [41] but is not particularly illuminating Ratherthan reproduce it here it is easier to instead expand the functions f andg of (12) (which contain the same information as and are determined byδφ and ˙δφ) Since g is purely left-moving and f is purely right-moving forτ gt τi the perturbation near the edge of the lightcone Hi(xminus xc(τ)) 1 isdetermined only by g Therefore the effects on the CMB are determined by

                        17

                        the coefficients in the expansion of g

                        g(x+ τ) =

                        ( infinsumn=1

                        cn(x+ τ)n)

                        Θ(x+ τ) (13)

                        Note that the sum begins with the linear term n = 1 This is because ann = 0 term in this expansion would lead to a δ-function singularity in δφwhich could not be expanded as in (10) and in any case would invalidateperturbation theory Put another way a non-zero c1 corresponds to a per-turbation δφ with a non-zero a0 in (10)

                        By the end of inflation τ = τe is exponentially small and one can dropthe terms proportional to τ in (12) leaving simply

                        δφ(x τe) asymp g(x) =

                        ( infinsumn=1

                        cn(x)n)

                        Θ(x) (14)

                        Note the leading term is now a discontinuity in the first derivative not adiscontinuity in the perturbation itself Inflation smooths sub-horizon pri-mordial gradients by effectively integrating them once

                        42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe

                        To precisely determine the effect of this perturbation on cosmological observ-ables at later times requires numerically integrating the coupled equationsthat control the perturbations in the various components of the energy den-sity in the early universe There is a standard set of software tools availablefor this purpose [43 44] The results of such a numerical analysis for a bub-ble collision can be found in [45] and analytically (and approximately) in[24 30]

                        One can understand the qualitative results with a simple analytic ap-proximation A primary component of the collision signal is its effect on theCMB temperature The most important contribution to CMB temperaturefluctuations comes from the Sachs-Wolfe effect [46 47] To first approxima-tion all CMB photons last scattered at redshift zdc sim 1100 when electronsrecombined with protons and photons decoupled from the plasma and thenpropagated freely (without scattering again) until now Their temperatureis determined by the intrinsic temperature T (tdc x y z) at the point in thelast scattering volume at the time tdc corresponding to z = zdc Given that aphoton free-streamed it originated at some point satisfying x2+y2+z2 = D2

                        dc

                        18

                        on a sphere of radius Ddc the radius of the current earthrsquos past lightconeat t = tdc The radius Ddc asymp 14Gpc can be determined from the expansionhistory a(t) by integrating back along a null geodesic in the FRW metric

                        Because a locally higher temperature at last scattering corresponds to alocally higher density there is a corresponding negative gravitational poten-tial energy fluctation at that location In the Sachs-Wolfe approximation thecurrent temperature of a photon originating from such a point is a combi-nation of the intrinsic temperature of the plasma it last scattered from andthe local gravitational potential at that point as well as an overall redshift(1 + zdc)

                        minus1 (and some additional contributions from time variations of thepotential along the way the ldquointegrated Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo) A simple cal-culation shows that the negative potential energy contribution is larger thanthe increased intrinsic temperature perturbation Φ(tdc) sim minus(32)δTT (tdc[47] Therefore locally hot spots at last scattering make cold spots on theCMB

                        43 CMB temperature

                        Given a perturbation to the Newtonian potential at reheating Φ = λxΘ(x)one can easily estimate the effect on the CMB temperature today Theessential points are the following

                        bull Perturbations that are linear in the spatial coordinates (such as Φ =λx) remain so regardless of the cosmological evolution (to first order inperturbation theory) because the equations that govern the evolutionof cosmological perturbations are all second-order in spatial derivatives

                        bull The evolution equations are causalmdashthe effects of an initial perturba-tions are confined to within its light- or sound-cone

                        bull By the time of last scattering the radius of the sound-cone rsh of a per-turbation present at reheating corresponds to approximately 6 degreeson the CMB sky (rshDdc asymp 01)

                        Given this one can easily determine the temperature perturbation in theCMB The ldquokinkrdquo at x = 0 will evolve but its effects must be confinedwithin a slab of thickness 2rsh Outside that slab the perturbationmdashwhichwas initially either zero or linear in xmdashcannot evolve in shape although

                        19

                        Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

                        20

                        its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

                        Φ(tdc x y z) =

                        0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

                        (15)

                        where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

                        To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

                        θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

                        Ddc

                        ) (16)

                        The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

                        (minusxe+rsh

                        Ddc

                        )lt θ lt cosminus1

                        (minusxeminusrsh

                        Ddc

                        )near the rim of the disk where

                        it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

                        Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

                        Ddc

                        ) the CMB

                        temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

                        44 CMB polarization

                        The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

                        21

                        E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

                        However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

                        Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

                        To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

                        Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

                        22

                        numerically

                        45 Other cosmological observables

                        A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

                        5 Probabilities and measures

                        The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

                        To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

                        At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

                        23

                        expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

                        〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

                        where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

                        To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

                        51 Observable collisions

                        We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

                        i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

                        lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

                        The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

                        intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

                        during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

                        During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

                        24

                        Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

                        i Puttingthis together gives

                        〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

                        2i (18)

                        We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

                        Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

                        taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

                        Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

                        In the end the result is [25]

                        〈N〉 simradic

                        ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

                        radicΩk (HfHi)

                        2 (19)

                        The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

                        2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

                        2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

                        must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

                        radicΩk lt 1

                        Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

                        52 Spot sizes

                        Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

                        25

                        This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

                        However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

                        The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

                        radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

                        the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

                        Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

                        One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

                        53 Spot brightness

                        Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

                        26

                        potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                        timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                        6 Conclusions

                        Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                        Acknowledgements

                        I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                        References

                        [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                        [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                        [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                        27

                        [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                        [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                        [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                        [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                        [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                        [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                        [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                        [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                        [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                        28

                        [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                        [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                        [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                        [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                        [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                        [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                        [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                        [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                        [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                        [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                        [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                        [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                        29

                        [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                        [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                        [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                        [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                        [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                        [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                        [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                        [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                        [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                        [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                        [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                        [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                        [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                        30

                        [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                        [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                        [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                        [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                        [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                        [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                        [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                        [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                        [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                        [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                        [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                        [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                        [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                        31

                        [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                        [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                        [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                        [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                        [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                        [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                        [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                        [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                        [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                        [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                        32

                        • 1 Introduction
                          • 11 Overview
                          • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                          • 13 Decay
                          • 14 Motivation
                            • 2 Earlier work
                              • 21 Open inflaton
                              • 22 Metrics and solutions
                              • 23 Bubblology
                              • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                • 3 Collisions
                                  • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                  • 32 A new solution
                                    • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                      • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                      • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                      • 43 CMB temperature
                                      • 44 CMB polarization
                                      • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                        • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                          • 51 Observable collisions
                                          • 52 Spot sizes
                                          • 53 Spot brightness
                                            • 6 Conclusions

                          Figure 3 A spacetime diagram showing the causal structure of a cosmicbubble collision Coordinates are chosen so that light propagating in theplane of the diagram moves along 45 lines

                          for applications to observational cosmology one is generally interested in re-gions in which the effects are a small perturbation on the spacetime prior tothe collision As I will discuss below the assumption that the perturbationis small plus the symmetries of the collision suffice to extract the genericleading-order effects on cosmology

                          The most important features of a collision of this type are related to itssymmetries As reviewed above a single bubble has an SO(3 1) isometrya group generated by 6 symmetry generators It turns out that a bubblecollision breaks the SO(3 1) to SO(2 1) a group with 3 generators [11] Thisis enough symmetry to solve Einsteinrsquos equations in a situation in which thestress tensor is locally dominated by vacuum energymdashthe situation is verysimilar to that of a black hole (with three rotation isometries) in a vacuumdominated spacetime (de Sitter Minkowski or anti-de Sitter) As in thoseexamples there is a one parameter family of solutions Details can be foundin eg [11 20 22 23]

                          We will see that as a result of these symmetries the effects of the collision

                          12

                          break isotropy and homogeneity but are azimuthally symmetric (and non-chiral) around a special directionmdashthe axis pointing toward the center of thecolliding bubble

                          One important feature of these symmetries is that there exists a timeslicing of the collision spacetime in which the entire collision occurs at oneinstant everywhere along a 2 dimensional hyperboloid At later times in thesecoordinates the effects of the collision spread along a light ldquoconerdquo which isreally a region of space bounded by two hyperboloids To visualize this itmay help the reader to visualize the intersection of two lightcones cones orldquohourglass-typerdquo timelike hyperboloids in 2+1 dimensions The intersectionis a (spacelike) hyperbola which can be chosen to correspond to an instantof time and a point in one transverse coordinate (eg t and x in (6))

                          31 Thin-wall collision metric

                          In the approximation that the spacetime everywhere away from thin surfacesis dominated by vacuum energy one can write down exact solutions Thesemetrics are of the form

                          ds2 = minusdt2g(t) + g(t)dx2 + t2dH22 (6)

                          where dH22 = dρ2 + sinh2 ρdφ2 is the metric on a 2D hyperboloid and

                          g(t) = 1 +H2t2 minusmt (7)

                          Here H is the Hubble constant related to the local vacuum energy densityρV by H2 = ρV 3 and m is a constant [34 20 22] With m = 0 this issimply de Sitter space But with m non-zero it represents a solution that isessentially an analytically continued Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole (see[22] for a discussion of the causal structure of these solutions)

                          Across a wall that separates two vacua (either the wall that separates twocollided bubbles or the walls of the bubbles themselves in the parent falsevacuum) one expects the vacuum energy density ρV to jump along withmany other quantities In the limit the wall is thin regions described by (6)can be ldquogluedrdquo together using Israel matching conditions [37 38 11 20] Thisallows one to determine the trajectory of the domain walls and therefore theconditions under which the domain walls that form in a collision acceleratetowards or away from inertial observers inside the bubbles When the wallaccelerates it rapidly becomes relativistic Anything it collides with will

                          13

                          almost certainly not survive as the ultra-relativistic wall typically has avery high energy density even in its rest frame In such cases there are nocosmological observables since the wall arrives almost immediately after itsfirst light signal

                          The results of this analysis which hold at least when the spacetime oneither side of the domain wall is dominated by vacuum energy are as followsthe domain wall always accelerates away from an inertial observer in thebubble with lower vacuum energy andmdashdepending on the tension in thewall and the difference in the two vacuum energiesmdashit can either acceleratetowards away from or not accelerate with respect to an observer in thebubble with larger vacuum energy [22 23] One interesting implication ofthis result is that inertial observers in bubbles with small positive vacuumenergy are shielded from the walls separating them from regions with highervacuum energy and might be shielded from walls with negative vacuumenergy beyond them if the potential satisfies certain conditions

                          Generalizing the solution (6) to the case of non-vacuum energy dominatedspacetimes is difficultmdashroughly as difficult as embedding a black hole into anon-trivial FRW cosmology However the basic symmetry structure will notbe affected the metric must still posses SO(2 1) symmetry and therefore canbe written in the form ds2 = ds22 +f(t x)dH2

                          2 (just as a black hole embeddedin an expanding FRW could be written in a form ds2 = ds22 + f(t r)dΩ2

                          2 Inparticular the region affected by the collisionmdashwhich takes place at somedefinite values of t and xmdashis still bounded by the future light ldquoconerdquo of thehyperboloid H2 at t x

                          32 A new solution

                          The metric (6) is a specific analytic continuation of an anti-de Sitter Schwarzschildblack hole metric There exist generalizations known as de Sitter-Vaidya oranti-de Sitter-Vaidya metrics that represent the formation of a black holein de Sitter or anti-de Sitter spacetime from the collapse of a shell of nullradiation [39 40] The shell does not have to be thinmdashin fact these metricscontain a free function that describes the profile of the ingoing radiationThe only criterion is that the radiation be purely radially ingoing (or purelyoutgoing)

                          Performing the appropriate analytic continuation one obtains the follow-

                          14

                          ing metric2

                          ds2 = (1minusm(w)t+H2t2)dw2 minus 2dwdt+ t2dH22 (8)

                          If m(w) = m is constant (8) is equivalent to (6) by a coordinate transfor-mation In general it is easy to check that it represents a spacetime withSO(2 1) isometries that contains both vacuum energy (with energy densitydetermined by H as above) and radiation (with energy flux proportional tomprime(w))mdashbut with all the radiation moving coherently in the same directionAs such it may be a fairly good approximation to the spacetime inside abubble after a collision at least during the curvature domination and slow-roll inflation phases To my knowledge this is the first time this solution hasappeared in print

                          4 Cosmological effects of collisions

                          To determine the effects of the collision on cosmological observables I willmake the following assumptions

                          -1 We are inside a bubble that has been or will be struck by at least oneother bubble

                          0 The collision preserves SO(2 1) that is one can choose coordinateslike (6) or (8) in which it occurs at one instant everywhere along ahyperboloid

                          1 The effects of the collision are confined entirely to the interior of thefuture ldquolightconerdquo of the collision event that is inside a region x gtxc(t) where xc(t) is a null geodesic in the (x t) plane transverse to thecollision hyperboloid

                          2 There was sufficient inflation to make the spatial curvature of the uni-verse and of the hyperbolic collision ldquolightconerdquo negligible

                          3 The effects on the observable part of our universe are small enough tobe treated using linear perturbation theory

                          4 The collision affects the inflaton by creating an O(1) perturbation init near the beginning of inflation

                          2I thank T Levi and S Chang for discussions on this metric

                          15

                          5 The inflaton perturbation is generic apart from constraints imposedby the symmetries and assumption 1

                          Using these assumptions the effects on the cosmic microwave background(CMB) temperature were first worked out in [24] and on CMB polarizationin [30]

                          41 Inflaton perturbation

                          Given these assumptions one can simply expand the inflaton perturbationin a power series at a time near the beginning of inflation at which time ththe metric (6) will be a good description of the spacetime Dropping the H2

                          factor (on which the perturbation is constant) for clarity

                          ds2 = minusdt2g(t)+g(t)dx2 asymp minusdt2(Hit)2+(Hit)

                          2dx2 = (Hiτ)minus2(minusdτ 2 + dx2

                          )

                          (9)The approximation is valid after the beginning of inflation Hit gt 1 and thecoordinate τ = minus1(H2t) is the conformal time The reader should recallthat τ increases towards zero during inflation and is exponentially small byits end

                          The constraint from assumption 1 means that the collision perturbationis non-zero only inside the affected region [24 41]

                          δφ(x τi) = M

                          ( infinsumn=0

                          anHni (x+ τi)

                          n

                          )Θ(x+ τi) (10)

                          ˙δφ(x τi) = M

                          ( infinsumn=0

                          bnHn+1i (x+ τi)

                          n

                          )Θ(x+ τi) (11)

                          Here δφ is the perturbation in the inflaton field an and bn are dimensionlesscoefficients τi is a time near the start of inflation where the slow-roll approx-imation is valid M is a mass scale associated with the range over which thefield varies and the coordinates are chosen for convenience so that the edgeof the region affected by the collision is located at x = minusτi at that time Notethat this expansion is completely generalmdashit does not assume that the fieldthat tunneled is the inflaton and depends only on the assumptions outlinedjust above It does however ignore the effects of the collision on fields otherthan the inflaton at least in single-field models one expects that primordialperturbations of the inflaton field will have the largest imprint on cosmologytoday

                          16

                          Without a model for the inflaton and the field(s) that participated in thetunneling we cannot compute the coefficients an and bn Generically one ex-pects that the perturbation will be at least O(1) on scales corresponding tothe radius of curvature of the universe That is one expects the coefficientsan sim 1 Moreover given enough inflation to solve the flatness problem (andproduce a universe consistent with current constraints on curvature) the ob-

                          servable universe today corresponds to a region of size |x|Hi simradic

                          Ωk(t0) 1at the beginning of inflation Therefore we are interested in the perturbation(10) in the limit Hx 1 and so the first term will dominate the observablesignatures (unless for some reason a0 an for some n gt 0) Notice thata0 6= 0 is a spatial discontinuity in δφ

                          To determine the effects of this initial inflaton perturbation on the CMBand other cosmological observables one can employ the standard machineryof inflationary perturbation theory The first step is to determine the evolu-tion of the perturbation during inflation During slow-roll inflation at lowestorder in the slow-roll parameters inflaton perturbations satisfy the equationof a free massless scalar in de Sitter space (see eg [42]) One can solve thatequation in full generality the solution is [24]

                          δφ = g(τ + x)minus τgprime(τ + x) + f(τ minus x)minus τf prime(τ minus x) (12)

                          where g f are arbitrary functions of one variable and gprime f prime their derivativesThis solution may be familiar from the more standard treatment of in-

                          flationary fluctuations in momentum space the terms proportional to τ arethe usual decaying modes in the expression δφk sim kminus32 (1plusmn ikτ) Evidentlythe τ -dependent terms arise due to the effects of inflation since this solutionis otherwise identical to that of a massless scalar field in 1+1-dimensionalMinkowski space

                          Given the initial conditions in (10) one can use (12) to determine thesolution for all future times during slow-roll inflation The result can bewritten in closed form [41] but is not particularly illuminating Ratherthan reproduce it here it is easier to instead expand the functions f andg of (12) (which contain the same information as and are determined byδφ and ˙δφ) Since g is purely left-moving and f is purely right-moving forτ gt τi the perturbation near the edge of the lightcone Hi(xminus xc(τ)) 1 isdetermined only by g Therefore the effects on the CMB are determined by

                          17

                          the coefficients in the expansion of g

                          g(x+ τ) =

                          ( infinsumn=1

                          cn(x+ τ)n)

                          Θ(x+ τ) (13)

                          Note that the sum begins with the linear term n = 1 This is because ann = 0 term in this expansion would lead to a δ-function singularity in δφwhich could not be expanded as in (10) and in any case would invalidateperturbation theory Put another way a non-zero c1 corresponds to a per-turbation δφ with a non-zero a0 in (10)

                          By the end of inflation τ = τe is exponentially small and one can dropthe terms proportional to τ in (12) leaving simply

                          δφ(x τe) asymp g(x) =

                          ( infinsumn=1

                          cn(x)n)

                          Θ(x) (14)

                          Note the leading term is now a discontinuity in the first derivative not adiscontinuity in the perturbation itself Inflation smooths sub-horizon pri-mordial gradients by effectively integrating them once

                          42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe

                          To precisely determine the effect of this perturbation on cosmological observ-ables at later times requires numerically integrating the coupled equationsthat control the perturbations in the various components of the energy den-sity in the early universe There is a standard set of software tools availablefor this purpose [43 44] The results of such a numerical analysis for a bub-ble collision can be found in [45] and analytically (and approximately) in[24 30]

                          One can understand the qualitative results with a simple analytic ap-proximation A primary component of the collision signal is its effect on theCMB temperature The most important contribution to CMB temperaturefluctuations comes from the Sachs-Wolfe effect [46 47] To first approxima-tion all CMB photons last scattered at redshift zdc sim 1100 when electronsrecombined with protons and photons decoupled from the plasma and thenpropagated freely (without scattering again) until now Their temperatureis determined by the intrinsic temperature T (tdc x y z) at the point in thelast scattering volume at the time tdc corresponding to z = zdc Given that aphoton free-streamed it originated at some point satisfying x2+y2+z2 = D2

                          dc

                          18

                          on a sphere of radius Ddc the radius of the current earthrsquos past lightconeat t = tdc The radius Ddc asymp 14Gpc can be determined from the expansionhistory a(t) by integrating back along a null geodesic in the FRW metric

                          Because a locally higher temperature at last scattering corresponds to alocally higher density there is a corresponding negative gravitational poten-tial energy fluctation at that location In the Sachs-Wolfe approximation thecurrent temperature of a photon originating from such a point is a combi-nation of the intrinsic temperature of the plasma it last scattered from andthe local gravitational potential at that point as well as an overall redshift(1 + zdc)

                          minus1 (and some additional contributions from time variations of thepotential along the way the ldquointegrated Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo) A simple cal-culation shows that the negative potential energy contribution is larger thanthe increased intrinsic temperature perturbation Φ(tdc) sim minus(32)δTT (tdc[47] Therefore locally hot spots at last scattering make cold spots on theCMB

                          43 CMB temperature

                          Given a perturbation to the Newtonian potential at reheating Φ = λxΘ(x)one can easily estimate the effect on the CMB temperature today Theessential points are the following

                          bull Perturbations that are linear in the spatial coordinates (such as Φ =λx) remain so regardless of the cosmological evolution (to first order inperturbation theory) because the equations that govern the evolutionof cosmological perturbations are all second-order in spatial derivatives

                          bull The evolution equations are causalmdashthe effects of an initial perturba-tions are confined to within its light- or sound-cone

                          bull By the time of last scattering the radius of the sound-cone rsh of a per-turbation present at reheating corresponds to approximately 6 degreeson the CMB sky (rshDdc asymp 01)

                          Given this one can easily determine the temperature perturbation in theCMB The ldquokinkrdquo at x = 0 will evolve but its effects must be confinedwithin a slab of thickness 2rsh Outside that slab the perturbationmdashwhichwas initially either zero or linear in xmdashcannot evolve in shape although

                          19

                          Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

                          20

                          its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

                          Φ(tdc x y z) =

                          0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

                          (15)

                          where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

                          To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

                          θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

                          Ddc

                          ) (16)

                          The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

                          (minusxe+rsh

                          Ddc

                          )lt θ lt cosminus1

                          (minusxeminusrsh

                          Ddc

                          )near the rim of the disk where

                          it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

                          Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

                          Ddc

                          ) the CMB

                          temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

                          44 CMB polarization

                          The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

                          21

                          E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

                          However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

                          Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

                          To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

                          Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

                          22

                          numerically

                          45 Other cosmological observables

                          A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

                          5 Probabilities and measures

                          The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

                          To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

                          At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

                          23

                          expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

                          〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

                          where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

                          To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

                          51 Observable collisions

                          We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

                          i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

                          lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

                          The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

                          intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

                          during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

                          During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

                          24

                          Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

                          i Puttingthis together gives

                          〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

                          2i (18)

                          We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

                          Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

                          taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

                          Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

                          In the end the result is [25]

                          〈N〉 simradic

                          ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

                          radicΩk (HfHi)

                          2 (19)

                          The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

                          2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

                          2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

                          must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

                          radicΩk lt 1

                          Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

                          52 Spot sizes

                          Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

                          25

                          This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

                          However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

                          The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

                          radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

                          the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

                          Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

                          One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

                          53 Spot brightness

                          Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

                          26

                          potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                          timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                          6 Conclusions

                          Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                          Acknowledgements

                          I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                          References

                          [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                          [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                          [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                          27

                          [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                          [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                          [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                          [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                          [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                          [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                          [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                          [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                          [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                          28

                          [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                          [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                          [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                          [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                          [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                          [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                          [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                          [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                          [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                          [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                          [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                          [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                          29

                          [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                          [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                          [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                          [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                          [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                          [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                          [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                          [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                          [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                          [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                          [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                          [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                          [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                          30

                          [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                          [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                          [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                          [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                          [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                          [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                          [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                          [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                          [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                          [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                          [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                          [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                          [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                          31

                          [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                          [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                          [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                          [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                          [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                          [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                          [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                          [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                          [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                          [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                          32

                          • 1 Introduction
                            • 11 Overview
                            • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                            • 13 Decay
                            • 14 Motivation
                              • 2 Earlier work
                                • 21 Open inflaton
                                • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                • 23 Bubblology
                                • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                  • 3 Collisions
                                    • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                    • 32 A new solution
                                      • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                        • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                        • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                        • 43 CMB temperature
                                        • 44 CMB polarization
                                        • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                          • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                            • 51 Observable collisions
                                            • 52 Spot sizes
                                            • 53 Spot brightness
                                              • 6 Conclusions

                            break isotropy and homogeneity but are azimuthally symmetric (and non-chiral) around a special directionmdashthe axis pointing toward the center of thecolliding bubble

                            One important feature of these symmetries is that there exists a timeslicing of the collision spacetime in which the entire collision occurs at oneinstant everywhere along a 2 dimensional hyperboloid At later times in thesecoordinates the effects of the collision spread along a light ldquoconerdquo which isreally a region of space bounded by two hyperboloids To visualize this itmay help the reader to visualize the intersection of two lightcones cones orldquohourglass-typerdquo timelike hyperboloids in 2+1 dimensions The intersectionis a (spacelike) hyperbola which can be chosen to correspond to an instantof time and a point in one transverse coordinate (eg t and x in (6))

                            31 Thin-wall collision metric

                            In the approximation that the spacetime everywhere away from thin surfacesis dominated by vacuum energy one can write down exact solutions Thesemetrics are of the form

                            ds2 = minusdt2g(t) + g(t)dx2 + t2dH22 (6)

                            where dH22 = dρ2 + sinh2 ρdφ2 is the metric on a 2D hyperboloid and

                            g(t) = 1 +H2t2 minusmt (7)

                            Here H is the Hubble constant related to the local vacuum energy densityρV by H2 = ρV 3 and m is a constant [34 20 22] With m = 0 this issimply de Sitter space But with m non-zero it represents a solution that isessentially an analytically continued Schwarzschild-de Sitter black hole (see[22] for a discussion of the causal structure of these solutions)

                            Across a wall that separates two vacua (either the wall that separates twocollided bubbles or the walls of the bubbles themselves in the parent falsevacuum) one expects the vacuum energy density ρV to jump along withmany other quantities In the limit the wall is thin regions described by (6)can be ldquogluedrdquo together using Israel matching conditions [37 38 11 20] Thisallows one to determine the trajectory of the domain walls and therefore theconditions under which the domain walls that form in a collision acceleratetowards or away from inertial observers inside the bubbles When the wallaccelerates it rapidly becomes relativistic Anything it collides with will

                            13

                            almost certainly not survive as the ultra-relativistic wall typically has avery high energy density even in its rest frame In such cases there are nocosmological observables since the wall arrives almost immediately after itsfirst light signal

                            The results of this analysis which hold at least when the spacetime oneither side of the domain wall is dominated by vacuum energy are as followsthe domain wall always accelerates away from an inertial observer in thebubble with lower vacuum energy andmdashdepending on the tension in thewall and the difference in the two vacuum energiesmdashit can either acceleratetowards away from or not accelerate with respect to an observer in thebubble with larger vacuum energy [22 23] One interesting implication ofthis result is that inertial observers in bubbles with small positive vacuumenergy are shielded from the walls separating them from regions with highervacuum energy and might be shielded from walls with negative vacuumenergy beyond them if the potential satisfies certain conditions

                            Generalizing the solution (6) to the case of non-vacuum energy dominatedspacetimes is difficultmdashroughly as difficult as embedding a black hole into anon-trivial FRW cosmology However the basic symmetry structure will notbe affected the metric must still posses SO(2 1) symmetry and therefore canbe written in the form ds2 = ds22 +f(t x)dH2

                            2 (just as a black hole embeddedin an expanding FRW could be written in a form ds2 = ds22 + f(t r)dΩ2

                            2 Inparticular the region affected by the collisionmdashwhich takes place at somedefinite values of t and xmdashis still bounded by the future light ldquoconerdquo of thehyperboloid H2 at t x

                            32 A new solution

                            The metric (6) is a specific analytic continuation of an anti-de Sitter Schwarzschildblack hole metric There exist generalizations known as de Sitter-Vaidya oranti-de Sitter-Vaidya metrics that represent the formation of a black holein de Sitter or anti-de Sitter spacetime from the collapse of a shell of nullradiation [39 40] The shell does not have to be thinmdashin fact these metricscontain a free function that describes the profile of the ingoing radiationThe only criterion is that the radiation be purely radially ingoing (or purelyoutgoing)

                            Performing the appropriate analytic continuation one obtains the follow-

                            14

                            ing metric2

                            ds2 = (1minusm(w)t+H2t2)dw2 minus 2dwdt+ t2dH22 (8)

                            If m(w) = m is constant (8) is equivalent to (6) by a coordinate transfor-mation In general it is easy to check that it represents a spacetime withSO(2 1) isometries that contains both vacuum energy (with energy densitydetermined by H as above) and radiation (with energy flux proportional tomprime(w))mdashbut with all the radiation moving coherently in the same directionAs such it may be a fairly good approximation to the spacetime inside abubble after a collision at least during the curvature domination and slow-roll inflation phases To my knowledge this is the first time this solution hasappeared in print

                            4 Cosmological effects of collisions

                            To determine the effects of the collision on cosmological observables I willmake the following assumptions

                            -1 We are inside a bubble that has been or will be struck by at least oneother bubble

                            0 The collision preserves SO(2 1) that is one can choose coordinateslike (6) or (8) in which it occurs at one instant everywhere along ahyperboloid

                            1 The effects of the collision are confined entirely to the interior of thefuture ldquolightconerdquo of the collision event that is inside a region x gtxc(t) where xc(t) is a null geodesic in the (x t) plane transverse to thecollision hyperboloid

                            2 There was sufficient inflation to make the spatial curvature of the uni-verse and of the hyperbolic collision ldquolightconerdquo negligible

                            3 The effects on the observable part of our universe are small enough tobe treated using linear perturbation theory

                            4 The collision affects the inflaton by creating an O(1) perturbation init near the beginning of inflation

                            2I thank T Levi and S Chang for discussions on this metric

                            15

                            5 The inflaton perturbation is generic apart from constraints imposedby the symmetries and assumption 1

                            Using these assumptions the effects on the cosmic microwave background(CMB) temperature were first worked out in [24] and on CMB polarizationin [30]

                            41 Inflaton perturbation

                            Given these assumptions one can simply expand the inflaton perturbationin a power series at a time near the beginning of inflation at which time ththe metric (6) will be a good description of the spacetime Dropping the H2

                            factor (on which the perturbation is constant) for clarity

                            ds2 = minusdt2g(t)+g(t)dx2 asymp minusdt2(Hit)2+(Hit)

                            2dx2 = (Hiτ)minus2(minusdτ 2 + dx2

                            )

                            (9)The approximation is valid after the beginning of inflation Hit gt 1 and thecoordinate τ = minus1(H2t) is the conformal time The reader should recallthat τ increases towards zero during inflation and is exponentially small byits end

                            The constraint from assumption 1 means that the collision perturbationis non-zero only inside the affected region [24 41]

                            δφ(x τi) = M

                            ( infinsumn=0

                            anHni (x+ τi)

                            n

                            )Θ(x+ τi) (10)

                            ˙δφ(x τi) = M

                            ( infinsumn=0

                            bnHn+1i (x+ τi)

                            n

                            )Θ(x+ τi) (11)

                            Here δφ is the perturbation in the inflaton field an and bn are dimensionlesscoefficients τi is a time near the start of inflation where the slow-roll approx-imation is valid M is a mass scale associated with the range over which thefield varies and the coordinates are chosen for convenience so that the edgeof the region affected by the collision is located at x = minusτi at that time Notethat this expansion is completely generalmdashit does not assume that the fieldthat tunneled is the inflaton and depends only on the assumptions outlinedjust above It does however ignore the effects of the collision on fields otherthan the inflaton at least in single-field models one expects that primordialperturbations of the inflaton field will have the largest imprint on cosmologytoday

                            16

                            Without a model for the inflaton and the field(s) that participated in thetunneling we cannot compute the coefficients an and bn Generically one ex-pects that the perturbation will be at least O(1) on scales corresponding tothe radius of curvature of the universe That is one expects the coefficientsan sim 1 Moreover given enough inflation to solve the flatness problem (andproduce a universe consistent with current constraints on curvature) the ob-

                            servable universe today corresponds to a region of size |x|Hi simradic

                            Ωk(t0) 1at the beginning of inflation Therefore we are interested in the perturbation(10) in the limit Hx 1 and so the first term will dominate the observablesignatures (unless for some reason a0 an for some n gt 0) Notice thata0 6= 0 is a spatial discontinuity in δφ

                            To determine the effects of this initial inflaton perturbation on the CMBand other cosmological observables one can employ the standard machineryof inflationary perturbation theory The first step is to determine the evolu-tion of the perturbation during inflation During slow-roll inflation at lowestorder in the slow-roll parameters inflaton perturbations satisfy the equationof a free massless scalar in de Sitter space (see eg [42]) One can solve thatequation in full generality the solution is [24]

                            δφ = g(τ + x)minus τgprime(τ + x) + f(τ minus x)minus τf prime(τ minus x) (12)

                            where g f are arbitrary functions of one variable and gprime f prime their derivativesThis solution may be familiar from the more standard treatment of in-

                            flationary fluctuations in momentum space the terms proportional to τ arethe usual decaying modes in the expression δφk sim kminus32 (1plusmn ikτ) Evidentlythe τ -dependent terms arise due to the effects of inflation since this solutionis otherwise identical to that of a massless scalar field in 1+1-dimensionalMinkowski space

                            Given the initial conditions in (10) one can use (12) to determine thesolution for all future times during slow-roll inflation The result can bewritten in closed form [41] but is not particularly illuminating Ratherthan reproduce it here it is easier to instead expand the functions f andg of (12) (which contain the same information as and are determined byδφ and ˙δφ) Since g is purely left-moving and f is purely right-moving forτ gt τi the perturbation near the edge of the lightcone Hi(xminus xc(τ)) 1 isdetermined only by g Therefore the effects on the CMB are determined by

                            17

                            the coefficients in the expansion of g

                            g(x+ τ) =

                            ( infinsumn=1

                            cn(x+ τ)n)

                            Θ(x+ τ) (13)

                            Note that the sum begins with the linear term n = 1 This is because ann = 0 term in this expansion would lead to a δ-function singularity in δφwhich could not be expanded as in (10) and in any case would invalidateperturbation theory Put another way a non-zero c1 corresponds to a per-turbation δφ with a non-zero a0 in (10)

                            By the end of inflation τ = τe is exponentially small and one can dropthe terms proportional to τ in (12) leaving simply

                            δφ(x τe) asymp g(x) =

                            ( infinsumn=1

                            cn(x)n)

                            Θ(x) (14)

                            Note the leading term is now a discontinuity in the first derivative not adiscontinuity in the perturbation itself Inflation smooths sub-horizon pri-mordial gradients by effectively integrating them once

                            42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe

                            To precisely determine the effect of this perturbation on cosmological observ-ables at later times requires numerically integrating the coupled equationsthat control the perturbations in the various components of the energy den-sity in the early universe There is a standard set of software tools availablefor this purpose [43 44] The results of such a numerical analysis for a bub-ble collision can be found in [45] and analytically (and approximately) in[24 30]

                            One can understand the qualitative results with a simple analytic ap-proximation A primary component of the collision signal is its effect on theCMB temperature The most important contribution to CMB temperaturefluctuations comes from the Sachs-Wolfe effect [46 47] To first approxima-tion all CMB photons last scattered at redshift zdc sim 1100 when electronsrecombined with protons and photons decoupled from the plasma and thenpropagated freely (without scattering again) until now Their temperatureis determined by the intrinsic temperature T (tdc x y z) at the point in thelast scattering volume at the time tdc corresponding to z = zdc Given that aphoton free-streamed it originated at some point satisfying x2+y2+z2 = D2

                            dc

                            18

                            on a sphere of radius Ddc the radius of the current earthrsquos past lightconeat t = tdc The radius Ddc asymp 14Gpc can be determined from the expansionhistory a(t) by integrating back along a null geodesic in the FRW metric

                            Because a locally higher temperature at last scattering corresponds to alocally higher density there is a corresponding negative gravitational poten-tial energy fluctation at that location In the Sachs-Wolfe approximation thecurrent temperature of a photon originating from such a point is a combi-nation of the intrinsic temperature of the plasma it last scattered from andthe local gravitational potential at that point as well as an overall redshift(1 + zdc)

                            minus1 (and some additional contributions from time variations of thepotential along the way the ldquointegrated Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo) A simple cal-culation shows that the negative potential energy contribution is larger thanthe increased intrinsic temperature perturbation Φ(tdc) sim minus(32)δTT (tdc[47] Therefore locally hot spots at last scattering make cold spots on theCMB

                            43 CMB temperature

                            Given a perturbation to the Newtonian potential at reheating Φ = λxΘ(x)one can easily estimate the effect on the CMB temperature today Theessential points are the following

                            bull Perturbations that are linear in the spatial coordinates (such as Φ =λx) remain so regardless of the cosmological evolution (to first order inperturbation theory) because the equations that govern the evolutionof cosmological perturbations are all second-order in spatial derivatives

                            bull The evolution equations are causalmdashthe effects of an initial perturba-tions are confined to within its light- or sound-cone

                            bull By the time of last scattering the radius of the sound-cone rsh of a per-turbation present at reheating corresponds to approximately 6 degreeson the CMB sky (rshDdc asymp 01)

                            Given this one can easily determine the temperature perturbation in theCMB The ldquokinkrdquo at x = 0 will evolve but its effects must be confinedwithin a slab of thickness 2rsh Outside that slab the perturbationmdashwhichwas initially either zero or linear in xmdashcannot evolve in shape although

                            19

                            Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

                            20

                            its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

                            Φ(tdc x y z) =

                            0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

                            (15)

                            where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

                            To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

                            θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

                            Ddc

                            ) (16)

                            The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

                            (minusxe+rsh

                            Ddc

                            )lt θ lt cosminus1

                            (minusxeminusrsh

                            Ddc

                            )near the rim of the disk where

                            it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

                            Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

                            Ddc

                            ) the CMB

                            temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

                            44 CMB polarization

                            The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

                            21

                            E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

                            However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

                            Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

                            To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

                            Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

                            22

                            numerically

                            45 Other cosmological observables

                            A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

                            5 Probabilities and measures

                            The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

                            To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

                            At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

                            23

                            expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

                            〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

                            where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

                            To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

                            51 Observable collisions

                            We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

                            i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

                            lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

                            The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

                            intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

                            during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

                            During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

                            24

                            Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

                            i Puttingthis together gives

                            〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

                            2i (18)

                            We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

                            Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

                            taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

                            Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

                            In the end the result is [25]

                            〈N〉 simradic

                            ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

                            radicΩk (HfHi)

                            2 (19)

                            The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

                            2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

                            2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

                            must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

                            radicΩk lt 1

                            Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

                            52 Spot sizes

                            Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

                            25

                            This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

                            However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

                            The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

                            radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

                            the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

                            Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

                            One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

                            53 Spot brightness

                            Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

                            26

                            potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                            timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                            6 Conclusions

                            Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                            Acknowledgements

                            I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                            References

                            [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                            [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                            [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                            27

                            [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                            [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                            [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                            [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                            [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                            [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                            [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                            [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                            [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                            28

                            [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                            [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                            [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                            [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                            [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                            [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                            [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                            [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                            [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                            [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                            [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                            [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                            29

                            [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                            [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                            [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                            [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                            [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                            [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                            [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                            [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                            [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                            [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                            [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                            [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                            [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                            30

                            [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                            [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                            [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                            [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                            [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                            [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                            [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                            [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                            [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                            [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                            [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                            [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                            [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                            31

                            [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                            [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                            [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                            [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                            [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                            [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                            [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                            [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                            [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                            [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                            32

                            • 1 Introduction
                              • 11 Overview
                              • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                              • 13 Decay
                              • 14 Motivation
                                • 2 Earlier work
                                  • 21 Open inflaton
                                  • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                  • 23 Bubblology
                                  • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                    • 3 Collisions
                                      • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                      • 32 A new solution
                                        • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                          • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                          • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                          • 43 CMB temperature
                                          • 44 CMB polarization
                                          • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                            • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                              • 51 Observable collisions
                                              • 52 Spot sizes
                                              • 53 Spot brightness
                                                • 6 Conclusions

                              almost certainly not survive as the ultra-relativistic wall typically has avery high energy density even in its rest frame In such cases there are nocosmological observables since the wall arrives almost immediately after itsfirst light signal

                              The results of this analysis which hold at least when the spacetime oneither side of the domain wall is dominated by vacuum energy are as followsthe domain wall always accelerates away from an inertial observer in thebubble with lower vacuum energy andmdashdepending on the tension in thewall and the difference in the two vacuum energiesmdashit can either acceleratetowards away from or not accelerate with respect to an observer in thebubble with larger vacuum energy [22 23] One interesting implication ofthis result is that inertial observers in bubbles with small positive vacuumenergy are shielded from the walls separating them from regions with highervacuum energy and might be shielded from walls with negative vacuumenergy beyond them if the potential satisfies certain conditions

                              Generalizing the solution (6) to the case of non-vacuum energy dominatedspacetimes is difficultmdashroughly as difficult as embedding a black hole into anon-trivial FRW cosmology However the basic symmetry structure will notbe affected the metric must still posses SO(2 1) symmetry and therefore canbe written in the form ds2 = ds22 +f(t x)dH2

                              2 (just as a black hole embeddedin an expanding FRW could be written in a form ds2 = ds22 + f(t r)dΩ2

                              2 Inparticular the region affected by the collisionmdashwhich takes place at somedefinite values of t and xmdashis still bounded by the future light ldquoconerdquo of thehyperboloid H2 at t x

                              32 A new solution

                              The metric (6) is a specific analytic continuation of an anti-de Sitter Schwarzschildblack hole metric There exist generalizations known as de Sitter-Vaidya oranti-de Sitter-Vaidya metrics that represent the formation of a black holein de Sitter or anti-de Sitter spacetime from the collapse of a shell of nullradiation [39 40] The shell does not have to be thinmdashin fact these metricscontain a free function that describes the profile of the ingoing radiationThe only criterion is that the radiation be purely radially ingoing (or purelyoutgoing)

                              Performing the appropriate analytic continuation one obtains the follow-

                              14

                              ing metric2

                              ds2 = (1minusm(w)t+H2t2)dw2 minus 2dwdt+ t2dH22 (8)

                              If m(w) = m is constant (8) is equivalent to (6) by a coordinate transfor-mation In general it is easy to check that it represents a spacetime withSO(2 1) isometries that contains both vacuum energy (with energy densitydetermined by H as above) and radiation (with energy flux proportional tomprime(w))mdashbut with all the radiation moving coherently in the same directionAs such it may be a fairly good approximation to the spacetime inside abubble after a collision at least during the curvature domination and slow-roll inflation phases To my knowledge this is the first time this solution hasappeared in print

                              4 Cosmological effects of collisions

                              To determine the effects of the collision on cosmological observables I willmake the following assumptions

                              -1 We are inside a bubble that has been or will be struck by at least oneother bubble

                              0 The collision preserves SO(2 1) that is one can choose coordinateslike (6) or (8) in which it occurs at one instant everywhere along ahyperboloid

                              1 The effects of the collision are confined entirely to the interior of thefuture ldquolightconerdquo of the collision event that is inside a region x gtxc(t) where xc(t) is a null geodesic in the (x t) plane transverse to thecollision hyperboloid

                              2 There was sufficient inflation to make the spatial curvature of the uni-verse and of the hyperbolic collision ldquolightconerdquo negligible

                              3 The effects on the observable part of our universe are small enough tobe treated using linear perturbation theory

                              4 The collision affects the inflaton by creating an O(1) perturbation init near the beginning of inflation

                              2I thank T Levi and S Chang for discussions on this metric

                              15

                              5 The inflaton perturbation is generic apart from constraints imposedby the symmetries and assumption 1

                              Using these assumptions the effects on the cosmic microwave background(CMB) temperature were first worked out in [24] and on CMB polarizationin [30]

                              41 Inflaton perturbation

                              Given these assumptions one can simply expand the inflaton perturbationin a power series at a time near the beginning of inflation at which time ththe metric (6) will be a good description of the spacetime Dropping the H2

                              factor (on which the perturbation is constant) for clarity

                              ds2 = minusdt2g(t)+g(t)dx2 asymp minusdt2(Hit)2+(Hit)

                              2dx2 = (Hiτ)minus2(minusdτ 2 + dx2

                              )

                              (9)The approximation is valid after the beginning of inflation Hit gt 1 and thecoordinate τ = minus1(H2t) is the conformal time The reader should recallthat τ increases towards zero during inflation and is exponentially small byits end

                              The constraint from assumption 1 means that the collision perturbationis non-zero only inside the affected region [24 41]

                              δφ(x τi) = M

                              ( infinsumn=0

                              anHni (x+ τi)

                              n

                              )Θ(x+ τi) (10)

                              ˙δφ(x τi) = M

                              ( infinsumn=0

                              bnHn+1i (x+ τi)

                              n

                              )Θ(x+ τi) (11)

                              Here δφ is the perturbation in the inflaton field an and bn are dimensionlesscoefficients τi is a time near the start of inflation where the slow-roll approx-imation is valid M is a mass scale associated with the range over which thefield varies and the coordinates are chosen for convenience so that the edgeof the region affected by the collision is located at x = minusτi at that time Notethat this expansion is completely generalmdashit does not assume that the fieldthat tunneled is the inflaton and depends only on the assumptions outlinedjust above It does however ignore the effects of the collision on fields otherthan the inflaton at least in single-field models one expects that primordialperturbations of the inflaton field will have the largest imprint on cosmologytoday

                              16

                              Without a model for the inflaton and the field(s) that participated in thetunneling we cannot compute the coefficients an and bn Generically one ex-pects that the perturbation will be at least O(1) on scales corresponding tothe radius of curvature of the universe That is one expects the coefficientsan sim 1 Moreover given enough inflation to solve the flatness problem (andproduce a universe consistent with current constraints on curvature) the ob-

                              servable universe today corresponds to a region of size |x|Hi simradic

                              Ωk(t0) 1at the beginning of inflation Therefore we are interested in the perturbation(10) in the limit Hx 1 and so the first term will dominate the observablesignatures (unless for some reason a0 an for some n gt 0) Notice thata0 6= 0 is a spatial discontinuity in δφ

                              To determine the effects of this initial inflaton perturbation on the CMBand other cosmological observables one can employ the standard machineryof inflationary perturbation theory The first step is to determine the evolu-tion of the perturbation during inflation During slow-roll inflation at lowestorder in the slow-roll parameters inflaton perturbations satisfy the equationof a free massless scalar in de Sitter space (see eg [42]) One can solve thatequation in full generality the solution is [24]

                              δφ = g(τ + x)minus τgprime(τ + x) + f(τ minus x)minus τf prime(τ minus x) (12)

                              where g f are arbitrary functions of one variable and gprime f prime their derivativesThis solution may be familiar from the more standard treatment of in-

                              flationary fluctuations in momentum space the terms proportional to τ arethe usual decaying modes in the expression δφk sim kminus32 (1plusmn ikτ) Evidentlythe τ -dependent terms arise due to the effects of inflation since this solutionis otherwise identical to that of a massless scalar field in 1+1-dimensionalMinkowski space

                              Given the initial conditions in (10) one can use (12) to determine thesolution for all future times during slow-roll inflation The result can bewritten in closed form [41] but is not particularly illuminating Ratherthan reproduce it here it is easier to instead expand the functions f andg of (12) (which contain the same information as and are determined byδφ and ˙δφ) Since g is purely left-moving and f is purely right-moving forτ gt τi the perturbation near the edge of the lightcone Hi(xminus xc(τ)) 1 isdetermined only by g Therefore the effects on the CMB are determined by

                              17

                              the coefficients in the expansion of g

                              g(x+ τ) =

                              ( infinsumn=1

                              cn(x+ τ)n)

                              Θ(x+ τ) (13)

                              Note that the sum begins with the linear term n = 1 This is because ann = 0 term in this expansion would lead to a δ-function singularity in δφwhich could not be expanded as in (10) and in any case would invalidateperturbation theory Put another way a non-zero c1 corresponds to a per-turbation δφ with a non-zero a0 in (10)

                              By the end of inflation τ = τe is exponentially small and one can dropthe terms proportional to τ in (12) leaving simply

                              δφ(x τe) asymp g(x) =

                              ( infinsumn=1

                              cn(x)n)

                              Θ(x) (14)

                              Note the leading term is now a discontinuity in the first derivative not adiscontinuity in the perturbation itself Inflation smooths sub-horizon pri-mordial gradients by effectively integrating them once

                              42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe

                              To precisely determine the effect of this perturbation on cosmological observ-ables at later times requires numerically integrating the coupled equationsthat control the perturbations in the various components of the energy den-sity in the early universe There is a standard set of software tools availablefor this purpose [43 44] The results of such a numerical analysis for a bub-ble collision can be found in [45] and analytically (and approximately) in[24 30]

                              One can understand the qualitative results with a simple analytic ap-proximation A primary component of the collision signal is its effect on theCMB temperature The most important contribution to CMB temperaturefluctuations comes from the Sachs-Wolfe effect [46 47] To first approxima-tion all CMB photons last scattered at redshift zdc sim 1100 when electronsrecombined with protons and photons decoupled from the plasma and thenpropagated freely (without scattering again) until now Their temperatureis determined by the intrinsic temperature T (tdc x y z) at the point in thelast scattering volume at the time tdc corresponding to z = zdc Given that aphoton free-streamed it originated at some point satisfying x2+y2+z2 = D2

                              dc

                              18

                              on a sphere of radius Ddc the radius of the current earthrsquos past lightconeat t = tdc The radius Ddc asymp 14Gpc can be determined from the expansionhistory a(t) by integrating back along a null geodesic in the FRW metric

                              Because a locally higher temperature at last scattering corresponds to alocally higher density there is a corresponding negative gravitational poten-tial energy fluctation at that location In the Sachs-Wolfe approximation thecurrent temperature of a photon originating from such a point is a combi-nation of the intrinsic temperature of the plasma it last scattered from andthe local gravitational potential at that point as well as an overall redshift(1 + zdc)

                              minus1 (and some additional contributions from time variations of thepotential along the way the ldquointegrated Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo) A simple cal-culation shows that the negative potential energy contribution is larger thanthe increased intrinsic temperature perturbation Φ(tdc) sim minus(32)δTT (tdc[47] Therefore locally hot spots at last scattering make cold spots on theCMB

                              43 CMB temperature

                              Given a perturbation to the Newtonian potential at reheating Φ = λxΘ(x)one can easily estimate the effect on the CMB temperature today Theessential points are the following

                              bull Perturbations that are linear in the spatial coordinates (such as Φ =λx) remain so regardless of the cosmological evolution (to first order inperturbation theory) because the equations that govern the evolutionof cosmological perturbations are all second-order in spatial derivatives

                              bull The evolution equations are causalmdashthe effects of an initial perturba-tions are confined to within its light- or sound-cone

                              bull By the time of last scattering the radius of the sound-cone rsh of a per-turbation present at reheating corresponds to approximately 6 degreeson the CMB sky (rshDdc asymp 01)

                              Given this one can easily determine the temperature perturbation in theCMB The ldquokinkrdquo at x = 0 will evolve but its effects must be confinedwithin a slab of thickness 2rsh Outside that slab the perturbationmdashwhichwas initially either zero or linear in xmdashcannot evolve in shape although

                              19

                              Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

                              20

                              its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

                              Φ(tdc x y z) =

                              0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

                              (15)

                              where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

                              To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

                              θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

                              Ddc

                              ) (16)

                              The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

                              (minusxe+rsh

                              Ddc

                              )lt θ lt cosminus1

                              (minusxeminusrsh

                              Ddc

                              )near the rim of the disk where

                              it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

                              Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

                              Ddc

                              ) the CMB

                              temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

                              44 CMB polarization

                              The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

                              21

                              E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

                              However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

                              Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

                              To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

                              Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

                              22

                              numerically

                              45 Other cosmological observables

                              A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

                              5 Probabilities and measures

                              The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

                              To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

                              At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

                              23

                              expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

                              〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

                              where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

                              To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

                              51 Observable collisions

                              We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

                              i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

                              lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

                              The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

                              intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

                              during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

                              During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

                              24

                              Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

                              i Puttingthis together gives

                              〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

                              2i (18)

                              We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

                              Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

                              taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

                              Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

                              In the end the result is [25]

                              〈N〉 simradic

                              ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

                              radicΩk (HfHi)

                              2 (19)

                              The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

                              2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

                              2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

                              must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

                              radicΩk lt 1

                              Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

                              52 Spot sizes

                              Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

                              25

                              This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

                              However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

                              The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

                              radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

                              the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

                              Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

                              One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

                              53 Spot brightness

                              Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

                              26

                              potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                              timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                              6 Conclusions

                              Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                              Acknowledgements

                              I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                              References

                              [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                              [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                              [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                              27

                              [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                              [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                              [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                              [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                              [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                              [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                              [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                              [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                              [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                              28

                              [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                              [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                              [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                              [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                              [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                              [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                              [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                              [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                              [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                              [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                              [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                              [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                              29

                              [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                              [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                              [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                              [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                              [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                              [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                              [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                              [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                              [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                              [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                              [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                              [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                              [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                              30

                              [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                              [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                              [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                              [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                              [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                              [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                              [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                              [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                              [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                              [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                              [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                              [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                              [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                              31

                              [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                              [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                              [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                              [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                              [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                              [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                              [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                              [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                              [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                              [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                              32

                              • 1 Introduction
                                • 11 Overview
                                • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                                • 13 Decay
                                • 14 Motivation
                                  • 2 Earlier work
                                    • 21 Open inflaton
                                    • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                    • 23 Bubblology
                                    • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                      • 3 Collisions
                                        • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                        • 32 A new solution
                                          • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                            • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                            • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                            • 43 CMB temperature
                                            • 44 CMB polarization
                                            • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                              • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                                • 51 Observable collisions
                                                • 52 Spot sizes
                                                • 53 Spot brightness
                                                  • 6 Conclusions

                                ing metric2

                                ds2 = (1minusm(w)t+H2t2)dw2 minus 2dwdt+ t2dH22 (8)

                                If m(w) = m is constant (8) is equivalent to (6) by a coordinate transfor-mation In general it is easy to check that it represents a spacetime withSO(2 1) isometries that contains both vacuum energy (with energy densitydetermined by H as above) and radiation (with energy flux proportional tomprime(w))mdashbut with all the radiation moving coherently in the same directionAs such it may be a fairly good approximation to the spacetime inside abubble after a collision at least during the curvature domination and slow-roll inflation phases To my knowledge this is the first time this solution hasappeared in print

                                4 Cosmological effects of collisions

                                To determine the effects of the collision on cosmological observables I willmake the following assumptions

                                -1 We are inside a bubble that has been or will be struck by at least oneother bubble

                                0 The collision preserves SO(2 1) that is one can choose coordinateslike (6) or (8) in which it occurs at one instant everywhere along ahyperboloid

                                1 The effects of the collision are confined entirely to the interior of thefuture ldquolightconerdquo of the collision event that is inside a region x gtxc(t) where xc(t) is a null geodesic in the (x t) plane transverse to thecollision hyperboloid

                                2 There was sufficient inflation to make the spatial curvature of the uni-verse and of the hyperbolic collision ldquolightconerdquo negligible

                                3 The effects on the observable part of our universe are small enough tobe treated using linear perturbation theory

                                4 The collision affects the inflaton by creating an O(1) perturbation init near the beginning of inflation

                                2I thank T Levi and S Chang for discussions on this metric

                                15

                                5 The inflaton perturbation is generic apart from constraints imposedby the symmetries and assumption 1

                                Using these assumptions the effects on the cosmic microwave background(CMB) temperature were first worked out in [24] and on CMB polarizationin [30]

                                41 Inflaton perturbation

                                Given these assumptions one can simply expand the inflaton perturbationin a power series at a time near the beginning of inflation at which time ththe metric (6) will be a good description of the spacetime Dropping the H2

                                factor (on which the perturbation is constant) for clarity

                                ds2 = minusdt2g(t)+g(t)dx2 asymp minusdt2(Hit)2+(Hit)

                                2dx2 = (Hiτ)minus2(minusdτ 2 + dx2

                                )

                                (9)The approximation is valid after the beginning of inflation Hit gt 1 and thecoordinate τ = minus1(H2t) is the conformal time The reader should recallthat τ increases towards zero during inflation and is exponentially small byits end

                                The constraint from assumption 1 means that the collision perturbationis non-zero only inside the affected region [24 41]

                                δφ(x τi) = M

                                ( infinsumn=0

                                anHni (x+ τi)

                                n

                                )Θ(x+ τi) (10)

                                ˙δφ(x τi) = M

                                ( infinsumn=0

                                bnHn+1i (x+ τi)

                                n

                                )Θ(x+ τi) (11)

                                Here δφ is the perturbation in the inflaton field an and bn are dimensionlesscoefficients τi is a time near the start of inflation where the slow-roll approx-imation is valid M is a mass scale associated with the range over which thefield varies and the coordinates are chosen for convenience so that the edgeof the region affected by the collision is located at x = minusτi at that time Notethat this expansion is completely generalmdashit does not assume that the fieldthat tunneled is the inflaton and depends only on the assumptions outlinedjust above It does however ignore the effects of the collision on fields otherthan the inflaton at least in single-field models one expects that primordialperturbations of the inflaton field will have the largest imprint on cosmologytoday

                                16

                                Without a model for the inflaton and the field(s) that participated in thetunneling we cannot compute the coefficients an and bn Generically one ex-pects that the perturbation will be at least O(1) on scales corresponding tothe radius of curvature of the universe That is one expects the coefficientsan sim 1 Moreover given enough inflation to solve the flatness problem (andproduce a universe consistent with current constraints on curvature) the ob-

                                servable universe today corresponds to a region of size |x|Hi simradic

                                Ωk(t0) 1at the beginning of inflation Therefore we are interested in the perturbation(10) in the limit Hx 1 and so the first term will dominate the observablesignatures (unless for some reason a0 an for some n gt 0) Notice thata0 6= 0 is a spatial discontinuity in δφ

                                To determine the effects of this initial inflaton perturbation on the CMBand other cosmological observables one can employ the standard machineryof inflationary perturbation theory The first step is to determine the evolu-tion of the perturbation during inflation During slow-roll inflation at lowestorder in the slow-roll parameters inflaton perturbations satisfy the equationof a free massless scalar in de Sitter space (see eg [42]) One can solve thatequation in full generality the solution is [24]

                                δφ = g(τ + x)minus τgprime(τ + x) + f(τ minus x)minus τf prime(τ minus x) (12)

                                where g f are arbitrary functions of one variable and gprime f prime their derivativesThis solution may be familiar from the more standard treatment of in-

                                flationary fluctuations in momentum space the terms proportional to τ arethe usual decaying modes in the expression δφk sim kminus32 (1plusmn ikτ) Evidentlythe τ -dependent terms arise due to the effects of inflation since this solutionis otherwise identical to that of a massless scalar field in 1+1-dimensionalMinkowski space

                                Given the initial conditions in (10) one can use (12) to determine thesolution for all future times during slow-roll inflation The result can bewritten in closed form [41] but is not particularly illuminating Ratherthan reproduce it here it is easier to instead expand the functions f andg of (12) (which contain the same information as and are determined byδφ and ˙δφ) Since g is purely left-moving and f is purely right-moving forτ gt τi the perturbation near the edge of the lightcone Hi(xminus xc(τ)) 1 isdetermined only by g Therefore the effects on the CMB are determined by

                                17

                                the coefficients in the expansion of g

                                g(x+ τ) =

                                ( infinsumn=1

                                cn(x+ τ)n)

                                Θ(x+ τ) (13)

                                Note that the sum begins with the linear term n = 1 This is because ann = 0 term in this expansion would lead to a δ-function singularity in δφwhich could not be expanded as in (10) and in any case would invalidateperturbation theory Put another way a non-zero c1 corresponds to a per-turbation δφ with a non-zero a0 in (10)

                                By the end of inflation τ = τe is exponentially small and one can dropthe terms proportional to τ in (12) leaving simply

                                δφ(x τe) asymp g(x) =

                                ( infinsumn=1

                                cn(x)n)

                                Θ(x) (14)

                                Note the leading term is now a discontinuity in the first derivative not adiscontinuity in the perturbation itself Inflation smooths sub-horizon pri-mordial gradients by effectively integrating them once

                                42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe

                                To precisely determine the effect of this perturbation on cosmological observ-ables at later times requires numerically integrating the coupled equationsthat control the perturbations in the various components of the energy den-sity in the early universe There is a standard set of software tools availablefor this purpose [43 44] The results of such a numerical analysis for a bub-ble collision can be found in [45] and analytically (and approximately) in[24 30]

                                One can understand the qualitative results with a simple analytic ap-proximation A primary component of the collision signal is its effect on theCMB temperature The most important contribution to CMB temperaturefluctuations comes from the Sachs-Wolfe effect [46 47] To first approxima-tion all CMB photons last scattered at redshift zdc sim 1100 when electronsrecombined with protons and photons decoupled from the plasma and thenpropagated freely (without scattering again) until now Their temperatureis determined by the intrinsic temperature T (tdc x y z) at the point in thelast scattering volume at the time tdc corresponding to z = zdc Given that aphoton free-streamed it originated at some point satisfying x2+y2+z2 = D2

                                dc

                                18

                                on a sphere of radius Ddc the radius of the current earthrsquos past lightconeat t = tdc The radius Ddc asymp 14Gpc can be determined from the expansionhistory a(t) by integrating back along a null geodesic in the FRW metric

                                Because a locally higher temperature at last scattering corresponds to alocally higher density there is a corresponding negative gravitational poten-tial energy fluctation at that location In the Sachs-Wolfe approximation thecurrent temperature of a photon originating from such a point is a combi-nation of the intrinsic temperature of the plasma it last scattered from andthe local gravitational potential at that point as well as an overall redshift(1 + zdc)

                                minus1 (and some additional contributions from time variations of thepotential along the way the ldquointegrated Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo) A simple cal-culation shows that the negative potential energy contribution is larger thanthe increased intrinsic temperature perturbation Φ(tdc) sim minus(32)δTT (tdc[47] Therefore locally hot spots at last scattering make cold spots on theCMB

                                43 CMB temperature

                                Given a perturbation to the Newtonian potential at reheating Φ = λxΘ(x)one can easily estimate the effect on the CMB temperature today Theessential points are the following

                                bull Perturbations that are linear in the spatial coordinates (such as Φ =λx) remain so regardless of the cosmological evolution (to first order inperturbation theory) because the equations that govern the evolutionof cosmological perturbations are all second-order in spatial derivatives

                                bull The evolution equations are causalmdashthe effects of an initial perturba-tions are confined to within its light- or sound-cone

                                bull By the time of last scattering the radius of the sound-cone rsh of a per-turbation present at reheating corresponds to approximately 6 degreeson the CMB sky (rshDdc asymp 01)

                                Given this one can easily determine the temperature perturbation in theCMB The ldquokinkrdquo at x = 0 will evolve but its effects must be confinedwithin a slab of thickness 2rsh Outside that slab the perturbationmdashwhichwas initially either zero or linear in xmdashcannot evolve in shape although

                                19

                                Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

                                20

                                its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

                                Φ(tdc x y z) =

                                0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

                                (15)

                                where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

                                To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

                                θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

                                Ddc

                                ) (16)

                                The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

                                (minusxe+rsh

                                Ddc

                                )lt θ lt cosminus1

                                (minusxeminusrsh

                                Ddc

                                )near the rim of the disk where

                                it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

                                Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

                                Ddc

                                ) the CMB

                                temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

                                44 CMB polarization

                                The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

                                21

                                E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

                                However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

                                Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

                                To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

                                Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

                                22

                                numerically

                                45 Other cosmological observables

                                A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

                                5 Probabilities and measures

                                The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

                                To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

                                At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

                                23

                                expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

                                〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

                                where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

                                To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

                                51 Observable collisions

                                We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

                                i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

                                lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

                                The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

                                intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

                                during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

                                During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

                                24

                                Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

                                i Puttingthis together gives

                                〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

                                2i (18)

                                We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

                                Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

                                taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

                                Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

                                In the end the result is [25]

                                〈N〉 simradic

                                ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

                                radicΩk (HfHi)

                                2 (19)

                                The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

                                2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

                                2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

                                must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

                                radicΩk lt 1

                                Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

                                52 Spot sizes

                                Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

                                25

                                This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

                                However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

                                The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

                                radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

                                the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

                                Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

                                One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

                                53 Spot brightness

                                Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

                                26

                                potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                                timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                                6 Conclusions

                                Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                                Acknowledgements

                                I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                                References

                                [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                                [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                                [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                                27

                                [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                                [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                                [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                                [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                                [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                                [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                                [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                                [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                                [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                                28

                                [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                                [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                                [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                                [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                                [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                                [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                                [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                                [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                                [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                                [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                                [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                                [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                                29

                                [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                                [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                                [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                                [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                                [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                                [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                                [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                                [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                                [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                                [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                                [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                                [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                                [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                                30

                                [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                                [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                                [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                                [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                                [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                                [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                                [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                                [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                                [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                                [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                                [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                                31

                                [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                                [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                                [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                                [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                                [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                                [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                                [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                                [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                                [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                                [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                                32

                                • 1 Introduction
                                  • 11 Overview
                                  • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                                  • 13 Decay
                                  • 14 Motivation
                                    • 2 Earlier work
                                      • 21 Open inflaton
                                      • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                      • 23 Bubblology
                                      • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                        • 3 Collisions
                                          • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                          • 32 A new solution
                                            • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                              • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                              • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                              • 43 CMB temperature
                                              • 44 CMB polarization
                                              • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                                • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                                  • 51 Observable collisions
                                                  • 52 Spot sizes
                                                  • 53 Spot brightness
                                                    • 6 Conclusions

                                  5 The inflaton perturbation is generic apart from constraints imposedby the symmetries and assumption 1

                                  Using these assumptions the effects on the cosmic microwave background(CMB) temperature were first worked out in [24] and on CMB polarizationin [30]

                                  41 Inflaton perturbation

                                  Given these assumptions one can simply expand the inflaton perturbationin a power series at a time near the beginning of inflation at which time ththe metric (6) will be a good description of the spacetime Dropping the H2

                                  factor (on which the perturbation is constant) for clarity

                                  ds2 = minusdt2g(t)+g(t)dx2 asymp minusdt2(Hit)2+(Hit)

                                  2dx2 = (Hiτ)minus2(minusdτ 2 + dx2

                                  )

                                  (9)The approximation is valid after the beginning of inflation Hit gt 1 and thecoordinate τ = minus1(H2t) is the conformal time The reader should recallthat τ increases towards zero during inflation and is exponentially small byits end

                                  The constraint from assumption 1 means that the collision perturbationis non-zero only inside the affected region [24 41]

                                  δφ(x τi) = M

                                  ( infinsumn=0

                                  anHni (x+ τi)

                                  n

                                  )Θ(x+ τi) (10)

                                  ˙δφ(x τi) = M

                                  ( infinsumn=0

                                  bnHn+1i (x+ τi)

                                  n

                                  )Θ(x+ τi) (11)

                                  Here δφ is the perturbation in the inflaton field an and bn are dimensionlesscoefficients τi is a time near the start of inflation where the slow-roll approx-imation is valid M is a mass scale associated with the range over which thefield varies and the coordinates are chosen for convenience so that the edgeof the region affected by the collision is located at x = minusτi at that time Notethat this expansion is completely generalmdashit does not assume that the fieldthat tunneled is the inflaton and depends only on the assumptions outlinedjust above It does however ignore the effects of the collision on fields otherthan the inflaton at least in single-field models one expects that primordialperturbations of the inflaton field will have the largest imprint on cosmologytoday

                                  16

                                  Without a model for the inflaton and the field(s) that participated in thetunneling we cannot compute the coefficients an and bn Generically one ex-pects that the perturbation will be at least O(1) on scales corresponding tothe radius of curvature of the universe That is one expects the coefficientsan sim 1 Moreover given enough inflation to solve the flatness problem (andproduce a universe consistent with current constraints on curvature) the ob-

                                  servable universe today corresponds to a region of size |x|Hi simradic

                                  Ωk(t0) 1at the beginning of inflation Therefore we are interested in the perturbation(10) in the limit Hx 1 and so the first term will dominate the observablesignatures (unless for some reason a0 an for some n gt 0) Notice thata0 6= 0 is a spatial discontinuity in δφ

                                  To determine the effects of this initial inflaton perturbation on the CMBand other cosmological observables one can employ the standard machineryof inflationary perturbation theory The first step is to determine the evolu-tion of the perturbation during inflation During slow-roll inflation at lowestorder in the slow-roll parameters inflaton perturbations satisfy the equationof a free massless scalar in de Sitter space (see eg [42]) One can solve thatequation in full generality the solution is [24]

                                  δφ = g(τ + x)minus τgprime(τ + x) + f(τ minus x)minus τf prime(τ minus x) (12)

                                  where g f are arbitrary functions of one variable and gprime f prime their derivativesThis solution may be familiar from the more standard treatment of in-

                                  flationary fluctuations in momentum space the terms proportional to τ arethe usual decaying modes in the expression δφk sim kminus32 (1plusmn ikτ) Evidentlythe τ -dependent terms arise due to the effects of inflation since this solutionis otherwise identical to that of a massless scalar field in 1+1-dimensionalMinkowski space

                                  Given the initial conditions in (10) one can use (12) to determine thesolution for all future times during slow-roll inflation The result can bewritten in closed form [41] but is not particularly illuminating Ratherthan reproduce it here it is easier to instead expand the functions f andg of (12) (which contain the same information as and are determined byδφ and ˙δφ) Since g is purely left-moving and f is purely right-moving forτ gt τi the perturbation near the edge of the lightcone Hi(xminus xc(τ)) 1 isdetermined only by g Therefore the effects on the CMB are determined by

                                  17

                                  the coefficients in the expansion of g

                                  g(x+ τ) =

                                  ( infinsumn=1

                                  cn(x+ τ)n)

                                  Θ(x+ τ) (13)

                                  Note that the sum begins with the linear term n = 1 This is because ann = 0 term in this expansion would lead to a δ-function singularity in δφwhich could not be expanded as in (10) and in any case would invalidateperturbation theory Put another way a non-zero c1 corresponds to a per-turbation δφ with a non-zero a0 in (10)

                                  By the end of inflation τ = τe is exponentially small and one can dropthe terms proportional to τ in (12) leaving simply

                                  δφ(x τe) asymp g(x) =

                                  ( infinsumn=1

                                  cn(x)n)

                                  Θ(x) (14)

                                  Note the leading term is now a discontinuity in the first derivative not adiscontinuity in the perturbation itself Inflation smooths sub-horizon pri-mordial gradients by effectively integrating them once

                                  42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe

                                  To precisely determine the effect of this perturbation on cosmological observ-ables at later times requires numerically integrating the coupled equationsthat control the perturbations in the various components of the energy den-sity in the early universe There is a standard set of software tools availablefor this purpose [43 44] The results of such a numerical analysis for a bub-ble collision can be found in [45] and analytically (and approximately) in[24 30]

                                  One can understand the qualitative results with a simple analytic ap-proximation A primary component of the collision signal is its effect on theCMB temperature The most important contribution to CMB temperaturefluctuations comes from the Sachs-Wolfe effect [46 47] To first approxima-tion all CMB photons last scattered at redshift zdc sim 1100 when electronsrecombined with protons and photons decoupled from the plasma and thenpropagated freely (without scattering again) until now Their temperatureis determined by the intrinsic temperature T (tdc x y z) at the point in thelast scattering volume at the time tdc corresponding to z = zdc Given that aphoton free-streamed it originated at some point satisfying x2+y2+z2 = D2

                                  dc

                                  18

                                  on a sphere of radius Ddc the radius of the current earthrsquos past lightconeat t = tdc The radius Ddc asymp 14Gpc can be determined from the expansionhistory a(t) by integrating back along a null geodesic in the FRW metric

                                  Because a locally higher temperature at last scattering corresponds to alocally higher density there is a corresponding negative gravitational poten-tial energy fluctation at that location In the Sachs-Wolfe approximation thecurrent temperature of a photon originating from such a point is a combi-nation of the intrinsic temperature of the plasma it last scattered from andthe local gravitational potential at that point as well as an overall redshift(1 + zdc)

                                  minus1 (and some additional contributions from time variations of thepotential along the way the ldquointegrated Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo) A simple cal-culation shows that the negative potential energy contribution is larger thanthe increased intrinsic temperature perturbation Φ(tdc) sim minus(32)δTT (tdc[47] Therefore locally hot spots at last scattering make cold spots on theCMB

                                  43 CMB temperature

                                  Given a perturbation to the Newtonian potential at reheating Φ = λxΘ(x)one can easily estimate the effect on the CMB temperature today Theessential points are the following

                                  bull Perturbations that are linear in the spatial coordinates (such as Φ =λx) remain so regardless of the cosmological evolution (to first order inperturbation theory) because the equations that govern the evolutionof cosmological perturbations are all second-order in spatial derivatives

                                  bull The evolution equations are causalmdashthe effects of an initial perturba-tions are confined to within its light- or sound-cone

                                  bull By the time of last scattering the radius of the sound-cone rsh of a per-turbation present at reheating corresponds to approximately 6 degreeson the CMB sky (rshDdc asymp 01)

                                  Given this one can easily determine the temperature perturbation in theCMB The ldquokinkrdquo at x = 0 will evolve but its effects must be confinedwithin a slab of thickness 2rsh Outside that slab the perturbationmdashwhichwas initially either zero or linear in xmdashcannot evolve in shape although

                                  19

                                  Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

                                  20

                                  its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

                                  Φ(tdc x y z) =

                                  0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

                                  (15)

                                  where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

                                  To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

                                  θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

                                  Ddc

                                  ) (16)

                                  The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

                                  (minusxe+rsh

                                  Ddc

                                  )lt θ lt cosminus1

                                  (minusxeminusrsh

                                  Ddc

                                  )near the rim of the disk where

                                  it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

                                  Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

                                  Ddc

                                  ) the CMB

                                  temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

                                  44 CMB polarization

                                  The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

                                  21

                                  E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

                                  However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

                                  Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

                                  To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

                                  Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

                                  22

                                  numerically

                                  45 Other cosmological observables

                                  A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

                                  5 Probabilities and measures

                                  The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

                                  To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

                                  At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

                                  23

                                  expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

                                  〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

                                  where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

                                  To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

                                  51 Observable collisions

                                  We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

                                  i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

                                  lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

                                  The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

                                  intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

                                  during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

                                  During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

                                  24

                                  Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

                                  i Puttingthis together gives

                                  〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

                                  2i (18)

                                  We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

                                  Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

                                  taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

                                  Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

                                  In the end the result is [25]

                                  〈N〉 simradic

                                  ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

                                  radicΩk (HfHi)

                                  2 (19)

                                  The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

                                  2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

                                  2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

                                  must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

                                  radicΩk lt 1

                                  Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

                                  52 Spot sizes

                                  Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

                                  25

                                  This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

                                  However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

                                  The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

                                  radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

                                  the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

                                  Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

                                  One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

                                  53 Spot brightness

                                  Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

                                  26

                                  potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                                  timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                                  6 Conclusions

                                  Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                                  Acknowledgements

                                  I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                                  References

                                  [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                                  [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                                  [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                                  27

                                  [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                                  [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                                  [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                                  [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                                  [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                                  [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                                  [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                                  [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                                  [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                                  28

                                  [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                                  [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                                  [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                                  [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                                  [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                                  [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                                  [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                                  [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                                  [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                                  [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                                  [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                                  [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                                  29

                                  [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                                  [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                                  [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                                  [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                                  [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                                  [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                                  [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                                  [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                                  [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                                  [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                                  [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                                  [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                                  [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                                  30

                                  [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                                  [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                                  [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                                  [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                  [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                                  [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                                  [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                                  [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                  [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                                  [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                                  [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                                  [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                                  [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                                  31

                                  [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                                  [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                                  [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                                  [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                                  [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                                  [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                                  [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                                  [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                                  [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                                  [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                                  32

                                  • 1 Introduction
                                    • 11 Overview
                                    • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                                    • 13 Decay
                                    • 14 Motivation
                                      • 2 Earlier work
                                        • 21 Open inflaton
                                        • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                        • 23 Bubblology
                                        • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                          • 3 Collisions
                                            • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                            • 32 A new solution
                                              • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                                • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                                • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                                • 43 CMB temperature
                                                • 44 CMB polarization
                                                • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                                  • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                                    • 51 Observable collisions
                                                    • 52 Spot sizes
                                                    • 53 Spot brightness
                                                      • 6 Conclusions

                                    Without a model for the inflaton and the field(s) that participated in thetunneling we cannot compute the coefficients an and bn Generically one ex-pects that the perturbation will be at least O(1) on scales corresponding tothe radius of curvature of the universe That is one expects the coefficientsan sim 1 Moreover given enough inflation to solve the flatness problem (andproduce a universe consistent with current constraints on curvature) the ob-

                                    servable universe today corresponds to a region of size |x|Hi simradic

                                    Ωk(t0) 1at the beginning of inflation Therefore we are interested in the perturbation(10) in the limit Hx 1 and so the first term will dominate the observablesignatures (unless for some reason a0 an for some n gt 0) Notice thata0 6= 0 is a spatial discontinuity in δφ

                                    To determine the effects of this initial inflaton perturbation on the CMBand other cosmological observables one can employ the standard machineryof inflationary perturbation theory The first step is to determine the evolu-tion of the perturbation during inflation During slow-roll inflation at lowestorder in the slow-roll parameters inflaton perturbations satisfy the equationof a free massless scalar in de Sitter space (see eg [42]) One can solve thatequation in full generality the solution is [24]

                                    δφ = g(τ + x)minus τgprime(τ + x) + f(τ minus x)minus τf prime(τ minus x) (12)

                                    where g f are arbitrary functions of one variable and gprime f prime their derivativesThis solution may be familiar from the more standard treatment of in-

                                    flationary fluctuations in momentum space the terms proportional to τ arethe usual decaying modes in the expression δφk sim kminus32 (1plusmn ikτ) Evidentlythe τ -dependent terms arise due to the effects of inflation since this solutionis otherwise identical to that of a massless scalar field in 1+1-dimensionalMinkowski space

                                    Given the initial conditions in (10) one can use (12) to determine thesolution for all future times during slow-roll inflation The result can bewritten in closed form [41] but is not particularly illuminating Ratherthan reproduce it here it is easier to instead expand the functions f andg of (12) (which contain the same information as and are determined byδφ and ˙δφ) Since g is purely left-moving and f is purely right-moving forτ gt τi the perturbation near the edge of the lightcone Hi(xminus xc(τ)) 1 isdetermined only by g Therefore the effects on the CMB are determined by

                                    17

                                    the coefficients in the expansion of g

                                    g(x+ τ) =

                                    ( infinsumn=1

                                    cn(x+ τ)n)

                                    Θ(x+ τ) (13)

                                    Note that the sum begins with the linear term n = 1 This is because ann = 0 term in this expansion would lead to a δ-function singularity in δφwhich could not be expanded as in (10) and in any case would invalidateperturbation theory Put another way a non-zero c1 corresponds to a per-turbation δφ with a non-zero a0 in (10)

                                    By the end of inflation τ = τe is exponentially small and one can dropthe terms proportional to τ in (12) leaving simply

                                    δφ(x τe) asymp g(x) =

                                    ( infinsumn=1

                                    cn(x)n)

                                    Θ(x) (14)

                                    Note the leading term is now a discontinuity in the first derivative not adiscontinuity in the perturbation itself Inflation smooths sub-horizon pri-mordial gradients by effectively integrating them once

                                    42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe

                                    To precisely determine the effect of this perturbation on cosmological observ-ables at later times requires numerically integrating the coupled equationsthat control the perturbations in the various components of the energy den-sity in the early universe There is a standard set of software tools availablefor this purpose [43 44] The results of such a numerical analysis for a bub-ble collision can be found in [45] and analytically (and approximately) in[24 30]

                                    One can understand the qualitative results with a simple analytic ap-proximation A primary component of the collision signal is its effect on theCMB temperature The most important contribution to CMB temperaturefluctuations comes from the Sachs-Wolfe effect [46 47] To first approxima-tion all CMB photons last scattered at redshift zdc sim 1100 when electronsrecombined with protons and photons decoupled from the plasma and thenpropagated freely (without scattering again) until now Their temperatureis determined by the intrinsic temperature T (tdc x y z) at the point in thelast scattering volume at the time tdc corresponding to z = zdc Given that aphoton free-streamed it originated at some point satisfying x2+y2+z2 = D2

                                    dc

                                    18

                                    on a sphere of radius Ddc the radius of the current earthrsquos past lightconeat t = tdc The radius Ddc asymp 14Gpc can be determined from the expansionhistory a(t) by integrating back along a null geodesic in the FRW metric

                                    Because a locally higher temperature at last scattering corresponds to alocally higher density there is a corresponding negative gravitational poten-tial energy fluctation at that location In the Sachs-Wolfe approximation thecurrent temperature of a photon originating from such a point is a combi-nation of the intrinsic temperature of the plasma it last scattered from andthe local gravitational potential at that point as well as an overall redshift(1 + zdc)

                                    minus1 (and some additional contributions from time variations of thepotential along the way the ldquointegrated Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo) A simple cal-culation shows that the negative potential energy contribution is larger thanthe increased intrinsic temperature perturbation Φ(tdc) sim minus(32)δTT (tdc[47] Therefore locally hot spots at last scattering make cold spots on theCMB

                                    43 CMB temperature

                                    Given a perturbation to the Newtonian potential at reheating Φ = λxΘ(x)one can easily estimate the effect on the CMB temperature today Theessential points are the following

                                    bull Perturbations that are linear in the spatial coordinates (such as Φ =λx) remain so regardless of the cosmological evolution (to first order inperturbation theory) because the equations that govern the evolutionof cosmological perturbations are all second-order in spatial derivatives

                                    bull The evolution equations are causalmdashthe effects of an initial perturba-tions are confined to within its light- or sound-cone

                                    bull By the time of last scattering the radius of the sound-cone rsh of a per-turbation present at reheating corresponds to approximately 6 degreeson the CMB sky (rshDdc asymp 01)

                                    Given this one can easily determine the temperature perturbation in theCMB The ldquokinkrdquo at x = 0 will evolve but its effects must be confinedwithin a slab of thickness 2rsh Outside that slab the perturbationmdashwhichwas initially either zero or linear in xmdashcannot evolve in shape although

                                    19

                                    Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

                                    20

                                    its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

                                    Φ(tdc x y z) =

                                    0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

                                    (15)

                                    where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

                                    To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

                                    θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

                                    Ddc

                                    ) (16)

                                    The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

                                    (minusxe+rsh

                                    Ddc

                                    )lt θ lt cosminus1

                                    (minusxeminusrsh

                                    Ddc

                                    )near the rim of the disk where

                                    it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

                                    Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

                                    Ddc

                                    ) the CMB

                                    temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

                                    44 CMB polarization

                                    The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

                                    21

                                    E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

                                    However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

                                    Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

                                    To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

                                    Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

                                    22

                                    numerically

                                    45 Other cosmological observables

                                    A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

                                    5 Probabilities and measures

                                    The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

                                    To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

                                    At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

                                    23

                                    expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

                                    〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

                                    where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

                                    To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

                                    51 Observable collisions

                                    We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

                                    i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

                                    lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

                                    The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

                                    intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

                                    during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

                                    During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

                                    24

                                    Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

                                    i Puttingthis together gives

                                    〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

                                    2i (18)

                                    We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

                                    Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

                                    taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

                                    Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

                                    In the end the result is [25]

                                    〈N〉 simradic

                                    ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

                                    radicΩk (HfHi)

                                    2 (19)

                                    The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

                                    2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

                                    2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

                                    must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

                                    radicΩk lt 1

                                    Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

                                    52 Spot sizes

                                    Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

                                    25

                                    This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

                                    However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

                                    The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

                                    radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

                                    the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

                                    Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

                                    One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

                                    53 Spot brightness

                                    Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

                                    26

                                    potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                                    timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                                    6 Conclusions

                                    Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                                    Acknowledgements

                                    I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                                    References

                                    [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                                    [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                                    [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                                    27

                                    [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                                    [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                                    [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                                    [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                                    [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                                    [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                                    [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                                    [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                                    [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                                    28

                                    [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                                    [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                                    [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                                    [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                                    [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                                    [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                                    [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                                    [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                                    [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                                    [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                                    [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                                    [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                                    29

                                    [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                                    [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                                    [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                                    [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                                    [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                                    [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                                    [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                                    [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                                    [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                                    [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                                    [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                                    [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                                    [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                                    30

                                    [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                                    [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                                    [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                                    [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                    [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                                    [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                                    [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                                    [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                    [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                                    [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                                    [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                                    [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                                    [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                                    31

                                    [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                                    [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                                    [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                                    [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                                    [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                                    [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                                    [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                                    [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                                    [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                                    [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                                    32

                                    • 1 Introduction
                                      • 11 Overview
                                      • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                                      • 13 Decay
                                      • 14 Motivation
                                        • 2 Earlier work
                                          • 21 Open inflaton
                                          • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                          • 23 Bubblology
                                          • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                            • 3 Collisions
                                              • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                              • 32 A new solution
                                                • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                                  • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                                  • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                                  • 43 CMB temperature
                                                  • 44 CMB polarization
                                                  • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                                    • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                                      • 51 Observable collisions
                                                      • 52 Spot sizes
                                                      • 53 Spot brightness
                                                        • 6 Conclusions

                                      the coefficients in the expansion of g

                                      g(x+ τ) =

                                      ( infinsumn=1

                                      cn(x+ τ)n)

                                      Θ(x+ τ) (13)

                                      Note that the sum begins with the linear term n = 1 This is because ann = 0 term in this expansion would lead to a δ-function singularity in δφwhich could not be expanded as in (10) and in any case would invalidateperturbation theory Put another way a non-zero c1 corresponds to a per-turbation δφ with a non-zero a0 in (10)

                                      By the end of inflation τ = τe is exponentially small and one can dropthe terms proportional to τ in (12) leaving simply

                                      δφ(x τe) asymp g(x) =

                                      ( infinsumn=1

                                      cn(x)n)

                                      Θ(x) (14)

                                      Note the leading term is now a discontinuity in the first derivative not adiscontinuity in the perturbation itself Inflation smooths sub-horizon pri-mordial gradients by effectively integrating them once

                                      42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe

                                      To precisely determine the effect of this perturbation on cosmological observ-ables at later times requires numerically integrating the coupled equationsthat control the perturbations in the various components of the energy den-sity in the early universe There is a standard set of software tools availablefor this purpose [43 44] The results of such a numerical analysis for a bub-ble collision can be found in [45] and analytically (and approximately) in[24 30]

                                      One can understand the qualitative results with a simple analytic ap-proximation A primary component of the collision signal is its effect on theCMB temperature The most important contribution to CMB temperaturefluctuations comes from the Sachs-Wolfe effect [46 47] To first approxima-tion all CMB photons last scattered at redshift zdc sim 1100 when electronsrecombined with protons and photons decoupled from the plasma and thenpropagated freely (without scattering again) until now Their temperatureis determined by the intrinsic temperature T (tdc x y z) at the point in thelast scattering volume at the time tdc corresponding to z = zdc Given that aphoton free-streamed it originated at some point satisfying x2+y2+z2 = D2

                                      dc

                                      18

                                      on a sphere of radius Ddc the radius of the current earthrsquos past lightconeat t = tdc The radius Ddc asymp 14Gpc can be determined from the expansionhistory a(t) by integrating back along a null geodesic in the FRW metric

                                      Because a locally higher temperature at last scattering corresponds to alocally higher density there is a corresponding negative gravitational poten-tial energy fluctation at that location In the Sachs-Wolfe approximation thecurrent temperature of a photon originating from such a point is a combi-nation of the intrinsic temperature of the plasma it last scattered from andthe local gravitational potential at that point as well as an overall redshift(1 + zdc)

                                      minus1 (and some additional contributions from time variations of thepotential along the way the ldquointegrated Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo) A simple cal-culation shows that the negative potential energy contribution is larger thanthe increased intrinsic temperature perturbation Φ(tdc) sim minus(32)δTT (tdc[47] Therefore locally hot spots at last scattering make cold spots on theCMB

                                      43 CMB temperature

                                      Given a perturbation to the Newtonian potential at reheating Φ = λxΘ(x)one can easily estimate the effect on the CMB temperature today Theessential points are the following

                                      bull Perturbations that are linear in the spatial coordinates (such as Φ =λx) remain so regardless of the cosmological evolution (to first order inperturbation theory) because the equations that govern the evolutionof cosmological perturbations are all second-order in spatial derivatives

                                      bull The evolution equations are causalmdashthe effects of an initial perturba-tions are confined to within its light- or sound-cone

                                      bull By the time of last scattering the radius of the sound-cone rsh of a per-turbation present at reheating corresponds to approximately 6 degreeson the CMB sky (rshDdc asymp 01)

                                      Given this one can easily determine the temperature perturbation in theCMB The ldquokinkrdquo at x = 0 will evolve but its effects must be confinedwithin a slab of thickness 2rsh Outside that slab the perturbationmdashwhichwas initially either zero or linear in xmdashcannot evolve in shape although

                                      19

                                      Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

                                      20

                                      its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

                                      Φ(tdc x y z) =

                                      0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

                                      (15)

                                      where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

                                      To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

                                      θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

                                      Ddc

                                      ) (16)

                                      The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

                                      (minusxe+rsh

                                      Ddc

                                      )lt θ lt cosminus1

                                      (minusxeminusrsh

                                      Ddc

                                      )near the rim of the disk where

                                      it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

                                      Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

                                      Ddc

                                      ) the CMB

                                      temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

                                      44 CMB polarization

                                      The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

                                      21

                                      E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

                                      However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

                                      Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

                                      To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

                                      Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

                                      22

                                      numerically

                                      45 Other cosmological observables

                                      A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

                                      5 Probabilities and measures

                                      The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

                                      To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

                                      At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

                                      23

                                      expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

                                      〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

                                      where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

                                      To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

                                      51 Observable collisions

                                      We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

                                      i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

                                      lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

                                      The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

                                      intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

                                      during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

                                      During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

                                      24

                                      Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

                                      i Puttingthis together gives

                                      〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

                                      2i (18)

                                      We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

                                      Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

                                      taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

                                      Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

                                      In the end the result is [25]

                                      〈N〉 simradic

                                      ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

                                      radicΩk (HfHi)

                                      2 (19)

                                      The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

                                      2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

                                      2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

                                      must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

                                      radicΩk lt 1

                                      Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

                                      52 Spot sizes

                                      Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

                                      25

                                      This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

                                      However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

                                      The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

                                      radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

                                      the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

                                      Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

                                      One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

                                      53 Spot brightness

                                      Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

                                      26

                                      potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                                      timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                                      6 Conclusions

                                      Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                                      Acknowledgements

                                      I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                                      References

                                      [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                                      [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                                      [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                                      27

                                      [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                                      [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                                      [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                                      [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                                      [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                                      [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                                      [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                                      [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                                      [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                                      28

                                      [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                                      [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                                      [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                                      [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                                      [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                                      [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                                      [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                                      [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                                      [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                                      [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                                      [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                                      [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                                      29

                                      [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                                      [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                                      [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                                      [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                                      [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                                      [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                                      [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                                      [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                                      [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                                      [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                                      [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                                      [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                                      [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                                      30

                                      [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                                      [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                                      [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                                      [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                      [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                                      [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                                      [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                                      [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                      [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                                      [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                                      [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                                      [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                                      [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                                      31

                                      [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                                      [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                                      [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                                      [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                                      [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                                      [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                                      [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                                      [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                                      [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                                      [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                                      32

                                      • 1 Introduction
                                        • 11 Overview
                                        • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                                        • 13 Decay
                                        • 14 Motivation
                                          • 2 Earlier work
                                            • 21 Open inflaton
                                            • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                            • 23 Bubblology
                                            • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                              • 3 Collisions
                                                • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                                • 32 A new solution
                                                  • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                                    • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                                    • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                                    • 43 CMB temperature
                                                    • 44 CMB polarization
                                                    • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                                      • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                                        • 51 Observable collisions
                                                        • 52 Spot sizes
                                                        • 53 Spot brightness
                                                          • 6 Conclusions

                                        on a sphere of radius Ddc the radius of the current earthrsquos past lightconeat t = tdc The radius Ddc asymp 14Gpc can be determined from the expansionhistory a(t) by integrating back along a null geodesic in the FRW metric

                                        Because a locally higher temperature at last scattering corresponds to alocally higher density there is a corresponding negative gravitational poten-tial energy fluctation at that location In the Sachs-Wolfe approximation thecurrent temperature of a photon originating from such a point is a combi-nation of the intrinsic temperature of the plasma it last scattered from andthe local gravitational potential at that point as well as an overall redshift(1 + zdc)

                                        minus1 (and some additional contributions from time variations of thepotential along the way the ldquointegrated Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo) A simple cal-culation shows that the negative potential energy contribution is larger thanthe increased intrinsic temperature perturbation Φ(tdc) sim minus(32)δTT (tdc[47] Therefore locally hot spots at last scattering make cold spots on theCMB

                                        43 CMB temperature

                                        Given a perturbation to the Newtonian potential at reheating Φ = λxΘ(x)one can easily estimate the effect on the CMB temperature today Theessential points are the following

                                        bull Perturbations that are linear in the spatial coordinates (such as Φ =λx) remain so regardless of the cosmological evolution (to first order inperturbation theory) because the equations that govern the evolutionof cosmological perturbations are all second-order in spatial derivatives

                                        bull The evolution equations are causalmdashthe effects of an initial perturba-tions are confined to within its light- or sound-cone

                                        bull By the time of last scattering the radius of the sound-cone rsh of a per-turbation present at reheating corresponds to approximately 6 degreeson the CMB sky (rshDdc asymp 01)

                                        Given this one can easily determine the temperature perturbation in theCMB The ldquokinkrdquo at x = 0 will evolve but its effects must be confinedwithin a slab of thickness 2rsh Outside that slab the perturbationmdashwhichwas initially either zero or linear in xmdashcannot evolve in shape although

                                        19

                                        Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

                                        20

                                        its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

                                        Φ(tdc x y z) =

                                        0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

                                        (15)

                                        where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

                                        To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

                                        θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

                                        Ddc

                                        ) (16)

                                        The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

                                        (minusxe+rsh

                                        Ddc

                                        )lt θ lt cosminus1

                                        (minusxeminusrsh

                                        Ddc

                                        )near the rim of the disk where

                                        it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

                                        Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

                                        Ddc

                                        ) the CMB

                                        temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

                                        44 CMB polarization

                                        The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

                                        21

                                        E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

                                        However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

                                        Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

                                        To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

                                        Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

                                        22

                                        numerically

                                        45 Other cosmological observables

                                        A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

                                        5 Probabilities and measures

                                        The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

                                        To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

                                        At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

                                        23

                                        expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

                                        〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

                                        where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

                                        To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

                                        51 Observable collisions

                                        We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

                                        i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

                                        lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

                                        The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

                                        intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

                                        during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

                                        During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

                                        24

                                        Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

                                        i Puttingthis together gives

                                        〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

                                        2i (18)

                                        We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

                                        Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

                                        taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

                                        Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

                                        In the end the result is [25]

                                        〈N〉 simradic

                                        ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

                                        radicΩk (HfHi)

                                        2 (19)

                                        The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

                                        2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

                                        2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

                                        must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

                                        radicΩk lt 1

                                        Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

                                        52 Spot sizes

                                        Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

                                        25

                                        This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

                                        However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

                                        The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

                                        radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

                                        the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

                                        Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

                                        One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

                                        53 Spot brightness

                                        Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

                                        26

                                        potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                                        timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                                        6 Conclusions

                                        Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                                        Acknowledgements

                                        I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                                        References

                                        [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                                        [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                                        [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                                        27

                                        [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                                        [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                                        [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                                        [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                                        [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                                        [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                                        [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                                        [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                                        [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                                        28

                                        [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                                        [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                                        [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                                        [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                                        [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                                        [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                                        [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                                        [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                                        [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                                        [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                                        [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                                        [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                                        29

                                        [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                                        [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                                        [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                                        [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                                        [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                                        [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                                        [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                                        [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                                        [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                                        [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                                        [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                                        [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                                        [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                                        30

                                        [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                                        [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                                        [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                                        [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                        [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                                        [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                                        [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                                        [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                        [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                                        [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                                        [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                                        [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                                        [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                                        31

                                        [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                                        [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                                        [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                                        [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                                        [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                                        [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                                        [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                                        [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                                        [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                                        [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                                        32

                                        • 1 Introduction
                                          • 11 Overview
                                          • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                                          • 13 Decay
                                          • 14 Motivation
                                            • 2 Earlier work
                                              • 21 Open inflaton
                                              • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                              • 23 Bubblology
                                              • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                                • 3 Collisions
                                                  • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                                  • 32 A new solution
                                                    • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                                      • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                                      • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                                      • 43 CMB temperature
                                                      • 44 CMB polarization
                                                      • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                                        • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                                          • 51 Observable collisions
                                                          • 52 Spot sizes
                                                          • 53 Spot brightness
                                                            • 6 Conclusions

                                          Figure 4 The universe at decoupling showing the earthrsquos last scatteringsphere (our past lightcone at the time of decoupling) the regions affectedand unaffected by the collision and the angular size of the affected disk inthe CMB temperature map θc

                                          20

                                          its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

                                          Φ(tdc x y z) =

                                          0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

                                          (15)

                                          where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

                                          To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

                                          θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

                                          Ddc

                                          ) (16)

                                          The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

                                          (minusxe+rsh

                                          Ddc

                                          )lt θ lt cosminus1

                                          (minusxeminusrsh

                                          Ddc

                                          )near the rim of the disk where

                                          it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

                                          Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

                                          Ddc

                                          ) the CMB

                                          temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

                                          44 CMB polarization

                                          The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

                                          21

                                          E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

                                          However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

                                          Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

                                          To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

                                          Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

                                          22

                                          numerically

                                          45 Other cosmological observables

                                          A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

                                          5 Probabilities and measures

                                          The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

                                          To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

                                          At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

                                          23

                                          expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

                                          〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

                                          where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

                                          To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

                                          51 Observable collisions

                                          We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

                                          i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

                                          lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

                                          The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

                                          intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

                                          during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

                                          During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

                                          24

                                          Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

                                          i Puttingthis together gives

                                          〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

                                          2i (18)

                                          We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

                                          Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

                                          taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

                                          Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

                                          In the end the result is [25]

                                          〈N〉 simradic

                                          ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

                                          radicΩk (HfHi)

                                          2 (19)

                                          The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

                                          2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

                                          2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

                                          must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

                                          radicΩk lt 1

                                          Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

                                          52 Spot sizes

                                          Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

                                          25

                                          This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

                                          However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

                                          The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

                                          radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

                                          the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

                                          Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

                                          One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

                                          53 Spot brightness

                                          Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

                                          26

                                          potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                                          timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                                          6 Conclusions

                                          Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                                          Acknowledgements

                                          I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                                          References

                                          [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                                          [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                                          [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                                          27

                                          [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                                          [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                                          [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                                          [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                                          [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                                          [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                                          [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                                          [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                                          [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                                          28

                                          [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                                          [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                                          [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                                          [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                                          [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                                          [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                                          [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                                          [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                                          [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                                          [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                                          [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                                          [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                                          29

                                          [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                                          [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                                          [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                                          [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                                          [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                                          [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                                          [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                                          [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                                          [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                                          [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                                          [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                                          [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                                          [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                                          30

                                          [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                                          [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                                          [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                                          [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                          [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                                          [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                                          [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                                          [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                          [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                                          [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                                          [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                                          [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                                          [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                                          31

                                          [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                                          [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                                          [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                                          [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                                          [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                                          [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                                          [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                                          [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                                          [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                                          [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                                          32

                                          • 1 Introduction
                                            • 11 Overview
                                            • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                                            • 13 Decay
                                            • 14 Motivation
                                              • 2 Earlier work
                                                • 21 Open inflaton
                                                • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                                • 23 Bubblology
                                                • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                                  • 3 Collisions
                                                    • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                                    • 32 A new solution
                                                      • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                                        • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                                        • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                                        • 43 CMB temperature
                                                        • 44 CMB polarization
                                                        • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                                          • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                                            • 51 Observable collisions
                                                            • 52 Spot sizes
                                                            • 53 Spot brightness
                                                              • 6 Conclusions

                                            its amplitude can (and does) change Therefore the perturbation to theNewtonian potential at t = tdc must be of the following form

                                            Φ(tdc x y z) =

                                            0 x lt minusrshf(x) minus rsh lt x lt rshλx x gt rsh

                                            (15)

                                            where f(x) is some function that must be determined by a more carefulanalysis but which one may expect to be a smooth deformation of the ldquokinkrdquoxΘ(x) (see Fig 4)

                                            To determine the effects of such a perturbation on the CMB in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation one needs to project Φ(tdc x y z) onto the earthrsquos lastscattering sphere (of radius Ddc) This is trivial if the earthrsquos comovinglocation is xminusxe = y = z = 0 and choosing spherical coordinates centered onthe earth with the north pole θ = 0 on the x-axis one has xminusxe = Ddc cos θTherefore the effects of the perturbation on the CMB will be confined to theinterior of a disk of angular radius

                                            θc = cosminus1(minusxe minus rsh

                                            Ddc

                                            ) (16)

                                            The effects can be very easily determined everywhere except within the an-nulus cosminus1

                                            (minusxe+rsh

                                            Ddc

                                            )lt θ lt cosminus1

                                            (minusxeminusrsh

                                            Ddc

                                            )near the rim of the disk where

                                            it is determined by the function f(x) The angular width of this annulus isclose to 2times 6 = 12 for a large radius disk (|xe| Ddc) and increases forsmaller disks

                                            Inside the inner edge of the annulus where θ lt cosminus1(minusxe+rsh

                                            Ddc

                                            ) the CMB

                                            temperature perturbation in the Sachs-Wolfe approximation is simply linearin cos θ as first predicted in [24] (see also [30]) The numerical evolution of[45] confirms that this is an accurate approximation and that the tempera-ture profile within the annulus is smooth and relatively featureless

                                            44 CMB polarization

                                            The free-streaming approximation discussed in the previous subsection is notentirely valid Approximately 10 of CMB photons Thomson re-scatter atz lt zdc This re-scattering leads to a net linear polarization of the CMBradiation if the radiation incident on the scatterer has a non-zero quadrupolemoment [48 49] CMB polarization can be decomposed into two types

                                            21

                                            E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

                                            However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

                                            Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

                                            To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

                                            Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

                                            22

                                            numerically

                                            45 Other cosmological observables

                                            A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

                                            5 Probabilities and measures

                                            The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

                                            To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

                                            At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

                                            23

                                            expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

                                            〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

                                            where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

                                            To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

                                            51 Observable collisions

                                            We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

                                            i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

                                            lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

                                            The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

                                            intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

                                            during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

                                            During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

                                            24

                                            Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

                                            i Puttingthis together gives

                                            〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

                                            2i (18)

                                            We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

                                            Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

                                            taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

                                            Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

                                            In the end the result is [25]

                                            〈N〉 simradic

                                            ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

                                            radicΩk (HfHi)

                                            2 (19)

                                            The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

                                            2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

                                            2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

                                            must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

                                            radicΩk lt 1

                                            Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

                                            52 Spot sizes

                                            Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

                                            25

                                            This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

                                            However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

                                            The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

                                            radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

                                            the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

                                            Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

                                            One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

                                            53 Spot brightness

                                            Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

                                            26

                                            potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                                            timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                                            6 Conclusions

                                            Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                                            Acknowledgements

                                            I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                                            References

                                            [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                                            [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                                            [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                                            27

                                            [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                                            [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                                            [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                                            [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                                            [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                                            [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                                            [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                                            [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                                            [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                                            28

                                            [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                                            [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                                            [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                                            [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                                            [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                                            [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                                            [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                                            [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                                            [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                                            [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                                            [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                                            [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                                            29

                                            [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                                            [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                                            [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                                            [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                                            [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                                            [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                                            [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                                            [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                                            [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                                            [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                                            [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                                            [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                                            [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                                            30

                                            [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                                            [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                                            [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                                            [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                            [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                                            [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                                            [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                                            [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                            [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                                            [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                                            [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                                            [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                                            [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                                            31

                                            [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                                            [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                                            [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                                            [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                                            [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                                            [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                                            [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                                            [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                                            [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                                            [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                                            32

                                            • 1 Introduction
                                              • 11 Overview
                                              • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                                              • 13 Decay
                                              • 14 Motivation
                                                • 2 Earlier work
                                                  • 21 Open inflaton
                                                  • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                                  • 23 Bubblology
                                                  • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                                    • 3 Collisions
                                                      • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                                      • 32 A new solution
                                                        • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                                          • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                                          • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                                          • 43 CMB temperature
                                                          • 44 CMB polarization
                                                          • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                                            • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                                              • 51 Observable collisions
                                                              • 52 Spot sizes
                                                              • 53 Spot brightness
                                                                • 6 Conclusions

                                              E-mode and B-mode B-mode polarization originates from tensor perturba-tions Because the bubble perturbation is invariant under rotations aroundthe x-axis and does not break chirality it will not generate B-modes An-other way to understand the same fact is to note that the symmetries of atwo bubble collision suffice to prevent the production of gravity waves see[11 50]

                                              However the perturbation will generate E-mode polarization In factthe pattern of polarization is completely determined by the collision pertur-bation at decoupling Φ(tdc x y z) It can be determined accurately usingnumerical evolution and as for the temperature this is necessary to deter-mine the detailed structure near the edge of the disk In contrast to thetemperature perturbation the polarization signal contains a distinct and in-teresting substructure within the annulus at the diskrsquos edge see [30 45] fordetails

                                              Analytic approximation for polarization One can estimate the polar-ization signal using an analytic approximation [30] In this approximationone computes the quadrupole moment of the temperature distribution seenby scattering electrons along the earthrsquos line of sight making use of the per-turbation at decoupling (15) but with f(x) = λxΘ(x) The result is that thepolarization is non-zero in a wide annulus surrounding the edge of the diskand has an additional feature confined to a much narrower annulus [30]

                                              To understand this result the key point is to realize that a linear per-turbation at decoupling Φ(tdc) = λx produces precisely zero quadrupolemoment in the radiation incident on a scatterermdashit is pure dipole There-fore any scatterer with a last scattering sphere (the scattererrsquos lightcone atdecoupling) that is entirely in the linear region x gt rsh or x lt rsh will notproduce linear polarization in the CMB Only scatterers with lightcones thatintersect x = 0 at decoupling will see a bath of incident radiation with anon-zero quadrupole component

                                              Most re-scattering of CMB photons occurs at two times in the history ofthe universe around the time of decoupling zdc sim 1000 and much later atreionization at zri sim 10 The lightcone of a scattering electron at z sim 1000 ismuch smaller than the lightcone of the earth todaymdashit is roughly 1 acrossThe lighcone of an electron at z sim 10 is by contrast much larger Thereforescattering at reionization produces an effect within a broad annulus whilescattering near decoupling produces a sharp feature that must be resolved

                                              22

                                              numerically

                                              45 Other cosmological observables

                                              A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

                                              5 Probabilities and measures

                                              The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

                                              To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

                                              At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

                                              23

                                              expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

                                              〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

                                              where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

                                              To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

                                              51 Observable collisions

                                              We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

                                              i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

                                              lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

                                              The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

                                              intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

                                              during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

                                              During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

                                              24

                                              Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

                                              i Puttingthis together gives

                                              〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

                                              2i (18)

                                              We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

                                              Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

                                              taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

                                              Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

                                              In the end the result is [25]

                                              〈N〉 simradic

                                              ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

                                              radicΩk (HfHi)

                                              2 (19)

                                              The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

                                              2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

                                              2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

                                              must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

                                              radicΩk lt 1

                                              Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

                                              52 Spot sizes

                                              Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

                                              25

                                              This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

                                              However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

                                              The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

                                              radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

                                              the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

                                              Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

                                              One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

                                              53 Spot brightness

                                              Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

                                              26

                                              potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                                              timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                                              6 Conclusions

                                              Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                                              Acknowledgements

                                              I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                                              References

                                              [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                                              [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                                              [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                                              27

                                              [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                                              [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                                              [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                                              [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                                              [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                                              [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                                              [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                                              [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                                              [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                                              28

                                              [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                                              [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                                              [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                                              [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                                              [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                                              [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                                              [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                                              [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                                              [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                                              [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                                              [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                                              [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                                              29

                                              [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                                              [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                                              [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                                              [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                                              [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                                              [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                                              [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                                              [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                                              [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                                              [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                                              [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                                              [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                                              [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                                              30

                                              [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                                              [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                                              [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                                              [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                              [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                                              [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                                              [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                                              [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                              [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                                              [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                                              [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                                              [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                                              [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                                              31

                                              [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                                              [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                                              [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                                              [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                                              [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                                              [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                                              [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                                              [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                                              [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                                              [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                                              32

                                              • 1 Introduction
                                                • 11 Overview
                                                • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                                                • 13 Decay
                                                • 14 Motivation
                                                  • 2 Earlier work
                                                    • 21 Open inflaton
                                                    • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                                    • 23 Bubblology
                                                    • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                                      • 3 Collisions
                                                        • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                                        • 32 A new solution
                                                          • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                                            • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                                            • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                                            • 43 CMB temperature
                                                            • 44 CMB polarization
                                                            • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                                              • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                                                • 51 Observable collisions
                                                                • 52 Spot sizes
                                                                • 53 Spot brightness
                                                                  • 6 Conclusions

                                                numerically

                                                45 Other cosmological observables

                                                A number of cosmological observables other than the CMB will be affected bya bubble collision A linear gradient or xΘ(x) kink in the Newtonian potentialΦ leads to a coherent flow for large-scale structures a problem that wasstudied in a radiation dominated toy universe in [27] The kink correspondsto a wall of over- or under-density that could potentially be detected in large-scale structure or lensing surveys Observations of 21cm radiation could serveas a sensitive probe of large-scale structures with unusual symmetries suchas this [51] If the collision affects light fields other than the inflaton it couldlead to large-scale variations in other observables (for example if the finestructure constant can vary as in [52]) Generally speaking any measure ofthe large-scale structure of density perturbations would be sensitive to theeffects of a bubble collision

                                                5 Probabilities and measures

                                                The late-time statistics of the clusters of bubbles that form from collisionsturns out to be a very rich and interesting topic [10 19 53 25 54 55 56 5758] but one that goes beyond the scope of this review Here I will discussonly the question of the probability for observing these signals given whatwe know about cosmology and the underlying microphysics and what themost probable ranges are for the parameters describing their effects

                                                To begin to address this consider an observer inside a bubble expand-ing into an inflating false vacuum To the extent that we can regard thespacetime outside the bubble as unperturbed by its presence the spacetimeoutside is pure de Sitter space de Sitter spacetime has an event horizonmdashevents separated by more than one Hubble length cannot influence each otherTherefore the only bubbles that can collide with the observerrsquos bubble arethose that nucleate within one false-vacuum Hubble length 1Hf of the wallof the bubble

                                                At any given time one can imagine a spherical shell of false vacuumwith area equal to the surface area of the observerrsquos bubble at that timeand thickness one false vacuum Hubble length 1Hf If a new bubble formswithin that shell it will collide with the observerrsquos Therefore we should

                                                23

                                                expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

                                                〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

                                                where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

                                                To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

                                                51 Observable collisions

                                                We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

                                                i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

                                                lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

                                                The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

                                                intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

                                                during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

                                                During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

                                                24

                                                Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

                                                i Puttingthis together gives

                                                〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

                                                2i (18)

                                                We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

                                                Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

                                                taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

                                                Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

                                                In the end the result is [25]

                                                〈N〉 simradic

                                                ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

                                                radicΩk (HfHi)

                                                2 (19)

                                                The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

                                                2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

                                                2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

                                                must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

                                                radicΩk lt 1

                                                Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

                                                52 Spot sizes

                                                Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

                                                25

                                                This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

                                                However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

                                                The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

                                                radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

                                                the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

                                                Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

                                                One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

                                                53 Spot brightness

                                                Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

                                                26

                                                potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                                                timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                                                6 Conclusions

                                                Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                                                Acknowledgements

                                                I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                                                References

                                                [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                                                [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                                                [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                                                27

                                                [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                                                [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                                                [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                                                [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                                                [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                                                [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                                                [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                                                [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                                                [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                                                28

                                                [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                                                [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                                                [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                                                [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                                                [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                                                [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                                                [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                                                [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                                                [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                                                [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                                                [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                                                [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                                                29

                                                [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                                                [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                                                [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                                                [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                                                [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                                                [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                                                [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                                                [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                                                [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                                                [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                                                [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                                                [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                                                [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                                                30

                                                [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                                                [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                                                [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                                                [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                                [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                                                [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                                                [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                                                [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                                [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                                                [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                                                [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                                                [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                                                [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                                                31

                                                [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                                                [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                                                [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                                                [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                                                [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                                                [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                                                [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                                                [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                                                [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                                                [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                                                32

                                                • 1 Introduction
                                                  • 11 Overview
                                                  • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                                                  • 13 Decay
                                                  • 14 Motivation
                                                    • 2 Earlier work
                                                      • 21 Open inflaton
                                                      • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                                      • 23 Bubblology
                                                      • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                                        • 3 Collisions
                                                          • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                                          • 32 A new solution
                                                            • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                                              • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                                              • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                                              • 43 CMB temperature
                                                              • 44 CMB polarization
                                                              • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                                                • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                                                  • 51 Observable collisions
                                                                  • 52 Spot sizes
                                                                  • 53 Spot brightness
                                                                    • 6 Conclusions

                                                  expect the rate of bubble collisions to be

                                                  〈dNdT 〉 sim A(T )Hminus1f Γ (17)

                                                  where T is a time coordinate in the false vacuum and T = A(T ) = 0 is thetime of nucleation of the observerrsquos bubble

                                                  To proceed we need some information about A(T ) The first observationis that since the bubble is expanding it is a monotonically increasing functionof T Therefore the total number of bubble collisions after infinite time willbe infinite This is to be expectedmdashthe bubble expands eternally and therate for collisions does not go to zero (it increases) As a result bubbles forminfinite clusters [10]

                                                  51 Observable collisions

                                                  We are primarily interested in collisions that could be visible to us today Tosee what this implies recall that bubbles when they form are dominated bynegative spatial curvature This persists for a physical time interval t sim 1Hiwhere Hi is the Hubble scale during slow roll inflation inside the bubble be-cause the energy density in curvature redshifts like a(t)minus2 sim tminus2 during cur-vature domination Inflation begins when the energy density in the inflatonpotential ρV sim H2

                                                  i is of order the energy density in curvature tminus2If a given bubble collision is visible to us today we must be inside the

                                                  lightcone of the nucleation event of the colliding bubble Therefore we shouldtrace back our own past lightcone and determine the area A of our bubblersquoswall at the moment our past lightcone intersects it Collisions which occurlater when A is larger are not yet visible

                                                  The details were first worked out correctly in [25] but the result is intu-itive Null rays propagate a comoving distance equal to the conformal timeConformal time τ inside the bubble universe is related to physical time t byτ =

                                                  intdta(t) Inflation makes a(t) exponentially large which means that

                                                  during and after inflation very little conformal time passes In fact if there isenough inflation to solve the curvature problem most of the conformal timeinside the bubble is before the beginning of inflation when the universe iscurvature dominated

                                                  During curvature domination a(t) sim t and therefore τ sim ln t Hence weexpect τ sim ln 1Hi To complete the estimate recall that negative spatialcurvature means that the areas of spheres grow exponentially with comov-ing distance a sphere of comoving radius ρ has an area of order cosh2 ρ

                                                  24

                                                  Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

                                                  i Puttingthis together gives

                                                  〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

                                                  2i (18)

                                                  We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

                                                  Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

                                                  taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

                                                  Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

                                                  In the end the result is [25]

                                                  〈N〉 simradic

                                                  ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

                                                  radicΩk (HfHi)

                                                  2 (19)

                                                  The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

                                                  2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

                                                  2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

                                                  must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

                                                  radicΩk lt 1

                                                  Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

                                                  52 Spot sizes

                                                  Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

                                                  25

                                                  This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

                                                  However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

                                                  The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

                                                  radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

                                                  the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

                                                  Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

                                                  One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

                                                  53 Spot brightness

                                                  Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

                                                  26

                                                  potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                                                  timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                                                  6 Conclusions

                                                  Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                                                  Acknowledgements

                                                  I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                                                  References

                                                  [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                                                  [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                                                  [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                                                  27

                                                  [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                                                  [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                                                  [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                                                  [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                                                  [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                                                  [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                                                  [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                                                  [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                                                  [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                                                  28

                                                  [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                                                  [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                                                  [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                                                  [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                                                  [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                                                  [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                                                  [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                                                  [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                                                  [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                                                  [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                                                  [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                                                  [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                                                  29

                                                  [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                                                  [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                                                  [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                                                  [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                                                  [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                                                  [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                                                  [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                                                  [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                                                  [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                                                  [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                                                  [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                                                  [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                                                  [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                                                  30

                                                  [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                                                  [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                                                  [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                                                  [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                                  [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                                                  [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                                                  [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                                                  [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                                  [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                                                  [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                                                  [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                                                  [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                                                  [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                                                  31

                                                  [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                                                  [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                                                  [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                                                  [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                                                  [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                                                  [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                                                  [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                                                  [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                                                  [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                                                  [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                                                  32

                                                  • 1 Introduction
                                                    • 11 Overview
                                                    • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                                                    • 13 Decay
                                                    • 14 Motivation
                                                      • 2 Earlier work
                                                        • 21 Open inflaton
                                                        • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                                        • 23 Bubblology
                                                        • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                                          • 3 Collisions
                                                            • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                                            • 32 A new solution
                                                              • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                                                • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                                                • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                                                • 43 CMB temperature
                                                                • 44 CMB polarization
                                                                • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                                                  • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                                                    • 51 Observable collisions
                                                                    • 52 Spot sizes
                                                                    • 53 Spot brightness
                                                                      • 6 Conclusions

                                                    Therefore we can expect the area of our bubble wall at the moment out pastlightcone intersects it to be of order A sim cosh2 ln(1Hi) sim 1H2

                                                    i Puttingthis together gives

                                                    〈dNdT 〉 sim Hminus2i Hminus1f Γ = γH3fH

                                                    2i (18)

                                                    We are not quite finished To complete the estimate we should integratedNdT back to T = 0 the nucleation time of the observerrsquos bubble Thisintegral will introduce an additional factor of Hf on the right-hand sidePerhaps the simplest way to see this is to apply the argument about null raypropagation to the false vacuummdashone immediately sees that the lightconesof bubbles travel a comoving distance 1Hf in a time 1Hf and then slowdown and stop (in comoving distance) exponentially rapidly

                                                    Finally we might be interested in bubble collisions with lightcones thatdivide the part of the last scattering surface we can see today into two piecesrather than completely encompass it The details can be found in [25] but

                                                    taking this into account introduces one more factorradic

                                                    Ωk(t0) sim Ddca(t0)mdashthe ratio of the comoving size of the earthrsquos decoupling sphere to the radiusof spatial curvature today

                                                    In the end the result is [25]

                                                    〈N〉 simradic

                                                    ΩkHminus2i Hminus2f Γ = γ

                                                    radicΩk (HfHi)

                                                    2 (19)

                                                    The significance of this result is that even though γ is small the ratio(HfHi)

                                                    2 is expected to be very large Indeed lack of B-mode polarizationin the CMB indicates that (MPlHi)

                                                    2 gtsim 1010 If Hf is a fundamental scaleone therefore expects this ratio to be very large The decay rate γ sim eminusS

                                                    must be small in order for this semi-classical analysis to be valid However inthe string theory landscape there are an enormous number of decay channelsand the relevant decay rate is the fastest one available for our parent falsevacuum Finally observational constraints are consistent with

                                                    radicΩk lt 1

                                                    Given the current state of understanding of the landscape and the scale ofinflation it is impossible to make a definite statementmdashbut it doesnrsquot appearthat any true fine-tuning is necessary to achieve 〈N〉 gt 1

                                                    52 Spot sizes

                                                    Given the symmetries of the parent false vacuum one would expect thedistribution of spot centers to be uniform on the sky (cf [19] but also [25])What about the distribution of sizes

                                                    25

                                                    This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

                                                    However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

                                                    The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

                                                    radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

                                                    the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

                                                    Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

                                                    One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

                                                    53 Spot brightness

                                                    Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

                                                    26

                                                    potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                                                    timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                                                    6 Conclusions

                                                    Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                                                    Acknowledgements

                                                    I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                                                    References

                                                    [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                                                    [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                                                    [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                                                    27

                                                    [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                                                    [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                                                    [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                                                    [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                                                    [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                                                    [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                                                    [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                                                    [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                                                    [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                                                    28

                                                    [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                                                    [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                                                    [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                                                    [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                                                    [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                                                    [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                                                    [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                                                    [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                                                    [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                                                    [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                                                    [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                                                    [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                                                    29

                                                    [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                                                    [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                                                    [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                                                    [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                                                    [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                                                    [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                                                    [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                                                    [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                                                    [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                                                    [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                                                    [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                                                    [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                                                    [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                                                    30

                                                    [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                                                    [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                                                    [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                                                    [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                                    [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                                                    [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                                                    [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                                                    [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                                    [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                                                    [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                                                    [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                                                    [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                                                    [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                                                    31

                                                    [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                                                    [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                                                    [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                                                    [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                                                    [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                                                    [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                                                    [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                                                    [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                                                    [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                                                    [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                                                    32

                                                    • 1 Introduction
                                                      • 11 Overview
                                                      • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                                                      • 13 Decay
                                                      • 14 Motivation
                                                        • 2 Earlier work
                                                          • 21 Open inflaton
                                                          • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                                          • 23 Bubblology
                                                          • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                                            • 3 Collisions
                                                              • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                                              • 32 A new solution
                                                                • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                                                  • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                                                  • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                                                  • 43 CMB temperature
                                                                  • 44 CMB polarization
                                                                  • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                                                    • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                                                      • 51 Observable collisions
                                                                      • 52 Spot sizes
                                                                      • 53 Spot brightness
                                                                        • 6 Conclusions

                                                      This can be estimated very easily A glance at (17) shows that the rate ofbubble collisions increases with time (since A gt 0) Earlier collisions makelarger spots on the skymdashin fact very early collisions completely encompassthe part of last scattering surface visible to us Therefore we might expectmore smaller spots

                                                      However this effect is quite small so long as Ωk 1 today The reasonis that at least if we focus only on collisions with lightcones that divide ourlast scattering sphere we are looking at collisions that occurred over a timeinterval where A(T ) didnrsquot vary significantly As a result the distribution ofcollision times over that interval is close to uniform

                                                      The implications for spot sizes are easy to see Each collision producesa light ldquoconerdquo which at any given time is really a hyperbolic sheet In theapproximation in which we ignore the curvature of that sheet it is simplya plane situated at some transverse coordinate x(t) Uniform distributionof time T corresponds to a uniform distribution of x over the small range(|x| ltsim

                                                      radicΩk) that is visible today Therefore we should expect the edges of

                                                      the regions affected by bubble collisions to be well approximated by randomlysituated randomly oriented planes

                                                      Since x = Ddc cos θ a uniform distribution dx implies a distributiond(cos θc) = sin θdθc for the angular radius of the affected spots in the CMBmap Spots with small angular size are quite rare as are those that nearlycover the entire sky

                                                      One interesting implication of this result is that super-horizon ldquospotsrdquomdashcollisions with lightcones that encompass our entire last scattering surfacemdashare significantly more common than those that divide it and produce a visiblespot Such large collisions are difficult to detect because they are expectedto produce a pattern that is primarily dipole and therefore is masked by theearthrsquos peculiar motion However it is important to note that not all effectsof such superhorizon perturbations are masked and some are in principleobservable

                                                      53 Spot brightness

                                                      Another important question for the observability of CMB spots is their ex-pected magnitude parametrized by the size of the temperature perturbationat the center of the spot Given a model that produces bubbles and its rela-tion to the inflaton this question can be answered by following the techniquesoutlined in this paper (starting with (10) and a model for the inflationary

                                                      26

                                                      potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                                                      timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                                                      6 Conclusions

                                                      Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                                                      Acknowledgements

                                                      I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                                                      References

                                                      [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                                                      [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                                                      [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                                                      27

                                                      [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                                                      [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                                                      [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                                                      [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                                                      [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                                                      [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                                                      [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                                                      [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                                                      [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                                                      28

                                                      [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                                                      [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                                                      [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                                                      [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                                                      [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                                                      [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                                                      [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                                                      [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                                                      [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                                                      [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                                                      [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                                                      [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                                                      29

                                                      [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                                                      [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                                                      [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                                                      [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                                                      [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                                                      [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                                                      [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                                                      [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                                                      [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                                                      [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                                                      [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                                                      [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                                                      [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                                                      30

                                                      [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                                                      [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                                                      [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                                                      [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                                      [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                                                      [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                                                      [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                                                      [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                                      [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                                                      [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                                                      [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                                                      [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                                                      [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                                                      31

                                                      [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                                                      [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                                                      [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                                                      [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                                                      [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                                                      [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                                                      [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                                                      [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                                                      [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                                                      [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                                                      32

                                                      • 1 Introduction
                                                        • 11 Overview
                                                        • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                                                        • 13 Decay
                                                        • 14 Motivation
                                                          • 2 Earlier work
                                                            • 21 Open inflaton
                                                            • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                                            • 23 Bubblology
                                                            • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                                              • 3 Collisions
                                                                • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                                                • 32 A new solution
                                                                  • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                                                    • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                                                    • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                                                    • 43 CMB temperature
                                                                    • 44 CMB polarization
                                                                    • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                                                      • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                                                        • 51 Observable collisions
                                                                        • 52 Spot sizes
                                                                        • 53 Spot brightness
                                                                          • 6 Conclusions

                                                        potential V (φ)) and detailed in the referencesEven without a model one should be able to arrive at a reasonable es-

                                                        timate or parametrize the uncertainty This was addressed to some extentin [24] and [25] which calculated the distribution on de Sitter invariant dis-tances between bubbles (which is one factor that affects the brightness) butthe program has not been carried out in detail in any specific model

                                                        6 Conclusions

                                                        Very recently a search of the WMAP temperature data [59 60] uncoveredseveral cold and hot spots that are consistent with the signal predicted in[24] While further analysis is necessary to determine whether or not thesefeatures are truly anomalous this result raises the stakes significantly Adiscovery of a bubble collision in the CMB would confirm a prediction ofstring theory and more broadly demonstrate the reality of eternal inflationrevolutionize our understanding of the big bang and indicate the existence ofother ldquouniversesrdquo With such possibilities in sight it is well worth pursuingthis program vigorously

                                                        Acknowledgements

                                                        I thank Guido DrsquoAmico Ben Freivogel Roberto Gobbetti Lam Hui ThomasLevi Kris Sigurdson Alex Vilenkin and Matias Zaldarriaga for discussionsMy work is supported by NSF CAREER grant PHY-0645435

                                                        References

                                                        [1] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoA Status report on the observabilityof cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo 09084105

                                                        [2] R Bousso and J Polchinski ldquoQuantization of four-form fluxes anddynamical neutralization of the cosmological constantrdquo JHEP 06(2000) 006 hep-th0004134

                                                        [3] L Susskind ldquoThe anthropic landscape of string theoryrdquohep-th0302219

                                                        27

                                                        [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                                                        [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                                                        [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                                                        [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                                                        [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                                                        [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                                                        [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                                                        [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                                                        [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                                                        28

                                                        [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                                                        [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                                                        [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                                                        [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                                                        [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                                                        [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                                                        [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                                                        [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                                                        [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                                                        [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                                                        [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                                                        [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                                                        29

                                                        [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                                                        [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                                                        [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                                                        [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                                                        [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                                                        [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                                                        [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                                                        [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                                                        [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                                                        [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                                                        [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                                                        [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                                                        [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                                                        30

                                                        [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                                                        [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                                                        [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                                                        [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                                        [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                                                        [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                                                        [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                                                        [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                                        [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                                                        [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                                                        [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                                                        [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                                                        [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                                                        31

                                                        [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                                                        [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                                                        [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                                                        [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                                                        [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                                                        [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                                                        [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                                                        [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                                                        [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                                                        [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                                                        32

                                                        • 1 Introduction
                                                          • 11 Overview
                                                          • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                                                          • 13 Decay
                                                          • 14 Motivation
                                                            • 2 Earlier work
                                                              • 21 Open inflaton
                                                              • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                                              • 23 Bubblology
                                                              • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                                                • 3 Collisions
                                                                  • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                                                  • 32 A new solution
                                                                    • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                                                      • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                                                      • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                                                      • 43 CMB temperature
                                                                      • 44 CMB polarization
                                                                      • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                                                        • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                                                          • 51 Observable collisions
                                                                          • 52 Spot sizes
                                                                          • 53 Spot brightness
                                                                            • 6 Conclusions

                                                          [4] S Kachru R Kallosh A Linde and S P Trivedi ldquoDe sitter vacua instring theoryrdquo Phys Rev D68 (2003) 046005 hep-th0301240

                                                          [5] A G Riess A V Filippenko P Challis A Clocchiatti A DiercksP M Garnavich R L Gilliland C J Hogan S Jha R P KirshnerB Leibundgut M M Phillips D Reiss B P Schmidt R ASchommer R C Smith J Spyromilio C Stubbs N B Suntzeff andJ Tonry ldquoObservational Evidence from Supernovae for anAccelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constantrdquo Astronomical J116 (Sept 1998) 1009ndash1038 arXivastro-ph9805201

                                                          [6] S Perlmutter G Aldering G Goldhaber R A Knop P NugentP G Castro S Deustua S Fabbro A Goobar D E Groom I MHook A G Kim M Y Kim J C Lee N J Nunes R Pain C RPennypacker R Quimby C Lidman R S Ellis M Irwin R GMcMahon P Ruiz-Lapuente N Walton B Schaefer B J BoyleA V Filippenko T Matheson A S Fruchter N Panagia H J MNewberg W J Couch and The Supernova Cosmology ProjectldquoMeasurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-RedshiftSupernovaerdquo Astrophysical J 517 (June 1999) 565ndash586arXivastro-ph9812133

                                                          [7] E Komatsu et al ldquoSeven-Year Wilkinson Microwave AnisotropyProbe (WMAP) Observations Cosmological Interpretationrdquo10014538

                                                          [8] S Weinberg ldquoAnthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constantrdquo PhysRev Lett 59 (1987) 2607

                                                          [9] A H Guth ldquoThe Inflationary Universe A Possible Solution to theHorizon and Flatness Problemsrdquo PhysRev D23 (1981) 347ndash356

                                                          [10] A H Guth and E J Weinberg ldquoCould the universe have recoveredfrom a slow first order phase transitionrdquo Nucl Phys B212 (1983)321

                                                          [11] S W Hawking I G Moss and J M Stewart ldquoBubble collisions inthe very early universerdquo Phys Rev D26 (1982) 2681

                                                          [12] M Bucher A S Goldhaber and N Turok ldquoAn open universe frominflationrdquo Phys Rev D52 (1995) 3314ndash3337 hep-ph9411206

                                                          28

                                                          [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                                                          [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                                                          [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                                                          [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                                                          [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                                                          [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                                                          [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                                                          [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                                                          [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                                                          [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                                                          [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                                                          [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                                                          29

                                                          [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                                                          [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                                                          [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                                                          [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                                                          [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                                                          [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                                                          [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                                                          [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                                                          [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                                                          [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                                                          [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                                                          [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                                                          [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                                                          30

                                                          [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                                                          [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                                                          [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                                                          [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                                          [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                                                          [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                                                          [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                                                          [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                                          [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                                                          [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                                                          [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                                                          [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                                                          [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                                                          31

                                                          [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                                                          [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                                                          [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                                                          [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                                                          [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                                                          [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                                                          [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                                                          [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                                                          [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                                                          [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                                                          32

                                                          • 1 Introduction
                                                            • 11 Overview
                                                            • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                                                            • 13 Decay
                                                            • 14 Motivation
                                                              • 2 Earlier work
                                                                • 21 Open inflaton
                                                                • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                                                • 23 Bubblology
                                                                • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                                                  • 3 Collisions
                                                                    • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                                                    • 32 A new solution
                                                                      • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                                                        • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                                                        • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                                                        • 43 CMB temperature
                                                                        • 44 CMB polarization
                                                                        • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                                                          • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                                                            • 51 Observable collisions
                                                                            • 52 Spot sizes
                                                                            • 53 Spot brightness
                                                                              • 6 Conclusions

                                                            [13] A D Linde and A Mezhlumian ldquoInflation with Omega not = 1rdquoPhys Rev D52 (1995) 6789ndash6804 astro-ph9506017

                                                            [14] M J White 1 and J Silk ldquoObservational constraints on open inflationmodelsrdquo Phys Rev Lett 77 (1996) 4704ndash4707 astro-ph9608177

                                                            [15] K Yamamoto M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoQuantum fluctuations andCMB anisotropies in one bubble open inflation modelsrdquo PhysRevD54 (1996) 5031ndash5048 astro-ph9605103

                                                            [16] A D Linde M Sasaki and T Tanaka ldquoCMB in open inflationrdquoPhysRev D59 (1999) 123522 astro-ph9901135

                                                            [17] J Garriga T Tanaka and A Vilenkin ldquoThe density parameter andthe Anthropic Principlerdquo Phys Rev D60 (1999) 023501astro-ph9803268

                                                            [18] B Freivogel M Kleban M Rodriguez Martinez and L SusskindldquoObservational consequences of a landscaperdquo JHEP 03 (2006) 039hep-th0505232

                                                            [19] J Garriga A H Guth and A Vilenkin ldquoEternal inflation bubblecollisions and the persistence of memoryrdquo hep-th0612242

                                                            [20] B Freivogel G T Horowitz and S Shenker ldquoColliding with acrunching bubblerdquo JHEP 05 (2007) 090 hep-th0703146

                                                            [21] A Aguirre M C Johnson and A Shomer ldquoTowards observablesignatures of other bubble universesrdquo Phys Rev D76 (2007) 063509arXiv07043473 [hep-th]

                                                            [22] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWhen Worlds Colliderdquo JCAP0804 (2008) 034 07122261

                                                            [23] A Aguirre and M C Johnson ldquoTowards observable signatures ofother bubble universes II Exact solutions for thin-wall bubblecollisionsrdquo Phys Rev D77 (2008) 123536 07123038

                                                            [24] S Chang M Kleban and T S Levi ldquoWatching Worlds CollideEffects on the CMB from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP0904 (2009) 025 08105128

                                                            29

                                                            [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                                                            [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                                                            [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                                                            [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                                                            [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                                                            [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                                                            [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                                                            [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                                                            [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                                                            [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                                                            [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                                                            [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                                                            [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                                                            30

                                                            [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                                                            [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                                                            [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                                                            [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                                            [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                                                            [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                                                            [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                                                            [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                                            [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                                                            [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                                                            [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                                                            [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                                                            [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                                                            31

                                                            [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                                                            [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                                                            [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                                                            [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                                                            [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                                                            [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                                                            [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                                                            [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                                                            [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                                                            [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                                                            32

                                                            • 1 Introduction
                                                              • 11 Overview
                                                              • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                                                              • 13 Decay
                                                              • 14 Motivation
                                                                • 2 Earlier work
                                                                  • 21 Open inflaton
                                                                  • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                                                  • 23 Bubblology
                                                                  • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                                                    • 3 Collisions
                                                                      • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                                                      • 32 A new solution
                                                                        • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                                                          • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                                                          • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                                                          • 43 CMB temperature
                                                                          • 44 CMB polarization
                                                                          • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                                                            • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                                                              • 51 Observable collisions
                                                                              • 52 Spot sizes
                                                                              • 53 Spot brightness
                                                                                • 6 Conclusions

                                                              [25] B Freivogel M Kleban A Nicolis and K Sigurdson ldquoEternalInflation Bubble Collisions and the Disintegration of the Persistenceof Memoryrdquo JCAP 0908 (2009) 036 09010007

                                                              [26] A Aguirre M C Johnson and M Tysanner ldquoSurviving the crashassessing the aftermath of cosmic bubble collisionsrdquo Phys Rev D79(2009) 123514 08110866

                                                              [27] K Larjo and T S Levi ldquoBubble Bubble Flow and Hubble LargeScale Galaxy Flow from Cosmological Bubble Collisionsrdquo 09104159

                                                              [28] R Easther J T Giblin Jr L Hui and E A Lim ldquoA NewMechanism for Bubble Nucleation Classical Transitionsrdquo Phys RevD80 (2009) 123519 09073234

                                                              [29] J T Giblin Jr L Hui E A Lim and I-S Yang ldquoHow to RunThrough Walls Dynamics of Bubble and Soliton Collisionsrdquo10053493

                                                              [30] B Czech M Kleban K Larjo T S Levi and K SigurdsonldquoPolarizing Bubble Collisionsrdquo JCAP 1012 (2010) 023 10060832

                                                              [31] M P Salem ldquoA Signature of anisotropic bubble collisionsrdquo PhysRevD82 (2010) 063530 10055311

                                                              [32] S R Coleman and F De Luccia ldquoGravitational effects on and ofvacuum decayrdquo Phys Rev D21 (1980) 3305

                                                              [33] J Brown and C Teitelboim ldquoNeutralization of the CosmologicalConstant by Membrane Creationrdquo NuclPhys B297 (1988) 787ndash836

                                                              [34] S Hawking and I Moss ldquoSupercooled Phase Transitions in the VeryEarly Universerdquo PhysLett B110 (1982) 35

                                                              [35] P Batra and M Kleban ldquoTransitions between de sitter minimardquoPhys Rev D76 (2007) 103510 hep-th0612083

                                                              [36] A R Liddle and D H Lyth ldquoCosmological inflation and large-scalestructurerdquo ISBN-13-9780521828499

                                                              [37] W Israel ldquoSingular hypersurfaces and thin shells in generalrelativityrdquo Nuovo Cim B44S10 (1966) 1

                                                              30

                                                              [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                                                              [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                                                              [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                                                              [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                                              [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                                                              [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                                                              [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                                                              [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                                              [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                                                              [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                                                              [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                                                              [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                                                              [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                                                              31

                                                              [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                                                              [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                                                              [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                                                              [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                                                              [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                                                              [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                                                              [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                                                              [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                                                              [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                                                              [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                                                              32

                                                              • 1 Introduction
                                                                • 11 Overview
                                                                • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                                                                • 13 Decay
                                                                • 14 Motivation
                                                                  • 2 Earlier work
                                                                    • 21 Open inflaton
                                                                    • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                                                    • 23 Bubblology
                                                                    • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                                                      • 3 Collisions
                                                                        • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                                                        • 32 A new solution
                                                                          • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                                                            • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                                                            • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                                                            • 43 CMB temperature
                                                                            • 44 CMB polarization
                                                                            • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                                                              • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                                                                • 51 Observable collisions
                                                                                • 52 Spot sizes
                                                                                • 53 Spot brightness
                                                                                  • 6 Conclusions

                                                                [38] C Barrabes and W Israel ldquoThin shells in general relativity andcosmology The lightlike limitrdquo Phys Rev D43 (1991) 1129ndash1142

                                                                [39] P Vaidya ldquoThe Gravitational Field of a Radiating Starrdquo ProcIndianAcadSci A33 (1951) 264

                                                                [40] A Wang ldquoGeneralized Vaidya solutionsrdquo gr-qc9803038

                                                                [41] R Gobbetti and M Kleban ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                                                [42] V F Mukhanov H Feldman and R H Brandenberger ldquoTheory ofcosmological perturbations Part 1 Classical perturbations Part 2Quantum theory of perturbations Part 3 Extensionsrdquo PhysRept 215(1992) 203ndash333

                                                                [43] U Seljak and M Zaldarriaga ldquoA Line of Sight Approach to CosmicMicrowave Background Anisotropiesrdquo Astrophys J 469 (1996)437ndash444 astro-ph9603033

                                                                [44] A Lewis A Challinor and A Lasenby ldquoEfficient computation ofCMB anisotropies in closed FRW modelsrdquo Astrophys J 538 (2000)473ndash476 astro-ph9911177

                                                                [45] M Kleban T Levi and K Sigurdson ldquoTo appearrdquo

                                                                [46] R K Sachs and A M Wolfe ldquoPerturbations of a Cosmological Modeland Angular Variations of the Microwave Backgroundrdquo AstrophysicalJ 147 (Jan 1967) 73ndash+

                                                                [47] M White and W Hu ldquoThe Sachs-Wolfe effectrdquo Astronomy andAstrophysics 321 (May 1997) 8ndash9 arXivastro-ph9609105

                                                                [48] J Bond and G Efstathiou ldquoCosmic background radiation anisotropiesin universes dominated by nonbaryonic dark matterrdquo AstrophysJ 285(1984) L45ndashL48

                                                                [49] M Zaldarriaga and U Seljak ldquoAn all sky analysis of polarization inthe microwave backgroundrdquo PhysRev D55 (1997) 1830ndash1840astro-ph9609170

                                                                [50] A Kosowsky M S Turner and R Watkins ldquoGravitational radiationfrom colliding vacuum bubblesrdquo Phys Rev D45 (1992) 4514ndash4535

                                                                31

                                                                [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                                                                [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                                                                [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                                                                [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                                                                [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                                                                [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                                                                [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                                                                [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                                                                [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                                                                [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                                                                32

                                                                • 1 Introduction
                                                                  • 11 Overview
                                                                  • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                                                                  • 13 Decay
                                                                  • 14 Motivation
                                                                    • 2 Earlier work
                                                                      • 21 Open inflaton
                                                                      • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                                                      • 23 Bubblology
                                                                      • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                                                        • 3 Collisions
                                                                          • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                                                          • 32 A new solution
                                                                            • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                                                              • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                                                              • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                                                              • 43 CMB temperature
                                                                              • 44 CMB polarization
                                                                              • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                                                                • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                                                                  • 51 Observable collisions
                                                                                  • 52 Spot sizes
                                                                                  • 53 Spot brightness
                                                                                    • 6 Conclusions

                                                                  [51] M Kleban K Sigurdson and I Swanson ldquoCosmic 21-cm Fluctuationsas a Probe of Fundamental Physicsrdquo JCAP 0708 (2007) 009hep-th0703215

                                                                  [52] A Moss D Scott J P Zibin and R Battye ldquoTilted Physics ACosmologically Dipole-Modulated Skyrdquo 10112990 Temporaryentry

                                                                  [53] B Freivogel Y Sekino L Susskind and C-P Yeh ldquoA Holographicframework for eternal inflationrdquo PhysRev D74 (2006) 086003hep-th0606204

                                                                  [54] R Bousso B Freivogel Y Sekino S Shenker L Susskind et alldquoFuture foam Nontrivial topology from bubble collisions in eternalinflationrdquo PhysRev D78 (2008) 063538 08071947

                                                                  [55] J Garriga and A Vilenkin ldquoHolographic Multiverserdquo JCAP 0901(2009) 021 08094257

                                                                  [56] B Freivogel and M Kleban ldquoA Conformal Field Theory for EternalInflationrdquo JHEP 0912 (2009) 019 09032048

                                                                  [57] Y Sekino and L Susskind ldquoCensus Taking in the Hat FRWCFTDualityrdquo PhysRev D80 (2009) 083531 09083844 A preliminaryversion of the ideas in this paper was reported in arxiv07101129

                                                                  [58] Y Sekino S Shenker and L Susskind ldquoOn the Topological Phases ofEternal Inflationrdquo PhysRev D81 (2010) 123515 10031347

                                                                  [59] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflation Analysis Methods andWMAP 7-Year Resultsrdquo 10123667 Temporary entry

                                                                  [60] S M Feeney M C Johnson D J Mortlock and H V Peiris ldquoFirstObservational Tests of Eternal Inflationrdquo 10121995

                                                                  32

                                                                  • 1 Introduction
                                                                    • 11 Overview
                                                                    • 12 Effective field theory coupled to gravity
                                                                    • 13 Decay
                                                                    • 14 Motivation
                                                                      • 2 Earlier work
                                                                        • 21 Open inflaton
                                                                        • 22 Metrics and solutions
                                                                        • 23 Bubblology
                                                                        • 24 Curvature and fine-tuning
                                                                          • 3 Collisions
                                                                            • 31 Thin-wall collision metric
                                                                            • 32 A new solution
                                                                              • 4 Cosmological effects of collisions
                                                                                • 41 Inflaton perturbation
                                                                                • 42 Post-inflationary cosmology and Sachs-Wolfe
                                                                                • 43 CMB temperature
                                                                                • 44 CMB polarization
                                                                                • 45 Other cosmological observables
                                                                                  • 5 Probabilities and measures
                                                                                    • 51 Observable collisions
                                                                                    • 52 Spot sizes
                                                                                    • 53 Spot brightness
                                                                                      • 6 Conclusions

                                                                    top related