Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Multiverse Predictions for Habitability: Fundamental Physics and Galactic Habitability

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The multiverse can make testable predictions about fundamental physics, the paper argues—disfavoring flexible GUTs, freeze-out dark matter with high-energy baryogenesis, and pessimistic galactic disruption rates.

desk verdict The galactic-density machinery is a real extension, but the headline disfavoring claims are transforms of posited priors, not robust multiverse predictions. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08220 v1 pith:XFBURI4O submitted 2025-09-10 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAgr-qchep-th

McCullen Sandora This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAgr-qchep-th
keywords multiverseanthropicreasoninghabitabilitydarkmatterpriorsbaryogenesisgrandunifiedtheoriesgalacticdensityoriginoflife
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

This paper argues that the multiverse is a testable hypothesis rather than a philosophical extra: once one chooses how life-harboring planets are distributed, the probability of observing our physical constants can be computed, and the answer depends on which theories of particle physics and cosmology are true. It derives these probabilities for six macroscopic constants—the fine-structure constant, electron/proton mass ratio, strength of gravity, up and down quark masses, and the galactic density parameter—by folding a prior over fundamental constants together with an induced weight from microscopic and cosmological sectors, a star-formation efficiency, and habitability conditions. The new ingredients include a first-principles derivation of the induced weights and a treatment of how galactic density affects habitability through stellar encounters, supernovae, and active galactic nuclei. Under these choices, the paper finds flexible GUTs, freeze-out dark matter combined with high-energy baryogenesis, pessimistic galactic disruption rates, and several origin-of-life scenarios are disfavored. A careful reader would care because these are concrete, quasi-independent predictions that future astrobiology and particle physics could confirm or reject.

What carries the argument

The engine of the calculation is the induced weight: a posterior factor that compresses every microscopic and cosmological variable into a function of the macroscopic constants. W_micro is built from the measure in Eq. (7) and receives contributions from the Higgs VEV (BBN hydrogen survival and neutrino-driven supernovae), rigid or flexible GUT unification, and Higgs-top vacuum stability, tabulated in Table 1. W_cosmo is built from Eq. (31) and combines priors for the baryon-to-photon ratio η, dark-matter abundance ξ_dm, density-perturbation amplitude Q, and cosmological constant ρ_Λ with the proton count per universe under the scale-factor cutoff measure; the proton count carries a 1/ω fact

What would settle it

Measure whether dark matter is a thermal freeze-out relic and whether the baryon asymmetry came from an Affleck-Dine scalar field. If both are confirmed, the model predicts our gravity strength and galactic density should be highly atypical, with no habitability combination reaching a minimum probability above 0.1; observing otherwise would falsify the multiverse-habitability package. Conversely, a confirmed freeze-in or primordial-black-hole dark matter would remove the freeze-out disfavoring.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the multiverse's predictions for the constants we observe are no longer hostage to unspecified habitability choices: the probability factorizes into a microscopic induced weight W_micro, a cosmological induced weight W_cosmo, and a star/galaxy habitability product, and the whole chain can be evaluated. The cosmological weight is a power law in the galactic density κ and gravity strength γ whose exponents are set by the dark-matter and baryogenesis scenarios in Table 2—for example, freeze-out dark matter gives q_dm=0 and Affleck-Dine baryogenesis gives q_eta=-1/2, yielding κ^{13/8} γ^{5/4}. Scanning 54,000 combinations of cosmology scenario

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the chosen prior measure over fundamental constants—uniform draws for the squared weak scale, Planck mass, gauge couplings, Higgs self-coupling, and cosmological constant, log-uniform Yukawa couplings, and the stated dark-matter and baryon-abundance distributions; if the true multiverse measure differs, the disfavoring rankings can shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the multiverse and these priors are correct, flexible GUT models are effectively excluded: the GUT-induced weight punishes our observed α and γ so strongly that the probability of seeing them falls to about 10^{-12} for the tested habitability choices.
  • If dark matter turns out to be a thermal freeze-out relic and baryogenesis is Affleck-Dine, the multiverse predicts our values of the gravity strength and galactic density are very atypical—no examined habitability combination reaches a minimum probability of 0.1.
  • Pessimistic galactic disruption rates are disfavored: once survival probabilities drop to about 0.9, at least one of the observed constants becomes unlikely for every tested combination, so nature should not put us near the 'hairy edge' of disruption.
  • Astrobiology becomes a multiverse test: solar-energetic-proton, extreme-UV, and panspermia origin-of-life scenarios are nearly universally disfavored, so future evidence for these mechanisms on other worlds would count against the multiverse explanation.
  • Only about 1.4 percent of the 34,074 habitability combinations with up to eight conditions pass a minimum-probability threshold of 0.1, so most conceivable life-permitting rules are incompatible with the multiverse as modeled here.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The freeze-out disfavoring is conditional on the uniform m_dm^2 prior; if dark-matter abundance is instead log-uniform (freeze-in, primordial black holes, or subhorizon axions), the ranking changes, so a future detection of freeze-out dark matter would not by itself falsify the multiverse—only this prior package.
  • The same induced-weight machinery could be applied to parameters this paper leaves aside—neutrino masses, spectral tilt, curvature, axion parameters—adding further quasi-independent probes of the multiverse.
  • The treatment fixes the form of the laws while scanning their constants; allowing different particle content or dimensionality would likely sharpen the predictions but is left for future work, so the current disfavorings are conservative lower bounds on the multiverse's discriminative power.
  • The galactic-density variable κ is new relative to the earlier papers in the series and is what makes the disruption-rate and AGN predictions possible; extending the same method to planetary-system properties could yield more conditional predictions of the same type.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript, the tenth in the author's series on multiverse habitability, develops a formalism in which probabilities for observed physical constants are computed from a prior measure over microscopic, cosmological, and local variables, filtered by habitability conditions. The new material consists of (i) induced weights from the Higgs vacuum expectation value, grand unified theories, and standard-model vacuum stability; (ii) cosmological induced weights from dark matter and baryogenesis scenarios; (iii) a treatment of the galactic density parameter κ, including star formation efficiency and galactic disruption mechanisms; and (iv) an extensive scan over habitability-condition combinations. The headline claims are that flexible GUTs, pessimistic galactic disruption rates, some origin-of-life scenarios, and freeze-out dark matter with high-energy baryogenesis are disfavored, and that these constitute concrete testable multiverse predictions.

Significance. If the results held robustly, the paper would be an important demonstration that multiverse modeling can impose nontrivial filters on particle-physics and cosmological theories. The manuscript has genuine strengths: the analytic derivations are transparent and the exponent bookkeeping from the stated priors to Table 2 is internally consistent; the treatment of the galactic density parameter is a useful extension; and the author provides code and openly lists many of the adopted ansatzes and normalizations. However, the advertised predictions are conditional on a set of prior measures and regularization choices that are not derived from the multiverse hypothesis itself, and the paper's own Section 3.1 concedes that these priors depend sensitively on unknown physics. The central claims therefore constitute conditional statements about a particular modeling framework rather than robust standalone predictions of the multiverse.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Table 2, and Abstract] The claim that 'freeze-out dark matter with high energy baryogenesis is disfavored' is a direct transform of the assumed priors q_dm=0 and q_η=-1/2. Freeze-out yields q_dm=0 only because m_dm^2 is taken uniform; if one instead uses a log-uniform abundance prior, as the paper itself does for subhorizon axions, PBHs, and freeze-in, q_dm=-1 and the FO+highE ranking shifts. Similarly, Affleck-Dine gives q_η=-1/2 only if the initial field value φ_0 is uniform. The paper acknowledges in Section 3.1 that 'most of their prior probability distributions depend sensitively on the theories that have been proposed,' so the abstract's unqualified statement that this scenario is disfavored in the multiverse overstates what has been shown. The claims should either be explicitly conditioned on the adopted priors or accompanied by a robustness analysis over plausible alternatives.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (28)] The proton count N_protons^universe, and hence the γ and κ exponents in Table 2 and all subsequent scenario rankings, depends on the choice of the scale-factor cutoff measure. The paper notes the measure problem and states that results can depend 'to an extreme degree' on the regularization, but it does not quantify this dependence for the present predictions. The abstract-level conclusion that FO+highE is disfavored relies on the κ dependence κ^{13/8}, which would differ under other measures such as causal diamond or proper-time cutoffs. Without an analysis of at least one alternative measure, the robustness of the headline cosmological predictions is not established.
  3. [Section 2.2, Eq. (15)] The strong disfavoring of flexible GUTs follows from the specific prior p(Δ3) ∝ exp(-|Δ3|/c3), derived from uniformly distributed m_X1, m_X2. This produces W_weak ∝ γ^{9/(2π c3)} exp(-c_EM/(c3 α)) and drives the reported probability down to 8×10^{-13}. If a different, equally plausible prior for the heavy-particle masses is adopted, such as log-uniform m_X, the functional form of W_weak changes and the conclusion may not survive. The paper should either justify this prior as the unique consequence of a concrete high-energy theory or present the result as an illustration of prior sensitivity rather than a multiverse prediction.
  4. [Conclusions] The conclusion states that 'we did make several robust findings' and that the work 'establishes that it is indeed possible to make concrete testable predictions within the multiverse setting.' This overstates the degree of robustness. The paper's own limitations—Section 3.1's prior sensitivity, the measure ambiguity in Section 3.2, and the closing admission that the analysis 'can in no sense be considered complete or final'—imply that the findings are conditional predictions of a particular modeling framework. The abstract and conclusions should be tempered accordingly, or the claimed robustness should be supported by sensitivity tests across priors and measures.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (11)] The notation in Eq. (17) and the surrounding text uses 'log ˜cγ' and 'const + B/log ˜cγ' where B is not explicitly defined; this makes the metastability result harder to follow. Please clarify the notation and the definitions of the constants.
  2. [Section 3.4, Eqs. (33)-(35)] The star formation efficiency is derived from analytic order-of-magnitude estimates with several dimensionless prefactors that are normalized to observed values. The paper should state more explicitly how these normalizations are propagated into the final probabilities and whether the reported probabilities are sensitive to them within the range of current observational uncertainty.
  3. [Figures 3 and 4] The row labels in Figures 3 and 4 use shorthand 'κ=..., γ=...' but the text refers to the exponents in Table 2. Please make the correspondence between the figure rows and the scenarios in Table 2 explicit in the captions.
  4. [Section 4, Table 4] The table reports N(p_min > 0.1) out of 4,500 combinations, but the text notes that for combinations with 8 conditions the sample support can dwindle to 46,000. It would be helpful to state the Monte Carlo uncertainty on the reported counts and on the 'best combination' probabilities, particularly for the rows where N is small.
  5. [Throughout] Several habitability functions are imported from previous papers in the series without derivations. For a standalone paper, a short appendix summarizing these functions and their normalizations would improve readability and reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the disfavoring claims are explicit conditional consequences of stated priors, not fitted or self-referential.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is explicit: Eq. (7) and Eq. (19) state the microscopic and cosmological priors; Sections 2 and 3 compute induced weights from those priors; Table 2 tabulates the resulting power laws; Section 4 evaluates probabilities and ranks scenarios. The headline disfavorings (flexible GUTs, freeze-out DM with high-energy baryogenesis, pessimistic disruption rates, certain origin-of-life scenarios) are analytic consequences of these stated inputs, not quantities fitted to the data they are said to predict. For example, the flexible-GUT result follows from the stated assumption m_Xi ~ U(0,Λ_UV) giving p(Δ3)∝exp(-|Δ3|/c3) in Eq. (15); the freeze-out/high-energy-baryogenesis result follows from the stated priors q_dm=0 and q_eta=-1/2 in Table 2. The paper itself flags the prior sensitivity in Sec. 3.1: 'most of their prior probability distributions depend sensitively on the theories that have been proposed to explain them.' That is model dependence, not circularity, because alternative priors are enumerated (scale-invariant dark matter, log-uniform baryogenesis) and their consequences are tracked. The origin-of-life scenarios are imported from the author's prior work, but the ansatz (proportional to total disequilibrium produced) is stated and does not encode the target conclusion about which scenarios are disfavored; the disfavoring is computed rather than assumed. No equation is equivalent to its target by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no circular step is demonstrated.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on the posited prior measure (Eq. 7 and Eq. 19), the scale-factor cutoff measure for the proton count, a corpus of habitability functions imported from the author's earlier papers, and a roster of anthropic bounds from the literature. The paper's own text (Section 3.1 and the conclusion) concedes that prior choices 'depend sensitively' on unknown theories and that the calculations are 'back of the envelope'. No fundamentally new entity is introduced: the multiverse is the hypothesis under test, not an entity invented by this paper.

free parameters (6)
  • p_survive normalization, stellar encounters = varied: 0.99, 0.9, 0.5
    Section 3.5: 'we treat the normalization as a free parameter that dictates p_survive'; optical depth Eq. 36 has an uncalibrated overall normalization.
  • p_survive normalization, supernova disruption = varied: 0.99, 0.9, 0.5
    Section 3.5, Eq. 38: 'again, we will vary the prefactor in this expression to explore how this influences multiverse probabilities'.
  • p_survive normalization, AGN sterilization = varied: 0.99, 0.9, 0.5
    Section 3.5, Eq. 39: AGN influence radius depends on an uncertain flux threshold; normalization treated as free and varied.
  • Star formation efficiency shape and mass cutoffs = M_lower normalized to 7.9x10^10 Msun, M_upper to 4.0x10^13 Msun
    Section 3.4, Eqs. 32-35: empirical double power law 'fit to the data'; '2/3 of all star formation occurs within a factor of 3 of this peak halo mass'; fitted to observed galaxy properties, then extrapolated to all universes.
  • Habitability proportionality constants (time, area, S, origin of life) = 1 for each
    Section 4: habitability 'proportional to stellar lifetime', 'proportional to planet area', 'proportional to total disequilibrium produced', and origin-of-life probability proportional to disequilibrium, each with unit coefficient; no derivation.
  • bio stellar lifetime threshold = several billion years
    Section 4: 'bio: only stars which burn for several billion years are considered habitable'; hand-chosen threshold entering the probability integrals.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Universes vary only the values of constants, not the form of the laws
    Section 1.1: 'we have restricted our attention to universes whose laws have the same form as our own'; excludes summation over particle content, dimensions, etc.
  • domain assumption Principle of mediocrity: observer weight per universe is proportional to N_observers
    Eq. 1 and text citing Vilenkin 1995; converts the multiverse measure into an observer-biased probability.
  • ad hoc to paper Prior measure: v^2_EW ~ U(0,Lambda^2_UV), M^2_pl ~ U(0,Lambda^2_UV), alpha_i ~ U(0,1), Yukawas log-uniform, lambda_H ~ U(0,1)
    Eq. 7, called 'reasonable ansatzes' in Section 2; log-uniform Yukawas cited to Donoghue et al. 2006, the rest posited.
  • domain assumption Cosmological priors: rho_Lambda flat near 0; dark matter q_dm in {0,-1/2,-1}; baryogenesis q_eta in {-1,-1/2}
    Section 3.1, Eqs. 19-21: Weinberg 1987 flat rho_Lambda; per-theory priors for freeze-out, axion, PBH, freeze-in dark matter and leptogenesis, Affleck-Dine, electroweak baryogenesis.
  • ad hoc to paper Scale-factor cutoff measure regularizes the infinite proton count
    Section 3.2, Eq. 28: the paper notes the measure problem makes results 'depend sensitively' on regularization, and adopts scale-factor cutoff partly because it is 'compatible with our observed value of the cosmological constant'.
  • domain assumption Anthropic bounds imported from the literature: BBN hydrogen survival, SN neutrino delta function, Weinberg rho_Lambda < kappa^3 gamma^4, Silk damping omega > 3.5, Q in 10^-6 to 10^-4
    Eqs. 10-12 and Section 3.1/3.3, from Hall et al. 2014, D'Amico et al. 2019, Weinberg 1987, Tegmark et al. 2006, Tegmark and Rees 1998.
  • domain assumption GUT unification condition with SUSY-SU(5) coefficients and exponential Delta_3 prior for flexible GUTs
    Section 2.2, Eqs. 13-15: c_EM=3/7, c_w=15/7, c_3=19/(14 pi); p(Delta_3) = (1/2c_3) exp(-|Delta_3|/c_3) from uniform M_Xi; this prior drives the 'flexible GUTs disfavored' claim.
  • ad hoc to paper Habitability functions H imported from the author's earlier papers in the same series
    Section 4: conditions terr, temp, TL, bio, time, area, S, C/O, Mg/Si, nitrogen, obliquity, and 11 origin-of-life scenarios taken from Sandora 2019a-d, Sandora et al. 2022a,b, 2023, each with unit proportionality and no independent derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper Q prior is log-uniform so that the observed Q is typical
    Section 3.1: 'observations favor a scenario where the distribution of values is approximately log-uniform, including the prior'; prior chosen to match the observed value and then used in the posterior.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiverse Predictions for Habitability: Fundamental Physics and Galactic Habitability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XFBURI4O

@misc{pith2026250908220,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiverse Predictions for Habitability: Fundamental Physics and Galactic Habitability},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XFBURI4O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08220}
}
read the original abstract

In the multiverse hypothesis, a range of universes exist with differing values of our physical constants. Here, we investigate how the probabilities of observing our values of these constants depend on the assumptions made about the theories governing particle physics and cosmology, along with habitability. The particle physics effects we consider include constraints on the Higgs vacuum expectation value from big bang nucleosynthesis and supernovae, grand unified theories (GUTs), and standard model stability. Cosmology effects we consider are different theories of dark matter and baryogenesis, and for galactic habitability effects we include star formation efficiency, stellar encounters, supernova explosions, and active galactic nuclei. We find the following to be disfavored in the multiverse scenario: flexible GUTs, pessimistic galactic disruption rates, some origin of life theories, and freeze-out dark matter with high energy baryogenesis. These predictions can be tested in future experiments to either confirm or rule out the multiverse.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08220 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dependence of various factors on the galactic density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The minimum probability of observing the 6 macroscopic constants and 3 local [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Best value of the minimum probability for each cosmology scenario-habitability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as Fig. 3 above, comparing against origin of life scenarios. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Degree of Fine-Tuning Needed for a Viable Universe: Not Fragile?

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

    Most constants and cosmological parameters that control structure can vary by orders of magnitude and still yield long-lived universes with stars, planets, and complex nuclei; classic stellar fine-tuning cases are les...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    C., Coppess, K

    Adams, F. C., Coppess, K. R., and Bloch, A. M. (2015). Planets in other universes: habitability constraints on density fluctuations and galactic structure. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2015(09):030

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    and Dine, M

    Affleck, I. and Dine, M. (1985). A new mechanism for baryogenesis. Nuclear Physics B , 249(2):361--380

    work page 1985

  3. [3]

    Arvanitaki, A., Dimopoulos, S., Dubovsky, S., Kaloper, N., and March-Russell, J. (2010). String axiverse. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology , 81(12):123530

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    and Tombesi, F

    Balbi, A. and Tombesi, F. (2017). The habitability of the milky way during the active phase of its central supermassive black hole. Scientific Reports , 7(1):16626

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Barbieri, R., Creminelli, P., Strumia, A., and Tetradis, N. (2000). Baryogenesis through leptogenesis. Nuclear Physics B , 575(1-2):61--77

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    A., Elahi, P

    Barnes, L. A., Elahi, P. J., Salcido, J., Bower, R. G., Lewis, G. F., Theuns, T., Schaller, M., Crain, R. A., and Schaye, J. (2018). Galaxy formation efficiency and the multiverse explanation of the cosmological constant with eagle simulations. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 477(3):3727--3743

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    S., Wechsler, R

    Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., and Conroy, C. (2013). The average star formation histories of galaxies in dark matter halos from z= 0--8. The Astrophysical Journal , 770(1):57

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    and Hall, L

    Bousso, R. and Hall, L. (2013). Why comparable? a multiverse explanation of the dark matter-baryon coincidence. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology , 88(6):063503

    work page 2013

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    and Leichenauer, S

    Bousso, R. and Leichenauer, S. (2010). Predictions from star formation in the multiverse. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology , 81(6):063524

    2010

  2. [10]

    Buchner, J. (2024). Impediments to the cosmic growth of galaxies: The outflow budget from star formation and active galactic nuclei. Astronomy & Astrophysics , 689:L2

    2024

  3. [11]

    Carr, B. J. and Rees, M. J. (1979). The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world. Nature , 278(5705):605--612

    1979

  4. [12]

    and White III, R

    Clavelli, L. and White III, R. (2006). Problems in a weakless universe. arXiv preprint hep-ph/0609050

    2006 arXiv

  5. [13]

    and Weinberg, E

    Coleman, S. and Weinberg, E. (1973). Radiative corrections as the origin of spontaneous symmetry breaking. Physical Review D , 7(6):1888

    1973

  6. [14]

    Davidson, S., Nardi, E., and Nir, Y. (2008). Leptogenesis. Physics Reports , 466(4-5):105--177

    2008

  7. [15]

    H., Salem, M

    De Simone, A., Guth, A. H., Salem, M. P., and Vilenkin, A. (2008). Predicting the cosmological constant with the scale-factor cutoff measure. Phys. Rev. D , 78(6)

    2008

  8. [16]

    and Silk, J

    Dekel, A. and Silk, J. (1986). The origin of dwarf galaxies, cold dark matter, and biased galaxy formation. Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 303, April 1, 1986, p. 39-55. , 303:39--55

    1986

  9. [17]

    F., Dutta , K., and Ross , A

    Donoghue , J. F., Dutta , K., and Ross , A. (2006). Quark and lepton masses and mixing in the landscape . Phys. Rev. D , 73(11):113002

    2006

  10. [18]

    D’Amico, G., Strumia, A., Urbano, A., and Xue, W. (2019). Direct anthropic bound on the weak scale from supernov explosions. Physical Review D , 100(8):083013

    2019

  11. [19]

    J., and Watari, T

    Feldstein, B., Hall, L. J., and Watari, T. (2005). Density perturbations and the cosmological constant from inflationary landscapes. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology , 72(12):123506

    2005

  12. [20]

    Feng, J. L. (2023). The wimp paradigm: Theme and variations. SciPost Physics Lecture Notes , page 071

    2023

  13. [21]

    D., Melott, A

    Fields, B. D., Melott, A. L., Ellis, J., Ertel, A. F., Fry, B. J., Lieberman, B. S., Liu, Z., Miller, J. A., and Thomas, B. C. (2020). Supernova triggers for end-devonian extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117(35):21008--21010

    2020

  14. [22]

    Freivogel, B. (2010). Anthropic explanation of the dark matter abundance. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2010(03):021

    2010

  15. [23]

    Freivogel , B. (2011). Making predictions in the multiverse . Classical and Quantum Gravity , 28(20):204007

    2011

  16. [24]

    and Nielsen, H

    Froggatt, C. and Nielsen, H. B. (1996). Standard model criticality prediction top mass 173 5 gev and higgs mass 135 9 gev. Physics Letters B , 368(1-2):96--102

    1996

  17. [25]

    Garny, M., Sandora, M., and Sloth, M. S. (2016). Planckian interacting massive particles as dark matter. Physical review letters , 116(10):101302

    2016

  18. [26]

    Garriga , J., Livio , M., and Vilenkin , A. (2000). Cosmological constant and the time of its dominance . Phys. Rev. D , 61(2):023503

    2000

  19. [27]

    and Vilenkin, A

    Garriga, J. and Vilenkin, A. (2006). Anthropic prediction for and the q catastrophe. Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement , 163:245--257

    2006

  20. [28]

    Gonzalez, G. (2005). Habitable zones in the universe. Origins of life and evolution of biospheres , 35(6):555--606

    2005

  21. [29]

    Gonzalez, G., Brownlee, D., and Ward, P. (2001). The galactic habitable zone: galactic chemical evolution. Icarus , 152(1):185--200

    2001

  22. [30]

    Green, A. M. and Kavanagh, B. J. (2021). Primordial black holes as a dark matter candidate. Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics , 48(4):043001

    2021

  23. [31]

    J., Jedamzik, K., March-Russell, J., and West, S

    Hall, L. J., Jedamzik, K., March-Russell, J., and West, S. M. (2010). Freeze-in production of fimp dark matter. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2010(3):1--33

    2010

  24. [32]

    Hall, L. J. and Nomura, Y. (2008). Evidence for the multiverse in the standard model and beyond. Physical Review D , 78(3):035001

    2008

  25. [33]

    J., Pinner, D., and Ruderman, J

    Hall, L. J., Pinner, D., and Ruderman, J. T. (2014). The weak scale from bbn. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2014(12):1--29

    2014

  26. [34]

    and Rix, H.-W

    H \"a ring, N. and Rix, H.-W. (2004). On the black hole mass-bulge mass relation. The Astrophysical Journal , 604(2):L89

    2004

  27. [35]

    D., and Perez, G

    Harnik, R., Kribs, G. D., and Perez, G. (2006). A universe without weak interactions. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology , 74(3):035006

    2006

  28. [36]

    Hertzberg, M. P. (2017). A correlation between the higgs mass and dark matter. Advances in High Energy Physics , 2017(1):6295927

    2017

  29. [37]

    F., and Steudtner, T

    Hiller, G., H \"o hne, T., Litim, D. F., and Steudtner, T. (2024). Vacuum stability in the standard model and beyond. Physical Review D , 110(11):115017

    2024

  30. [38]

    Isidori, G., Ridolfi, G., and Strumia, A. (2001). On the metastability of the standard model vacuum. Nuclear Physics B , 609(3):387--409

    2001

  31. [39]

    Janka, H.-T. (2012). Explosion mechanisms of core-collapse supernovae. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science , 62(1):407--451

    2012

  32. [40]

    Kaib, N. A. and Raymond, S. N. (2025). The influence of passing field stars on the solar system’s dynamical future. Icarus , page 116632

    2025

  33. [41]

    King, A. (2003). Black holes, galaxy formation, and the mbh- relation. The Astrophysical Journal , 596(1):L27

    2003

  34. [42]

    and Davies, M

    Kokaia, G. and Davies, M. B. (2019). Stellar encounters with giant molecular clouds. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 489(4):5165--5180

    2019

  35. [43]

    Kolb, E. W. and Turner, M. S. (1990). The Early Universe , volume 69. Taylor and Francis

    1990

  36. [44]

    and Adams, F

    Li, G. and Adams, F. C. (2015). Cross-sections for planetary systems interacting with passing stars and binaries. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 448(1):344--363

    2015

  37. [45]

    Linde, A. D. (1985). A new mechanism of baryogeneses and the inflationary universe. Physics Letters B , 160(4-5):243--248

    1985

  38. [46]

    Lingam, M., Ginsburg, I., and Bialy, S. (2019). Active galactic nuclei: boon or bane for biota? The Astrophysical Journal , 877(1):62

    2019

  39. [47]

    Marsh, D. J. (2016). Axion cosmology. Physics Reports , 643:1--79

    2016

  40. [48]

    Mirizzi, A., Tamborra, I., Janka, H.-T., Saviano, N., Scholberg, K., Bollig, R., H \"u depohl, L., and Chakraborty, S. (2016). Supernova neutrinos: production, oscillations and detection. La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento , 39:1--112

    2016

  41. [49]

    Morrissey, D. E. and Ramsey-Musolf, M. J. (2012). Electroweak baryogenesis. New Journal of Physics , 14(12):125003

    2012

  42. [50]

    Mukhanov, V. F. (2005). Physical foundations of cosmology . Cambridge university press

    2005

  43. [51]

    Nanopoulos, D. (1980). Bounds on the baryon/photon ratio due to our existence. Physics Letters B , 91(1):67--71

    1980

  44. [52]

    and Sloth, M

    Niedermann, F. and Sloth, M. S. (2023). New early dark energy as a solution to the h\_0 and s\_8 tensions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03481

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    K., Peacock, J

    Oh, B. K., Peacock, J. A., Khochfar, S., and Smith, B. D. (2022). The fate of baryons in counterfactual universes. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 517(1):59--75

    2022

  46. [54]

    Particle Data Group\, and Workman, R., Burkert, V., Crede, V., Klempt, E., Thoma, U., Tiator, L., Agashe, K., Aielli, G., Allanach, B., et al. (2022). Review of particle physics. Progress of theoretical and experimental physics , 2022(8):083C01

    2022

  47. [55]

    Peskin, M. E. (2018). An Introduction to quantum field theory . CRC press

    2018

  48. [56]

    J., Simpson, F., and Verde, L

    Piran, T., Jimenez, R., Cuesta, A. J., Simpson, F., and Verde, L. (2016). Cosmic explosions, life in the universe, and the cosmological constant. Physical review letters , 116(8):081301

    2016

  49. [57]

    and Vilenkin, A

    Pogosian, L. and Vilenkin, A. (2007). Anthropic predictions for vacuum energy and neutrino masses in the light of wmap-3. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2007(01):025

    2007

  50. [58]

    G., and Theuns, T

    Salcido, J., Bower, R. G., and Theuns, T. (2020). How feedback shapes galaxies: an analytic model. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 491(4):5083--5100

    2020

  51. [59]

    Sandora, M. (2019a). Multiverse predictions for habitability: Fraction of life that develops intelligence. Universe , 5(7):175

  52. [60]

    Sandora, M. (2019b). Multiverse predictions for habitability: Fraction of planets that develop life. Universe , 5(7):171

  53. [61]

    Sandora, M. (2019c). Multiverse predictions for habitability: Number of potentially habitable planets. Universe , 5(6):157

  54. [62]

    Sandora, M. (2019d). Multiverse predictions for habitability: The number of stars and their properties. Universe , 5(6):149

  55. [63]

    Sandora, M., Airapetian, V., Barnes, L., and Lewis, G. F. (2022a). Multiverse predictions for habitability: Planetary characteristics. Universe , 9(1):2

  56. [64]

    F., and P \'e rez-Rodr \' guez, I

    Sandora, M., Airapetian, V., Barnes, L., Lewis, G. F., and P \'e rez-Rodr \' guez, I. (2022b). Multiverse predictions for habitability: Element abundances. Universe , 8(12):651

  57. [65]

    F., and P \'e rez-Rodr \' guez, I

    Sandora, M., Airapetian, V., Barnes, L., Lewis, G. F., and P \'e rez-Rodr \' guez, I. (2023). Multiverse predictions for habitability: Origin of life scenarios. Universe , 9(1):42

    2023

  58. [66]

    and Mamon, G

    Silk, J. and Mamon, G. A. (2012). The current status of galaxy formation. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics , 12(8):917

    2012

  59. [67]

    A., and Lombriser, L

    Sorini, D., Peacock, J. A., and Lombriser, L. (2024). The impact of the cosmological constant on past and future star formation. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 535(2):1449--1474

    2024

  60. [68]

    Starobinsky, A. A. (1982). Dynamics of phase transition in the new inflationary universe scenario and generation of perturbations. Physics Letters B , 117(3-4):175--178

    1982

  61. [69]

    and Witten, E

    Svrcek, P. and Witten, E. (2006). Axions in string theory. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2006(06):051

    2006

  62. [70]

    J., and Wilczek, F

    Tegmark, M., Aguirre, A., Rees, M. J., and Wilczek, F. (2006). Dimensionless constants, cosmology, and other dark matters. Physical Review D , 73(2):023505

    2006

  63. [71]

    and Rees , M

    Tegmark , M. and Rees , M. J. (1998). Why Is the Cosmic Microwave Background Fluctuation Level 10 ^ -5 ? Astrophysical Journal , 499:526--532

    1998

  64. [72]

    C., Engler, E., Kachelrie , M., Melott, A., Overholt, A., and Semikoz, D

    Thomas, B. C., Engler, E., Kachelrie , M., Melott, A., Overholt, A., and Semikoz, D. (2016). Terrestrial effects of nearby supernovae in the early pleistocene. The Astrophysical journal letters , 826(1):L3

    2016

  65. [73]

    A., and Nagashima, M

    Totani, T., Omiya, H., Sudoh, T., Kobayashi, M. A., and Nagashima, M. (2019). Lethal radiation from nearby supernovae helps explain the small cosmological constant. Astrobiology , 19(1):126--131

    2019

  66. [74]

    Trodden, M. (1999). Electroweak baryogenesis. Reviews of Modern Physics , 71(5):1463

    1999

  67. [75]

    Vilenkin , A. (1995). Predictions from Quantum Cosmology . Physical Review Letters , 74:846--849

    1995

  68. [76]

    Weinberg , S. (1987). Anthropic bound on the cosmological constant . Physical Review Letters , 59:2607--2610

    1987

  69. [77]

    Whitmire, D. P. (2020). The habitability of large elliptical galaxies. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 494(2):3048--3052

    2020

  70. [78]

    Zee, A. (2010). Quantum field theory in a nutshell , volume 7. Princeton university press

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.