{"record":{"author":{"account_ref":null,"orcid":null},"builds_on":[],"content_schema":"pubphys.content.revision/1","content_sha256":"a7c3f9458af679a0cd2abd7892733037e0557024681db2049064b7ad16e75b05","created":"2026-10-03T07:18:05Z","files":[],"origin":{"assisted_by":[],"kind":"seed"},"parents":["5475cf5dc5b1a72283d26dc95dc6e00d7ea4e00096a7c6492e409a1816eeb011"],"salt":"25532481a91948922a7aff9e33a4202356a76fa201c29a27e00bcee1b53bde48","schema":"pubphys.record/2","site":"pubphys.com","target":null,"type":"revision"},"content":{"answer_type":"classification","assisted_by":[],"external_id":"hep.higgs-potential.vacuum-metastability","kind":"well-posed","literature_status":"open","n":"1","parents":[],"plain":"If no new particles appear up to the Planck scale, the measured Higgs and top-quark masses seem to make our vacuum only long-lived instead of permanently stable. The verdict depends on the top mass to a fraction of a GeV.","posed_since":"","precise":"In the SM with three-loop RG running and two-loop matching, determine whether the effective Higgs quartic stays positive for all field values up to and beyond $M_{\\mathrm{Pl}}$. Absolute stability requires a top pole mass near $171.1\\,\\mathrm{GeV}$, about $1.5\\,\\mathrm{GeV}$ below the direct-measurement average $172.57 \\pm 0.29\\,\\mathrm{GeV}$, or $\\alpha_s(m_Z)$ near 0.1213 instead of 0.1180 (Hiller et al. 2024); the answer is the classification stable, metastable or unstable at $5\\sigma$.","problem_ref":null,"references":"","settled_by":"A top-quark pole mass determination with uncertainty $\\sim 0.1\\,\\mathrm{GeV}$ (for example from a t-tbar threshold scan at an $e+e-$ collider) together with $\\alpha_{s}(m_{Z})$ to $\\sim 0.1\\,\\mathrm{percent}$.","status_note":"Hiller, Hohne, Litim and Steudtner (arXiv:2401.08811, revised 2026) find stability disfavored by $1.9\\,\\sigma$ with the cross-section pole mass $172.4 \\pm 0.7\\,\\mathrm{GeV}$ and by $5.1\\,\\sigma$ if the template-fit mass $172.57 \\pm 0.29\\,\\mathrm{GeV}$ is taken as the pole mass; reducing the $m_{t}$ and $\\alpha_{s}$ errors by a factor of 2 to 3 would settle it at $5\\,\\sigma$.","title":"Is the electroweak vacuum absolutely stable if the SM holds to $M_{\\mathrm{Pl}}$?","topic_ref":"7cc87e9a0f125c6a08907b134b87f69c6cd9e45b624b6e55e2b4dc1ba9882691"},"attested":{"attestation":{"batch":null,"client_id":null,"id_token_sha256":null,"kind":"platform"},"record_hash":"229afba5891e3d802bea9f3f36826d757c8a4752203dc8420f09c5a1129f3744","schema":"pubphys.attested/1"},"envelope":{"attested_hash":"4b928729f9e05407efc0df72efd0d7f9e96ef119f34a7c2788c3d109fafacf9b","platform_signature":{"key_id":"c6afc19b31429869751f06879c75cd64ea92654423d15b44be775bf1310a60da","sig":"u8VSzts1bPjet6e_Qxp9HAQpIP7V2kGIWIbi1bcJsh6WDJxd6Ngk4S2JTzMCFtwSXonG6HL4yIX9e6Jf_cfQDA"},"schema":"pubphys.envelope/1"},"record_hash":"229afba5891e3d802bea9f3f36826d757c8a4752203dc8420f09c5a1129f3744","leaf_index":1560}