PreprintCited by 3

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

The lifetime of the electroweak vacuum and sensitivity to Planck scale physics

Branchina, Vincenzo, Messina, Emanuele, Sher, Marc·2014·arXiv

Abstract

If the Standard Model (SM) is valid up to extremely high energy scales, then the Higgs potential becomes unstable at approximately $10^{11}$ GeV. However, calculations of the lifetime of the SM vacuum have shown that it vastly exceeds the age of the Universe. It was pointed out by two of us (VB,EM) that these calculations are extremely sensitive to effects from Planck scale higher-dimensional operators and, without knowledge of these operators, firm conclusions about the lifetime of the SM vacuum cannot be drawn. The previous paper used analytical approximations to the potential and, except for Higgs contributions, ignored loop corrections to the bounce action. In this work, we do not rely on any analytical approximations and consider all contributions to the bounce action, confirming the earlier result. It is surprising that the Planck scale operators can have such a large effect when the instability is at $10^{11}$ GeV. There are two reasons for the size of this effect. In typical tunneling calculations, the value of the field at the center of the critical bubble is much larger than the point of the instability; in the SM case, this turns out to be numerically within an order of magnitude of the Planck scale. In addition, tunneling is an inherently non-perturbative phenomenon, and may not be as strongly suppressed by inverse powers of the Planck scale. We include effective $Φ^6$ and $Φ^8$ Planck-scale operators and show that they can have an enormous effect on the tunneling rate.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1408.5302

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Negative values of λ_6 should destabilise the false vacuum.

    “On the other hand, as noted in refs.[31,32], negative values of λ 6 should destabilise the false vacuum.”

    From The fate of the Higgs vacuum (2016) · cites this paper as [32]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. G. Degrassi, arXiv:1405.6852 [hep-ph]. · arXiv
  2. V. Branchina, arXiv:1405.7864 [hep-ph]. · arXiv
  3. V. Branchina, E. Messina, A. Platania, arXiv:1407.4112 [hep-ph]. · arXiv
  4. A. Kusenko, K. M. Lee and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 4903 [hep-th/9609100]. · arXiv
  5. A. Pais, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 40 (1954) 835;

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Branchina, V., Messina, E., & Sher, M.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2014
References
0
Type
Preprint

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review