CP T symmetric universe

Latham Boyle1 , Kieran Finn1,2 and Neil Turok1

1
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 2Y5
2
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK M13 9PL
(Dated: March 2018)
We propose that the state of the universe does not spontaneously violate CP T . Instead, the
universe before the Big Bang is the CP T reflection of the universe after the bang. Phrased another
way, the universe before the bang and the universe after the bang may be re-interpreted as a
universe/anti-universe pair, created from nothing. CP T selects a unique vacuum state for the QFT
on such a spacetime, which leads to a new perspective on the cosmological baryon asymmetry, and
a new explanation for the observed dark matter abundance. In particular, if we assume that the
arXiv:1803.08928v1 [hep-ph] 23 Mar 2018

matter fields in the universe are described by the standard model of particle physics (including
right-handed neutrinos), we predict that one of the heavy neutrinos is stable, and that its density
automatically matches the observed dark matter density if its mass is 4.8 × 108 GeV. Among other
predictions, we have: (i) that the three light neutrinos are majorana; (ii) that the lightest of these
is exactly massless; and (iii) that there are no primordial long-wavelength gravitational waves. We
mention connections to the strong CP problem and the arrow of time.

Introduction. Observations reveal that, seconds af-
ter the Big Bang, the universe was described by a
spatially-flat radiation-dominated FRW metric (plus tiny
gaussian, adiabatic, purely-growing-mode scalar pertur-
bations described by a nearly-scale-invariant power spec-
trum; and, so far, no primordial vector or tensor per-
turbations) [1]. This is a clue about the origin of the
universe, but what is it trying to tell us? The conven-
tional view is that, in order to explain these simple initial
conditions, one should imagine that the radiation domi-
nated era we see was preceded by an earlier hypothetical
epoch of accelerated expansion called inflation.
In this letter (and a longer companion paper [2]) we
take a different view. Ignoring perturbations for the mo-
ment, the metric we see in our past is gµν = a2 (τ )ηµν
where ηµν is the flat Minkowski metric, and the scale fac-
tor is just proportial to the conformal time τ : a(τ ) ∝ τ . If
we take this metric seriously, it means that the Big Bang
was a very special type of singularity, due purely to the
conformal factor in front of the metric (which is otherwise
just the Minkowski metric) [3–5]. In other words, just as
the black hole horizon in the Schwarzschild metric is a
mere “coordinate singularity” (which can be removed by
a coordinate transformation), the Big Bang singularity is
a mere “Weyl singularity” (which can be removed by a
Weyl transformation – i.e. by a new choice for the local
choice of unit length – see [2]).
If one takes this striking clue about the early universe
seriously, and follows the solution a(τ ) ∝ τ through the
bang (just as one follows the black hole solution through
the horizon), one finds that the FRW background with
a(τ ) suddenly exhibits a new isometry: time reversal
symmetry τ → −τ . It thus becomes possible to adopt the
natural hypothesis that, contrary to naive appearances,
the state of our universe does not spontaneously violate
CP T . In this letter, we explore this hypothesis, explain
how it provides novel explanations for certain observed
features of the universe, and point out some correspond-
ing predictions that will be tested in the coming years.
Spacetime (Background and Perturbations). In
this paper we work at the level of QFT on curved space.
Before turning to the state of the QFT, in this section
we first consider what (C)P T says about the spacetime
itself at a purely classical level [6]. Thus we treat the
metric and the radiation fluid using general relativity:
The line element may be written in standard ADM
form: ds2 = −N 2 dτ 2 + hij (dxi + N i dτ )(dxj + N j dτ ). To
describe our universe (a flat FRW spacetime plus small
scalar, vector and tensor perturbations), we use “comov-
ing gauge” so that: the xi = constant threads are nor-
mal to the τ = constant slices (N i = 0); and the threads
follow the stress-energy flow so that (for scalar perturba-
tions) the momentum density T0i also vanishes. Then we
can write the lapse as N = a[1+φ], and the square root of
1/2 (0) (1) (2)
the matrix hij as hij = a[(1 + R)δij + γij + γij + γij ],
where a = a(τ ) is the background scale factor, R is the
“comoving curvature perturbation,” φ is another scalar
perturbation related to R by the Einstein equation, and
we have split the traceless perturbation γij into its scalar,
(0) (1) (2)
vector and tensor parts: γij , γij , γij [7, 8].
Next, to treat spinors and CP T , just as we must switch
from the wave operator  to its “square root” (the Dirac
operator D / ), we must switch from the line element ds2
to its “square root” (the tetrad ea ). Thus, we rewrite ds2
in the form ds2 = ηab ea eb , where ηab = diag{−1, 1, 1, 1}
is the Minkowski metric and the tetrad one forms ea =
1/2
eaµ dxµ are e0 = N dτ and ei = hij dxj . The spacetime is
(C)P T symmetric in the sense that the tetrad geometry
according to an observer who moves forward along the
xi = constant thread is identical to the tetrad geometry
according to an observer who moves backward along the
thread and reverses the spatial one forms ei → −ei . Or,
equivalently, the tetrad at a certain time τ after the bang
is precisely the reverse of the tetrad at the corresponding

moment before the bang along the same thread:
eaµ (τ, x) = −eaµ (−τ, x). (1)
Let us unpack the implications of this simple constraint:
i) Background geometry: Eq. (1) implies that the scale
factor is odd, a(−τ ) = −a(τ ), with a ∝ τ near the bang
(as in the radiation era).
If this picture is correct, cosmological models in which
a(τ ) undergoes a non-singular bounce at a minimum scale
factor amin > 0 are misguided.
ii) Scalar perturbations: In fourier space, neglecting
anisotropic stress, R satisfies R′′ +2(z ′/z)R′ +c2s k 2 R = 0,
where c2s = δp/δρ is the sound speed, k is the comoving
wavenumber, z 2 ≡ a2 ǫ and ǫ = (a′ /a)′ /(a′ /a)2 − 1. Near
the bang, where a ∝ τ and c2s = 1/3, the general solu-
tion is R(k, τ ) = τ −1 [A(k) sin(cs kτ ) + B(k) cos(cs kτ )].
The condition (1) then sets B(k) = 0, eliminating the
mode that is singular at the bang, and selecting the well-
behaved mode that approaches a constant as τ → 0.
This is precisely the boundary condition responsible
for producing the famous oscillations seen in the CMB
power spectrum, with the correct phases. This observed
phenomenon, usually attributed to inflation, is alterna-
tively explained by a symmetry argument.
Also note that density pertubations grow as we get
further from the bang in either direction, and hence the
thermodynamic arrow of time points away from the bang
in both directions (to the future and past).
iii) Vector perturbations: Neglecting anisotropic stress,
the gauge-invariant vector metric perturbation σg satis-
fies σg′ + 2(a′ /a)σg = 0 [7], so σg (k, τ ) = C(k)/τ 2 near
(1)
the bang. In our chosen gauge, σg ∝ γij ′ , so Eq. (1) im-
plies that σg (and hence the primordial vorticity, which
is tied to σg by the 0i Einstein equation) vanishes, again
in agreement with observations.
iv) Tensor perturbations: neglecting anisotropic stress,
(2) (2) (2) (2)
γij satisfies γij ′′ + 2(a′ /a)γij ′ + k 2 γij = 0 so that
(2)
γij (k, τ ) = τ −1 [Aij (k) sin(kτ ) + Bij (k) cos(kτ )]. Now
(1) sets Bij (k) = 0, eliminating the mode that is singular
at the bang and selecting the mode that is well-behaved.
Note that, for each type of perturbation – scalar, vec-
tor and tensor – the condition (1) “protects” the geome-
try near the bang by precisely eliminating the dangerous
singular modes that would cause the breakdown of lin-
ear perturbation theory and destroy the smooth (Weyl)
character of the singularity.
v) U Ū pair: Eq. (1) implies eaµ (0, x) = 0. If we
combine this fact with our previous observations (about
the arrow of time and the smoothness of the bang),
and recall the Stueckelberg interpretation of an anti-
particle as a particle running backward in time [9, 10], it
becomes natural to reinterpret our CP T -invariant uni-
verse as a universe/anti-universe pair (U Ū ), emerging
from nothing! This interpretation continues to be useful
when spinors and anti-particles enter the story: e.g. the
2
matter/anti-matter asymmetry on one side of the bang
is the opposite of the asymmetry on the other side [2].
The CP T Invariant Vacuum. Now we turn from
the spacetime itself to the state of the QFT living on it.
In Minkowski spacetime, there is a unique vacuum that
respects the Minkowski isometries (more precisely, space-
time translations, Lorentz transformations, and CP T ).
But in a more general curved spacetime, the choice of
vacuum becomes ambiguous: different observers will nat-
urally define different, inequivalent vacua, so that the
zero particle state according to one observer will contain
particles according to a different observer [11]. In par-
ticular, in an ordinary FRW spacetime, the isometries
(spatial translations, spatial rotations, and parity) are
not enough to determine a preferred vacuum, and comov-
ing observers at different epochs will disagree. But, as we
explain in this section, if the FRW background also has
an isometry under time-reversal τ → −τ , then there is
a preferred vacuum that respects the full isometry group
(including CP T ).
Consider a spinor Ψ with mass m > 0 on a flat FRW
background ds2 = a2 (τ )[−dτ 2 + dx2 ]. Its Lagrangian is
√
L = −g[iΨ̄eµa γ a ∇µ Ψ − mΨ̄Ψ] (2a)
= iψ̄∂
/ ψ − µψ̄ψ. (2b)
On the first line, we have the usual curved space Dirac
operator [11]; in comoving/conformal coordinates, the
tetrad is eµa = (1/a)δaµ , and γ a are the 4 × 4 Dirac gamma
matrices. On the second line of (2), we have introduced
the Weyl invariant spinor field ψ = ψ(τ, x) and its effec-
tive mass µ = µ(τ ):
ψ ≡ a3/2 Ψ µ ≡ am, (3)
and ∂/ ≡ γ µ ∂µ is the flat-space Dirac operator, where the
partial derivatives ∂µ are with respect to the comoving
coordinates {τ, x}. The resulting equation of motion is
(i∂
/ − µ)ψ = 0. (4)
Note that, since a(τ ) is an odd function of τ , so is µ(τ ).
To quantize, we expand ψ(x) in a basis of solutions of
Eq. (4), ψ(p, h, x) and ψ c (p, h, x):
XZ d3 p
[a(p, h)ψ(p, h, x) + b† (p, h)ψ c (p, h, x)].
(2π)3/2
h
(5)
Here ψ(p, h, x) ∝ eipx is the solution with momentum
p, helicity h, and “positive frequency”; ψ c (p, h, x) ≡
−iγ 2 ψ ∗ (p, h, x) is the charge-conjugate (“negative fre-
quency”) solution; and a(p, h) and b(p, h) are parti-
cle and anti-particle annihilation operators, which sat-
isfy the usual fermionic anti-commutation relations:
{a(p, h), a† (p′ , h′ )} = {b(p, h), b† (p′ , h′ )} = δ(p − p′ )δh,h′ ,
all other anti-commutators vanishing.
But in a general curved spacetime, there is no canoni-
cal choice for which solutions have “positive frequency,”

and observers in different regions will make inequivalent
choices: e.g. in FRW the positive frequency solutions ψ−
and ψ+ chosen by observers in the far past (−) or far
future (+) exhibit positive frequency behavior in these
two limits, respectively:
Z τ
ψ± (p, h, x) ∼ exp[−i ω(p, τ ′ )dτ ′ ] as τ → ±∞, (6)
p
where ω = p2 + µ2 > 0. The “−” solutions may be
re-expressed in the “+” basis as follows:
c
ψ− (p, h, x) = α(p)ψ+ (p, h, x) + β(p)ψ+ (−p, h, x). (7)
We may adjust the phases of ψ+ and ψ− so that α(p) =
cos λ(p), β(p) = i sin λ(p), and λ(−p) = −λ(p) is real.
The “−” observer’s annihilation operators (a− , b− ) are
then related to the “+” observer’s annihilation operators
(a+ , b+ ) by the Bogoliubov transformation

a+ (+p, h)
  
cos λ(p) i sin λ(p) a− (+p, h)
 In the same limit that this particle becomes stable, it
= . (8)
b†+ (−p, h) i sin λ(p) cosλ(p) b†− (−p, h)
The observer in the far past (resp. far future) defines
the vacuum to be the state |0− i (resp. |0+ i) that is
annihilated by all the operators a− and b− (resp. a+ and
b+ ): a± |0± i = b± |0± i = 0. If λ(p) is non-vanishing (as
it is in the real universe), these two vacua |0− i and |0+ i
are inequivalent. And since they are exchanged by CP T ,
neither is invariant under CP T .
As shown in [2], the CP T -invariant vacuum is ob-
tained by instead taking the positive frequency solutions
ψ(p, h, x) in Eq. (5) to be a set of solutions ψ0 that are
halfway between ψ− and ψ+ :
c
ψ0 (p, h, x) = α± (p)ψ± (p, h, x)+β± (p)ψ± (−p, h, x), (9a)
ψ− (p, h, x)+ψ+ (p, h, x)
= , (9b)
2 cos[λ(p)/2]
where α± (p) = cos[λ(p)/2] and β± (p) = ±i sin[λ(p)/2].
The annihilation operators (a0 , b0 ) associated to these
solutions are similarly halfway between the (a− , b− ) and
(a+ , b+ ) operators:
 " #
cos λ(p) i sin λ(p)
 
a± (+p, h) 2 2
a0 (+p, h)
= .
b†± (−p, h) i sin λ(p)
2 cos λ(p)
2
b†0 (−p, h)
(10)
The corresponding “halfway” vacuum is defined to be the
state |00 i that is annihilated by all the operators (a0 , b0 );
and it is, indeed, CP T invariant: CP T |00 i = |00 i.
In fact, in Ref. [2], we show that there are a continu-
ous family of vacua that respect the full isometry group
of the FRW background including CP T (the “η vacua”
|0η i); and we show that within this family the “halfway”
vacuum constructed above is the preferred vacuum which
minimizes the Hamiltonian in the asymptotic “+/−” re-
gions. This is closely analogous to the situation in de Sit-
ter space, where there are a continuous family of vacua
3
that respect the full de Sitter isometry group (the “α
vacua” |0α i), and a preferred vacuum within this class
(the “Bunch-Davies vacuum”). In the rest of this pa-
per, we assume the universe is in this preferred CP T -
invariant vacuum state (the halfway vacuum |00 i) and
consider some of the consequences.
Neutrino Dark Matter. Now we consider the stan-
dard model of particle physics (including a right-handed
neutrino in each generation) coupled to Einstein gravity.
We take the most general renormalizable action for these
fields on a curved spacetime, with gravity treated classi-
cally: see Section 4.1 in [2]. There is only one possible
dark matter candidate in this model – one particle that
hasn’t yet been detected and can have a lifetime longer
than the age of the universe – namely, one of the right-
handed neutrinos, νR,1 . The assertion that this particle is
exactly stable implies that the standard model couplings
respect the Z2 symmetry νR,1 → −νR,1 .
also becomes decoupled from all of the other particles in
the standard model, and so might seem to become a poor
dark matter candidate since it is not produced by ther-
mal processes in the early universe. But, in our picture,
these particles have a predictable non-zero cosmic abun-
dance, according to late-time comoving observers like us,
just because the universe is in the CP T -invariant vacuum
|00 i, which differs from our late-time vacuum |0+ i. If the
stable neutrino’s mass has a certain value, it automati-
cally has the abundance, coldness and darkness needed
to match observations. This yields a strikingly simple al-
ternative explanation for the dark matter, different from
previous neutrino dark-matter models based on thermal
or resonant production mechanisms [12–16].
To see this explicitly, note that near the bang – i.e.
during the radiation era, above the electroweak phase
transition, when a(τ ) ∝ τ and the Higgs vev is zero – the
dark matter neutrino has equation of motion:
(i∂
/ − µ)N1 = 0 (µ = γτ ) (11)
where N1 = a3/2 (νR,1 +νR,1c
) is the Weyl-invariant Majo-
rana spinor corresponding to νR,1 , γ is a constant given
by γ = (M1 /µ̂)(2ρ1 )1/2 , M1 is the dark matter mass,
µ̂ = (4πG/3)−1/2 ≈ 6 × 1018 GeV, and ρ1 = a4 ρ (the
radiation density times a4 ) is a constant. As shown
in [2], one can solve this equation exactly in terms of
parabolic cylinder functions and show that the coefficient
β(p) = i sin[λ(p)] in (7) is
|β(p)| = exp(−πp2 /2γ). (12)
The corresponding coefficient β+ (p) = i sin[λ(p)/2] in
Eq. (9) is easily determined and so one can compute the
comoving number density of dark matter neutrinos (or
equivalently, the number density when the scale factor
was unity) according to late-time observers like us, as-

suming the universe is in the CP T -invariant state:
XZ d3 p
ndm = |β+ (p)|2 = (γ/π)3/2 I (13)
(2π)3
h
where I ≈ 0.01276. If we combine this with the fact that,
after the decay of the two unstable heavy neutrinos (N2
and N3 ) the ratio of the dark matter number density to
the radiation entropy density was conserved over cosmic
history, and we assume only the 106.75 effective degrees
of freedom of the standard model [17], we can compute
the dark matter density today, and find that it matches
the observed dark matter density if
M1 = 4.8 × 108 GeV. (14)
In [2], we show that this dark matter candidate also auto-
matically has three other properties that currently agree
with experiment: (i) it is adiabatic in the sense that
the dark matter and radiation perturbations, δρdm and
δρrad , satisfy (δρdm (x))/ρdm ) = (3/4)(δρrad(x))/ρrad ;
(ii) it is ultra cold; and (iii) it is ultra weakly interacting
(so weakly interacting that it unfortunately seems hope-
less to see it in a direct detection experiment).
Other Predictions. This scenario makes a number
of other predictions – here we mention several (see [2]
for more detail). (i) The three light neutrino mass eigen-
states are Majorana particles (which will be tested by
future neutrinoless double β-decay searches [18]), and
one of them is exactly massless (which will be tested by
future cosmological constraints on the sum of the light
neutrino masses [19]). (ii) So far we have focused on
the stable right-handed neutrino, but the other two (un-
stable) right-handed neutrinos are also produced in the
early universe and can explain the observed matter/anti-
matter asymmetry by the thermal leptogenesis mecha-
nism [20, 21]. (iii) We predict that there are no primor-
dial long-wavelength gravitational waves (which follows,
in our scenario, from the fact that, since the gravita-
tional waves are massless, and ultra-weakly interacting,
the corresponding “+” and “−” vacua agree).
Discussion. Let us end with a few remarks:
i) Here we have assumed a flat FRW background. In
a forthcoming paper, we propose a new explanation for
how this background arises [22].
ii) In this paper, we have described the background
spacetime geometry and radiation fluid purely classi-
cally, according to general relativity. A fuller treat-
ment of the singularity to include the trace anomaly [11]
and quantum backreaction requires semiclassical meth-
ods, involving complex classical solutions, along the lines
of [4, 5, 23]. This is work in progress.
iii) A fascinating open question is whether current ob-
servations allow the standard model or, more properly, its
minimal extension incorporating neutrino masses, to re-
main valid all the way up to the Planck scale, or whether
4
new physics is required below this scale. With the mea-
sured central values of the Higgs and top quark masses,
the Higgs quartic self-coupling λ runs to negative values
at an energy scale below the Planck mass [24, 25]; how-
ever a recent analysis suggests that a strictly positive
λ all the way is only disfavored at the 1.5 or 2 σ level
[26]. Even if the Higgs effective potential runs negative
at large vev, finite temperature corrections are sufficient
to stabilise the Higgs at zero vev in the very early uni-
verse. There would only be an instability (to a negative-
Higgs-potential bulk phase) at late cosmological times,
far to our future. We find it intriguing that the most
economical possibility, of no new physics, may be viable
[27], and even explain the dark matter. Even if future
observations force us to add new fields, the basic idea in-
troduced here, of following cosmology through the bang
and imposing CP T symmetry, may yet remain fruitful.
iv) We have seen that stability of the dark matter neu-
trino νR,1 implies that the Lagrangian has a symmetry
under νR,1 → −νR,1 . This symmetry suffers from no
anomalies – not even gravitational anomalies [28]. It is
well known that in the standard model, the lepton rep-
resentations {lL , νR , eR } echo the quark representations
{qL , uR , dR }. (This observation is the basis for Pati-
Salam grand unification [29], in which the leptons are a
fourth color.) The parallel symmetry in the quark sector,
uR,1 → −uR,1 , is interesting for other reasons. Naively,
it forces the bare mass of the up quark to zero which,
in turn, solves the strong CP problem [30]. Unlike the
symmetry we are using, this Z2 symmetry is anomalous
due to the strong interactions; however, if it holds at any
energy, and in particular, at a very high energy scale, this
may be sufficient to solve the strong CP problem [31]. A
deeper understanding of these symmetries will likely re-
quire new insights into the origin of the three generations
in the standard model.
Acknowledgements. We thank Claudio Bunster,
Job Feldbrugge, Angelika Fertig, Steffen Gielen, Jaume
Gomis, David B. Kaplan, Ue-Li Pen, Laura Sberna and
Edward Witten for discussions. Research at Perime-
ter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada
through Innovation, Science and Economic Development,
Canada and by the Province of Ontario through the Min-
istry of Research, Innovation and Science.
[1] P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astro-
phys. 594, A13 (2016) [arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]].
[2] L. Boyle, K. Finn and N. Turok, “The Big Bang, CPT,
and neutrino dark matter,” [arXiv:1803.xxxxx [hep-ph]].
[3] R. Penrose, “Singularities and time-asymmetry,” in Gen-
eral Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, edited
by S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1979).
[4] S. Gielen and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no. 2,

021301 (2016) [arXiv:1510.00699 [hep-th]].
[5] S. Gielen and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 10, 103510
(2017) [arXiv:1612.02792 [gr-qc]].
[6] R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 21, 2742 (1980).
[7] H. Kodama and M. Sasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.
78, 1 (1984).
[8] V. F. Mukhanov, H. A. Feldman and R. H. Branden-
berger, Phys. Rept. 215, 203 (1992).
[9] E. C. G. Stueckelberg, “La signification du temps propre
en méchanique ondulatoire,” Helv. Phys. Acta 14, 322
(1941).
[10] E. C. G. Stueckelberg, “Remarque à propos de la création
de paires de particules en théorie de relativité,” Helv.
Phys. Acta 14, 588 (1941).
[11] N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, Quantum fields in
curved space, Cambridge University Press (1984).
[12] S. Dodelson and L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 17
(1994) [hep-ph/9303287].
[13] X. D. Shi and G. M. Fuller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2832
(1999) [astro-ph/9810076].
[14] K. Abazajian and S. M. Koushiappas, Phys. Rev. D 74,
023527 (2006) [astro-ph/0605271].
[15] A. Boyarsky, O. Ruchayskiy and M. Shaposhnikov, Ann.
Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 59, 191 (2009) [arXiv:0901.0011
[hep-ph]].
[16] L. Canetti, M. Drewes, T. Frossard and M. Shaposh-
nikov, Phys. Rev. D 87, 093006 (2013) [arXiv:1208.4607
[hep-ph]].
[17] E. Kolb and M. Turner, The Early Universe (1990).
[18] J. J. Gomez-Cadenas, J. Martin-Albo, M. Mezzetto,
5
F. Monrabal and M. Sorel, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 35, 29 (2012)
[arXiv:1109.5515 [hep-ex]].
[19] K. N. Abazajian et al., Astropart. Phys. 35, 177 (2011)
[arXiv:1103.5083 [astro-ph.CO]].
[20] M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B 174, 45
(1986).
[21] W. Buchmuller, R. D. Peccei and T. Yanagida, Ann. Rev.
Nucl. Part. Sci. 55, 311 (2005) [hep-ph/0502169].
[22] L. Boyle and N. Turok, in preparation (2018).
[23] J. Feldbrugge, J. L. Lehners and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D
97, no. 2, 023509 (2018) [arXiv:1708.05104 [hep-th]].
[24] G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa,
G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori and A. Strumia, JHEP 1208,
098 (2012) [arXiv:1205.6497 [hep-ph]].
[25] D. Buttazzo, G. Degrassi, P. P. Giardino, G. F. Giu-
dice, F. Sala, A. Salvio and A. Strumia, JHEP 1312,
089 (2013) [arXiv:1307.3536 [hep-ph]].
[26] A. V. Bednyakov, B. A. Kniehl, A. F. Pikelner and
O. L. Veretin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, no. 20, 201802
(2015) [arXiv:1507.08833 [hep-ph]].
[27] M. Shaposhnikov and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B 683,
196 (2010) [arXiv:0912.0208 [hep-th]].
[28] E. Witten, private communication.
[29] J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D 10, 275 (1974)
Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 11, 703 (1975)].
[30] D. B. Kaplan and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56,
2004 (1986).
[31] M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 059101 (2005)
[hep-ph/0503051].