HIGGS INFLATION & VACUUM STABILITY

based on Phys. Rev. D 92, 083512 F. Bezrukov, J.R., M.Shaposhnikov

Javier Rubio

Outline

1. Reminder of inflation/ HI at tree level

2. Potential problems with vacuum inst.

3. Self-consistent approach to HI

4. HI in the metastability scenario

5. Conclusions

Could the Higgs field itself be responsible for inflation?

What happens if our vacuum becomes unstable below the scale of inflation?

Which are the requirements for this scenario to be self-consistent?Which is the relation between the SM parameters and the inflationary observables?

“IT IS A FACT OF LIFE” THAT ...• The universe is almost flat, homogeneous and isotropic, but contains small density perturbations with almost flat spectrum

•Explaining this within the usual Big Bang theory requires enormous fine-tuning of initial conditions at the Planck scale.

D�T (x)

T

�T (y)

T

E/

Zd

3k

k

3e

ik(x�y)k

ns�1�T

T⇠ 10�5

w� =p�⇢�

=12 �

2 � V (�)12 �

2 + V (�)

�+ 3H�+ V (�) = 0

��

�

Inflation & Scalar fieldsA period of accelerated expansion sourced by:

and a nearly constant energy density a negative pressure a

a= (H2 + H) > 0

w < �1

3

a

a= �⇢

6(1 + 3w) > 0

Homogeneous scalar field in slow-roll

H =

r⇢

3⇡ const.

�� =

✓H

2⇡

◆Inflaton fluctuations

�⇢ �TDensity perturbations CMB perturbations

ds2 = dt2 � a(t)2e2⇣(t,x)dx2

k3

2⇡2PS(k) =

✓H

2⇡

◆2 ✓H

�

◆2Curvature perturbations

The quantum origin of structure

mH = 125.09± 0.21(stat) ± 0.11 (syst) GeV

“low” or “high”, depending on your taste...but certainly particular...

U need a scalar? There u are!

Higgs mass predictions

Homer Simpson’s prediction 775 GeV (1998)arXi

v:07

08.3

344)

New inflation? Linde ’82

Too steep to inflate

PR ⇠ 103�

Chaotic inflation? Linde ’83

Too large primordial perturbations

h

h Chaotic inflation?

New inflation?

vEW

Can we “Higgsflate” the Universe?

+aR2 + bRµ�Rµ� + cRµ�⇥⇤R

µ�⇥⇤ + d⇤R

U(h) =�

4

�h2 � v2

�2 f(h) = M2P + ⇠hh

2

L⇥�g

= f(h)R� 1

2(�h)2 � U(h)� �

The SM in the presence of Gravity

Restricted dimension 4 No new degrees of freedom

L⇥�g

= f(h)R� 1

2

�gµ� � w2Gµ�

��µh��h� U(h)� �

Scale invariance at h � MP /p⇠h

Higgs inflation at tree level

F. L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov Phys. Lett. B659 (2008) 703–706

Moving to the Einstein frame gµ� = �2(h)gµ�

�2 =1+�hh2

M2P

U(�)L⇥�g

=M2

P

2R� 1

2gµ�⇥µ�⇥��� V (�)

Lp�g

=M2

P + ⇠hh2

2R� 1

2(@h)2 � �

4(h2 � v2EW )2

All the non-linearities moved to the scalar sector

for h < MP /⇠h

for h > MP /⇠h

U(�) =�

4(�2 � v2EW )2

U(�) =�M4

P

4⇠2h

✓1� e�

p2/3�MP (1 +

⇠hv2EW

M2P

)

◆2

A sufficiently flat potential

Only �/⇠2h is important

Scale invariance JF --> shift symmetry EF

�/MP

�

⇠2h⇠ 10�11

U

U0

0 1 2 3 4 5 60.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

kf

UU0

U(�) ' �M4P

4⇠2h

✓1� e�

p2/3�MP

◆2

�T

T⇠ 10�5

The primordial spectra

�s ⌘d2ns

d ln k2

PT (k) = At

✓k

k⇤

◆nt+ 12↵t ln(k/k

⇤)+...

PS(k) = As

✓k

k⇤

◆ns�1+ 12↵s ln(k/k⇤)+ 1

6�s(ln(k/k⇤))2+...

Scalar pert.

Tensor pert.

HI

ns ' 1� 2

N' 0.97

r ' 12

N2' 0.0033

• SM remains perturbative all the way up till the inflat./Planck scale

On the edge of stability

Is there a reason for that? M. Lindner, M. Sher, and H. W. Zaglauer, Phys.Lett., B228, 139 (1989), C. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen, Phys.Lett., B368,96 (1996), M. Shaposhnikov and C. Wetterich, Phys.Lett., B683, 196 (2010), M. Veltman, Acta Phys.Polon., B12, 437 (1981), B683, 196 (2010), M. Holthausen, K.S.Lim, M.Lindner and references therein....

Gravitational corrections? Lalak,Lewicki, Olszewki arXiv 14.02.3826, Branchina, Massina Phys.Rev.Lett. 111 (2013) 241801 etc...

Non trivial interplay between Higgs self-coupling and top quark Yukawa coupling

µd�(µ)

d log(µ)= +#�2

+ . . .�#y4t

-0.04-0.02

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

0.1 0.12 0.14

100000 1e+10 1e+15 1e+20

λ

µ, GeV

mH=125.5 GeV

yt=0.9176, mt=170.0yt=0.9235, mt=171.0yt=0.9294, mt=172.0yt=0.9359, mt=173.1yt=0.9413, mt=174.0yt=0.9472, mt=175.0�

µ(GeV)

(no gravity)

124

124.5

125

125.5

126

126.5

127

0.91 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96

Mh,

GeV

yt(µ=173.2 GeV)

Mt=172.38±0.66 GeV

CMS

ycritt = 0.9223 + 0.00118

✓↵s � 0.1184

0.0007

◆+ 0.00085

✓Mh � 125.03

0.3

◆+ 0.0023

✓log ⇠

6.9

◆Top quark & vac. instability

See F. Bezrukov, M. Shaposhnikov J.Exp.Theor.Phys. 120 (2015) 335-343 and references therein

Tevatron

Stable Metastable

LHC/Tevatron

ycritt = 0.9223 + 0.00118

✓↵s � 0.1184

0.0007

◆+ 0.00085

✓Mh � 125.03

0.3

◆+ 0.0023

✓log ⇠

6.9

◆Top quark & vac. instability

See F. Bezrukov, M. Shaposhnikov J.Exp.Theor.Phys. 120 (2015) 335-343 and references therein

Stable Metastable

ycritt = 0.9223 + 0.00118

✓↵s � 0.1184

0.0007

◆+ 0.00085

✓Mh � 125.03

0.3

◆+ 0.0023

✓log ⇠

6.9

◆Top quark & vac. instability

See F. Bezrukov, M. Shaposhnikov J.Exp.Theor.Phys. 120 (2015) 335-343 and references therein

124

124.5

125

125.5

126

126.5

127

0.91 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96

Mh,

GeV

yt(µ=173.2 GeV)

Mt=172.38±0.66 GeV

CMS

Stable Metastable

Before the LHC Higgs discovery, itit was very tempting to identify theinflaton as the Higgs boson of theSM [...]. However, the recent LHCand Tevatron measurements [...]indicate that the Higgs potential.turns negative at a scale belowthe typical cosmic inflation scale.[...] new physics is indispensableto reach a stable electroweakvacuum after inflation ”

“If mh and mt are close tothe measured central value,Higgs inflation is not possibleand Veff becomes negativemuch before MP ”

IsHiggsinflation

by Anonymous Informer I

by Anonymous Informer II

Imagine that the top and Higgs masses are measured with a precision enough to conclude that our vacuum is not completely stable ...

How did we end in the right EW

minimum ?

Should new physics appear at the scale ? µ0

HI is non-renormalizable

Quantum corrections should be introduced by interpreting the theory as an EFT in which a particular set of higher dim. operators are included but.....

Which set of operators?

U(�) ' �M4P

4⇠2h

✓1� e�

p2/3�MP

◆2

Non-polynomial

The naive approachIn the absence of new physics the cutoff scale might be as large as the Planck scale, where gravitational interactions become important for sure

Consider all kind of Planck scale suppressed operators ...

V ' �M4P

4⇠2h

�V

V⇠ cn⇠2h

�

✓�

MP

◆n

V ' �

4h4 �Vn = cn

hn

Mn�4P

�Vn = cn�n

Mn�4P

�V

V⇠ cn

�

✓h

MP

◆n�4

⇠ cn

�⇠n�42

� ⇠ MP h ⇠ MP /⇠h

...added in the Einstein frame ...added in the Jordan frame

Infamous cosmological hierarchy problem ?

During inflation During inflation

But is this self-consistent?

The self-consistent approachA self-consistent approach is to define the cutoff from the theory itself by considering all possible reactions between the SM constituents....

.... and add all kind of operators suppressed by these cutoffs...

1. Compute the quadratic lagrangian

2. Get rid of the mixings in the quadratic action

3. Read out the cutoff from higher order operators

A consistent EFT : Cutoffs are parametrically larger than all the energy scales involved in the history of the Universe

⇤

h

MP

MPp⇠h

M0xh

M0xh

h

M0xh

M0

Strong Coupling

Weak Coupling

⇤P

⇤G

⇤S

p⇠hh

MP

⇠h

⇠hh2

MP

MP

⇠h

Select a particular set of UV completions within the previous set.

F. Bezrukov, A. Magnin, M. Shaposhnikov, and S. Sibiryakov JHEP 1101 (2011) 016,See also C.P. Burguess, S.P. Patil, M.Trott JHEP 1406 (2014) 010

The minimal approach

(Partially) controllable link between the low and high energy parameters of the model

Add only the higher dimensional operators generated by radiative corrections ( i.e. those needed to make theory finite at every order in PT).

�Lct =

✓An

✏+Bn

◆On

Fixed by the divergencies Arbitrary

��

tt

ytF0

Lt(�+ ��) =ytp2F (�+ ��) t t

=ytp2F (�) t t +

ytp2

dF (�)

d��� t t + . . .

F = � F 0(0) = 1

At low energies At high energies

F = const.

F 0 =MPp⇠h

⇣1� e�↵|�|

⌘1/2

F 0(1) = 0

Consider the propagation of the top quark

Add counterterms to cancel divergencies

� at small �

Top quark in Higgs backgroundLF =

yfp2h �! LA =

yfp2

h

⌦ ⌘ yfp

2F (�) F

F = � F 0(0) = 1 F 0(�0) = 0F = const.

At low energies At high energies

One-loop effective potential

Add counterterms to cancel divergencies

⇠ tree levelnew

10-8 10-6 10-4 0.01 10.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

k m

y t

Dashed dyt = 0.025Dotted dyt = -0.025

mh= 125.5 GeVmt = 173.1 GeV

The shape of the asymptotics is maintained

yt(µ) �! yt(µ) + �yt⇥F 02 � 1

⇤+ . . . �(µ) �! �(µ) + ��

"✓F 02 +

1

3F 00F

◆2

� 1

#

10-8 10-6 10-4 10-2 100-202468

k m

103l

dl = -0.003dl = 0dl = 0.003

mh= 125.5 GeVmt = 173.1 GeV

Dashed dyt = 0.005Dotted dyt = -0.005

Neglecting the running of ��1 and �yt1 between µ ⇠ MP /⇠h and MP /p⇠h

Neglecting the running of ��1 and �yt1 between µ ⇠ MP /⇠h and MP /p⇠h

Eff. behaviour of coupling constants

Restoring Higgs inflation

10-10 10-8 10-6 10-4 10-2 100-10

-5

0

5

10

k m

103l

Non-criticalCritical

mh = 125.5 GeVmt = 173.1 GeV

⇠h

• Higgs inflation can be possible even in the case of a metastable vacuum.

• Higgs inflation requires absolute stability of the SM vacuum

�� ⌧ �(MP /⇠)�yt ⌧ yt(MP /⇠)

But how to avoid finishing in the wrong vacuum ???

�� ⌧ �(MP /⇠)�yt ⌧ yt(MP /⇠)

Not to scale!!

The Universe collapses

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

2

4

6

8

j

a

-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

kf

kf¢

Sketch of effective potential(not to scale!)

Inflation takes place with the standard initial

conditions

Sketch of effective potential(not to scale!)

Higgs oscillates and particle creation takes place.

Sketch of effective potential(not to scale!)

J. Garcia-Bellido, D.G. Figueroa, J.R., Phys.Rev. D79 (2009) 063531 F. Bezrukov, D. Gorbunov and M. Shaposhnikov JCAP 0906 (2009) 029 J. Repond, J. R, M. Shaposhnkov, in preparation

Combined Preheating

nk((j + 1)+) = nk(1+) e��F

�(j) e2⇥

Pji=1 µk(i+1)

I f t h e r e h e a t i n g temperature is large enough the “wrong” minimum disappears.

Sketch of effective potential(not to scale!)

�VT = � 1

6⇡2

X

P

Z 1

0

k4dk

✏k(m)

1

e✏k(m)T ⌥ 1

arXiv:1412.3811 F. Bezrukov, J.R., M.Shaposhnikov

The field settles down at the true EW minimum and stays there till the present time.

Sketch of effective potential(not to scale!)

Symmetry restoration

T+ ' 7⇥ 1013 GeV

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25-4-202468

103 kf

107UU0

T = 0T = 5 x 1013 GeVT = 6 x 1013 GeVT = 7 x 1013 GeVT = 8 x 1013 GeVrc Higgs

rF FermionsrB BosonsrW W bosonsrZ Z bosons

0 50 100 150 200 250101102103104105106107

j

r

TR ' 1.8⇥ 1014 GeV

TR > T+

Higgs inflation can be possible even if our vacuum is not completely stable

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

-4

-2

0

2

4

103 kf

107UU0

SMSM + x-coupling

What about lifetime?

J. R. Espinosa and M. Quiros, Phys. Lett. B 353 (1995) 257 J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice and A. Riotto, JCAP 0805 (2008) 002

For SM computation see :

Z. Lalak,M. Lewicki, P. Olszewki JHEP 1405 (2014) 119 , V. Branchina, E. Messina Phys.Rev.Lett. 111 (2013) 241801 etc...

CONCLUSIONS✓ The Higgs field can inflate the Universe

✓ HI provides universal predictions if the UV completion respects SI

✓The relation of these predictions to LE observables contains an irreducible theoretical uncertainty.

UV completion?

✓ Higgs inflation can be possible even if our vacuum is metastable

✓ The HI scenario is just a particular realization of a general idea. Vacuum instability is not necessarily a problem if:

• The potential is modified below the scale of inflation

• The reheating process is efficient enough as to make the wrong minimum disappear temporally.

ns ' 1� 2

N' 0.97 r ' 12

N2' 0.0033