Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 84 references

Eternal Inflation in Swampy Landscapes

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Eternal inflation survives even in swampy landscapes

desk verdict Eternal inflation probably survives in swampy landscapes, but the paper's quantitative claims ride on a flyover rate estimate that is not under control. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00068 v2 pith:EZT3ZMGW submitted 2019-08-30 gr-qc hep-th

Jose J. Blanco-Pillado , Heling Deng , Alexander Vilenkin This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th PACS 98.80.Cq98.80.Qc
keywords eternalinflationmultiverseswamplandconjecturesdeSittervacuaflyovertransitionsbubblewallquantumcreationfromnothingcosmologicalconstant
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that two kinds of 'swampy' string-theory landscapes—one where de Sitter (dS) vacua exist but are rare, and one where they are absent altogether—still produce eternal inflation, with every inflationary region of the landscape represented somewhere in the multiverse. In the rare-dS case, quantum fluctuations of the scalar field velocity let the field fly over intervening AdS or Minkowski valleys and land in a distant dS vacuum, so isolated inflating islands stay connected even when tunneling instantons do not exist. In the no-dS case, a compact instanton describes the creation of a universe with an inflating bubble wall whose worldsheet is a (2+1)-dimensional de Sitter space; the wall inflates forever and seeds new inflationary regions. The resulting spacetime structure is unusual: new inflating regions typically form inside black holes or AdS bubbles, hidden from the parent universe. The authors also find that the standard anthropic prediction for the cosmological constant can still survive in the rare-dS landscape under relatively mild conditions.

What carries the argument

Two mechanisms carry the argument. The first is the flyover transition: a quantum fluctuation gives the scalar field a large time derivative in a roughly spherical super-horizon region, letting it climb over potential barriers and land in a different vacuum without an instanton; its rate is estimated using the free-field variance of $\dot\phi$ in de Sitter space, Eqs. (9)–(13). The second is the compact 'creation from nothing' instanton in a potential whose maxima and saddles are too curved for hilltop inflation: a deformed Euclidean 4-sphere with the scalar field interpolating between two sides of a maximum, whose Lorentzian continuation gives a (2+1)-dimensional de Sitter bubble wall with open FRW regions on both sides. The same instanton doubles as the description of bubble-wall nucleation during slow-roll inflation, and flyover nucleation provides a non-instanton alternative. Numerical simulations establish the key spacetime outcomes: flyover regions end up inside black holes (mass $M\sim H_d^{-1}$) or AdS bubbles, and wormholes formed in wall nucleation collapse to black holes of radius about 1.2 times the wormhole radius at horizon crossing.

What would settle it

A direct lattice or interacting-field computation of the rate of super-horizon scalar velocity fluctuations in de Sitter space: if the rate is exponentially smaller than the free-field estimate of Eq. (13), the rare-dS multiverse loses its inter-island connections and eternal inflation in that scenario fails. For the no-dS scenario, a scan of generic potentials satisfying the refined swampland bound $|V''/V|>4/3$ at maxima: if compact instantons interpolating across the maximum exist only for fine-tuned examples (such as their Eq. (34)) and not generically, the bubble-wall mechanism would not fill the landscape.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that eternal inflation is a robust feature of the multiverse even when the swampland conjectures severely deplete the landscape: in both scenarios studied, inflation is eternal and all parts of the landscape that can support inflation get represented in the multiverse. In the rare-dS scenario the connecting channel is provided by flyover transitions—coherent super-horizon velocity fluctuations that carry the field over potential barriers—whose rates are estimated from free-field fluctuations in de Sitter space and which populate every dS island, with new inflating regions hidden inside black holes or AdS bubbles. In the no-dS scenario, quantum creation from nothing is described by a compact Euclidean instanton whose Lorentzian continuation yields a bubble wall that inflates forever, so the universe is eternally inflating even though no hilltop supports stochastic eternal inflation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that coherent, roughly spherical super-horizon velocity fluctuations of the scalar field occur in de Sitter space at the rates estimated from free-field formulas, and that the field and metric outside the fluctuation region stay homogeneous.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a landscape where dS vacua are rare but present, the multiverse is still eternal: every de Sitter island is populated through flyover transitions, so no vacuum is unreachable.
  • New inflating regions in the rare-dS case are typically isolated from us inside black holes or AdS bubbles, so the standard picture of direct bubble nucleation is replaced by a more intricate global structure.
  • The standard anthropic prediction for the cosmological constant is not destroyed by wildly varying prior probabilities, provided the number of Standard-Model-like dS vacua in the anthropic window satisfies $N_{\rm dS}\gg 10^{284}$ (under the paper's estimates).
  • If dS vacua are absent and hilltops are too steep for stochastic inflation, quantum creation from nothing still yields a universe with an eternally inflating bubble wall; the same instanton describes wall nucleation during slow-roll inflation, so inflationary regions keep populating the landscape.
  • Inflationary regions formed by bubble walls end up in baby universes behind black hole horizons or in regions that eventually crunch, yet late-time Cauchy surfaces always contain an inflating region, so the multiverse has no end state without inflation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If flyover rates behave as estimated, the same mechanism could also mediate transitions in more general settings where instantons are absent—for example, between vacua separated by steep barriers—making quantum diffusion in field space more connected than tunneling-based analyses suggest.
  • The paper's instanton construction suggests a concrete possible signature of swampy landscapes: primordial black holes formed from wormhole collapse after wall nucleation, with masses set by the horizon radius at crossing, might be a generic prediction distinct from standard cosmic-string or bubble-collision signatures.
  • One could extend the analysis to the measure problem: volume fractions computed with scale-factor cutoff depend on inter-island flyover rates, so a precise prediction for $\Lambda$ in the rare-dS landscape would require the actual distribution of Hessian eigenvalues rather than the worst-case bound of Eq. (14).
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper explores how the swampland conjectures affect the multiverse structure. It considers two scenarios: (i) a landscape in which de Sitter (dS) vacua exist but are vastly outnumbered by AdS/Minkowski vacua, so Coleman-DeLuccia tunneling between dS islands may be absent; and (ii) a 'bubble wall landscape' in which no dS vacua exist and hilltop eternal inflation is excluded, but slow-roll inflation can occur on slopes near inflection points. In the first scenario the authors argue that 'flyover' transitions, in which the scalar field acquires a large coherent velocity fluctuation and climbs over intervening AdS/Minkowski barriers, connect isolated dS islands and keep inflation eternal, with new inflating regions forming inside black holes or AdS bubbles. In the second scenario they construct a compact Euclidean instanton whose Lorentzian continuation describes an inflating bubble wall, and they argue that wall nucleation plus flyover transitions lead to eternal inflation and populate all slow-roll regions. The paper supports these claims with order-of-magnitude rate estimates, a numerical simulation of a 1D landscape transition, a numerical instanton solution, and simulations of wormhole-to-black-hole evolution in Appendix A.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would significantly broaden the conditions under which eternal inflation is robust: even in landscapes heavily constrained by swampland conjectures, with rare or absent dS vacua, the multiverse may still be eternally inflating, though with a spacetime structure different from the standard picture. The paper's strengths are its explicit numerical demonstrations (the 1D flyover simulation in Sec. II.B and the wormhole simulations in Appendix A), its transparent order-of-magnitude estimates, and its construction of a concrete instanton example in Sec. III.A. The qualitative conclusion that a single inflating bubble wall yields eternal inflation is well supported by the causal-diagram argument. However, the quantitative statements about volume fractions and the anthropic prediction for the cosmological constant rest on the flyover rate estimate, which is the least controlled ingredient in the paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.A.2, Eqs. (8)-(13) and the discussion after Eq. (15)] The flyover rate is the load-bearing input for the rare-dS scenario, but the estimate is not controlled in the regime V_d << V_p, which is needed for low-energy daughter vacua. The required fluctuation scale l ~ (H_p^2 H_d)^(-1/3) is much larger than the parent horizon, so the process is a coherent super-Hubble fluctuation over N ~ H_p/H_d causally independent patches. Equation (9) treats this as a Gaussian tail of the smeared free-field variance, which does not include the exponential suppression ~ exp(-S_l) associated with the entropy of the region. The authors themselves note that Eq. (13) can violate the dS recurrence bound (14), and they repair this only by an additivity assumption for dS entropy on super-Hubble scales. Since the volume-fraction estimates of Sec. II.C (notably Eq. (28)) and the anthropic analysis of Sec. II.D (Eqs. (29)-(32)) are controlled by inter-island rates, the quantitative claim that all parts of the landscape are represented and that the Lambda prediction survives is not yet established. The paper should either derive the super-Hubble rate including the entropy suppression or explicitly restrict the quantitative conclusions to the regime where the free-field estimate is valid.
  2. [Sec. II.A.2, paragraph following Eq. (13)] No transition-rate estimate is given for the case Delta V >> V_p, which is the regime relevant for upward transitions out of a low-energy dominant vacuum. Such upward transitions are the standard channel that populates other dS vacua in the multiverse picture discussed in Sec. II.C. Without a rate estimate for this case, the claim that 'all parts of the landscape that can support inflation get represented' in the rare-dS scenario lacks quantitative support, even if the qualitative statement about eternal inflation in an infinite parent vacuum remains plausible.
  3. [Sec. II.D, Eq. (32) and surrounding discussion] The condition N_dS >> 10^284 is presented as sufficient for a successful anthropic prediction of Lambda, but this conclusion assumes that the spread of prior probabilities is of order K ~ S-bar, with the dS recurrence bound (14) saturated. If the actual flyover rates are smaller than this bound, the spread in prior probabilities can be larger, making the required number of SM vacua larger; if the rates are larger, the volume-fraction hierarchy changes. Thus the anthropic conclusion is conditional on the same uncontrolled rate estimates flagged above, and Eq. (32) should be stated as an order-of-magnitude condition that is not yet robust.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.B, Fig. 2 caption and Eq. (16)] The notation for the black hole mass estimate M ~ H_d^{-1} is dimensionally mixed with the convention M_p = 1; it would be clearer to restore explicit Planck-mass factors or state explicitly that all quantities are pure numbers in Planck units.
  2. [Sec. III.A, Figs. 5 and 6] The instanton solution is presented for one specific potential (Eq. (34)); the authors should state more explicitly which features of the solution are generic for the class of potentials allowed by the refined swampland conjecture, and which are peculiar to the example.
  3. [Appendix A] The numerical verification of wormhole-to-black-hole evolution is performed in a radiation-dominated universe rather than in the full scalar-field plus gravity system considered in Sec. III.D. This is a reasonable simplification, but the text should acknowledge that the quantitative relations t_BH ≈ 2.8 t_H and R_BH ≈ 1.2 R_H are only demonstrated in that simplified setting.
  4. [Sec. III.C, Eqs. (47)-(48)] The flyover wall-nucleation rate (48) relies on the variance estimate (47) with a coefficient 10^-2 imported from Ref. [46]. Since the authors show that tunneling dominates in the regimes considered, this uncertainty does not affect the main conclusion of Sec. III, but the caveat should be stated where Eq. (48) is introduced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation reduces to its inputs; only a minor self-citation burden from Ref. [46] for flyover variance, not load-bearing for the qualitative eternal-inflation claim.

full rationale

The paper does not define its target into existence. In the rare-dS scenario, the transition rate (Eqs. (8)-(13)) is a Gaussian-tail estimate for a prescribed velocity fluctuation; the fluctuation profile is taken from the authors' prior Ref. [46], but the existence of non-tunneling transitions is independently attributed to Brown-Dahlen [45], and the paper's own simulations verify that such fluctuations, once prescribed, produce new inflating regions and the claimed black-hole/AdS-bubble structure. The numerical threshold C≈5 is a calibration for a sample potential, not a fit to the eternal-inflation verdict, and Eq. (13) is explicitly an order-of-magnitude estimate. The volume-fraction relation f_Y/f_X≈κ_YX/(κ_BY−κ_AX) follows from the rate equations rather than being assumed. In the bubble-wall scenario, the instanton is found by solving the Euclidean equations with stated boundary conditions; the wall's (2+1)-dimensional dS worldsheet is a property of the Lorentzian continuation, and the claim that late-time Cauchy surfaces always contain an inflating region follows from the causal structure of that solution. The principal weaknesses—coherent superhorizon velocity fluctuations and the entropy suppression of such fluctuations—are physical/correctness concerns about an imported ansatz, not circular reductions. The one mild self-citation burden is that the variance formulas (Eqs. (10)-(11)) and the flyover method are imported from Ref. [46] rather than re-derived here, but the qualitative conclusion only needs a nonzero transition rate, and the mechanism is separately demonstrated numerically, so this does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's main numerical results depend on a handful of hand-chosen parameters (the flyover C, the potential shape, the fluctuation scale, and the guessed SM fraction), plus background assumptions about the landscape, flyover transitions, the scale-factor cutoff, and Euclidean quantum gravity. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced; flyover transitions and inflating bubble walls are processes, not entities.

free parameters (4)
  • Flyover numerical coefficient C in Eq. (8) = C ≈ 5 (from simulation with l = 2 H_d^{-1})
    Coefficient accounting for Hubble friction in the required velocity fluctuation; calibrated in the 1D landscape simulation and used in the exponential rate estimates (13) and (48).
  • Potential coefficients in Eq. (34) = V0 << 1; 0.001, 0.9, -0.16, 0.006
    Hand-chosen to give an inflection point with about 60 e-folds and to satisfy the refined swampland condition at the critical points; the instanton and wall simulations use this potential.
  • SM fine-tuning fraction f_SM = >~10^-100 (assumed)
    Used in Eq. (32) to derive the condition N_dS >> 10^284; this is a guess about the fraction of dS vacua with Standard Model microphysics.
  • Fluctuation scale l = l = 2 H_d^{-1}
    Smallest scale that yields a new inflating vacuum region in the flyover simulation; the rate and variance estimates depend on l.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The string landscape contains a vast number of vacua, including dS, AdS, and Minkowski states with densities specified by a random Gaussian potential.
    Assumed in the rare-dS scenario to estimate transition rates and vacuum counts (Sec. II.A).
  • domain assumption The refined swampland conjecture is true, so no dS minima and no flat enough hilltops exist, while slow-roll slopes remain possible.
    The bubble-wall landscape scenario (Sec. III) is built on this premise.
  • domain assumption Flyover transitions occur: a quantum fluctuation can give a super-horizon region a large field velocity, after which evolution is classical (Sec. II.A.2, Eqs. (8)-(13)).
    This is the channel that connects isolated dS islands and is inherited from Brown-Dahlen and Ref. [46].
  • domain assumption The scale-factor cutoff measure determines volume fractions (Sec. II.C).
    The multiverse predictions for Lambda in Sec. II.D use this measure, and the authors assume it is representative of well-behaved measures.
  • domain assumption Euclidean quantum gravity instantons describe creation from nothing and bubble nucleation (Sec. III.A).
    Used to construct the compact instanton and to interpret it as an eternally inflating wall.
  • domain assumption The weak energy condition and standard causal structure arguments apply (Sec. III.D).
    Used to argue that a super-horizon wormhole must collapse to a black hole once it enters the cosmological horizon.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Eternal Inflation in Swampy Landscapes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EZT3ZMGW

@misc{pith2026190900068,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Eternal Inflation in Swampy Landscapes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EZT3ZMGW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00068}
}
read the original abstract

The much-discussed swampland conjectures suggest significant constraints on the properties of string theory landscape and on the nature of the multiverse that this landscape can support. The conjectures are especially constraining for models of inflation; in particular, they exclude the existence of de Sitter (dS) vacua. If the conjectures are false and dS vacua do exist, it still appears that their construction in string theory requires a fair amount of fine-tuning, so they may be vastly outnumbered by AdS vacua. Here we explore the multiverse structure suggested by these considerations. We consider two scenarios: (i) a landscape where dS vacua are rare and (ii) a landscape where dS vacua do not exist and the dS potential maxima and saddle points are not flat enough to allow for the usual hilltop inflation, even though slow-roll inflation is possible on the slopes of the potential. We argue that in both scenarios inflation is eternal and all parts of the landscape that can support inflation get represented in the multiverse. The spacetime structure of the multiverse in such models is nontrivial and is rather different from the standard picture.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00068 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: A 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Causal diagram for a transition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Field evolution in a 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: An example of the potential landscape consistent with the refined swampland conjecture. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Solution for the scale factor for the instanton. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Scalar field solution for the instanton. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Causal diagram of the bubble wall universe. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Causal diagram for an inflating bubble wall (BW) nucleated in an FRW inflating universe. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Same as in Fig. 8, except inflation is assumed to end in an AdS vacuum. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Relation between the horizon crossing time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Relation between the wormhole radius at horizon crossing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tunneling transitions Consider now quantum decay of a metastable dS vacuum. We shall adopt a naive picture where the string landscape is locally represented by a random Gaussian field U(φ) charac- terized by an average value ¯U, a typical amplitude U0 and a correlation length ξ in field space. A simple analytic estimate of the tunneling action was given by ...

  2. [2]

    Non-tunneling transitions The above discussion assumes that quantum tunneling between dS vacua is possible. However, if the density of dS vacua is very low, most of them may be completely surrounded by AdS vacua, and Coleman-DeLuccia (CdL) instantons connecting such vacua may not exist.2 Some rare dS vacua would have other dS vacua in their vicinity and w...

  3. [3]

    Bousso and J

    R. Bousso and J. Polchinski, JHEP 06, 006 (2000), hep-th/0004134

    arXiv 2000

  4. [4]

    Susskind, pp

    L. Susskind, pp. 247–266 (2003), hep-th/0302219

    arXiv 2003

  5. [5]

    M. R. Douglas, JHEP 05, 046 (2003), hep-th/0303194

    arXiv 2003

  6. [6]

    Kachru, R

    S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde, and S. P. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. D68, 046005 (2003), hep- th/0301240

    arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    Denef and M

    F. Denef and M. R. Douglas, JHEP 05, 072 (2004), hep-th/0404116

    arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    M. R. Douglas and S. Kachru, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 733 (2007), hep-th/0610102

    arXiv 2007

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D27, 2848 (1983). 29

    1983

  2. [10]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Lect. Notes Phys. 246, 107 (1986)

    1986

  3. [11]

    A. D. Linde, Nucl. Phys. B372, 421 (1992), hep-th/9110037

    1992 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Obied, H

    G. Obied, H. Ooguri, L. Spodyneiko, and C. Vafa (2018), 1806.08362

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Agrawal, G

    P. Agrawal, G. Obied, P. J. Steinhardt, and C. Vafa, Phys. Lett.B784, 271 (2018), 1806.09718

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Achucarro and G

    A. Achucarro and G. A. Palma, JCAP 1902, 041 (2019), 1807.04390

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Kehagias and A

    A. Kehagias and A. Riotto, Fortsch. Phys. 66, 1800052 (2018), 1807.05445

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    W. H. Kinney, S. Vagnozzi, and L. Visinelli, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 117001 (2019), 1808.06424

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    S. K. Garg and C. Krishnan (2018), 1807.05193

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    M. Dias, J. Frazer, A. Retolaza, and A. Westphal, Fortsch. Phys. 67, 2 (2019), 1807.06579

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Das, Phys

    S. Das, Phys. Rev. D99, 083510 (2019), 1809.03962

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Denef, A

    F. Denef, A. Hebecker, and T. Wrase, Phys. Rev. D98, 086004 (2018), 1807.06581

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    K. Choi, D. Chway, and C. S. Shin, JHEP 11, 142 (2018), 1809.01475

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Murayama, M

    H. Murayama, M. Yamazaki, and T. T. Yanagida, JHEP 12, 032 (2018), 1809.00478

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J. P. Conlon, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, 1850178 (2018), 1808.05040

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado, M. A. Urkiola, and J. M. Wachter, JHEP 01, 187 (2019), 1811.05463

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Olguin-Trejo, S

    Y. Olguin-Trejo, S. L. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, JCAP 1901, 031 (2019), 1810.08634

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Ooguri, E

    H. Ooguri, E. Palti, G. Shiu, and C. Vafa, Phys. Lett. B788, 180 (2019), 1810.05506

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    S. K. Garg, C. Krishnan, and M. Zaid Zaz, JHEP 03, 029 (2019), 1810.09406

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Andriot, Phys

    D. Andriot, Phys. Lett. B785, 570 (2018), 1806.10999

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Motaharfar, V

    M. Motaharfar, V. Kamali, and R. O. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D99, 063513 (2019), 1810.02816

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Ashoorioon, Phys

    A. Ashoorioon, Phys. Lett. B790, 568 (2019), 1810.04001

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    J. J. Heckman, C. Lawrie, L. Lin, J. Sakstein, and G. Zoccarato (2019), 1901.10489

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Matsui and F

    H. Matsui and F. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. D99, 023533 (2019), 1807.11938

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Dimopoulos, Phys

    K. Dimopoulos, Phys. Rev. D98, 123516 (2018), 1810.03438

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    W. H. Kinney, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 081302 (2019), 1811.11698

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Brahma and S

    S. Brahma and S. Shandera (2019), 1904.10979

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Z. Wang, R. Brandenberger, and L. Heisenberg (2019), 1907.08943

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Dvali and C

    G. Dvali and C. Gomez, Fortsch. Phys. 67, 1800092 (2019), 1806.10877

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Dvali, C

    G. Dvali, C. Gomez, and S. Zell, Fortsch. Phys. 67, 1800094 (2019), 1810.11002. 30

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Rudelius, JCAP 2019, 009 (2020), 1905.05198

    T. Rudelius, JCAP 2019, 009 (2020), 1905.05198

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde, E. McDonough, and M. Scalisi, JHEP 03, 134 (2019), 1901.02022

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Akrami, R

    Y. Akrami, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and V. Vardanyan, Fortsch. Phys. 67, 1800075 (2019), 1808.09440

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Dine and S

    M. Dine and S. Paban, JHEP 10, 088 (2015), 1506.06428

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Yamada and A

    M. Yamada and A. Vilenkin, JHEP 03, 029 (2018), 1712.01282

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    A. R. Brown and A. Dahlen, Phys. Rev. D82, 083519 (2010), 1004.3994

    2010 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Clifton, A

    T. Clifton, A. D. Linde, and N. Sivanandam, JHEP 02, 024 (2007), hep-th/0701083

    2007 arXiv

  38. [46]

    M. C. Johnson and I.-S. Yang, Phys. Rev. D82, 065023 (2010), 1005.3506

    2010 arXiv

  39. [47]

    A. R. Brown and A. Dahlen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 171301 (2011), 1108.0119

    2011 arXiv

  40. [48]

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado, H. Deng, and A. Vilenkin (2019), 1906.09657

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    J. R. Ellis, A. D. Linde, and M. Sher, Phys. Lett. B252, 203 (1990)

    1990

  42. [50]

    Braden, M

    J. Braden, M. C. Johnson, H. V. Peiris, A. Pontzen, and S. Weinfurtner (2018), 1806.06069

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    M. P. Hertzberg and M. Yamada (2019), 1904.08565

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Huang and L

    H. Huang and L. Ford (2019), work in progress. Seminar given by H. Huang at Tufts University, April 2018

    2019

  45. [53]

    H. Deng, J. Garriga, and A. Vilenkin, JCAP 1704, 050 (2017), 1612.03753

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Deng and A

    H. Deng and A. Vilenkin, JCAP 1712, 044 (2017), 1710.02865

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Freivogel, Class

    B. Freivogel, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 204007 (2011), 1105.0244

    2011 arXiv

  48. [56]

    A. D. Linde and A. Mezhlumian, Phys. Lett. B307, 25 (1993), gr-qc/9304015

    1993 arXiv

  49. [57]

    A. D. Linde, D. A. Linde, and A. Mezhlumian, Phys. Rev. D49, 1783 (1994), gr-qc/9306035

    1994 arXiv

  50. [58]

    De Simone, A

    A. De Simone, A. H. Guth, M. P. Salem, and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D78, 063520 (2008), 0805.2173

    2008 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Bousso, B

    R. Bousso, B. Freivogel, and I.-S. Yang, Phys. Rev. D79, 063513 (2009), 0808.3770

    2009 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Schwartz-Perlov and A

    D. Schwartz-Perlov and A. Vilenkin, JCAP 0606, 010 (2006), hep-th/0601162

    2006 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Garriga, D

    J. Garriga, D. Schwartz-Perlov, A. Vilenkin, and S. Winitzki, JCAP 0601, 017 (2006), hep- th/0509184

    2006

  54. [62]

    Schwartz-Perlov and A

    D. Schwartz-Perlov and A. Vilenkin, JCAP 1006, 024 (2010), 1004.4567

    2010 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Dvali and A

    G. Dvali and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D70, 063501 (2004), hep-th/0304043

    2004 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Dvali, Phys

    G. Dvali, Phys. Rev. D74, 025018 (2006), hep-th/0410286

    2006 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Basu and A

    R. Basu and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D46, 2345 (1992). 31

    1992

  58. [66]

    Basu and A

    R. Basu and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D50, 7150 (1994), gr-qc/9402040

    1994 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3137 (1994), hep-th/9402085

    1994 arXiv

  60. [68]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B327, 208 (1994), astro-ph/9402031

    1994 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Lett. 117B, 25 (1982)

    1982

  62. [70]

    Garriga and M

    J. Garriga and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D62, 043523 (2000), hep-th/9912118

    2000 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Lett. 133B, 177 (1983)

    1983

  64. [72]

    Ipser and P

    J. Ipser and P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. D30, 712 (1984)

    1984

  65. [73]

    L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. D39, 3571 (1989)

    1989

  66. [74]

    Freivogel, M

    B. Freivogel, M. Kleban, M. Rodriguez Martinez, and L. Susskind, JHEP 03, 039 (2006), hep-th/0505232

    2006 arXiv

  67. [75]

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado, M. Gomez-Reino, and K. Metallinos, JCAP 1302, 034 (2013), 1209.0796

    2013 arXiv

  68. [76]

    L. F. Abbott and S. R. Coleman, Nucl. Phys. B259, 170 (1985)

    1985

  69. [77]

    R. Basu, A. H. Guth, and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D44, 340 (1991)

    1991

  70. [78]

    S. W. Hawking and I. G. Moss, Phys. Lett. 110B, 35 (1982), [Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cos- mol.3,154(1987)]

    1982

  71. [79]

    S. R. Coleman and F. De Luccia, Phys. Rev. D21, 3305 (1980)

    1980

  72. [80]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Cambridge Mono- graphs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2011), ISBN 9780521200165, 9780521099066, 9780511826306, 9780521099066

    2011

  73. [81]

    R. P. Geroch, J. Math. Phys. 8, 782 (1967)

    1967

  74. [82]

    Garriga, A

    J. Garriga, A. Vilenkin, and J. Zhang, JCAP 1602, 064 (2016), 1512.01819. Appendix A: Wormhole evolution As discussed in Subsec. III D, after the AdS bubble is formed, the bubble wall grows into a region connected to the exterior FRW universe through a wormhole geometry. The w...

    2016 arXiv

  75. [83]

    (A15) To evolve this system, we need initial and boundary conditions

    (A5) ˙U =−1− Γ2 +U 2 2R − 4πRT 1 1 (A6) ˙Γ =−4πRT 0 1 B (A7) ˙ρ =− 4ρ 3−v2 [( 1−v2) K + 2v2U R + 2v Γ R + v′ B ] − 2 3−v2 ρ′v B , (A8) ˙v =−(1−v2) 3−v2 [ 2v ( K− 3U R ) − 2v2 Γ R + 3(1−v2)ρ′ 4ρB ] − 2 3−v2 v′v B , (A9) 33 ˙B =B ( K− 2U R ) , (A10) ˙R =U, (A11) where T00 = 3 +v...

  76. [84]

    35 0 100 200 300 400 500 tH 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 tBH FIG

    It is found that RBH≈ 1.2RH. 35 0 100 200 300 400 500 tH 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 tBH FIG. 10: Relation between the horizon crossing time tH and the black hole formation time tBH . The dots are from simulations with r0 = 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30. The dashed line is the be...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.