A long paper on measures in Cosmology, which I haven't read in its entireity yet. However, I found the final comment in the abstract quite provocative and interesting: "In a universe where the second law of thermodynamics holds, one cannot make use of our knowledge of the present state of the universe to "retrodict" the likelihood of past conditions." This is due to laws being time symmetric, while in practice we have the second law. In practice we *must* resort to Occam's razor and/or beauty arguments. Later: "if one wishes to make an argument in favor of inflation having occurred in the early universe, this argument must be based upon its being a simple and/or elegant hypothesis that accounts for observed phenomena. Any argument about the "likelihood" of inflation based upon the Liouville (or other) measure on phase space will require a justification for the use of this measure." Sometimes, beauty and Occam's razor are incompatible, or rather scale dependent (as in the case of the string landscape), and from a purely philosophical point of view I don't feel entriely comfortable with either being used as a criterion of truth when trying to discover things about the universe. However, this paper makes this seem inevitable. Certainly food for thought.

A neat paper demonstrating constraints on faster than light neutrinos using cosmological bounds on the number of effective relativistic species at BBN and at the CMB. For a simple Lorentzian tachyon there is an imaginary mass \mu, and an anergy dependent speed v(\mu,E)>1 (where c=1). The bounds on N_eff translate to bounds on the mass, and therefore bounds on the speed at different energies for this type of super-luminal neutrino. From the CMB the speed at OPERA energies (\sim GeV) is bounded to be v-1<10^{-23}ish, whereas OPERA claimed v-1\sim 10^{-5}. The constraint at \sim MeV is also tighter than SNe1987A constraints. These constarints further rule out explanation of the OPERA results with this type of neutrino. Even though I would not think OPERA is explained by anything like this anyway, I still think it is a simple and neat way to use cosmology. It would probably make a good problem sheet/exam question!

The authors construct exact instanton solutions for tunneling over very small barriers in the presence of gravity, and demonstrate matching between previous results, and with the flat potential and no gravity case. Confusingly, it seems that for consistency one should include the tunneling effect along side the rolling of a field on a flat potential, even when there is no barrier. I'm not sure quite what this means operationally, but I think it may have effects for models of quintessence where the asymptotic future is a big crunch. Here it seems we may not be able to consider simple scalar field rolling, but may also have to include the instanton effects. More excuses to go back and read Coleman-DeLuccia again are always good.

This group continue Steinhardt and Turok's on going interest in cyclic cosmology by using an anti-gravity phase to resolve a crunch/bang transition.