1: \documentclass[a4paper,11pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{graphicx,rotating}

3: \usepackage{hyperref} 

4: \pdfoutput=1

5: %\usepackage{ifpdf}

6: %\ifpdf

7: %\usepackage{hyperref, epstopdf}    % This is for pdftex

8: %%\usepackage{hyperref, pdfsync, epstopdf}    % This is for pdftex

9: %\else

10: %\usepackage[dvips,bookmarks]{hyperref}  % This is for arXiv.org

11: %\fi

12: \hypersetup{colorlinks,bookmarksopen,bookmarksnumbered,citecolor=verdes,

13: linkcolor=blus,pdfstartview=FitH,urlcolor=rossos}

14: \def\hhref#1{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/#1}{#1}} % in bibliography

15: \def\mhref#1{\href{mailto:#1}{#1}}      % email on title page

16: 

17: %\newcommand{\riga}[1]{\noalign{\hbox{\parbox{\textwidth}{#1}}}\nonumber}

18: \newcommand{\Mpl}{M_{\rm Pl}}

19: \newcommand{\lambdam}{\lambda_*}

20: 

21: \usepackage{amsfonts}

22: \usepackage{amsmath}

23: \usepackage{amssymb}

24: \usepackage{graphicx}%

25: \setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{30}

26: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=latex2.dll}

27: %TCIDATA{Version=5.00.0.2552}

28: %TCIDATA{CSTFile=40 LaTeX article.cst}

29: %TCIDATA{Created=Tuesday, December 05, 2006 08:20:55}

30: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Tuesday, December 05, 2006 19:12:53}

31: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}

32: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="SaveForMode" CONTENT="1">}

33: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="DocumentShell" CONTENT="Standard LaTeX\Standard LaTeX Article">}

34: 

35: \def\ap#1#2#3{     {\it Ann. Phys.  }{#1} (#2) #3}

36: \def\arnps#1#2#3{  {\it Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. }{#1} (#2) #3}

37: \def\npb#1#2#3{    {\it Nucl. Phys. }{B #1} (#2) #3}

38: \def\plb#1#2#3{    {\it Phys. Lett. }{B #1} (#2) #3}

39: \def\pr#1#2#3{     {\it Phys. Rev. }{#1} (#2) #3}

40: \def\prd#1#2#3{    {\it Phys. Rev. }{D #1} (#2) #3}

41: \def\prb#1#2#3{    {\it Phys. Rev. }{\bf B #1} (#2) #3}

42: \def\prep#1#2#3{   {\it Phys. Rep. }{#1} (#2) #3}

43: \def\prl#1#2#3{    {\it Phys. Rev. Lett. }{#1} (#2) #3}

44: \def\ptp#1#2#3{    {\it Prog. Theor. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

45: \def\rpp#1#2#3{    {\it Rept. Prog. Phys. }{#1} (#2) #3}

46: \def\ppnp#1#2#3{   {\it Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. }{#1} (#2) #3}

47: \def\rmp#1#2#3{    {\it Rev. Mod. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

48: \def\zpc#1#2#3{    {\it Z. Phys. }{C #1} (#2) #3}

49: \def\ijmpa#1#2#3{  {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys. }{\bf A #1} (#2) #3}

50: \def\sjnp#1#2#3{   {\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

51: \def\yf#1#2#3{     {\it Yad. Fiz. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

52: \def\nc#1#2#3{     {\it Nuovo Cim. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

53: \def\jetpl#1#2#3{  {\it JETP Lett. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

54: \def\epjc#1#2#3{   {\it Eur. Phys. J. }{\bf C #1} (#2) #3}

55: \def\ibid#1#2#3{   {\it ibid. }{#1} (#2) #3}

56: \def\jhep#1#2#3{   {\it JHEP  }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

57: \def\physica#1#2#3{{\it Physica }{\bf A #1} (#2) #3}

58: \def\ncim#1#2#3{   {\it Nuovo Cim. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}

59: 

60: 

61: 

62: \def\spartial{\partial\hspace{-5pt}{\scriptstyle/}\hspace{1pt}}

63: \def\slashp{p\hspace{-4pt}{\scriptstyle/}\hspace{1pt}}

64: \def\slasheps{\varepsilon\hspace{-4pt}{\scriptstyle/}\hspace{1pt}}

65: 

66: \usepackage{slashed}

67: 

68:  \newcommand{\gr}{\ensuremath{\psi}}

69: \newcommand{\gl}{\ensuremath{\lambda}}

70: \newcommand{\sq}{\ensuremath{\tilde{q}}}

71: 

72: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

73: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

74: \newcommand{\fig}[1]{~\ref{fig:#1}}

75: 

76: 

77: \newcommand{\mbt}{\tilde{\mb{m}}}

78: 

79: \oddsidemargin -0.5cm \evensidemargin -0.5cm

80: \topmargin -1.7cm  \textwidth 17cm  \textheight 24.5cm

81: \def\baselinestretch{1}

82: \newcommand{\scatola}[1]{\Blue\fbox{$\displaystyle #1$}\Black}

83: \newcount\Mac  \Mac=1  % devo mettere Mac=1 se sto lavorando sul file Mac

84: \newcommand{\ifMac}[2]{\ifnum\Mac=1 #1 \else #2 \fi}

85: \def\putps(#1,#2)(#3,#4)#5#6{\ifnum\Mac=1 \put(#1,#2){\special{picture #5}}

86: \else  \put(#3,#4){\special{psfile=#6}} \fi}

87: 

88: \newcommand{\mNN}{m_{N_1}}

89: \newcommand{\mNNstar}{\bar{m}}

90: \newcommand{\riga}[1]{\noalign{\hbox{\parbox{\textwidth}{#1}}}\nonumber}

91: \newcommand{\bAk}[3]{\langle #1|#2|#3\rangle}

92: \newcommand{\One}{\hbox{1\kern-.24em I}}

93: \newcommand{\dafare}[1]{{\bf (#1)}}

94: \renewcommand{\Im}{\mathop{\rm Im}}

95: \newcommand{\M}{{\cal M}}

96: \newcommand{\GeV}{\,{\rm GeV}}

97: \newcommand{\TeV}{\,{\rm TeV}}

98: \newcommand{\MeV}{\,{\rm MeV}}

99: \newcommand{\eV}{\,{\rm eV}}

100: \newcommand{\NP}{Nucl. Phys.}

101: \newcommand{\PRL}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

102: \newcommand{\PL}{Phys. Lett.}

103: \newcommand{\PR}{Phys. Rev.}

104: \newcommand{\pL}{{\cal P}_{\rm L}} % attenzione a \PL =  Phys. Lett.

105: \newcommand{\pR}{{\cal P}_{\rm R}}

106: \newcommand{\BM}{B_{-\!\!-\hspace{-1.8ex}\times\,\,}}

107: \newcommand{\Bk}{B_{-\!\!-\hspace{-1.8ex}>\,\,}}

108: \newcommand{\Pglu}{P_{-\!\!-\hspace{-1.8ex}>\,\,}}

109: \newcommand{\PgluE}{P_{-\!\!-\hspace{-1.8ex}\times\,\,}}

110: \newcommand{\PgluI}{P_{\cdots\hspace{-2ex}\cdots\hspace{-1.3ex}\times\,\,}}

111: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{~{\rm (\ref{eq:#1})}}

112: \newcommand{\sys}[1]{~{\rm (\ref{sys:#1})}}

113: \newcommand{\md}[1]{\langle#1\rangle}

114: \newcommand{\lnEps}{\ln\frac{\mub^2}{m_t^2}}

115: \newcommand{\epsIR}{\varepsilon_{\rm ir}}

116: \newcommand{\epsUV}{\varepsilon_{\rm uv}}

117: \newcommand{\eps}{\varepsilon}

118: \newcommand{\mub}{\bar{\mu}}

119: \newcommand\Ord{{\cal O}}

120: \newcommand\Op[1]{{\cal O}_{#1}}

121: \newcommand{\Pl}{P\hspace{-1.5ex}/}

122: \newcommand{\Ul}{U\hspace{-1.5ex}/}

123: \newcommand{\pl}{p\hspace{-4.2pt}{\scriptstyle/}}

124: \newcommand{\qsl}{q\hspace{-4.9pt}{\scriptstyle /}}

125: \newcommand{\ds}{\partial\!\!\!\raisebox{2pt}[0pt][0pt]{$\scriptstyle/$}\,}

126: \newcommand{\ksl}{k\hspace{-5pt}/}

127: \newcommand{\Ksl}{K\hspace{-1.6ex}/}

128: \newcommand{\Li}{\hbox{Li}_2}

129: \newcommand{\K}{\hbox{K}}

130: \newcommand{\bk}[1]{|#1\rangle}

131: 

132: \newcommand{\MGUT}{M_{\rm G}}

133: \def\Red{\special{color cmyk 0 1. 1. 0.5}}

134: \def\Black{\special{color cmyk 0 0 0 1.}}

135: \def\Blue{\special{color cmyk 1. 1. 0 0}}

136: \def\RV{R\!\!\!/\,}

137: \newcommand{\lascia}[1]{}

138: \makeatletter

139: %

140: % formato bibliografico standard

141: %

142: %\art[hep-ph/yymmnnn]{autori}{rivista}{numero}{pagina}{anno}

143: \def\art{\@ifnextchar[{\eart}{\oart}}

144: \def\eart[#1]#2#3#4#5#6{{\rm #2}, {#3 #4} {\rm (#6) #5} [{\hhref{#1}}]}

145: %\def\eart[#1]#2#3#4#5#6{{\rm #2}, {\em #1}}

146: \def\hepart[#1]#2{{\rm #2, \hhref{#1}}}

147: \newcommand{\oart}[5]{{\rm #1}, {#2 #3} {\rm (#5) #4}}

148: \newcommand{\y}{{\rm and} }

149: 

150: 

151: %

152: % definizione della macro EQNSYSTEM

153: %

154: \newcounter{alphaequation}[equation]

155: %\def\thealphaequation{\theequation\alph{alphaequation}}

156: \def\thealphaequation{\theequation\hbox to

157: 0.6em{\hfil\alph{alphaequation}\hfil}}

158: % MODIFICATA PER DARE UNA DIMENSIONE UGUALE AD UN 1em AD OGNI LETTERA

159: \def\eqnsystem#1{

160: \def\@eqnnum{{\rm (\thealphaequation)}}

161: %

162: \def\@@eqncr{\let\@tempa\relax \ifcase\@eqcnt \def\@tempa{& & &} \or

163:   \def\@tempa{& &}\or \def\@tempa{&}\fi\@tempa

164:   \if@eqnsw\@eqnnum\refstepcounter{alphaequation}\fi

165: \global\@eqnswtrue\global\@eqcnt=0\cr}

166: %

167: \refstepcounter{equation} \let\@currentlabel\theequation \def\@tempb{#1}

168: \ifx\@tempb\empty\else\label{#1}\fi

169: %

170: \refstepcounter{alphaequation}

171: \let\@currentlabel\thealphaequation

172: %

173: \global\@eqnswtrue\global\@eqcnt=0 \tabskip\@centering\let\\=\@eqncr

174: $$\halign to \displaywidth\bgroup \@eqnsel\hskip\@centering

175: $\displaystyle\tabskip\z@{##}$&\global\@eqcnt\@ne

176: \hskip2\arraycolsep\hfil${##}$\hfil& \global\@eqcnt\tw@\hskip2\arraycolsep

177: $\displaystyle\tabskip\z@{##}$\hfil

178: \tabskip\@centering&\llap{##}\tabskip\z@\cr}

179: 

180: \def\endeqnsystem{\@@eqncr\egroup$$\global\@ignoretrue} \makeatother

181: 

182: 

183: \def\diag{\mathop{\rm diag}}

184: \newcommand{\mb}[1]{\mbox{\normalsize\boldmath $#1$}}

185: \def\Ord{{\cal O}}

186: \def\Lag{{\cal L}}

187: \def\SU{{\rm SU}}

188: \def\SO{{\rm SO}}

189: \def\Tr{\mathop{\rm Tr}}

190: \def\circa#1{\,\raise.3ex\hbox{$#1$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\,}

191: 

192: \newcommand{\Mp}{M_{\rm Pl}}

193: 

194: \usepackage{multicol}

195: \usepackage{color}

196: \definecolor{rosso}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.4}

197: \definecolor{rossos}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.55}

198: \definecolor{rossoc}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.2}

199: \definecolor{blu}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.3}

200: \definecolor{blus}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.6}

201: \definecolor{bluc}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.1}

202: \definecolor{verde}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.25}

203: \definecolor{verdec}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.15}

204: \definecolor{verdes}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.4}

205: \definecolor{grigio}{cmyk}{0,0,0,0.07}

206: \definecolor{rosa}{cmyk}{0,0.1,0.1,0.02}

207: \definecolor{rosino}{cmyk}{0,0.05,0.05,0.02}

208: \definecolor{rosas}{cmyk}{0,0.3,0.25,0.05}

209: \definecolor{celeste}{cmyk}{0.1,0,0,0.02}

210: \definecolor{giallino}{cmyk}{0,0,0.4,0.02}

211: \definecolor{rosso}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.4}

212: \definecolor{rossos}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.55}

213: \definecolor{rossoc}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.2}

214: \definecolor{blu}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.3}

215: \definecolor{bluc}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.1}

216: \definecolor{blucc}{cmyk}{0.7,0.5,0,0}

217: \definecolor{viola}{cmyk}{0,1,0,0.6}

218: \definecolor{viola2}{cmyk}{0,1,0.2,0.6}

219: \definecolor{verde}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.25}

220: \definecolor{verdec}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.15}

221: \definecolor{verdes}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.4}

222: \definecolor{verdino}{cmyk}{0.12,0,0.09,0.05}

223: \definecolor{giallo}{cmyk}{0,0,1,0}

224: \definecolor{gialloverde}{cmyk}{0.44,0,0.74,0}

225: 

226: 

227: 

228: \font\tenrsfs=rsfs10 at 11pt

229: \font\sevenrsfs=rsfs7

230: \font\fiversfs=rsfs5

231: \newfam\rsfsfam

232: \textfont\rsfsfam=\tenrsfs

233: \scriptfont\rsfsfam=\sevenrsfs

234: \scriptscriptfont\rsfsfam=\fiversfs

235: \def\mathscr#1{{\fam\rsfsfam\relax#1}}

236: \def\Lag{\mathscr{L}}

237: \def\Ham{\mathscr{H}}

238: \def\Amp{\mathscr{A}}

239: 

240: 

241: \begin{document}

242: \color{black}

243: \vspace{1.0cm}

244: 

245: \begin{center}

246: {\Huge\bf\color{rossos}Gravitational corrections to \\ [3mm]

247: Standard Model vacuum decay}\\

248: \medskip

249: \bigskip\color{black}\vspace{0.6cm}

250: %

251: {

252: {\large\bf Gino Isidori}$^{a,b}$,

253: {\large\bf Vyacheslav S. Rychkov}$^a$,

254: {\large\bf Alessandro Strumia}$^c$,

255: {\large\bf Nikolaos Tetradis}$^d$

256: }

257: \\[7mm]

258: {\it $^a$ Scuola Normale Superiore and INFN, Piazza dei Cavalieri 7, I-56126 Pisa, Italy}\\[3mm]

259: {\it $^b$ INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Via E.Fermi 40, I-00044 Frascati, Italy}\\[3mm]

260: {\it  $^c$ Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit{\`a} di Pisa and INFN, Italia}\\[3mm]

261: {\it  $^d$ Department of Physics, University of Athens, Zographou GR-15784, Athens, Greece}

262: 

263: \bigskip\bigskip\bigskip

264: 

265: {\large

266: \centerline{\large\bf Abstract}

267: 

268: \begin{quote}

269: We refine and update the metastability constraint on the Standard Model top and

270: Higgs masses, by analytically including

271: gravitational corrections to the vacuum decay rate.

272: Present best-fit ranges of the top and Higgs masses mostly lie in the narrow metastable region.

273: Furthermore, we show that the SM potential can be fine-tuned in order to be made suitable for inflation.

274: However, SM inflation results in a power spectrum of cosmological perturbations

275: not consistent with observations. 

276: \end{quote}}

277: 

278: \end{center}

279: 

280: 

281: \section{Introduction}

282: Assuming that the Standard Model (SM) holds up to some high energy scale

283: close to $M_{\rm Pl}=1.22~10^{19}\*\GeV$, present data suggest a light

284: Higgs mass, $m_h \sim (115-150)\GeV$.

285: If the Higgs is so light, radiative corrections induced

286: by the top Yukawa coupling can destabilize the Higgs potential and the

287: electroweak vacuum

288: becomes a false vacuum, which sooner or later decays~\cite{coleman_sc,stab,sher,IRS,stab_new,ant}.

289: Demanding that the SM vacuum be sufficiently long lived

290: with respect to the age of the universe implies a bound

291: on the Higgs and top masses~\cite{stab,sher,IRS,stab_new}.

292: 

293: 

294: In section~\ref{vacSM} we recall the peculiarities of vacuum decay within the SM

295: relevant for our later inclusion of gravity, which was neglected in previous analyses.

296: In section~\ref{vacG} we show how gravitational corrections to the vacuum decay rate~\cite{CL}

297: can be computed by making a perturbative expansion in the Newton constant,

298: and we obtain the analytic result for SM vacuum decay.

299: 

300: %and turn out to be a numerically small effect.

301: 

302: In section~\ref{infl} we show that for fine-tuned values of the

303: Higgs and top masses (that lie within the experimentally allowed range), 

304: the SM potential can be suitable for inflation.

305: However, the corresponding power spectrum of anisotropies  

306: is larger than the observed one.

307: 

308:  

309: \section{Vacuum decay within the Standard Model}\label{vacSM}

310: We recall vacuum decay within the Standard Model without gravity, and its peculiarities

311: relevant for our later inclusion of gravity.

312: The SM contains one complex scalar doublet $H$,

313: \beq

314: H = \left[ \begin{array}{c}  (h+i\eta)/\sqrt{2} \\ \chi^- \end{array} \right]~,

315: \eeq

316: with tree-level potential

317: \beq

318: \label{eq:SMV}

319: V=m^2 |H|^2 + \lambda |H|^4

320: =\frac{1}{2} m^2 h^2 + \frac{1}{4}\lambda h^4+\ldots

321: \eeq

322: where the dots stand for terms that vanish when the Goldstones $\eta,\chi^-$ are set to

323: zero.

324: With this normalization, $v=

325: (G_F\sqrt{2})^{-1/2}= 246.2 \GeV$, and the mass of the single physical

326: degree of freedom $h$ is $m^2_h=V''(h)|_{h=v}=2 \lambda v^2$. As is

327: well known, for $h \gg v$ the quantum corrections to $V(h)$ can be

328: reabsorbed in the running coupling $\lambda(\bar\mu)$, renormalized at a

329: scale $\bar\mu \sim h$. To a good accuracy, $V(h \gg v )\approx \lambda(h) h^4/4$ and the instability occurs 

330: if $\lambda$ becomes negative for some value of $h$.

331: For the values of $m_h$ compatible with data this occurs at scales larger than $10^5$~GeV,

332: suggesting that we can compute vacuum decay neglecting the quadratic term $m^2h^2/2$.

333: 

334: \medskip

335: 

336: The bounce~\cite{coleman_sc} is a solution $h(r)$ of

337: the Euclidean equations of motion that depends only on the radial coordinate

338: $r^2\equiv x_\mu x_\mu$:

339: \beq\label{eq:bounce}

340: -\partial_\mu \partial_\mu h+V'(h )

341: =-\frac{d^2 h }{dr^2}-\frac{3}{r}\frac{dh }{dr}+V'(h)=0~,

342: \eeq

343: and satisfies the boundary conditions

344: \beq

345: h'(0)=0~,\qquad h(\infty) = v\to 0~.

346: \eeq

347: We can perform a tree-level computation

348: of the tunnelling rate with a negative $\lambda<0$ renormalized at some arbitrary scale $\mu$.

349: In this approximation, the tree-level

350: bounce $h_0(r)$ can be found analytically and depends on an arbitrary scale $R$:

351: \begin{equation}

352: \label{eq:fubini}

353: h_0(r) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{|\lambda| }}\frac{2R}{r^2+R^2}~,\qquad S_0[h_0]

354: =\frac{8\pi^2}{3|\lambda|}~.

355: \end{equation}

356: At first sight, computing the decay rate among two vacua in the

357: approximation   $V(h)=\lambda h^4/4$ where no vacuum exists may

358: appear rather odd. However~\cite{IRS}, the presence of a potential barrier

359: around the false vacuum $h\sim 0$ is not necessary, since in quantum

360: field theory the bounce is not a constant field configuration, and

361: the energy in its gradient effectively acts as a potential barrier.

362: Furthermore, the decay rate does not depend on the unknown physics

363: that eventually stabilizes the true vacuum at $h \sim \Mp$, if the

364: bounce has size $R\gg 1/\Mp$: once a tunneling bubble appears,

365: the instability due to $V'(h(0))\neq 0$ brings $h$ down to the true

366: minimum with unit probability. Formally, by performing the analytic

367: continuation from Euclidean $r^2 = x^2 + t^2$ to Minkowskian $r^2 =

368: x^2 - t^2$ space-time, the evolution inside the bubble is described

369: by eq.\eq{fubini} with $r^2<0$: $h_0$ reaches a singularity at

370: $r^2=-R^2$. Indeed our potential is unbounded from

371: below.\footnote{~In the usual case, with a potential with two minima,

372: the bounce can be computed only numerically. The analytic

373: continuation can be done by switching $r\to ir$ in eq.\eq{bounce} at

374: $r<0$, and solving numerically. The qualitative behavior of the

375: solution can be understood by noticing that this operation is

376: equivalent to flipping the sign of $V$: $h$ oscillates around the

377: true minimum, reaching it at $r\to - \infty$, i.e. for

378: asymptotically large times inside the expanding bubble.} In general,

379: what happens inside the bubble does not affect the tunneling rate

380: nor the growth of the bubble: being an O(4)-invariant configuration

381: (i.e.\ the bounce depends only on $r$), its walls expand at the

382: speed of light, so that what happens in the interior cannot causally

383: affect the exterior.

384: 

385: 

386: 

387: \medskip

388: 

389: The arbitrary parameter $R$ appears in the expression of the 

390: SM bounce $h_0(r)$ because in our approximations the tree level SM

391: potential is scale-invariant: at this level, there is an infinite set of bounces of

392: varying size $R$, all with the same action $S_0[h_0]$.

393: 

394: Quantum corrections are the dominant effect that breaks scale invariance, and have been computed in~\cite{IRS}.

395: At one-loop order, the tunnelling probability in the universe space-time volume $V_U$ is then given by

396: \beq

397: \label{eq:p1L}

398: p = \max_R \left[p(R)\right],\qquad p(R)=\frac{V_U }{R^4}  e^{-S},

399: \eeq

400: where $S =S_0 + \Delta S_{\rm 1-loop}$ is the one-loop action:

401: since the bounce is not a static configuration,

402: corrections to both the potential part, as well as to the kinetic part of the action,

403: must be taken into account~\cite{IRS}.

404: To find the bounce configuration that extremizes $S$, it is enough to evaluate it along

405: the family of tree-level bounces, $h_0$ in eq.\eq{fubini}, and minimize with respect to $R$.

406: The result is roughly $S\approx 8\pi^2/3|\lambda(\bar\mu=1/R)|$,

407: i.e.\ one-loop corrections remove the tree-level ambiguity on the RGE scale $\bar\mu$ by

408: fixing it to be the scale $1/R$ of the bounce.

409: Since within the SM $\lambda(\bar\mu)$ happens to run reaching a minimal 

410: value at $\bar\mu \sim 10^{16-17}\GeV$, tunneling is dominated by bounces with this size.

411: A posteriori, this justifies having neglected the SM mass term, that gives a correction

412: $\Delta S \sim (mR)^2 \ll 1$ to the bounce action,

413: and suggests that gravity should be taken into account perturbatively.

414: 

415: 

416: 

417: 

418: 

419: 

420: 

421: %Substituting the bounce action (\ref{eq:fubini}) in Eq.~(\ref{eq:1}),

422: %the condition $p < 1$ for a universe about $10^{10}$ years old is

423: %equivalent to $\lambda > -0.065/(1 - 0.01 \ln R v)$, i.e.\

424: %$\lambda$ cannot take too large negative values. The bound on

425: %$\lambda$ can be translated into a lower bound on $m_H$ taking into

426: %account the renormalization-group evolution (RGE) of $\lambda(\mu)$

427: %(see Fig.~\ref{fig:lambda}).

428: %At this stage, however, there is clearly a large theoretical ambiguity

429: %due to the scale dependence. Which values of $R$ and of the RGE scale

430: %$\mu$ should one use? As we shall see in the next section, both

431: %ambiguities are solved by performing a complete one-loop calculation of

432: %the tunnelling rate.

433: 

434: 

435: 

436: \section{Vacuum decay with gravity}\label{vacG}

437: We now extend the previous computation taking into account

438: gravity~\cite{CL}. In our case this is a potentially

439: relevant effect, since gravity breaks scale-invariance and $1/R$ is just

440: somewhat smaller than the Planck scale. One might worry that gravity

441: can have dramatic effects, and that the decay rate starts to depend

442: on the unknown depth $V_{\rm min}$ of the true minimum of the SM

443: potential.\footnote{~This is what one would na\"{\i}vely guess from

444: the results of~\cite{CL} for the bounce action: \beq \label{eq:Sthin} S_{\rm

445: with~gravity} \approx S_{\rm without~gravity}/[1 + R^2 V_{\rm min}/M_{\rm

446: Pl}^2]^2,\eeq i.e.\ the bubble does not exist if the true minimum

447: has a large negative cosmological constant, e.g. $V_{\rm min}\sim -

448: M_{\rm Pl}^4$.

449: %In some sense, the pressure due to the negative energy prevents the existence of an expanding bubble.

450: However, eq.\eq{Sthin} holds within the thin-wall approximation~\cite{CL},

451: not applicable when $V_{\rm min}$ is large and negative, and not applicable to the SM case we are interested in.}

452: This is not the case. Since the exterior geometry is the flat Minkowski space,

453: the generic argument given in the non-gravitational case still holds:

454: the bubble is an O(4)-invariant solution and its walls expands at the speed of light,

455: irrespectively of what happens inside.\footnote{~It is only an observer inside the bubble that experiences

456: a large negative cosmological constant and consequently a contraction down to a big-crunch singularity~\cite{CL},

457: instead than  an expanding bubble.}

458: 

459: 

460: 

461: \medskip

462: 

463: We recall from ~\cite{CL} the basic formalism needed for a quantitative analysis.

464: We assume an Euclidean spherically symmetric geometry,

465: $ds^2 = dr^2 + \rho(r)^2 d\Omega^2$,

466: where $d\Omega$ is the volume element of the unit 3-sphere.

467: The Einstein-Higgs action

468: \beq S =  \int d^4x \sqrt{g} \left[ \frac{(\partial_\mu h)(\partial^\mu h)}{2} + V(h)  -

469: \frac{\mathscr{R}}{2\kappa}\right],\label{eq:EH}

470: \eeq

471: where $\kappa = 8\pi G$  and $G = 1/\Mp^2$ with $M_{\rm Pl}=1.22~10^{19}\,{\rm GeV}$, simplifies to

472: \beq S = 2\pi^2 \int dr\left[\rho^3( \frac{h^{\prime 2}}{2} + V )+ \frac{3}{\kappa}

473: (\rho^2 \rho'' + \rho\rho^{\prime 2} - \rho)\right],

474: \eeq

475: where $'$ denotes $d/dr$.  The equations of motion are

476: \beq h'' + 3\frac{\rho'}{\rho} h' = \frac{dV}{dh},\qquad

477: \rho^{\prime 2} = 1 + \frac{\kappa}{3}\rho^2 (\frac{h^{\prime 2}}{2} - V ).\eeq

478: 

479: 

480: 

481: \begin{figure}[t]

482: \begin{center}

483: \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{probR}

484: \caption{\em\label{fig:probR} Probability $p(R)$ that the SM vacuum decayed so far for

485: $m_h=115\GeV$, $m_t = 174.4\GeV$, $\alpha_3(M_Z)=0.118$,

486: due to bounces with size $R$,

487: without including gravitational effects (dashed curve~\cite{IRS}) and including gravitational effects (continuous line).

488: The correction is relevant only at $1/R\circa{>}10^{17}\GeV$.

489: Uncertainties due to higher-order corrections are not shown.}

490: \end{center}

491: \end{figure}

492: 

493: 

494: \begin{figure}[t]

495: \begin{center}

496: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{deadoraliveG}

497: \caption{\em\label{fig:deadoralive} Metastability region of the

498: Standard Model vacuum in the $(m_h,m_t)$ plane, for

499: $\alpha_s(m_Z)=0.118$ (solid curves). Dashed and dot-dashed curves

500: are obtained for $\alpha_s(m_Z)=0.118\pm 0.002$.

501: The shaded half-ellipses indicates the experimental range for $m_t$ and $m_h$ at $68\%$ and $90\%$ confidence level.

502: Sub-leading effects could shift the bounds by $\pm 2\GeV$ in $m_t$.}

503: \end{center}

504: \end{figure}

505: 

506: %\subsection{Perturbative inclusion of gravity}

507: We can analytically include the effect of gravity, assuming $ R M_{\rm Pl}\gg 1$, by performing a 

508: leading-order 

509: expansion in  the gravitational

510: coupling $\kappa$:

511: \beq h(r) = h_0(r) + \kappa h_1(r)+{\cal O}(\kappa^2)  ,\qquad \rho(r) = r + \kappa \rho_1(r)+{\cal O}(\kappa^2) .\eeq

512: The action is

513: \beq \label{eq:Gexp}

514: S = S_0 + 6\pi^2\kappa \int dr~  \left[r^2 \rho_1 \left( \frac{h_0^{\prime 2}}{2} + V(h_0) \right)

515: +(r \rho_1^{\prime 2} + 2 \rho_1 \rho_1' +  2 \rho_1r \rho_1'')\right]+

516: {\cal O}(\kappa^2).\eeq

517: %[Se integro per parti il termine G diventa $(-r\rho_1^{\prime 2}$)]

518: We have taken into account that many terms in the expansion vanish either because

519: the integrand is a total derivative (e.g.\  the negative power $1/\kappa$ in eq.\eq{EH} is just apparent)

520: or thanks to the equations of motion.

521: Indeed $h_1$ does not appear in eq.\eq{Gexp} because we are  functionally expanding around the extremum $h_0$ of the non-gravitational action,  so that the first functional derivatives vanish thanks to the equations of motion.

522: So, we only need to compute $\rho_1$: its equation of motion is \beq

523: \rho'_1 = \frac{1}{6}r^2 \left(\frac{h_0^{\prime 2}}{2} - V(h_0)

524: \right).\eeq Inserting it into eq.\eq{Gexp} completes the

525: computation of gravitational corrections to leading-order in $\kappa$. We

526: notice that the first term in eq.\eq{Gexp}, which is linear in

527: $\rho_1$, contributes $-2$ times the last purely gravitational term

528: in eq.\eq{Gexp}, which is quadratic in $\rho_1$. This happens

529: because $S$ must have an extremum at $c=1$ under the variation

530: $\rho_1(r) \to c \rho_1(r)$. The discussion is so far general, and

531: by choosing toy potentials we verified that eq.\eq{Gexp} agrees with

532: the full numerical result.

533: 

534: 

535: \section{Vacuum decay with gravity in the Standard Model}\label{infl}

536: Going to the SM case, using the analytic expression of eq.\eq{fubini} for the bounce $h_0$,

537: we can perform all integrations analytically finding

538: \beq 

539: \label{eq:SSM}

540:  S = \frac{8\pi^2}{3|\lambda|}+\Delta S_{\rm 1-loop} +\Delta S_{\rm gravity}, 

541: \qquad \Delta S_{\rm gravity}=\frac{256\pi^3}{45 (R M_{\rm Pl} \lambda)^2}

542: \eeq

543: where $\Delta S_{\rm gravity}$ 

544: is the gravitational correction and 

545: $\Delta S_{\rm 1-loop}$ the one-loop correction, given in eq.~(3.3) of~\cite{IRS}.

546: Eq.\eq{p1L} gives the tunneling probability $p(R)$.

547: 

548: 

549: 

550: 

551: % There is an extra subtlety due to  the peculiarities of the scale-invariant action:

552: %since $V$ does not have a mass term at $h=0$,  the bounce of eq.\eq{fubini} is not exponentially suppressed at large $r$.

553: 

554: 

555: Fig.\fig{probR} shows an example of the relevance of gravitational

556: corrections. We checked that the leading-order approximation agrees

557: with the result of a full numerical computation: eq.\eq{SSM}

558: correctly approximates the action of the true bounce, and  the true

559: bounce $h(r)$ is correctly approximated by $h_0(r)$ with the value

560: of $R$ that minimizes $S$.\footnote{~Here we comment about the comparison between the analytic 

561: result in eq.~(\ref{eq:SSM}) and the full numerical computation.

562: With a typical potential this is a straightforward procedure:

563: the bounce is determined numerically as a compromise between 

564: classical solutions which under-shoot and over-shoot the true bounce at large $r$.

565: With a potential close to $h^4$, finding the bounce numerically is more

566: involved: with this potential classical solutions necessarily go

567: to zero at large $r$; however, they generically oscillate to zero as $1/r$ 

568: giving a divergent action. The special feature of $h_0(r)$ 

569: is that it vanishes as $1/r^2$ giving a finite action.

570: The true bounce should maintain this behavior.

571: In practice, this is achieved imposing a vanishing 

572: difference between $h_0(r)$ and the numerical bounce. 

573: The advantage of our analytic approximation based on the set of candidate bounces

574: $h_0(r)$ with different values of $R$ is that ill-behaved never enter the computation.

575: %In other words, to find the approximate bounce we should

576: %not minimize the action as a function of $h(0)$ 

577: %(as done with ordinary potentials). Rather, we should

578: %minimize the action within the class of $h_0(r)$ configurations 

579: %with different values of $R$, which leads to finite actions 

580: %and satisfy correct boundary conditions.

581: }

582: 

583: 

584: Fig.\fig{deadoralive} shows the regions in the $(m_h,m_t)$ plane where the SM vacuum is stable, meta-stable or too unstable.

585: Gravitational corrections only induce a {\em minor shift} on the `instability' border,

586: less relevant than  present experimental and theoretical (higher-order) uncertainties.

587: The ellipses truncated at $m_h=115\GeV$ are the best-fit values for the top and Higgs masses,

588: from our up-to-date global fit of precision data, that includes

589: the latest direct measurement of  the top mass, $m_t = (170.9\pm1.8)\GeV$~\cite{mt}.

590: Present data and computations indicate that we do not live in the unstable region

591: (such that the SM can be valid up to the Planck scale),

592: but increased accuracy is needed to determine if we live in the stable or in the small meta-stable region.

593: 

594: \medskip

595: 

596: 

597: Adding to the SM action possible dimension-6 non-renormalizable

598: operators suppressed by the Planck scale would give similar

599: corrections to the bounce action. In particular, adding to the

600: SM Lagrangian the operators

601: \beq

602:  \Delta\Lag_6=\frac{1}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^{2}} \left(

603: - \xi M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^{2} \mathscr{R}|H|^{2}+c_{1}  \frac{|H|^{6} }{3!} +c_{2}|H|^{2}|D_\mu H|^{2} \right),

604: \eeq

605: where $\xi$ and $c_{1,2}$ are unknown dimensionless coefficients,

606: gives the following correction 

607: \begin{equation}

608: \Delta S^\prime_{\rm gravity} = \frac{8\pi^{2}}{15(M_{\mathrm{Pl}}R\lambda)^{2}} \left( 128\pi\xi

609: + \frac{c_{1}}{|\lambda|}+4c_{2} \right),\label{eq:other}%

610: \end{equation}

611: which can be 

612: comparable to the model-independent gravitational effect computed in eq.~\eq{SSM}.

613: 

614: The values of the coefficients $\xi$ and $c_{1,2}$ change 

615: under field redefinitions and only their linear combination 

616: entering (\ref{eq:other}) is physical. Indeed, under $H\rightarrow H(1+a|H|^{2}%

617: /M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^{2})$ we have\footnote{~We do not distinguish

618: between $|H^{\dagger}D_\mu H|^{2}$ and $|H|^{2}|D_\mu H|^{2}$

619: since these operators coincide on the configurations

620: $H=(h/\sqrt{2},0)$ we are interested in.} $\delta c_{1}=24\lambda

621: a,$ $\delta c_{2}=6a$ and $\delta\xi=0$; this transformation can be used

622: to set $c_{2}\rightarrow0$. Under the Weyl

623: transformation of the metric $g_{\mu\nu}\rightarrow g_{\mu\nu}(1+a|H|^{2}%

624: /M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^{2})$ we have $\delta\xi=a/16\pi$, $ \delta

625: c_{1}=12a\lambda$, $\delta c_{2}=a$; this transformation can be used

626: to set $\xi\rightarrow0$. Both these field redefinitions

627: leave $\Delta S^\prime_{\rm gravity}$ invariant. 

628: 

629: To estimate the magnitude of $\Delta S^\prime_{\rm gravity}$ we can thus restrict

630: the attention to only one of the three operators in $\Delta \Lag_6$

631: (we choose the $|H|^{6}$ term), and estimate its coupling using na\"{\i}ve 

632: dimensional analysis. At one loop, graviton exchanges

633: generate the $|H|^{6}$ operator with $c_{1}\sim

634: g_{\mathrm{s}}^{4}/\pi$ as well as the $\lambda|H|^{4}$ operator

635: with coefficient $\lambda\sim g_{\mathrm{s}}^{4}/\pi^{2}$. Here

636: $g_{\mathrm{s}}$ is an unknown coefficient which determines if

637: quantum gravity is weakly or strongly coupled, with strong coupling

638: corresponding to $g_{\mathrm{s}}\sim\pi^{2}$. One might therefore

639: argue that $c_{1}\sim \lambda\pi$, which implies 

640: $\Delta S_{\rm gravity}^\prime \sim \Delta S_{\rm gravity}$. 

641: 

642: 

643: 

644: 

645: \begin{figure}[t]

646: $$\includegraphics[width=13cm]{VSM.pdf}$$

647: \caption[X]{\label{fig:VSM}\em Examples of fine-tuned SM potentials that might allow inflation.

648: The right handed axis shows the value of the slow-roll parameter $\varepsilon$ that would give the observed amount of anisotropies.

649: }

650: \end{figure}

651: 

652: 

653: 

654: \section{Inflation within the Standard Model?}

655: %By extrapolating the Higgs quartic coupling $\lambda$ to high RGE scales $\mu$, $\lambda(\mu$) it reaches

656: %a minimal value $\lambda_{\rm min}$ at a certain RGE scale $\mu_{\rm min}$.

657: %The special values $\lambda_{\rm min}\approx 0$ (or more precisely $\lambda_{\rm min} \ll 1/(4\pi)^2$)

658: %and $\mu_{\rm min}\sim M_{\rm Pl}$

659: For $m_t \approx 173 \GeV$ and $m_h \approx 130\GeV$

660: (i.e.\ within the experimentally allowed region)

661: both the quartic Higgs coupling $\lambda$ and its $\beta$-function happen to vanish,

662: at some RGE scale around $M_{\rm Pl}$.

663: Is this just a coincidence, or this boundary condition carries some message?

664: Some speculations about this fact have been presented in~\cite{Nielsen}. Here we explore 

665: a different aspect, namely a possible connection with inflation.

666: 

667: %  The vanishing of $\lambda$ `Multiple point principle'.

668: % 

669: %  Imposing the constraint that the Standard Model effective Higgs potential should have two degenerate minima ( vacua), one 

670: %  of which should be - order of magnitudewise - at the Planck scale, leads to the top mass being 173 +/- 5 GeV and the 

671: %  Higgs mass 135 +/- 9 GeV. This requirement of the degeneracy of different phases is a special case of what we call the

672: %  multiple point criticality principle. In the present work we use the Standard Model all the way to the Planck scale, 

673: %  and do not introduce supersymmetry or any extension of the Standard Model gauge group. A possible model to explain the 

674: %  multiple point criticality principle is lack of locality fundamentally.

675: 

676: 

677: The quasi-vanishing of both $\lambda$ and $\beta(\lambda)$ allows to have a

678: quasi-flat Higgs potential at $h\sim M_{\rm Pl}$, suitable for inflation.

679: Indeed, we can approximate the RGE running of $\lambda$ as

680:  \beq \lambda(\mu \sim h_0)\simeq \lambda_{\rm min} + \frac{\gamma}{(4\pi)^4}\ln^2\frac{\mu}{h_0}\eeq

681: around the special value $h_0$ where $\lambda$ reaches its minimal value $\lambda_{\rm min}$.

682: The constant $\gamma$ is related to $\beta(\beta(\lambda))$

683: and has the numerical value $\gamma\approx 0.6$ within the SM.

684: The first and second derivatives of the SM potential $V \simeq \lambda(h) h^4/4$

685: vanish at $h=h_*\equiv h_0e^{-1/4}$ if $\lambda_{\rm min} = \gamma/4096\pi^4$,

686: such that the slow-roll parameters

687: $$ \varepsilon\equiv

688: \frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2}{16\pi} \left(\frac{V'}{V}\right)^2,\qquad

689: \eta\equiv

690: \frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2}{8\pi} \frac{V''}{V}~

691: $$

692: vanish, allowing for inflation.

693: 

694: The lack of convincing natural models for inflation might indicate that it happens when

695: scalar fields,  fluctuating along some vast `landscape' potential generically unsuitable for inflation,

696: encounter a small portion of the potential which  accidentally is flat enough.

697: This is what might happen within the SM.

698: This potential is illustrated in fig.\fig{VSM},

699: where we do not show the uncertainty due to higher-order corrections,

700: which effectively amounts to a $\pm 2\GeV$ uncertainty in $m_t$.

701: %By defining $h = h_* +\delta h$ and $\lambda_{\rm min} = \gamma/4096\pi^4+ \delta \lambda$,

702: %at leading orders in $\delta h$ and $\delta \lambda$ one has

703: %\beq \label{eq:Vapprox}

704: %V \simeq \frac{h_*^4 \gamma}{8192\pi^4} + h_*^3 \delta \lambda~\delta h + \frac{h_*\gamma}{768\pi^4}\delta h^3+

705: %\frac{\gamma}{512\pi^4}\delta h^4\eeq

706: Can this SM potential be responsible for inflation {\em and} the

707: generation of anisotropies $\delta \rho/\rho$? The answer is: not

708: both. The basic problem is that the requirement of having enough

709: $e$-folds of inflation, \beq N =2\sqrt{\pi} \int

710: \frac{dh/\Mpl}{\sqrt{\varepsilon}}\approx 60,\eeq can be met with a

711: small enough $\varepsilon$, but this conflicts with the requirement

712: that quantum fluctuation of the Higgs inflaton should also generate the observed power spectrum of anisotropies, $\delta \rho/\rho

713: \sim 10^{-5}$, i.e.\ \beq \frac{V}{\varepsilon}\approx (0.0054

714: \Mpl)^4.\eeq Indeed the height $V$ of the SM potential in its flat

715: region is predicted and cannot be arbitrarily adjusted to be as low

716: as needed. This result can be understood by either doing explicit

717: computations with the approximated potential $\lambda(h) h^4/4$, or

718: by looking at the sample SM potentials plotted in fig.\fig{VSM}. For

719: a top mass within the observed range, the plateau is at values of

720: $h$ and $V^{1/4}$ which are are somewhat below the Planck scale, but

721: $\delta\rho/\rho$ at $N\approx 60$ comes out larger than the

722: observed value. Successful inflation and successful generation of

723: anisotropies would be obtained if for some unknown reason the

724: potential would remain flat from $h\sim h_*$ up to $h\sim M_{\rm

725: Pl}$.

726: 

727: \begin{figure}[t]

728: $$\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{Lambda.pdf}$$

729: \caption[X]{\label{fig:Lambda}\em 

730: Bounds on the Higgs mass derived by the conditions of absolute stability (lower bound), 

731: sufficient metastability (yellow region) and 

732: perturbativity (upper dotted lines, derived by the conditions $\lambda < 3,6$),

733: as function of the scale of validity of the SM.

734: This plot assumes $m_t=173\GeV$ and $\alpha_3(M_Z)=0.118$.

735: }

736: \end{figure}

737: 

738: \section{Conclusions}

739: In this paper we have refined and updated the metastability constraint

740: on the Higgs mass, assuming the validity of the Standard Model up to the highest possible

741: energy scale, $\Lambda \approx M_{\rm Pl}$.

742: In particular, we have taken into account gravitational corrections,

743: which were neglected in previous analyses. These corrections 

744: turn out to be small and calculable in the phenomenologically 

745: interesting region of $m_h$ close to its experimental lower bound.

746: The updated constraints in the $(m_h,m_t)$ plane are reported in fig.~\ref{fig:deadoralive}.

747: Among all possible values, the Higgs mass seems to lie in the

748: narrow region which allows the SM to be a consistent theory up to very high energy scales,

749: with a perturbative coupling and a stable or sufficient long-lived vacuum.

750: Fig.~\ref{fig:Lambda} illustrates the constraints on the Higgs mass as function of $\Lambda$,

751: and shows that the (meta)stability constraints do not depend on $\Lambda$ when it is around the Planck scale.

752: 

753: %Accepting the  anthropic interpretation of the cosmological constant

754: %and the electroweak scale, this fact support the possibility 

755: %that the SM is an effective theory valid up to the Planck scale.

756: 

757: We have also shown that the SM potential can be fine-tuned in order to be made 

758: suitable for inflation. However, the resulting power spectrum 

759: of anisotropies is larger than the observed one.

760: 

761: 

762: \paragraph{Acknowledgements}

763: We thank Paolo Creminelli and Enrico Trincherini for useful discussions.

764: 

765: 

766: \begin{thebibliography}{nn}

767: {\footnotesize

768: 

769: \bibitem{coleman_sc}

770: S.~Coleman, \prd{15}{1977}{2929}.

771: 

772: 

773: \bibitem{stab}

774: N.~Cabibbo, L.~Maiani, G.~Parisi and R.~Petronzio, \npb{158}{1979}{295};

775: P.Q.~Hung, \prl{42}{1979}{873};

776: M.~Lindner, \zpc{31}{1986}{295};

777: M.~Lindner, M.~Sher and H.~Zaglauer, \plb{228}{1989}{139}.

778:   

779:   

780: \bibitem{sher}

781: P. Arnold, \prd{40}{1989}{613};

782: P. Arnold and S. Vokos,\prd{44}{1991}{3620};

783: M.~Sher, \prep{179}{1989}{273};

784: %%CITATION = PRPLC,179,273;%%

785: B.~Schrempp and M.~Wimmer, \ppnp{37}{1996}{1}.

786: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9606386;%%

787: 

788: 

789: \bibitem{IRS}

790: \art[hep-ph/0104016]{G.~Isidori, G.~Ridolfi and A.~Strumia}{\em Nucl.\ Phys.}{B609}{287}{2001}.

791:   

792:   

793: 

794: \bibitem{stab_new}

795: M.~Sher, \plb{317}{1993}{159}; {\em addendum}~\ibid{331}{1994}{448};

796: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9307342;%%

797: G.~Altarelli and G.~Isidori, \plb{337}{1994}{141};

798: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B337,141;%%

799: J.A.~Casas, J.R.~Espinosa and M.~Quir\'os, \plb{342}{1995}{171};

800: J.R.~Espinosa and M.~Quiros, \plb{353}{1995}{257}.

801: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9409458;%%

802: T.~Hambye and K.~Riesselmann, \prd{55}{1997}{7255}.

803: J.~R.~Espinosa, G.~F.~Giudice and A.~Riotto,

804:   %``Cosmological implications of the Higgs mass measurement,''

805:   arXiv:0710.2484 [hep-ph].

806: 

807: 

808: 

809: 

810: \bibitem{ant} 

811: Some authors of the present paper would like to motivate this and past works on SM vacuum decay by 

812: string theory and its anthropic landscape. The others find this connection irrelevant.

813: 

814: 

815: 

816: 

817: \bibitem{CL} S.~R.~Coleman and F.~De Luccia,

818:   %``Gravitational Effects On And Of Vacuum Decay,''

819:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {21} (1980) 3305.

820: 

821:   

822: \bibitem{mt} \hepart[hep-ex/0703034]{Tevatron Electroweak Working Group (for the CDF and D0 Collaborations)}.

823: 

824: \bibitem{Nielsen}

825:   C.~D.~Froggatt and H.~B.~Nielsen,

826:   %``Standard Model Criticality Prediction: Top mass 173 +/- 5 GeV and Higgs

827:   %mass 135 +/- 9 GeV,''

828:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {368} (1996) 96

829:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9511371];

830:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B368,96;%%

831:   C.~D.~Froggatt, H.~B.~Nielsen and Y.~Takanishi,

832:   %``Standard model Higgs boson mass from borderline metastability of the

833:   %vacuum,''

834:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {64} (2001) 113014

835:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0104161].

836:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D64,113014;%%

837:   B.~Feldstein, L.~J.~Hall and T.~Watari,

838:   %``Landscape prediction for the Higgs boson and top quark masses,''

839:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {74} (2006) 095011

840:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0608121].

841: }

842: 

843: \end{thebibliography}

844: 

845: 

846: 

847: \end{document}

848: