A Casimir turning point as the beginning of a small flat universe

May combine two claims.

Non-zero shear makes Ḣ < 0 at H = 0, and the general-H identity excludes degenerate crossings.

“Non-zero shear makes Ḣ < 0 at H = 0, and the general-H identity of Appendix A 2 excludes degenerate crossings.”

May combine two claims.

With a constant vacuum energy 3 M_P^2 h^2 the negative Casimir energy turns a contracting torus around; the leading solution is L = L_b √cosh 2ht, L_b^4 = N_eff_C γ_C / (3 M_P^2 h^2), with H = h tanh 2ht.

“With a constant vacuum energy 3 M 2 P h 2 the negative Casimir energy turns a contracting torus around.The leading solution [20,21] is L = L b √ cosh 2ht, L 4 b = N eff C γ C 3 M 2 P h 2 ,(16) with H = h tanh 2ht.”

• cites [20]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [21]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The resonance tunnels in r through the barrier at r≈3-5.5 while w stays in its local ground channel.

“The resonance tunnels in r through the barrier at r ≈ 3-5.5 while w stays in its local ground channel.”

May combine two claims.

Sectors with 't Hooft flux need a hypercharge flux of at least 2π, whose classical energy is 2.36 times the whole AAA Casimir energy, so they cannot turn around.

“Sectors with 't Hooft flux need a hypercharge flux of at least 2π, whose classical energy, 2π 2 /g 2 Y L = 100.7/L, is 2.36 times the whole AAA Casimir energy, so they cannot turn around.”

May combine two claims.

The ground-state energy Q/L of the constant modes of the gauge and Higgs fields does not depend on the shape and is a fraction f0 = 0.30 of the free Casimir energy at the cube.

“The ground-state energy Q/L of the constant modes of the gauge and Higgs fields does not depend on the shape and is a fraction f 0 = 0.30 of the free Casimir energy at the cube,”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The content of Sec.II has B = 15 and F = 45, hence N_PPP_C = -30, N_AAA_C = +25.515.

“The content of Sec.II has B = 12 + 2 + 1 = 15 for the gauge vectors, the Higgs doublet and the static graviton, and F = 45 for the Weyl fermions, hence N PPP C = 15 -45 = -30, N AAA C = 15 + 45 × 0.233673 = +25.515.”

May combine two claims.

Numerically κ3=-0.393, κ2=-0.242, and κY=+0.700, and κ3/2 reproduces the small-volume coefficient -0.19631 of Ref. [42].

“Numerically κ 3 = -0.393,κ 2 = -0.242,and κ Y = +0.700(Appendix B 2), and κ 3 /2 reproduces the small-volume coefficient -0.19631 of Ref. [42].”

• cites [42]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The tadpole of the periodic bosons is negative (T_B<0), so the gauge non-zero modes partly undo the linear confinement of Eq. (21).

“The tadpole of the periodic bosons is negative (T B < 0), so the gauge non-zero modes partly undo the linear confinement of Eq. ( 21).”

May combine two claims.

The resulting one-loop energy is analytic in the field-dependent masses, tachyonic masses included, and its scale dependence cancels the running of the couplings.

“The resulting one-loop energy is analytic in the field-dependent masses, tachyonic masses included, and its scale dependence cancels the running of the couplings.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of the Higgs zero mode is computed in the reduced model of Sec.V B, whose errors, with a full-dimensional check, are in Table II.

May combine two claims.

At an isotropic turning point of an isotropic history, the anomaly terms vanish; the strict rate bound is a property of anisotropic turning points.

“At an isotropic turning point of an isotropic history, where also u = 0, the anomaly terms of Eq. ( 6) vanish, as they do at the turning points of the anomaly-corrected Friedmann equation of an isotropic Casimir torus [60]; the strict rate bound (7) is a property of anisotropic turning points.”

• cites [60]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The next order O(g^{4/3}) adds curvature of the one-loop holonomy potential and a one-loop mass of the Higgs zero mode; in first-order perturbation theory they lower f0 by 0.014 and 0.003, and their shape dependence lowers the aspect stiffness κ_E by 4%.

“The next order, O(g 4/3 ), adds the curvature of the one-loop holonomy potential and a one-loop mass of the Higgs zero mode; in first-order perturbation theory they lower f 0 by 0.014 and 0.003, and their shape dependence lowers the aspect stiffness κ E of Sec.VII by 4% (Appendix B 2).”

May combine two claims.

Varying μ over [1/2,2π]/L and the top-threshold scale over [1/2,2]/L in the final model moves the critical mass at P1=1/2 by +0.012 and -0.049 GeV; the range extends beyond the scale μ*=3.41/L at which the m4 coefficient of Eq. (23) vanishes, making the item asymmetric.

“Varying µ over [ 1 2 , 2π]/L and the top-threshold scale over [ 1 2 , 2]/L in the final model moves the critical mass at P 1 = 1/2 by +0.012 and -0.049 GeV (Table II); the range extends beyond the scale µ * = 3.41/L at which the m 4 coefficient of Eq. ( 23) vanishes, which makes the item asymmetric.”

May combine two claims.

The zero modes follow the shape adiabatically, because the shape changes at a rate of order hL_b σ_E ≃ 5×10^{-4} in conformal time, far below their gaps.

“They follow the shape adiabatically, because the shape changes at a rate of order hL b σ E ≃ 5×10 -4 in conformal time, far below their gaps.”

May combine two claims.

Together they would raise the critical top mass by +0.005 GeV at P1=0.9 and +0.008 GeV at P1=1/2; the central values do not include this shift, which lies inside the one-sided full-dimensional item of Table II.

“Together they would raise the critical top mass by +0.005 GeV at P 1 = 0.9 and by +0.008 GeV at P 1 = 1/2; the central values do not include this shift, which lies inside the one-sided fulldimensional item of Table II.”

May combine two claims.

For r ≳ 1 the W and Z zero modes are nearly harmonic, and their zero-point energy grows linearly with the Higgs radius, E_g(r) ≃ E_g(0) + σ0 r, σ0 = 3/2 g2 + 3/4 gZ ≃ 1.31.

“For r ≳ 1 the W and Z zero modes are nearly harmonic, and their zero-point energy grows linearly with the Higgs radius, E g (r) ≃ E (0) g + σ 0 r, σ 0 = 3 2 g 2 + 3 4 g Z ≃ 1.31,”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of the Higgs zero mode is computed in the reduced model of Sec.V B, whose errors, with a full-dimensional check, are in Table II.

May combine two claims.

For these structures the one-loop potential puts an SU(3) centre holonomy on each periodic edge, raising N_C at the cube to 21.07 (one antiperiodic edge) and 23.67 (two); the energy is stationary at a tetragonal shape, where N_C = 19.72 and 22.84.

“For these structures the one-loop potential puts an SU (3) centre holonomy on each periodic edge, which raises N C at the cube to 21.07 (one antiperiodic edge) and 23.67 (two); the energy is then stationary at a tetragonal shape, where N C = 19.72 and 22.84 (Appendix B 1).”

May combine two claims.

Other one-loop countings differ from Eq. (24) by terms proportional to V'_tree; the unitary counting is not a controlled Born-Oppenheimer separation; in a one-dimensional version it would move the critical mass at P1=1/2 by -0.11 GeV, against -0.016 GeV for the Landau-gauge counting.

“Other one-loop countings differ from Eq. ( 24) by terms proportional to V ′ tree ; the unitary counting is not a controlled Born-Oppenheimer separation (Ref.[63], Sec.6), and in a one-dimensional version of the model it would move the critical mass at P 1 = 1/2 by -0.11 GeV, against -0.016GeV for the Landau-gauge counting.”

• cites [63]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

For λ<0 full-dimensional DMC with a gauge-invariant wall confirms the resonance energy to 0.005/L, and four independent estimates give the same width to within 8%.

“For λ < 0 full-dimensional DMC with a gauge-invariant wall confirms the resonance energy to 0.005/L, and four independent estimates give the same width to within 8%.”

May combine two claims.

The Higgs zero mode stays near the origin while the universe turns around, with a probability set by the top-quark mass.

“We find that it does, with a probability set by the top-quark mass.”

May combine two claims.

On the cubic three-torus with all three cycles antiperiodic (AAA), an AAA Weyl fermion contributes +0.233673 to N_C, while a periodic one contributes -1.

“so an AAA Weyl fermion contributes +0.233673 to N C , while a periodic one contributes -1.”

May combine two claims.

At μ_b the Standard Model quartic is negative, so the Hamiltonian (14) has no normalizable ground state along the Higgs direction, and the zero mode becomes a narrow resonance.

“The Higgs zero mode is the one constant mode whose fate this energy count does not settle: at µ b the Standard Model quartic is negative, so the Hamiltonian (14) has no normalizable ground state along the Higgs direction, and the zero mode becomes a narrow resonance (Sec.V).”

May combine two claims.

The gluon zero modes do not couple to Φ at tree level; they enter through the top-quark loop.

“The gluon zero modes do not couple to Φ at tree level; they enter through the top-quark loop of Sec.V C.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of the Higgs zero mode is computed in the reduced model of Sec.V B, whose errors, with a full-dimensional check, are in Table II.

May combine two claims.

Because φ is real and normalized the projection is exact, and the model Hamiltonian acting on u=r^{3/2}f is H2D = ...

“Because φ is real and normalized the projection is exact, and the model Hamiltonian acting on u = r 3/2 f is”

May combine two claims.

With periodic fermions and trivial holonomies the Casimir energy is positive, and a torus expands from a small size without turning around.

“With periodic fermions and trivial holonomies the Casimir energy is positive, and a torus expands from a small size without turning around, which is the emptytorus scenario of Ref. [24].”

• cites [24]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Every non-zero-mode frequency is real in the field range of the resonance, where a_Z^{1/2} ≤ 1.72/L, and the radial non-zero modes become tachyonic only at r ≈ 31, far outside the barrier at r ≈ 4-5.

“Every non-zero-mode frequency is real in the field range of the resonance, where a 1/2 Z ≤ 1.72/L, and the radial non-zero modes become tachyonic only at r ≈ 31, far outside the barrier at r ≈ 4-5.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of the Higgs zero mode is computed in the reduced model of Sec.V B, whose errors, with a full-dimensional check, are in Table II.

May combine two claims.

At r>0 the masses of Eq. (22) grow with r, and within the conditional Gaussian the cross terms add a radial potential and a hypercharge curvature Ω2_X to the two-dimensional model, Eq. (C9).

“At r > 0 the masses of Eq. ( 22) grow with r, and within the conditional Gaussian the cross terms add a radial potential and a hypercharge curvature Ω 2 X to the two-dimensional model, Eq. (C9).”

May combine two claims.

The joint dynamics lowers the well and leaves the barrier unchanged, so that Γ2D/Γ1D=0.39-0.48 for λ between -0.008 and -0.0143; nearly all of B_w was spurious.

“The joint dynamics lowers the well and leaves the barrier unchanged, so that Γ 2D /Γ 1D = 0.39-0.48for λ between -0.008 and -0.0143; nearly all of B w was spurious.”

May combine two claims.

The Standard Model value lies on the safe side of this threshold, and P1 = 0.84 at the central inputs.

“The Standard Model value lies on the safe side of this threshold, and P 1 = 0.84 at the central inputs.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The AAA assignment keeps the cube stationary, gives the largest weight and leaves the holonomies trivial; it is the benchmark.

“The AAA assignment keeps the cube stationary, gives the largest weight and leaves the holonomies trivial; it is our benchmark (assumption A1),”

May combine two claims.

At marginal turning the least negative CFT energy is ζ = 3/4 + 5/36 y for vacuum energy and 3/2 + 5/9 y for dust.

“At marginal turning the least negative CFT energy is ζ = 3 4 + 5 36 y for vacuum energy and 3 2 + 5 9 y for dust.”

May combine two claims.

At leading order Q does not depend on the shape, so the zero modes leave the shape Hessian unchanged, lower the signed weight to N_eff_C = 17.9 and raise every normalized shape stiffness κ_A to κ_A/(1-f0).

“At leading order Q does not depend on the shape, so the zero modes leave the shape Hessian unchanged, lower the signed weight to N eff C = (1 -f 0 )N C = 17.9 and raise every normalized shape stiffness κ A to κ A /(1 -f 0 ) (Table I).”

May combine two claims.

The covariant Landau-gauge counting agrees with this split to 0.016 GeV in the critical mass, whereas the gauge-invariant (unitary) counting is not consistent.

“The covariant Landau-gauge counting agrees with this split to 0.016 GeV in the critical mass, whereas the gaugeinvariant (unitary) counting is not consistent.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of the Higgs zero mode is computed in the reduced model of Sec.V B, whose errors, with a full-dimensional check, are in Table II.

May combine two claims.

Anomalous corrections to the criterion (10) are of relative order ε^2, and the turning point is slow compared with the photon gap, (hL_b/4π)^2 ≃ 1.2×10^{-7}.

“Anomalous corrections to the criterion (10) are of relative order ϵ 2 , and the turning point is slow compared with the photon gap, (hL b /4π) 2 ≃ 1.2 × 10 -7 .”

May combine two claims.

The inflaton fluctuation is light at the turning point and adds 1/2 to N_C, and three right-handed neutrinos lighter than 2π/L_b would add 0.70.

“The inflaton fluctuation is light at the turning point and adds 1 2 to N C , and three right-handed neutrinos lighter than 2π/L b would add 0.70;”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

A blind calculation of the charged-component part, which carries all but +0.005 to +0.007 GeV of the shift, gives -0.081, -0.117, and -0.157 GeV, against -0.085, -0.124, and -0.167 GeV for the same part in our calculation; they keep the difference as an error.

“A blind calculation of the charged-component part, which carries all but +0.005 to +0.007 GeV of the shift, gives -0.081, -0.117, and -0.157 GeV, against -0.085, -0.124, and -0.167 GeV for the same part in our calculation; we keep the difference as an error (Table II).”

May combine two claims.

For λ < 0 both b and m^2_δρ are negative.

“For λ < 0 both b and m 2 δρ are negative.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of the Higgs zero mode is computed in the reduced model of Sec.V B, whose errors, with a full-dimensional check, are in Table II.

May combine two claims.

With all three cycles of a cubic torus antiperiodic, its signed Casimir weight is N_C = +25.515, whereas periodic fermions give -30.

“With all three cycles of a cubic torus antiperiodic, its signed Casimir weight is N C = +25.515,whereas periodic fermions give -30.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

A homogeneous Higgs field with λ < 0 has no ground state.

“A homogeneous Higgs field with λ < 0 has no ground state,”

May combine two claims.

At λ=0 the ground-state energy of Eq. (27) without the matching term is 4.4509/L, against 4.4478(13)/L from full-dimensional DMC and 4.5985/L in the one-dimensional reduction.

“At λ = 0 the ground-state energy of Eq. ( 27) without the matching term is 4.4509/L, against 4.4478(13)/L from full-dimensional DMC and 4.5985/L in the one-dimensional reduction.”

May combine two claims.

At leading order of the small-volume expansion the pure-gauge part of Q is ε_3 g_3^{2/3} + ε_2 g_2^{2/3}, with ε_2 = 4.1167 and ε_3 = 12.587, independent of the fermions at this order.

“At leading order of the small-volume expansion the pure-gauge part of Q is ϵ 3 g 2/3 3 + ϵ 2 g 2/3 2 , with ϵ 2 = 4.1167 [40] and ϵ 3 = 12.587 [41,86], independent of the fermions at this order [42].”

• cites [40]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [41]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [86]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [42]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Zero-point fluctuations of the gauge-field zero modes give the Higgs zero mode a potential that grows linearly with the field, and with the quartic runaway the electroweak configuration becomes a finite-volume resonance, whose width falls exponentially as λ → 0-.

“Zero-point fluctuations of the gauge-field zero modes give the Higgs zero mode a potential that grows linearly with the field, and with the quartic runaway the electroweak configuration becomes a finite-volume resonance, whose width falls exponentially as λ → 0 -.”

May combine two claims.

The Casimir state violates the null energy condition; ρ+p = 4/3 ρ_C < 0, and the averaged null energy along every null geodesic is -3.4961 h ω_b.

“so the Casimir state must violate that condition; it does, ρ+p = 4 3 ρ C < 0, and the averaged null energy along every null geodesic is (Appendix A 3) R kk dλ = - √ 2 Γ(1/4) 2 3 √ π h ω b = -3.4961 h ω b ,”

May combine two claims.

The Born-Huang term of the radial motion splits exactly into three parts B_r = B_x + B_w + B_β, with B_w = 3/16 (ẽ'/ẽ)^2 → 3/(16r2) as r→0, because ẽ=Ω≃g_Y r/2 at small r.

“The Born-Huang term of the radial motion splits exactly into three parts, B r = B x + B w + B β , B w = 3 16 ẽ′ ẽ 2 r→0 ----→ 3 16r 2 ,(26) because ẽ = Ω ≃ g Y r/2 at small r.”

May combine two claims.

A curvature coupling is negligible at the turn itself, where R L_b^2 = 12(hL_b)^2 ≃ 2×10^{-4}, but late in the expanding branch, τ ≳ 4, it decides whether the zero mode stays near the origin.

“A curvature coupling is negligible at the turn itself, where RL 2 b = 12(hL b ) 2 ≃ 2×10 -4 , but late in the expanding branch, τ ≳ 4, it decides whether the zero mode stays near the origin (Sec.V H).”

May combine two claims.

With g_3 ≃ 0.54, g_2 ≃ 0.53 and g_Y ≃ 0.44 at μ_b, this is 26% of the free Casimir coefficient C = 42.74, and it bounds Q from below for λ ≥ 0.

“With g 3 ≃ 0.54, g 2 ≃ 0.53 and g Y ≃ 0.44 at µ b , this is 26% of the free Casimir coefficient C = N C γ C = 42.74, and it bounds Q from below for λ ≥ 0.”

May combine two claims.

Including all Standard Model fields, these cross terms lower the critical top mass by 0.080, 0.118, and 0.160 GeV at P1=0.9, 1/2, and 0.1, with a model-internal error of ±0.008, ±0.010, and ±0.013 GeV.

“Including all Standard Model fields, we find that these cross terms lower the critical top mass by 0.080, 0.118, and 0.160 GeV at P 1 = 0.9, 1/2, and 0.1, with a model-internal error of ±0.008, ±0.010, and ±0.013 GeV.”

May combine two claims.

The zero-mode energy lowers L_b by the factor (1-f0)^{1/4}, or 8.5%, so the benchmark turning point has L_b M_P = 722, hL_b = 0.0044, and μ_b = M_P/722 = 3.37×10^{15} GeV.

“The zero-mode energy lowers L b by the factor (1 -f 0 ) 1/4 , or 8.5%, so the benchmark turning point has L b MP = 722, hL b = 0.0044,(18) and the matching scale of assumption A2 is µ b = 1/L b = MP /722 = 3.37 × 10 15 GeV.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The Standard Model, with a non-minimal coupling ξ_H R Φ†Φ of the Higgs doublet to the Ricci scalar, holds up to the matching scale µ_b = 1/L_b = M_P/722 ≃ 3.4×10^15 GeV; its MS couplings at µ_b follow from NNLO matching at the top-quark mass and three-loop running, with M_h = 125.13 GeV and α_s(M_Z) = 0.1180.

May combine two claims.

These stiffen the w direction and make it more adiabatic: the two-dimensional width exceeds that of the adiabatic one-dimensional reduction by only 1.0-1.8% in the final model, against 6-8% without cross terms, so the reduction is, if anything, more accurate in the final model.

“These stiffen the w direction and make it more adiabatic: the two-dimensional width exceeds that of the adiabatic one-dimensional reduction by only 1.0-1.8% in the final model, against 6-8% without cross terms, so the reduction is, if anything, more accurate in the final model.”

May combine two claims.

With λ < 0 a radial potential of the form σr - |λ|r^4/4 has a well near the origin, a barrier, and a runaway, so the electroweak configuration is a resonance.

“With λ < 0 a radial potential of the form σr -|λ|r 4 /4 has a well near the origin, a barrier, and a runaway, so the electroweak configuration is a resonance.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of the Higgs zero mode is computed in the reduced model of Sec.V B, whose errors, with a full-dimensional check, are in Table II.

May combine two claims.

The difference from the two-dimensional model with the same wall is ∆ε=-0.0032(8) at λ=-0.010 and -0.0034(9) at λ=-0.013, independent of wall position, and -0.0043(9) at λ=0.

“The difference from the two-dimensional model with the same wall is ∆ε = -0.0032(8)at λ = -0.010and -0.0034(9) at λ = -0.013,independent of the wall position, and -0.0043(9) at λ = 0.”

May combine two claims.

A DMC computation gives Q = 12.8, so the zero modes use up a fraction f0 = Q/C = 0.30 of the free Casimir energy, between the lower bound 0.26 and the Gaussian variational bound 0.31.

“A diffusion Monte Carlo (DMC) computation of the coupled SU (2) × U (1)×Higgs ground state (Appendix B 2) gives Q = 12.8, so the zero modes use up a fraction f 0 ≡ Q/C = 0.30 (15) of the free Casimir energy, between the lower bound 0.26 and the Gaussian variational bound 0.31.”

May combine two claims.

Three other estimates of the width ratio agree: multidimensional adiabatic WKB gives 0.937 including B_w under the barrier, the wall dependence of the tunneling tail gives 0.92(16) and 1.03(7), and a three-dimensional model with an SU(2) breathing mode gives 0.999.

“Three other estimates of the width ratio agree: multidimensional adiabatic WKB gives 0.937 including B w under the barrier, the wall dependence of the tunneling tail gives 0.92(16) and 1.03(7), and a threedimensional model with an SU(2) breathing mode gives 0.999.”

May combine two claims.

With instant reheating, fixing h by the observed scalar amplitude and pivot k_* = 0.05 Mpc^{-1} gives N_* = 55.722 e-folds and h/M_P = 6.116×10^{-6}.

“We fix h by the observed scalar amplitude and the pivot k * = 0.05 Mpc -1 by thermal matching.With instant reheating this gives N * = 55.722e-folds between pivot exit and the end of inflation and h/ MP = 6.116 × 10 -6 .”

May combine two claims.

The torus is then 3.6×10^3 Planck lengths across, about 230 times smaller than the Hubble radius 1/h, and the small parameter is ε = √N_C h/M_P ≃ 3×10^{-5}.

“The torus is then 3.6 × 10 3 Planck lengths across, about 230 times smaller than the Hubble radius 1/h, and the small parameter of the semiclassical description is ϵ = √ N C h/ MP ≃ 3 × 10 -5 .”

May combine two claims.

In the field range of the resonance the one-loop energy of the non-zero modes lowers the local slope by 10-33% and roughly halves the barrier above the resonance level.

“In the field range of the resonance the one-loop energy of the non-zero modes lowers the local slope by 10-33% and roughly halves the barrier above the resonance level (Sec.V G).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The eight spin structures of T^3 fall into two classes under SL(3,Z), the periodic one and the seven others.

“The eight spin structures of T 3 fall into two classes under SL(3, Z), the periodic one and the seven others.”

May combine two claims.

For free fields and a reference present torus side L_0 = 6/H_0, 0.96 times d_LSS, it gives φ_b = 5.5794 M_P and N_post = 68.25 e-folds after the turning point.

“For free fields and a reference present torus side L 0 = 6/H 0 , 0.96 times the diameter d LSS of the last-scattering sphere, it gives ϕ b = 5.5794 MP and N post = 68.25 e-folds after the turning point.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

δE_DMC is the difference between the exact fixed-r energy of the SU(2) zero modes, computed by rotating-frame DMC, and its Gaussian value; without it the model gives a strict variational upper bound.

“The term δE DMC is the difference between the exact fixed-r energy of the SU(2) zero modes, computed by rotating-frame DMC, and its Gaussian value; without it the model gives a strict variational upper bound.”

May combine two claims.

In Coulomb gauge each massive vector has two transverse modes with ω^2 = k^2 + a and one Coulomb mode that mixes with the Goldstone boson π, with frequency ω_C^2 = (k^2 + b)(k^2 + a)/k^2; on shell it coincides with the transverse one.

“In Coulomb gauge each massive vector has two transverse modes with ω 2 = k 2 + a and one Coulomb mode that mixes with the Goldstone boson π, with frequency ω 2 C = (k 2 + b)(k 2 + a)/k 2 [Eq.(C3)]; on shell (b = 0) it coincides with the transverse one.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The dynamics of the Higgs zero mode is computed in the reduced model of Sec.V B, whose errors, with a full-dimensional check, are in Table II.

May combine two claims.

Inhomogeneous decay is much slower: the scale-invariant instanton has action 8π2/(3|λ|)≈2.6×10^3 at |λ|=0.01 [4], against zero-mode tunneling exponents of 2-6.

“Inhomogeneous decay is much slower: the scale-invariant instanton has action 8π 2 /(3|λ|) ≈ 2.6 × 10 3 at |λ| = 0.01 [4], against zero-mode tunneling exponents of 2-6.”

• cites [4]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

For the plateau the turning point sits at φ_b with H = φ = 0, and the history is time symmetric.

“For the plateau the turning point sits at ϕ b with H = φ = 0, and the history is time symmetric.”

May combine two claims.

At trivial holonomy one or two antiperiodic edges give N_C = 13.1 and 20.9, and the cube is not stationary.

“At trivial holonomy one or two antiperiodic edges give N C = 13.1 and 20.9, and the cube is not stationary.”

May combine two claims.

The Higgs zero mode is confined mainly by the zero-point fluctuations of the gauge zero modes; together with hypercharge it raises the SU(2) energy by about four times what a decoupled quartic oscillator would contribute at the same λ.

“The Higgs zero mode is confined mainly by the zero-point fluctuations of the gauge zero modes: together with hypercharge it raises the SU (2) energy by about four times what a decoupled quartic oscillator would contribute at the same λ.”

May combine two claims.

The expansion parameter g^{2/3} ≃ 0.66 is not small, but the published SU(2) series converges quickly at this coupling, with corrections of -11%, -0.4% and -0.15% of the leading term at g = 0.53.

“The expansion parameter g 2/3 ≃ 0.66 is not small, but the published SU (2) series converges quickly at this coupling, with corrections of -11%, -0.4% and -0.15% of the leading term at g = 0.53.”

May combine two claims.

Trivial holonomy is not the one-loop vacuum of this sector; a hypercharge holonomy raises N_C to 17.79, so at its vacuum the periodic sector also has a negative Casimir energy.

“Trivial holonomy is not the one-loop vacuum of this sector, however: a hypercharge holonomy raises N C to 17.79 (Appendix B 1), so at its vacuum the periodic sector also has a negative Casimir energy;”

May combine two claims.

For AAA the trivial holonomy maximizes N_C along the hypercharge direction and centre holonomies lower it, so the benchmark is stable against these deformations.

“with periodic fermions some holonomies make the energy negative, but for AAA the trivial holonomy maximizes N C along the hypercharge direction and centre holonomies lower it, so the benchmark is stable against these deformations (Appendix B 1).”

May combine two claims.

For m_t = 172.60 GeV, α_s(M_Z) = 0.1180 and M_h = 125.13 GeV, λ(μ_b) = -0.0098.

“for a top-quark pole mass m t = 172.60GeV (the direct measurement; assumption A7), α s (M Z ) = 0.1180 and M h = 125.13GeV, we find λ(µ b ) = -0.0098.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The Standard Model, with a non-minimal coupling ξ_H R Φ†Φ of the Higgs doublet to the Ricci scalar, holds up to the matching scale µ_b = 1/L_b = M_P/722 ≃ 3.4×10^15 GeV; its MS couplings at µ_b follow from NNLO matching at the top-quark mass and three-loop running, with M_h = 125.13 GeV and α_s(M_Z) = 0.1180.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: m_t denotes the top-quark pole mass, obtained from the MS mass with the pole-MS relation truncated at four loops, and mt ≡ mt(mt) is the MS mass; the direct (Monte Carlo) mass, 172.60 ± 0.27 GeV, is identified with m_t up to an interpretation uncertainty of about 0.5 GeV.

May combine two claims.

γCφ equals the one-loop Feynman-gauge value and is +2.1×10^-4 with the couplings at μb; numerically the identity holds to 10^-14.

“which equals the one-loop Feynman-gauge value and is +2.1 × 10 -4 with the couplings at µ b of Appendix D 3; numerically the identity holds to 10 -14 (Appendix C 2).”

May combine two claims.

The independent library mr [114], run blind, gives a quartic at μ_b lower by 2.8×10^-4, equivalent to 0.043 GeV in m_t and within the scheme error below.

“The independent library mr [114], run blind, gives a quartic at µ b lower by 2.8 × 10 -4 , equivalent to 0.043 GeV in m t and within the scheme error below.”

• cites [114]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Near the critical masses d ln I/dm_t = 5.27, 3.22, and 2.12 GeV^-1 at P1=0.9, 0.5, and 0.1.

“Near the critical masses d ln I/dm t = 5.27, 3.22, and 2.12 GeV -1 at P 1 = 0.9, 0.5, and 0.1.”

May combine two claims.

The central Standard Model quartic exceeds λ_c by 0.0024, equivalent to 0.36 GeV in m_t.

“The central Standard Model quartic exceeds λ c by 0.0024, equivalent to 0.36 GeV in m t .”

May combine two claims.

The new ingredient is the threshold: it places the criterion m_c-m0=1.9 GeV above the line λ(μ_b)=0 at m0=171.09 GeV, which with our inputs lies just above the absolute-stability bound [2,3], and far below the metastability bound, 177.7 GeV [4] [Fig.3(b)].

“The new ingredient is the threshold: it places the criterion m c -m 0 = 1.9 GeV above the line λ(µ b ) = 0 at m 0 = 171.09GeV, which with our inputs lies just above the absolutestability bound [2,3], and far below the metastability bound, 177.7 GeV [4] [Fig.3(b)].”

• cites [2]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [3]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [4]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

It gives w0=0.995, 0.991, 0.985-0.990, and 0.980-0.988 at m_t=172.2, 172.6, 173.0, and 173.4 GeV.

“It gives w 0 = 0.995, 0.991, 0.985-0.990,and 0.980-0.988at m t = 172.2,172.6, 173.0, and 173.4 GeV.”

May combine two claims.

The AAA Standard Model obeys Eq. (50) to 10^{-8}, with aspect deformations lowering and angle deformations raising its energy.

“The AAA Standard Model obeys Eq. ( 50) to 10 -8 , with aspect deformations lowering and angle deformations raising its energy.”

May combine two claims.

The added zero-point energy 3/2[(Ω2_eff+Ω2_X)^{1/2}-Ω_eff] is therefore larger in the well, 0.24-0.32/L at r≈1-1.5, than at the barrier, 0.13-0.17/L at r≈3-5, so it lifts ε toward the barrier top and increases Γ.

“The added zero-point energy 3 2 [(Ω 2 eff + Ω 2 X ) 1/2 -Ω eff ] is therefore larger in the well, 0.24-0.32/Lat r ≈ 1-1.5, than at the barrier, 0.13-0.17/Lat r ≈ 3-5, so it lifts ε toward the barrier top and increases Γ.”

May combine two claims.

This is close to the sum of their fixed-coupling values, -0.09 GeV, and the blind calculation reproduces each part of the fixed-coupling estimate to within 0.022 GeV.

“This is close to the sum of their fixed-coupling values, -0.09GeV, and the blind calculation reproduces each part of the fixedcoupling estimate to within 0.022 GeV.”

May combine two claims.

The unique time-symmetric bilinear value that reduces to the joint spectral measure for commuting projectors is P_lin2=Re⟨ψ0|E+E-|ψ0⟩, which equals P12/w0 in the resonance limit up to a phase factor that equals one to 10^-4 in our calculations.

“The unique time-symmetric bilinear value that reduces to the joint spectral measure for commuting projectors is P lin 2 = Re⟨ψ 0 |E + E -|ψ 0 ⟩, which equals P 2 1 /w 0 in the resonance limit up to a phase factor that equals one to 10 -4 in our calculations.”

May combine two claims.

The levels P1=0.9 and 0.1 give m_t=172.50 and 173.42 GeV (m_t bar=162.73 and 163.60 GeV; Table II).

“The levels P 1 = 0.9 and 0.1 give m t = 172.50 and 173.42 GeV ( mt = 162.73 and 163.60 GeV; Table II).”

May combine two claims.

The hazard gives the survival probability of the resonant component of a time-symmetric real state, exactly in the adiabatic limit and to 0.2% in a real-time evolution of the final model.

“We show that the hazard gives the survival probability of the resonant component of a timesymmetric real state, exactly in the adiabatic limit and to 0.2% in a real-time evolution of the final model”

May combine two claims.

Two further effects leave these numbers unchanged at the quoted precision: for periodic Maxwell fields the causal response of the field to the moving shape gives a finite-volume shape inertia, which changes the gain at relative order 0.11 ε, with ε ≃ 3×10^{-5}; pair creation by the shape motion is suppressed by ε^3, because the torus gap makes the motion adiabatic.

“Two further effects leave these numbers unchanged at the quoted precision: for periodic Maxwell fields the causal response of the field to the moving shape gives a finitevolume shape inertia, which changes the gain at relative order 0.11 ϵ, with ϵ ≃ 3 × 10 -5 the small parameter of Sec.IV C. Pair creation by the shape motion is suppressed by ϵ 3 , because the torus gap makes the motion adiabatic (”

• cites [63]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

A Higgs-only estimate gives Ω2_X<0 and an apparent instability of the soft w direction at r<0.78; with all fields this instability is absent.

“A Higgs-only estimate gives Ω 2 X < 0 and an apparent instability of the soft w direction at r < 0.78; with all fields this instability is absent.”

May combine two claims.

Without that item the model error is +0.03/-0.05 GeV, comparable to the Standard Model theory error.

“Without that item the model error is +0.03 -0.05 GeV, comparable to the Standard Model theory error.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

If one adopts it with w0=1, m_c(P2=p)=m_c(P1=√p), and the critical masses move down by 0.122 GeV for p=0.9 and 0.195 GeV for p=1/2; they quote single-branch probabilities.

“If one adopts it with w 0 = 1, m c (P 2 = p) = m c (P 1 = √ p), and the critical masses move down by 0.122 GeV for p = 0.9 and 0.195 GeV for p = 1/2; we quote single-branch probabilities.”

May combine two claims.

On the turning-point solution the shape modes obey β̈_A + 3H β̇_A - κ_A h^2 sech^2(2ht) β_A = 0, κ_A = 3λ_A Z_eff, where λ_A are the Hessian eigenvalues of Z_eff = -π^2 L E_C, so that ∑_A κ_A = 8/(1-f0).

“With kinetic term 1 2 M 2 P L 3 β2 A , on the turningpoint solution (16) they obey βA + 3H βA -κ A h 2 sech 2 (2ht) β A = 0, κ A = 3λ A Z eff ,(52) where λ A are the Hessian eigenvalues of Z eff = -π 2 LE C , so that Eq. ( 50) gives A κ A = 8/(1 -f 0 ).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Top-mass definitions enter at the level of 0.5 GeV [69,116].

“Top-mass definitions enter at the level of 0.5 GeV [69,116].”

• cites [69]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [116]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The resonant projection decays at the hazard rate to 1.3×10^-4 for τ≤5, and δ comes only from the definition of the in-well probability.

“The resonant projection decays at the hazard rate to 1.3 × 10 -4 for τ ≤ 5, and δ comes only from the definition of the in-well probability.”

May combine two claims.

A pair of hypercharge photons with opposite momenta along one edge costs 4π/L, 42% of the budget, and freezes a cubic torus into a box with sides in the ratio 4.96 at f0 = 0.30 (3.0-11.9 at 90% from the natural shape state) when the axis of the pair is definite.

“A pair of hypercharge photons with opposite momenta along one edge, which costs 4π/L, 42% of the budget, freezes a cubic torus into a box with sides in the ratio 4.96 at f 0 = 0.30 (3.0-11.9 at 90% from the natural shape state) when the axis of the pair is definite.”

May combine two claims.

The hazard and the single-branch survival probability are I(m_t)=∫ Γ(m_t,τ) dτ/(hL_b(cosh 2τ)^{1/2}), P1=e^{-I}.

“The hazard and the single-branch survival probability are I(m t ) = 5 0 Γ(m t , τ ) dτ hL b (cosh 2τ ) 1/2 , P 1 = e -I .(31)”

May combine two claims.

The transverse vev-mixing logarithm is exactly 4/3 of the value required by the renormalization group, and the Coulomb mismatch supplies -1/3.

“The transverse vev-mixing logarithm is exactly 4/3 of the value required by the renormalization group, and the Coulomb mismatch supplies -1/3.”

May combine two claims.

Representative values are P1=0.985 at 172.2 GeV, 0.891 at 172.52 GeV, 0.843 at 172.60 GeV, and 0.455 at 173.0 GeV [Fig.3(a)].

“Representative values are P 1 = 0.985 at 172.2 GeV, 0.891 at 172.52 GeV, 0.843 at 172.60 GeV, and 0.455 at 173.0 GeV [Fig.3(a)].”

May combine two claims.

The Standard Model theory error of the m_t bar form, ±0.07 GeV, is dominated by the matching scale, +0.054/-0.042 GeV for μ0∈[m_t/2,2m_t], and by the scheme difference between SMDR and mr, 0.042 GeV; the pole form adds 0.075 GeV for the uncomputed O(α_s^5) term of Eq. (36).

“The Standard Model theory error of the mt form, ±0.07 GeV, is dominated by the matching scale, +0.054/ -0.042 GeV for µ 0 ∈ [m t /2, 2m t ], and by the scheme difference between SMDR and mr, 0.042 GeV; the pole form adds 0.075 GeV for the uncomputed O(α 5 s ) term of Eq. (36).”

May combine two claims.

With ξ_H=1/6 the curvature term of the zero-mode equation vanishes and the hazard to τ=5 gives the survival probability; for ξ_H<1/6 the late turn matters, and in the conformal frame the zero mode obeys Eq. (33).

“With ξ H = 1/6 the curvature term of the zero-mode equation vanishes and the hazard to τ = 5 gives the survival probability; for ξ H < 1/6 the late turn matters, and in the conformal frame the zero mode obeys”

May combine two claims.

Gaussians cut off at the origin give smaller w0, but they are not in the domain of H0 because ⟨3/8r2⟩ diverges.

“Gaussians cut off at the origin give smaller w 0 , but they are not in the domain of H 0 because ⟨3/8r 2 ⟩ diverges.”

May combine two claims.

They map the threshold to the top-quark mass with the three-loop running and NNLO matching of assumption A2, computed with their own code; with the masses of assumption A7 the result is 96 GeV < m_t < 163.16 GeV, for α_s(M_Z)=0.1180.

“We map the threshold to the top-quark mass with the three-loop running and NNLO matching of assumption A2, computed with our own code (Appendix D 3); with the masses of assumption A7 the result is 96 GeV mt < 163.16 GeV , (35) for α s (M Z ) = 0.1180”

May combine two claims.

The all-orders pole mass lies 0.27 GeV above our four-loop truncation [119], and the renormalon ambiguity is 0.07-0.11 GeV; the m_t bar form of Eq. (35) is free of both.

“The all-orders pole mass lies 0.27 GeV above our four-loop truncation [119], and the renormalon ambiguity is 0.07-0.11GeV; the mt form of Eq. ( 35) is free of both.”

• cites [119]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The parametric error from α_s, ±0.35 GeV, exceeds the theory and model errors combined; of all the items in Table II only the Monte Carlo-pole interpretation of the measured mass, ±0.5 GeV, is larger.

“The parametric error from α s , ±0. 35 GeV, exceeds the theory and model errors combined; of all the items in Table II only the Monte Carlo-pole interpretation of the measured mass, ±0.5 GeV, is larger.”

May combine two claims.

Near the threshold λ(μ_b) is nearly linear in m_t, λ(μ_b;m_t)≃dλ/dm_t (m_t-m0), dλ/dm_t≈-0.0066 GeV^-1, where m0=171.09 GeV is the mass at which λ(μ_b)=0.

“Near the threshold λ(µ b ) is nearly linear in m t , λ(µ b ; m t ) ≃ dλ(µ b ) dm t (m t -m 0 ), dλ(µ b ) dm t ≈ -0.0066 GeV -1 ,(37) where m 0 = 171.09GeV is the mass at which λ(µ b ) = 0.”

May combine two claims.

A lens transformation, Eq. (D1), maps the problem exactly to the physical field y=φ/h: the conformal term becomes a curvature mass squared 12ξ_H h2, and the growing effective mass M=(hL)^3 makes the late dynamics classical.

“A lens transformation, Eq. (D1), maps the problem exactly to the physical field y = ϕ/h: the conformal term becomes a curvature mass squared 12ξ H h 2 , and the growing effective mass M = (hL) 3 makes the late dynamics classical.”

May combine two claims.

The first-order energies of the zero modes, the matching energy E_m to the non-zero modes and the induced Higgs-mass energy E_H are s=1 Epstein sums with eigenvalue -4/3; they preserve the conclusion as long as Q ≥ -3/2 L(E_m+E_H), which with the estimates of Appendix B2 is 1.1, about twelve times less than the zero-mode energy Q.

“The first-order energies of the zero modes, the matching energy E m to the non-zero modes and the induced Higgs-mass energy E H , are s = 1 Epstein sums with eigenvalue -4 3 ; they preserve the conclusion as long as Q ≥ - 3 2 L(E m + E H ), which with the estimates of Appendix B 2 is 1.1, about twelve times less than the zero-mode energy Q.”

May combine two claims.

The negative energy that turns the volume around also acts on the shape of the torus, and it cannot hold one.

“The negative energy that turns the volume around also acts on the shape of the torus, and we show that it cannot hold one.”

May combine two claims.

Together with the exact top-quark chiral loop, the logarithms of all one-loop r2c2 terms reproduce the running of the tree-level gauge-Higgs coupling with the anomalous dimension of Eq. (25), to 97-99% at r=2-5. Hence μ=1/L is a consistent matching scale for the cross terms as well.

“Together with the exact top-quark chiral loop, the logarithms of all one-loop r 2 c 2 terms reproduce the running of the tree-level gauge-Higgs coupling with the anomalous dimension of Eq. ( 25), to 97-99% at r = 2-5.Hence µ = 1/L is a consistent matching scale for the cross terms as well.”

May combine two claims.

This curvature is dominated by the 45 Weyl fermions, whose antiperiodic boundary conditions pin the hypercharge holonomy at its trivial value [42]; it equals +0.137 for r≤1.5 and +0.118 at r=5, and it stays positive for all r≤8, because the fermions outweigh the Higgs doublet by -20Z_A/|Z_P|=5.65.

“This curvature is dominated by the 45 Weyl fermions, whose antiperiodic boundary conditions pin the hypercharge holonomy at its trivial value [42]; it equals +0.137 for r ≤ 1.5 and +0.118 at r = 5, and it stays positive for all r ≤ 8, because the fermions outweigh the Higgs doublet by -20Z A /|Z P | = 5.65.”

• cites [42]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Excited zero modes keep the cube stationary but raise the fossil width σ_E of Sec.VII E by 8-9% each.

“Excited zero modes keep the cube stationary but raise the fossil width σ E of Sec.VII E by 8-9% each.”

May combine two claims.

In Table II the model error at P1=1/2 is +0.07/-0.08 GeV, dominated by the inflation scale, which enters through the duration of the turn.

“In Table II the model error at P 1 = 1/2 is +0.07 -0.08 GeV, dominated by the inflation scale, which enters through the duration of the turn.”

May combine two claims.

By time-reflection symmetry P1 is the same for both branches, but their joint survival is not a probability in the decoherent-histories sense [97,98]: the Heisenberg projectors E± onto the well at ±T do not commute on ψ0, and the two-time history set has maximal interference.

“By time-reflection symmetry P 1 is the same for both, but their joint survival is not a probability in the decoherent-histories sense [97,98]: the Heisenberg projectors E ± onto the well at ±T do not commute on ψ 0 , and the two-time history set has maximal interference (Appendix D 2).”

• cites [97]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [98]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Even if the four components of the Higgs doublet were excited like minimally coupled scalars, the crossing would move closer to the turn by only ln(7/3)/4 ≃ 0.2 e-fold, and the choice of state for modes outside the Hubble radius changes it by at most 0.001.

“Even if the four components of the Higgs doublet were excited like minimally coupled scalars, the crossing would move closer to the turn by only ln(7/3)/4 ≃ 0.2 e-fold, and the choice of state for modes outside the Hubble radius changes it by at most 0.001.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The tadpole-including organization of Ref. [3] gives a wider scale variation, +0.17/-0.36 GeV in m_c, which comes from same-sign two-loop logarithms of λ and y_t in the G_F scheme rather than from tadpoles, and they keep it as a robustness variant (Sec.V F).

“The tadpole-including organization of Ref. [3] gives a wider scale variation, +0.17/ -0.36 GeV in m c , which comes from same-sign two-loop logarithms of λ and y t in the G F scheme rather than from tadpoles, and we keep it as a robustness variant (Sec.V F).”

• cites [3]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Besides the direct mass of assumption A7, the cross-section pole mass, 172.1±0.6 GeV [68], gives P1=0.99, and the ATLAS+CMS combination, 172.52±0.33 GeV [117], gives 0.89.

“Besides the direct mass of assumption A7, the cross-section pole mass, 172.1 ± 0.6 GeV [68], gives P 1 = 0.99, and the ATLAS+CMS combination, 172.52 ± 0.33 GeV [117], gives 0.89.”

• cites [68]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [117]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

In the final model, removing groups of terms in either order gives -0.039 to -0.040 GeV for the SU(3)-top part and -0.078 to -0.079 GeV for the hypercharge and SU(2) parts together; with either of these removed alone the root search did not converge, so they quote them together.

“In the final model, removing groups of terms in either order gives -0.039 to -0.040 GeV for the SU(3)-top part and -0.078 to -0.079 GeV for the hypercharge and SU(2) parts together; with either of these removed alone the root search did not converge, so we quote them together (Ref.[63], Sec. 8).”

• cites [63]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

In a first variational estimate at fixed couplings these contributions, taken one at a time, are about -0.20, -0.04, and +0.11 GeV at P1=1/2, and their sum agrees with the joint result of that estimate to 0.004 GeV.

“In a first variational estimate at fixed couplings these contributions, taken one at a time, are about -0.20, -0.04, and +0.11GeV at P 1 = 1/2, and their sum agrees with the joint result of that estimate to 0.004 GeV.”

May combine two claims.

The criterion barely depends on the preparation: since survival is w0 P1 for a real initial state [Eq.(32)], even w0=0.9 or 0.8 would lower the critical mass for probability 1/2 by only 0.050 or 0.114 GeV.

“The criterion barely depends on the preparation: since survival is w 0 P 1 for a real initial state [Eq.(32)], even w 0 = 0.9 or 0.8 would lower the critical mass for probability 1/2 by only 0.050 or 0.114 GeV.”

May combine two claims.

They switch at τ_sw=6 to Wigner-sampled classical evolution with Hubble friction; any switch with τ_sw≥5.5 (M≥0.43) gives the same survival probability to 2×10^-4 when λ is frozen at μ=1/L and to 3×10^-3 when λ runs with the field, which moves ξ_c by at most 0.0005.

“We switch at τ sw = 6 to Wigner-sampled classical evolution with Hubble friction; any switch with τ sw ≥ 5.5 (M ≥ 0.43) gives the same survival probability to 2 × 10 -4 when λ is frozen at µ = 1/L and to 3 × 10 -3 when λ runs with the field, which moves ξ c by at most 0.0005 (Appendix D 2).”

May combine two claims.

By SO(4)×SO(3) symmetry the Gaussian family is unique, exp(-r2/2σ_r2-|w|2/2σ_s2) with r=|φ|, and the rule selects σ_r≈1.33-1.36 and σ_s≈1.36.

“By SO(4)×SO(3) symmetry the Gaussian family is unique, exp(-r 2 /2σ 2 r -|w| 2 /2σ 2 s ) with r = |ϕ|, and the rule selects σ r ≈ 1.33-1.36and σ s ≈ 1.36.”

May combine two claims.

With three non-conformal degrees of freedom the excitation exhausts the budget at T = 6.91 for the Standard Model with f0 = 0.30 and hL_b = 0.0044, and at 6.96 for free fields; beyond that it grows roughly as e^{4T}.

“With three non-conformal degrees of freedom the excitation exhausts the budget at T = 6.91 for the Standard Model with f 0 = 0.30 and hL b = 0.0044, and at 6.96 for free fields; beyond that it grows roughly as e 4T .”

May combine two claims.

The Standard-Model theory error is ±0.10 GeV for m_t and ±0.07 GeV for m_t bar, and α_s ±0.0009 moves the bound by ±0.35 GeV (±0.25 GeV for m_t bar).

“the Standard-Model theory error is ±0.10 GeV for m t and ±0.07 GeV for mt , and α s ±0.0009 moves the bound by ±0.35 GeV (±0.25 GeV for mt ).”

May combine two claims.

For every image term of the Casimir energy, completeness of the basis gives tr_sh Hess (n^T G n)^{-s} = 4s/3 (2s-3)(n^T G n)^{-s}, so that for any mixture of twisted massless free fields tr_sh Hess E_C = 8/3 E_C.

“For every image term of the Casimir energy, completeness of the basis X A gives (Appendix E 1) tr sh Hess (n T Gn) -s = 4s 3 (2s -3)(n T Gn) -s ,(49) so that for any mixture of twisted massless free fields tr sh Hess E C = 8 3 E C .(50)”

May combine two claims.

For the AAA Standard Model with the stiffnesses of Table I the aspect gain is 216.5 for free fields and 674 with the zero-mode energy, which the next-order terms of the zero-mode energy lower to 529 with κ_E = 18.0.

“For the AAA Standard Model with the stiffnesses of Table I the aspect gain is 216.5 for free fields and 674 with the zero-mode energy, which the next-order terms of the zero-mode energy lower to 529 with κ E = 18.0.”

May combine two claims.

More information moves the readout edge only slightly: from l ≤ 30 to l ≤ 80 the divergence of the typical fossil grows by a factor of about 2.2, but the peak probability and the integrated measure grow only by factors 1.23-1.31.

“More information moves the readout edge only slightly: from ℓ ≤ 30 to ℓ ≤ 80 the divergence of the typical fossil grows by a factor of about 2.2, but the peak probability and the integrated measure grow only by factors 1.23-1.31.”

May combine two claims.

For the Standard Model, G = 2.395, 8.263, 45.10 and 313.8 at h|t_x| = 0.1, 0.25, 0.5 and 1, and 2G(κ_E) = 1348 as |t_x| → ∞.

“For the Standard Model, G = 2.395, 8.263, 45.10 and 313.8 at h|t x | = 0.1, 0.25, 0.5 and 1, and 2G(κ E ) = 1348 as |t x | → ∞ (Ref.[63], Sec.15).”

• cites [63]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

With f0 = 0.30 the rms of ln(L_i/L_j) is √2 σ_E = 0.147, and the median of ln(L_max/L_min) is 1.588 σ_E, so the longest and shortest sides typically differ by 18% at leading order and by 16% with the next-order corrections; each edge angle deviates from 90° by √2 σ_T2 = 0.53° rms.

“With f 0 = 0.30 the rms of ln(L i /L j ) is √ 2 σ E = 0.147, and the median of ln(L max /L min ) is 1.588 σ E , so the longest and shortest sides typically differ by 18% at leading order and by 16% with the next-order corrections; each edge angle deviates from 90 • by √ 2 σ T2 = 0.53 • rms.”

May combine two claims.

For the natural state with f0 = 0.30 two sets of 2048 draws all survive; larger states fail in one way, the volume turns and then one cycle is squeezed to zero within 0.3-4 Hubble times.

“For the natural state with f 0 = 0.30 two sets of 2048 draws all survive; larger states fail in one way, the volume turns and then one cycle is squeezed to zero within 0.3-4 Hubble times.”

May combine two claims.

A state that is never real has max_± Var β_± ≥ 2G(κ_E) δ|T_12| and Var β_E(0) ≥ 2m_12 m_22 δ.

“A state that is never real has max ± Var β ± ≥ 2G(κ E ) δ|T 12 | and Var β E (0) ≥ 2m 12 m 22 δ.”

May combine two claims.

White noise and beams of the Planck 143 GHz type lower the peak to 0.313, and masks, foregrounds and the uncertainty of the reionization optical depth, not included here, lower it further.

“White noise and beams of the Planck 143 GHz type lower the peak to 0.313, and masks, foregrounds and the uncertainty of the reionization optical depth, not included here, lower it further.”

May combine two claims.

The turning point leaves no feature in the primordial spectra, whose tilt and tensor-to-scalar ratio are those of the plateau potential at the number of e-folds fixed by reheating.

“The turning point leaves no feature in the primordial spectra, whose tilt and tensor-to-scalar ratio are those of the plateau potential at the number of e-folds fixed by reheating.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

On a curved cigar the negative aspect kernel keeps its sign, but whether a self-consistent capped saddle exists, and where it would center the shape, remains open.

“On a curved cigar the negative aspect kernel keeps its sign (Ref.[63], Sec.21), but whether a self-consistent capped saddle exists, and where it would center the shape, remains open.”

• cites [63]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

If the shape state is real at some instant t_x, then that instant is unique, and in the two-branch reading survival of the shape on both branches with probability at least 90% (99%) requires, for a Gaussian state, h|t_x| ≲ 0.35 (0.24), on either side of the turning point.

“If the shape state is real at some instant t x , then that instant is unique, and in the two-branch reading, in which both branches are physical futures of the same state, survival of the shape on both branches (equivalently, on the branch that crosses the turn) with probability of at least 90% (99%) requires, for a Gaussian state, h|t x | ≲ 0.35 (0.24), on either side of the turning point.”

May combine two claims.

The scale of inflation enters both tests of the turning point only weakly: at fixed A_s the width of the shape fossil grows as r_T^{1/8}, so measuring r_T ≃ 0.004 to ±10^{-3} fixes σ_E to 3.1%.

“The scale of inflation enters both tests of the turning point only weakly: at fixed A s the width of the shape fossil grows as r 1/8 T , Eq. ( 61), so measuring r T ≃ 0.004 to ±10 -3 fixes σ E to 3.1%.”

May combine two claims.

The tensor ratio is an order of magnitude below the BI-CEP/Keck bound r_T < 0.036 and three to four times the LiteBIRD target δr_T = 10^{-3}.

“The tensor ratio is an order of magnitude below the BI-CEP/Keck bound r T < 0.036 [155] and three to four times the LiteBIRD target δr T = 10 -3 [156].”

• cites [155]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [156]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The Casimir sector is a negative radiation-like term with |ρ_C|/ρ_γ ≲ 6×10^{-119} today for L_0 ≃ d_LSS, so its contribution to ∆N_eff is negligible.

“The Casimir sector is a negative radiationlike term with |ρ C |/ρ γ ≲ 6 × 10 -119 (high-energy weight; about 13 times less with only the photon and graviton massless) today for L 0 ≃ d LSS , so its contribution to ∆N eff is negligible.”

May combine two claims.

Over the 15 computed shapes the readout edge u_max, the shortest cycle at which D = 4.5, lies between 1.021 and 1.039 d_LSS; near the edge ln D falls by 85-130 per unit of u/d_LSS, so doubling the information moves the edge outward by only about 0.008 d_LSS.

“Over the 15 computed shapes the readout edge u max , the shortest cycle at which D = 4.5, lies between 1.021 and 1.039 d LSS ; near the edge ln D falls by 85-130 per unit of u/d LSS , so doubling the information moves the edge outward by only about 0.008 d LSS .”

May combine two claims.

Scaling the natural state by a factor s, an independent implementation with 2048 draws gives survival 1.000, 0.987, 0.818, 0.365, 0.067 and 0.0015 for s = 1, 3, 5, 10, 20 and 40; 99% of the trajectories survive up to s_99 ≃ 2.8-2.95, or below an outgoing linear amplitude σ_lin ≃ 0.29-0.31 per aspect mode.

“Scaling the natural state by a factor s, an independent implementation with 2048 draws each gives survival 1.000, 0.987, 0.818, 0.365, 0.067 and 0.0015 for s = 1, 3, 5, 10, 20 and 40, in agreement with our main calculation [Fig.6(a)]; 99% of the trajectories survive up to s 99 ≃ 2.8-2.95, or below an outgoing linear amplitude σ lin ≃ 0.29-0.31per aspect mode.”

May combine two claims.

A classical mean offset grows by m_11 = 10.6 through the turn, so it must stay below about 0.01, or 1.4 quantum widths, for the quantum fossil to dominate.

“A classical mean offset grows by m 11 = 10.6 through the turn, so it must stay below about 0.01, or 1.4 quantum widths, for the quantum fossil to dominate.”

May combine two claims.

For an amplitude independent of φ_b, the natural measures on the turning surface and the expanding branch all give p(N_post) ≃ 1.17/N_post for 38 ≤ N_post ≤ 125, which cannot be normalized on the plateau.

“For an amplitude independent of ϕ b , the natural measures on the turning surface and the expanding branch all give p(N post ) ≃ 1.17/N post for 38 ≤ N post ≤ 125, which cannot be normalized on the plateau.”

May combine two claims.

Averaging over shapes spreads the readable sizes without adding to them: for each shape the readable range of ln L_0 has the width ln(u_max/0.985 d_LSS), so P_joint d ln L_0 = ln(u_max/0.985 d_LSS) = 0.042, almost exactly the width 0.0415 of the window of a single typical fossil.

“Averaging over shapes spreads the readable sizes without adding to them: for each shape the readable range of ln L 0 has the width ln(u max /0.985 d LSS ), so that P joint d ln L 0 = ln u max 0.985 d LSS = 0.042,(63) almost exactly the width, 0.0415, of the window of a single typical fossil,”

May combine two claims.

For κ > 1/4 both oscillate log-periodically with the same amplitude, and the on-shell action, a boundary term, oscillates without a limit, so no regularity condition selects a state; since some κ_A ≥ 8/5, every Casimir turning point has such a mode.

“For κ > 1/4 both oscillate logperiodically with the same amplitude, and the on-shell action, a boundary term, oscillates without a limit, so no regularity condition selects a state (Ref.[63], Sec.15); since some κ A ≥ 8/5, every Casimir turning point has such a mode.”

• cites [63]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Near the circle bound, u ≃ 0.99 d_LSS, D ≃ 90-270 for every computed amplitude from A = 0.25 to 2; it falls to about 4.5 at u ≃ 1.027 d_LSS, to 1 at 1.05 and to 0.1 at 1.10 d_LSS.

“Near the circle bound, u ≃ 0.99 d LSS , it is D ≃ 90-270 for every computed amplitude from A = 0.25 to 2; it falls to about 4.5 at u ≃ 1.027 d LSS , to 1 at 1.05 and to 0.1 at 1.10 d LSS .”

May combine two claims.

With 2048 draws per point, S_2 = 0.9990, 0.9868, 0.9604 and 0.9087 at h|t_x| = 0.20, 0.25, 0.30 and 0.35; it falls to 0.609 at 0.5 and 0.152 at 1.

“With 2048 draws per point, S 2 = 0.9990, 0.9868, 0.9604 and 0.9087 at h|t x | = 0.20, 0.25, 0.30 and 0.35; it falls to 0.609 at 0.5 and 0.152 at 1 [Fig.6(b)].”