Topological Structure of the Vacuum, Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy
Abstract
In this review we present a theory of cosmological constant and Dark Energy (DE), based on the topological structure of the vacuum. The Multiple Point Principle (MPP) is reviewed. It demonstrates the existence of the two vacua into the SM. The FroggattNielsen’s prediction of the topquark and Higgs masses is given in the assumption that there exist two degenerate vacua in the SM. This prediction was improved by the next order calculations. We also considered B.G. Sidharth’s theory of cosmological constant based on the noncommutative geometry of the Planck scale spacetime, what gives an extremely small DE density providing the accelerating expansion of the Universe. Theory of two degenerate vacua – the Planck scale phase and Electroweak (EW) phase – also is reviewed, topological defects in these vacua are investigated, also the Compton wavelength phase suggested by B.G. Sidharth was discussed. A general theory of the phase transition and the problem of the vacuum stability in the SM is reviewed. Assuming that the recently discovered at the LHC new resonance with mass GeV is a new scalar bound state , earlier predicted by C.D. Froggatt, H.B. Nielsen and L.V. Laperashvili, we try to provide the vacuum stability in the SM and exact accuracy of the MPP.
Keywords: Higgs boson, bound state, effective potential, cosmological constant, degenerate vacua, top quarks, metastability, renormalization group equation, multiple point principle, noncommutative theory, phase transition, vacuum stability
PACS: 04.50.Kd, 98.80.Cq, 12.10.g, 95.35.+d, 95.36.+x
Contents

Introduction.

Multiple Point Principle and the prediction of the top and Higgs masses.

Cosmological constant and topological structure of the
vacuum.
Sidharth’s theory of cosmological constant and Dark
Energy. 
What is the Universe vacuum?


Phase transition(s) in the Universe.

Vacuum stability and the Multiple Point Principle.

Twoloop corrections to the Higgs mass.

Could the Multiple Point Principle be exact due to
corrections from the new bound state 6t + 6antit? 
The effect from the new bound states on the
measured Higgs mass. The main diagrams correcting the effective Higgs selfinteraction coupling constant .


Summary and Conclusions.
1 Introduction
The Standard Model (SM) is a theory with a group of symmetry:
(1) 
which contains quarks (u, d, s, c, b, t), leptons (e, ), the Higgs boson and gauge fields: gluons , vector bosons and , and electromagnetic field . The vast majority of the available experimental data is consistent with the Standard Model predictions. All accelerator physics seems to fit well with the SM, except for neutrino oscillations. Until now no fully convincing sign of new physics has been detected, except for the resonances of masses 1.8 TeV, 750 GeV and maybe 300 GeV, seen at LHC [1, 2, 3, 4]. These results caused a keen interest in possibility of emergence of new physics only at very high (Planck scale) energies. A largely explored scenario assumes that new physics interactions appear only at the Planck scale:
(2) 
According to this scenario, we need the knowledge of the Higgs effective potential up to very high values of . The loop corrections lead the to values of , which are much larger than , where is the location of the Electroweak (EW) vacuum. The effective Higgs potential develops a new minimum at . The position of the second minimum depends on the SM parameters, especially on the top and Higgs masses, and .
2 Multiple Point Principle and the prediction of the top and Higgs masses
In general, a quantum field theory allows an existence of several minima of the effective potential, which is a function of a scalar field. If all vacua, corresponding to these minima, are degenerate, having zero cosmological constants, then we can speak about the existence of a multiple critical point (MCP) in the phase diagram of theory [5, 6, 7]).
In Ref. [5] Bennett and Nielsen postulated a Multiple Point Principle (MPP) for many degenerate vacua.
See: Appendix A: Literature for MPP.
This principle should solve the finetuning problem by actually making a rule for finetuning. The Multiple Point Model (MPM) of the Universe contains simply the SM itself up to the scale GeV. If the MPP is very accurate, we may have a new law of Nature, that can help us to restrict coupling constants from theoretical principles.
Assuming the existence of two degenerate vacua in the SM:

the first Electroweak vacuum at v=246 GeV, and

the second Planck scale vacuum at GeV,
Froggatt and Nielsen predicted in Ref. [7] the topquark and Higgs boson masses:
(3) 
In Fig. 1 it is displayed the existence of the second (nonstandard) minimum of the effective potential in the pure SM at the Planck scale.
The treelevel Higgs potential with the standard “Electroweak minimum” at GeV is given by:
(4) 
The new minimum at the Planck scale:
(5) 
can be higher or lower than the EW one, showing a stable EW vacuum (in the first case), or metastable one (in the second case).
In accord with cosmological measurements, Froggatt and Nielsen assumed that cosmological constants and for both vacua are equal to zero (or approximately zero): , or . This means that vacua and are degenerate, or almost degenerate.
The following requirements must be satisfied in order that the effective potential should have two degenerate minima:
(6) 
and
(7) 
where
(8) 
As a result, Multiple Point Principle postulates: there are many vacua with the same energy density, or cosmological constant, and all cosmological constants are zero, or approximately zero.
If several vacua are degenerate, then the phase diagram of theory contains a special point – the Multiple Critical Point (MCP), at which the corresponding phases meet together.
Here it is useful to remind you a triple point of water analogy.
It is well known in the thermal physics that in the range of fixed extensive quantities: volume, energy and a number of moles, the degenerate phases of water (namely, ice, water and vapor, presented in Fig. 2) exist on the phase diagram (P, T) of Fig. 3.
At the finetuned values of the variables – pressure P and temperature T – we have:
(9) 
giving the critical (triple) point shown in Fig. 3. This is a triple point of water analogy.
The idea of the Multiple Point Principle has its origin from the lattice investigations of gauge theories. In particular, Monte Carlo simulations of ,  and gauge theories on lattice indicate the existence of the triple critical point.
3 Cosmological Constant and Topological Structure of the Vacuum
In the EinsteinHilbert gravitational action:
(10) 
(here is the Newton’s gravitational constant), Dark Energy (DE) – vacuum energy density of our Universe – is related with a cosmological constant by the following way:
(11) 
Here is the reduced Planck mass:
(12) 
Cosmological measurements gives:
(13) 
that means a tiny value of the cosmological constant:
(14) 
By this reason, Bennett, Froggatt and Nielsen considered only zero, or almost zero, cosmological constants for all vacua, existing in our Universe.
3.1 Sidharth’s theory of cosmological constant (Dark Energy)
In 1997 year Sidharth suggested a model, in which the Universe would be accelerating, driven by the so called Dark Energy, corresponding to the extremely small cosmological constant [8, 9].
In 1998 year S. Perlmutter, B. Schmidt and A. Riess [10] were awarded by the Nobel Prize for discovery of the Universe accelerating expansion.

Sidharth predicted a tiny value of the cosmological constant:
(15) where is the Hubble rate in the early Universe;

Sidharth predicted that a Dark Energy (DE) density is very small:
(16) 
Sidharth predicted that a very small DE density provides an accelerating expansion of our Universe after the Big Bang.
Sidharth proceeded from the following points of view [11]: Modern Quantum Gravity (Loop Quantum Gravity, etc.,) deal with a nondifferentiable spacetime manifold. In such an approach, there exists a minimal spacetime cut off, which leads to the noncommutative geometry, a feature shared by the Fuzzy SpaceTime also.
See: Appendix B. Noncommutativity, the main references.
Following the book [11], let us consider:

– the radius of the Universe cm,

– the age of the Universe,

– the number of elementary particles in the Universe ,

– the Compton wavelength of the typical elementary particle with mass ,
( cm for electron).
Then in a random walk, the average distance between particles is
(17) 
and
(18) 
where is a minimal time interval (chronon).
If we imagine that the Universe is a collection of the Planck mass oscillators, then the number of these oscillators is:
(19) 
If the spacetime is fuzzy, nondifferentiable, then it has to be described by a noncommutative geometry with the coordinates obeying the following commutation relations:
(20) 
Eq. (20) is true for any minimal cut off .
Previously the following commutation relation was considered by H.S. Snyder [12]:
(21) 
which shows that effectively 4momentum is replaced by
(22) 
Then the energymomentum formula now becomes as:
(23) 
or
(24) 
where .
In such a theory the usual energy momentum dispersion relations are modified [13].
In the above equations stands for a minimal (fundamental) length, which could be the Planck length, or for more generally  Compton wavelength. It is necessary to comment that if we neglect order of terms, then we return to the usual quantum theory.
Writing Eq. (24) as
(25) 
where is the usual (old) expression for energy, and is the new additional term in modification. can be easily verified as
(26) 
In Eq. (26) the mass is the mass of the field of bosons. Furthermore it was proved, that (25) is valid only for boson fields, whereas for fermions the extra term comes with a positive sign. In general, we can write:
(27) 
where – for boson fields, and – for fermion fields (with mass , , respectively). These formulas help to identify the DE density, what was first realized by B.G. Sidharth in Ref. [9].
DE density is the density of the quantum vacuum energy of the Universe. Quantum vacuum, described by Zero Point Fields (ZPF) contributions, is the lowest state of any Quantum Field Theory (QFT), and due to the Heisenberg’s principle has an infinite value, which is “renormalizable”.
As it was pointed out in Refs. [14, 15] that quantum vacuum of the Universe can be a source of cosmic repulsion. However, a difficulty in this approach has been that the value of the cosmological constant turns out to be huge, far beyond what is observed by astrophysical measurements. This has been called “the cosmological constant problem” [16].
Using the noncommutative theory of the discrete spacetime, B.G. Sidharth predicted in [15] the value of cosmological constant :
(28) 
where is the Hubble rate:
(29) 
3.2 What is the Universe vacuum?
It is well known that in the early Universe topological defects may be created in the vacuum during the vacuum phase transitions [17, 18]. It is thought that the early Universe underwent a series of phase transitions, each one spontaneously breaking some symmetry in particle physics and giving rise to topological defects of some kind, which in many cases can play an essential role throughout the subsequent evolution of the Universe.
In the context of the General Relativity, Barriola and Vilenkin [18] studied the gravitational effects of a global monopole as a spherically symmetric topological defect. It was found that the gravitational effect of global monopole is repulsive in nature. Thus, one may expect that the global monopole and cosmological constants are connected through their common manifestation as the origin of repulsive gravity. Moreover, both cosmological constant and vacuum expectation value are connected while the vacuum expectation value is connected to the topological defect. All these points lead us to a simple conjecture: There must be a common connection among them, namely, the cosmological constant, the global monopole (topological defect) and the vacuum expectation value.
Remark: In the systematic phase of the early Universe, topological defects were absent.
During the expansion of the early Universe, after the Planck era, different phase transitions resulted in to the formation of the various kind of much discussed topological defects like monopoles (point defects), cosmic strings (line defects) and domain walls (sheet defects). The topology of the vacuum manifold dictates the nature of these topological defects. These topological defects appeared due to the breakdown of local or global gauge symmetries. In Ref. [19] it was studied the gravitational field, produced by a spherically symmetric “hedgehog” configuration in scalar field theories with a global symmetry.
For isovector scalar:
(30) 
this solution is pointing radially, what means that is parallel to , the unit vector in the radial direction. The started Lagrangian of this theory is:
(31) 
If is constraint as (for example, at ), then the Lagrangian is:
(32) 
Topological structures in fields are as important as the fields themselves. In Ref. [20] the gaugeinvariant hedgehoglike structures in the Wilson loops were investigated in the YangMills theory. In this model the triplet Higgs field ( = 1, 2, 3) vanishes at the center of the monopole :
(33) 
and has a generic hedgehog structure in the spatial vicinity of this monopole.
In Refs. [21, 22] the authors obtained a solution for a blackhole in a region that contains a global monopole in the framework of the gravity, where is a function of the Ricci scalar . Near the Planck scale they considered the following action:
(34) 
where , is the Newton’s gravitational constant, is the Higgs triplet field ( = 1, 2, 3), is the Higgs selfinteraction coupling, and (which here is ) is the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of at the Planck scale:
(35) 
Here is a covariant derivative:
(36) 
where is the gravitational spinconnection, and is the gauge field.
Considering the time independent metric with spherical symmetry in dimensions:
(37) 
the authors of Refs. [21, 22] obtained a monopole configuration, which is described as:
(38) 
where = 1, 2, 3 and . This is “a hedgehog” solution by Alexander Polyakov’s terminology.
In the flat space the hedgehog core has the size:
(39) 
and the mass:
(40) 
which is:
(41) 
or
(42) 
This is a blackhole solution, which corresponds to a global monopole that has been swallowed by a blackhole.
Now we see, that the Planck scale Universe is described by a nondifferentiable spacetime: by a foam of blackholes, having latticelike structure, in which sites are blackholes with the “hedgehog” monopoles inside them.
Global monopole is a heavy object formed as a result of gaugesymmetry breaking in the phase transition of an isoscalar triplet system. The blackholesmonopoleshedgehogs are similar to elementary particles, because a major part of their energy is concentrated in a small region near the monopole core. In the GuendelmanRabinowitz theory [19], a gravitational effect similar to hedgehogs can be generated by a set of cosmic strings in a spherically symmetric configuration, which can be referred to as a “string hedgehog”. The authors investigated the evolution of bubbles separating two phases: one being the “false vacuum” (Planck scale vacuum) and the other the “true vacuum” (EWscale vacuum). The presence of the hedgehogs, called “defects”, is responsible for the destabilization of a false vacuum. Decay of a false vacuum is accompanied by the growth of the bubbles of a true vacuum. Guendelman and Rabinowitz also allowed a possibility to consider an arbitrary domain wall between two phases. During the inflation domain wall annihilates, producing gravitational waves and a lot of SM particles, having masses.
The noncommutative contribution of the blackholes of the Planck scale vacuum compensates the contribution of the Zero Point Fields and the cosmological constant of the Planck scale phase is:
(43) 
That is, the phase with the VEV has zero cosmological constant.
By cosmological theory, the Universe exists in the Planck scale phase for extremely short time. By this reason, the Planck scale phase was called “the false vacuum”. After the next phase transition, the Universe begins its evolution toward the second, Electroweak (EW) phase. Here the Universe underwent the inflation, which led to the phase having the VEV:
(44) 
The EW (“true”) vacuum with the VEV GeV is the vacuum, in which we live.
4 Phase transition(s) in the Universe
Now it is useful to understand the effects of the finite temperature on the Higgs mechanism (see [23]).
At some finite temperature which is called the critical temperature , a system exhibits a spontaneous symmetry breaking. A ferromagnet is an example of spontaneously broken symmetry. In this theory the equations of motion are rotationally symmetric, but the ground state of a ferromagnet has a preferred direction.
In the Landau and Ginzburg theory [24], the free energy of an isotropic ferromagnet is:
(45) 
where is positive and is the magnetization, has a temperature dependence, and near the critical point it is given by . Thus, for temperatures below the critical temperature, is negative, and the vacuum value of is nonzero. For temperatures above the critical temperature, is positive, and the magnetization vanishes. This is what one intuitively expects: at high temperatures the kinetic energy of the atoms is much greater than the spin exchange interaction energy, thus the average magnetization should vanish. Therefore, at high temperatures the rotational symmetry of a ferromagnet is restored.
The spontaneous symmetry breakdown of a gauge theory also vanishes at high temperature, and the gauge symmetry is restored. Kirzhnits [25] and Linde [26] were first who considered the analogy between the Higgs mechanism and superconductivity, and argued that the Higgs field condensate disappears at high temperatures, leading to symmetry restoration. As a result, in the Higgs model at high temperatures, all fermions and vector bosons are massless. These conclusions were confirmed, and the critical temperature was estimated in Refs. [27, 28, 29]. See also the review article by A. Linde [30].
Let us consider now the phase transition from a false vacuum to a true vacuum. At the early stage the Universe was very hot, but then it began to cool down. Blackholesmonopoles (as bubbles of the vapor in the boiling water) began to disappear. The temperature dependent part of the energy density died away. In that case, only the vacuum energy will survive. Since this is a constant, the Universe expands exponentially, and an exponentially expanding Universe leads to the inflation (see [31, 32, 33], etc.).
During the inflation the triplet Higgs field, , = 1, 2, 3, decays into the Higgs doublet fields of , . Here we follow to the GraviWeak Unification theory of Ref. [34], and finally we have the Standard Model Lagrangian with gravity:
(46) 
where is a cosmological constant, and
(47) 
is a covariant derivative.
, and are respectively the matter fields Lagrangian (including quarks with flavors and leptons ), the gauge fields Lagrangian (including gluons , vector bosons and the electromagnetic field ), and the Yukawa couplings Lagrangian of type . Here:
(48) 
and
(49) 
The Electroweak vacuum has the Higgs field’s VEV: GeV.
While the Universe was being in the false vacuum and expanding exponentially, so it was cooling exponentially. This scenario was called supercooling in the false vacuum. When the temperature reached the critical value , the Higgs mechanism of the SM created a new condensate , and the vacuum became similar to superconductor, in which the topological defects are the closed magnetic vortices. The energy of blackholes is released as particles, which were created during the radiation era of the Universe, and all these particles (quarks, leptons, vector bosons) acquired their masses through the Yukawa coupling mechanism .
The electroweak spontaneous breakdown of symmetry leads to the creation of the topological defects in the EW vacuum. They are the AbrikosovNielsenOlesen closed magnetic vortices of the Abelian Higgs model [35, 36]. Then the electroweak vacuum again presents the nondifferentiable manifold, and again we have to consider the noncommutative geometry, in accordance with the Sidharth’s theory of the vacuum.
However, here we have fermions, which have a mass, therefore Compton wavelength, , and according to the Sidharth’s theory of the cosmological constant, we have in the EWvacuum latticelike structure of bosons and fermions with lattice parameter “” equal to the Compton wavelength: .
Taking into account the relation between the vacuum energy density, , and the cosmological constant :
(50) 
we easily see that in the Planck scale vacuum (with the VEV GeV) we have:
(51) 
and
(52) 
In the above equations “NC” means the “noncommutativity” and “ZPF” means “zero point fields”.
Here it is necessary to comment that the correctness of an assessment of the noncommutative theory is well known in the paper Ref. [37]. Here we emphasize that, due to the energy conservation law, the vacuum density before the phase transition at the critical temperature is equal to the vacuum density after the phase transition, that is:
(53) 
The analogous link between the Planck scale phase and EW phase was considered in the paper [38]. It was shown that the vacuum energy density (DE) is described by the different contributions to the Planck and EW scale phases. This difference is a result of the phase transition. However, the vacuum energy densities (DE) of both vacua are equal, and we have a link between gravitation and electromagnetism via the Dark Energy, established in Ref. [38]. According to the last equation (53), we see that if (at Planck scale) is almost zero, then (at EW scale) also is almost zero, and we have a triumph of the Multiple Point Principle!
A general theory of the phase transition from the one type lattice structure to the another type, in particular, from the Planck scale lattice with sites to the Compton scale lattice with sites , was developed in Refs. [39, 40]. Previously it has been proved that the phase transition from the Planck scale phase to the Compton scale (EW) phase is similar to the LandauGinzburg phase transition [41]. In these investigations it has been substantiated that the 2D universe undergoes a phase transition from the Planck phase to the Compton phase in analogy with the ferromagnetic case.
This result should also be hold in the case of a 3D universe.
Here it is worth to specify the concept “Compton phase” entered by Sidharth. Taking into account Sidharth’s previous works [41, 42], we have, in analogy with a coherence parameter of the GinzburgLandau theory [24], the following coherence parameter:
(54) 
where is the Compton length of a particle having mass .
If we consider the Higgs particle (with mass ), then we have it’s Compton length:
(55) 
i.e. the coherence parameter of the phase under consideration is the Compton length of the Higgs boson. In general, we can say: The Compton length is the fundamental aspect of the Compton phase, which is a synonym to the Electroweak phase, the current phase of the Universe. Thus, B.G. Sidharth explained in his investigations, why the Compton scale plays such a rudimentary role in all phenomena of the quantum physics. The Compton scale gives the description of an accelerating Universe with a small positive cosmological constant [9].
In the paper [43] it was obtained that the Compton scale gives the correction to the electron anomalous gyromagnetic ratio , what also was considered by J. Schwinger from the quantum field theoretical point of view.
5 Vacuum stability and the Multiple Point Principle
The vacuum stability problem in the Standard Model has a long history:
See: Appendix C and references in [46].
If what means:
(56) 
than our vacuum is not stable, it decays! And the MPP is not exact.
For energies higher than EW scale the analysis of the vacuum stability is reduced to the study of the renormalization group evolution of the Higgs quartic coupling (see [23]).
The FroggattNielsen’s prediction for the mass of the Higgs boson GeV; GeV was improved in Ref. [47] by the calculation of the twoloop radiative corrections to the effective Higgs potential.
The prediction of Higgs mass GeV is closed the value GeV observed at the LHC. The authors of Ref. [48] have shown that the most interesting aspect of the measured value of is its nearcriticality. They extrapolated the SM parameters up to the high (Planck scale) energies with full threeloop NNLO RGE precision.
The main result of the investigation of [47] is: The observed Higgs mass GeV at LHC leads to the negative value of the Higgs quartic coupling at some energy scale below the Planck scale, making the Higgs potential unstable or metastable. For the vacuum stability investigation a highly precise analysis is quite necessary.
With the inclusion of the threeloop RG equations in [48] and twoloop matching conditions in [47], the instability scale occurs at GeV, well below the Planck scale. This means that at that scale the effective potential starts to be negative, and a new minimum can appear with negative cosmological constant. According to these investigations, the experimental value of the Higgs mass gives scenarios, which are at the borderline between the absolute stability and metastability. The measured value of puts the Standard Model in the socalled nearcritical position. Using the present experimental uncertainties on the SM parameters (mostly the topquark mass) it is conclusively impossible to establish the fate of the EW vacuum, although metastability is preferred. Thus, the careful evaluation of the Higgs effective potential by Ref. [47], combined with the experimentally measured Higgs boson mass in the pure SM, leads to the energy density getting negative for high values of the Higgs field, what means that the minimum of the effective potential at GeV (if it exists) has a negative energy density. Therefore, formally the vacuum, in which we live, is unstable although it is in reality just metastable with an enormously long lifetime. However, only this unstable vacuum corresponding to the experimental Higgs mass of GeV is indeed very close to the Higgs mass GeV obtained by Degrassi et al. in Ref. [47]. The last value makes the GeV Higgs field vacuum be degenerate with the Electroweak one. In this sense, Nature has chosen parameters very close to ones predicted by the Multiple Point Principle.
5.1 Could the Multiple Point Principle be exact due to corrections from the new bound state 6t + 6antit ?
See: Appendix D. Theory of the new bound state 6t + 6antit, the main references.
The purpose of the articles of Refs. [46, 49] is to estimate the correction from the NBS to the Higgs mass GeV obtained by Degrassi et al. in Ref. [47]. This is actually can be done by identifying a barely significant peak obtained at the LHC Run2 with protonproton collisions at energy TeV in the LHCexperiments [50, 51, 52].
5.1.1 LHC: Search for the resonances in pp collision data at TeV
Recently the ATLAS and CMS collaborations [1, 2, 3, 4] have presented the first data obtained at the LHC Run 2 with pp collisions at energy TeV. Fig. 4 presents searches for a new physics in high mass diphoton events in protonproton collisions at 13 TeV. ATLAS and CMS Collaborations show a new resonance in the diphoton distribution at the invariant mass of 750760 GeV.
The ATLAS collaboration claims an excess in the distribution of events containing two photons, at the diphoton invariant mass GeV with statistical significance. The ATLAS excess consists of about 14 events suggesting a bestfit width of about 45 GeV with .
See: Appendix E. Resonance 750 GeV.
ATLAS [1, 2, 3, 4] collaboration presents searches for resonant and nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in protonproton collision data at TeV generated by the LHC and recorded by the ATLAS detector in 2012 (see Fig. 5). In the search for a narrow resonance decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons, the expected exclusion on the production cross section falls from 1.7 pb for a resonance at 260 GeV to 0.7 pb at 500 GeV. It is not excluded that then results show: a resonance with mass GeV.
If the observed diphoton excess indeed corresponds to the decay of a hitherto unknown particle then this will be the first confirmation of new physics beyond the SM. If the observed excess is due to a resonance it has to be a boson and it cannot be a spin1 particle [53, 54]. This leaves the possibility of it being either a spin0 or spin2 particle [55]. If it is indeed a new particle, then one must wonder what kind of new physics incorporates it.
In previous Ref. [56] we have speculated that quarks should be so strongly bound that these bound states would effectively function at low energies as elementary particles and can be added into loop calculations as new elementary particles or resonances. The exceptional smallness of the mass of the new bound state particle :
(57) 
is in fact a consequence of the degeneracy of the vacua, and thus of the Multiple Point Principle.
Run 2 LHC data show hints of a new resonance in the diphoton distribution at an invariant mass of 750 GeV. We identify this peak with our NBS . It means that taking into account the contribution of the LHC resonance with mass 750 GeV as an our bound state during the calculations of the correction to the predicted Higgs mass, we must obtain a new result for the vacuum stability and MPP.
6 The Higgs effective potential
A theory of a single scalar field (see Ref. [23]) is given by the effective potential , which is a function of the classical field . In the loop expansion this is given by:
(58) 
where is the tree level potential of the SM.
The Higgs mechanism is the simplest mechanism leading to the spontaneous symmetry breaking of a gauge theory. In the SM the breaking
(59) 
achieved by the Higgs mechanism, gives masses to the Higgs and gauge bosons, also to fermions with flavor .
With one Higgs doublet of , we have the following tree level Higgs potential:
(60) 
The vacuum expectation value of is:
(61) 
where
(62) 
Introducing a fourcomponent real field by
(63) 
where
(64) 
we have the following tree level potential:
(65) 
As is wellknown, this treelevel potential gives the masses of the gauge bosons and , fermions with flavor and the physical Higgs boson :
(66)  
(67)  
(68)  
(69) 
where is the Yukawa couplings of fermion with the flavor ; are respectively and coupling constants.
7 Stability phase diagram
We have already seen that the new physics can come only at very high (Planck scale) energies: GeV. The loop corrections lead the to the very large (Planck scale) values of , much larger than , the location of the EW vacuum. The effective Higgs potential develops a new minimum at . The position of the second minimum depends on the SM parameters, especially on the top and Higgs masses, and . It can be higher or lower than the EW minimum, showing a stable EW vacuum (in the first case), or metastable one (in the second case).
Considering the lifetime of the false vacuum (see Ref. [57]) and comparing it with the age of the Universe , we see that, if is larger than , then our Universe will be sitting in the metastable vacuum, and we deal with the scenario of metastability. The stability analysis is presented by the stability diagram in the plane () given by Fig. 6.
The stability line separates the stability and the metastability regions, and corresponds to and obeying the condition . The instability line separates the metastability and instability regions. It corresponds to and for . In the stability figure the black dot indicates current experimental values GeV and GeV: see Particle Data Group [58].
It lies inside the metastability region. The ellipses take into account and , according to the current experimental errors.
When the black dot sits on the stability line, then this case is named “critical”, according to the MPP concept: then the running quartic coupling and the corresponding betafunction vanish at the Planck scale :
(70) 
Stability phase diagram shows that the black dot, existing in the metastability region, is close to the stability line, and this “nearcriticality” can be considered as the most important information obtained for the Higgs boson.
7.1 Twoloop corrections to the Higgs mass from the effective potential
Still neglecting the new physics interactions at the Planck scale, we can consider the Higgs effective potential for large values of :
(71) 
Here is the renormalization group improved (RGE) Higgs potential (see [23]), and depends on as the running quartic coupling depends on the running scale . Then we have the oneloop, twoloops or threeloops expressions for . The corresponding up to date NexttoNexttoLeadingOrder (NNLO) results were published by Degrassi et al. [47] and Buttazzo et al. [48].
The relation between and the Higgs mass is:
(72) 
where is the Fermi coupling. Here denotes corrections arising beyond the tree level potential. Computing at the oneloop level, using the twoloop beta functions for all the Standard Model couplings, Degrassi et al. [47] obtained the first complete NNLO evaluation of . In the RGE figure blue lines (thick and dashed) present the RG evolution of for current experimental values GeV and GeV, and for given by .
The thick blue line corresponds to the central value of and dashed blue lines correspond to errors of equal to . Absolute stability of the Higgs potential is excluded by the investigation [47] at 98% C.L. for GeV. In figure we see that asymptotically does not reach zero, but approaches to the negative value, indicating the metastability of the EW vacuum:
(73) 
According to Degrassi et al. [47], the stability line is the red thick line in the figure, and corresponds to: GeV. The aim of Refs. [46, 49] is to show that the stability line could correspond to the current experimental values of the SM parameters, with GeV given by LHC, provided we include a correction caused by the newly found at LHC resonance, which is identified as the bound state of our .
7.2 The effect from the new bound states 6t + 6antit on the measured Higgs mass
In Ref. [56] was first assumed that:

there exists bound state – scalar particle and color singlet;

that the forces responsible for the formation of these bound states originate from the virtual exchanges of the Higgs bosons between top(antitop)quarks;

that these forces are so strong that they almost compensate the mass of 12 top(antitop)quarks contained in these bound states.
The explanation of the stability of the bound state is given by the Pauli principle: topquark has two spin and three color degrees of freedom (total 6). By this reason, 6 quarks have the maximal binding energy, and 6 pairs of in wave state create a long lived (almost stable) colorless scalar bound state . One could even suspect that not only this most strongly bound state of , but also some excited states exist, and a new bound state , which is a fermion similar to the quark of the 4th generation.
These bound states are held together by exchange of the Higgs and gluons between the topquarks and antitopquarks as well as between top and top and between antitop and antitop. The Higgs field causes attraction between quark and quark as well as between quark and antiquark and between antiquark and antiquark, so the more particles and/or antiparticles are being put together the stronger they are bound. But now for fermions as topquarks, the Pauli principle prevents too many constituents being possible in the lowest state of a Bohr atom constructed from different topquarks or antitopquarks surrounding (as electrons in the atom) the “whole system” analogous to the nucleus in the Bohr atom.
Because the quark has three color states and two spin states meaning 6 internal states there is in fact a shell (as in the nuclear physics) with 6 topquarks and similarly one for 6 antitopquarks. Then we imagine that in the most strongly bound state just this shell is filled and closed for both top and antitop. Like in nuclear physics where the closed shell nuclei are the strongest bound, we consider this NBS as our favorite candidate for the most strongly bound and thus the lightest bound state . Then we expect that our bound state is appreciably lighter than its natural scale of 12 times the top mass, which is about 2 TeV. So the mass of our NBS should be small compared to 2 TeV. Estimating different contributions of the bound state , we have considered the main Feynman diagrams correcting the effective Higgs selfinteraction coupling constant . They are diagrams containing the bound state in the loops.
7.3 The effect from the new bound states on the measured Higgs mass. The main diagrams correcting the effective Higgs selfinteraction coupling constant
Now we have the following running :
(74) 
where the term denotes the loop corrections to the Higgs mass arising from the NBS, and the main contribution to is the term , which corresponds to the contribution of the first Feynman diagram:
(75) 
The rest contributions of the Feynman diagrams are shown in Ref. [46].
You can see the result of the corrections to the running from the bound state in the recent papers [46, 49].
The result is:
(76) 
where is the experimentally found Yukawa coupling of topquark with the Higgs boson, and are masses of the topquark and bound state, respectively, and is a parameter, which determines the radius of the bound state :
(77) 
As we see, the figure given by Degrassi et al. [47] showed that asymptotically does not reach zero, but approaches to the negative value:
(78) 
indicating the metastability of the EW vacuum.
If any resonance gives the contribution:
(79) 
then this contribution transforms the metastable (blue) curve of the stability diagram into the red curve, which is the borderline of the stability (see Fig. 7).
Using the results obtained earlier in Ref. [59], we have calculated in Ref. [46] the value of the bound state’s radius:
(80) 
Such radius of gives:
(81) 
or taking into account that the uncertainty coming from the contributions of the rest Feynman diagrams can reach 25%, we have finally:
(82) 
Just this result for radius provides the vacuum stability in the Standard Model confirming the accuracy of the Multiple Point Principle.
8 Summary and Conclusions

We reviewed the Multiple Point Model (MPM) by D.L. Bennett and H.B. Nielsen. We showed that the existence of two vacua into the Standard Model: the first one at the Electroweak scale ( GeV), and the second one at the Planck scale ( GeV), was confirmed by calculations of the Higgs effective potential in the twoloop and threeloop approximations. The FroggattNielsen’s prediction of the topquark and Higgs masses was given in the assumption that there exist two degenerate vacua in the Standard Model. This prediction was improved by the next order calculations.

Here we have reviewed the Sidharth’s theory of the cosmological constant theory of the vacuum energy density of our Universe, or Dark Energy. B.G. Sidharth was to show (in 1997) that the cosmological constant is extremely small: where is the Hubble rate, and the Dark Energy density is very small ( ), what provided the accelerating expansion of our Universe after the Big Bang.

We considered the theory of the vacua of the Universe Planck scale phase and Electroweak phase. Considering the topological defects in these vacua, we have discussed that topological defects of the Planck scale phase are black holes solutions, which correspond to the “hedgehog” monopole that has been “swallowed” by a black hole. It was suggested to consider the topological defects in the Electroweak phase as AbrikosovNielsenOlesen magnetic vortices.

The Compton wavelength phase also was discussed. We have used the Sidharth’s predictions of the noncommutativity for these nondifferentiable manifolds with aim to prove that cosmological constants are zero, or almost zero.

We considered a general theory recently developed by B.G. Sidharth and A. Das of the phase transition between the two different lattice structures. This theory was applied to the phase transition between the Planck scale phase and Compton scale phase.

The link between the gravitation and electromagnetism via Dark Energy also was established by Sidharth in his recent paper.

We showed that for energies higher than Electroweak scale, the analysis of the vacuum stability is reduced to the study of the renormalization group evolution of the Higgs quartic coupling . The prediction for the mass of the Higgs boson was improved by the calculation of the twoloop radiative corrections to the effective Higgs potential. The prediction of Higgs mass GeV by Degrassi et al. provided the theoretical explanation of the value GeV observed at the LHC. Buttazzo et al. extrapolated the Standard Model parameters up to the high (Planck scale) energies with full threeloop NNLO RGE precision.

It was shown that the observed Higgs mass GeV leads to a negative value of the Higgs quartic coupling at some energy scale below the Planck scale, making the Higgs potential unstable or metastable. With the inclusion of the threeloop RG equations, the instability scale occurs at GeV (well below the Planck scale) meaning that at that scale the effective potential starts to be negative, or that a new minimum with negative cosmological constant can appear.

It was shown that the experimental value of the Higgs mass leads to a scenario which gives a borderline between the absolute stability and metastability.

We assumed that the recently discovered at the LHC new resonances with masses GeV are a new scalar bound state , earlier predicted by C.D. Froggatt, H.B. Nielsen and L.V. Laperashvili. It was shown that this bound state, 6 top and 6 antitop, which we identify with the 750 GeV new boson, can provide the vacuum stability and the exact accuracy of the Multiple Point Principle, according to which the two vacua existing at the Electroweak and Planck scales are degenerate.

We calculated the main contribution of the resonance to the effective Higgs quartic coupling , and showed that the resonance with mass GeV, having the radius with , gives the positive contribution to , equal to the . This contribution compensates the negative value of the , which was earlier obtained by Degrassi et al., and therefore transforms the metastability of the Electroweak vacuum into the stability.
References
 [1] ATLAS Collaboration (Georges Aad et al.), Phys. Lett. B710, 49 (2012); arXiv:1202.1408.
 [2] CMS Collaboration (Serguei Chatrchyan et al.), Phys. Lett. B710, 26 (2012); arXiv:1202.1488.
 [3] CMS Collaboration (Vardan Khachatryan et al.), Phys. Rev. D92, 012003 (2015); arXiv:1503.08689.
 [4] ATLAS and CMS collaborations (Georges Aad et al.), Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 191803 (2015); arXiv:1503.07589.

[5]
D.L. Bennett and H.B. Nielsen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A9, 5155 (1994);
arXiv:hepph/9311321. 
[6]
D.L. Bennett and H.B. Nielsen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A14, 3313 (1999);
arXiv:hepph/9607278.  [7] D.L. Bennett, C.D. Froggatt and H.B. Nielsen, in Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Glasgow, Scotland, 1994, eds. P. Bussey and I. Knowles (IOP Publishing Ltd., 1995), p. 557.
 [8] B.G. Sidharth, Proc. of the Eightth Marcell Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, Jerusalem, May 1997, ed. T. Piran, (World Scientific, Singapore , 1999), pp. 476479;
 [9] B.G. Sidharth, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A13 (15), 2599ff (1998).
 [10] S. Perlmutter, B. Schmidt and A. Riess, Nature 391, 51 (1998).

[11]
B.G. Sidharth, The Thermodynamic Universe: Exploring the limits of physics
(World Scientific, Singapore, 2008).  [12] H.S. Snyder, Phys. Rev. 72, 68 (1947).

[13]
B.G. Sidharth, Found. Phys. 38 (1), 89 (2008); ibid., 38 (8), 695 (2008);
Int. J. Th. Phys. 37, 1307 (1998); ibid., 43 (9), 1857 (2004), arXiv:1201.0915.  [14] Ya.B. Zeldovich, JETP Lett. 6, 316 (1967).

[15]
B.G. Sidharth, The Chaotic Universe: From the Planck to the Hubble Scale
(Nova Science, New York 2001).  [16] S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1566 (1979).
 [17] W. Kibble, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 9, 1378 (1976).
 [18] M. Barriola and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 341 (1989).
 [19] E.I. Guendelman and A. Rabinowitz, Phys. Rev. D44, 3152 (1991).
 [20] V.A. Belavin, M.N. Chernodub and I.E. Kozlov, Nucl. Phys. B748, 524 (2000); arXiv:heplat/0512030.
 [21] F.B. Lustosa, M.E.X. Guimar aes, C.N. Ferreira and J.L. Neto, Thermodynamical Analysis of a Black Hole with a Global Monopole Within a Class of a f(R) Gravity, arXiv:1510.08176.
 [22] O. Delice, JHEP 0311, 058 (2003); arXiv: grqc/0307099.
 [23] M. Sher, Phys. Rept. 179, 273 (1989).
 [24] V.L. Ginzburg and L.D. Landau, JETP, 20, 1064 (1950).
 [25] D.A. Kirzhnits, JETP Lett. 15, 529 (1972).
 [26] D.A. Kirzhnits and A.D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B42, 471 (1972).
 [27] L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D9, 3320 (1974).
 [28] S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D9, 3357 (1974).
 [29] D.A. Kirzhnits and A.D. Linde, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 67, 1263 (1974).
 [30] A.D. Linde, Rep. Prog. Phys. 42, 389 (1979).
 [31] A.H. Guth, The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins (AddisonWesley/Perseus Books, 1997).
 [32] A.A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B91, 99 (1980).
 [33] A.D. Linde, Inflation and Quantum Cosmology (Academic Press, Boston, 1990).
 [34] C.R. Das, L.V. Laperashvili and A. Tureanu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28, 1350085 (2013); arXiv:1304.3069.
 [35] A.A. Abrikosov, Soviet JETP 32, 1442 (1957).
 [36] H.B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys. B61, 45 (1973).
 [37] B.G. Sidharth, A. Das and A.D. Roy, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 55, 801 (2016).
 [38] B.G. Sidharth, Nuovo. Cim. B116, 735 (2001); arXiv:physics/0106051.
 [39] B.G. Sidharth, The New Cosmos, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 18 (1), pp.197201 (2003).
 [40] B.G. Sidharth and A. Das, 2State Asymmetries: Phase Transition, MatterAntimatter and Other Effects, arXiv:1602.06334.
 [41] B.G. Sidharth, The Universe of Fluctuations: The Architecture of Spacetime and the Universe (Springer, Netherlands, 2005), ISBN: 9781402037856 (Print) 9781402037863 (Online).
 [42] B.G. Sidharth, Gravitation and Electromagnetism, arXiv:physics/0106051.
 [43] B.G. Sidharth, A. Das and A.D. Roy, IJTP, (2015); DOI: 10.1007/s1077301528893.
 [44] B.G. Sidharth, A. Das and A.D. Roy, Revisiting the Lamb Shift, New Advances in Physics, Vol. 9 (1), 67 (2015).
 [45] A. Das and B.G. Sidharth, EJTP 12, No. IYL 1534, 139 (2015).
 [46] L.V. Laperashvili, H.B. Nielsen and C.R. Das, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A31, 1650029 (2016); arXiv:1601.03231.
 [47] G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. EliasMiro, J.R. Espinosa, G.F. Giudice, G. Isidori and A. Strumia, JHEP 1208, 098 (2012); arXiv:1205.6497.
 [48] D. Buttazzo, G. Degrassi, P.P. Giardino, G.F. Giudice, F. Salab, A. Salvio and A. Strumia, JHEP 1312, 089 (2013); arXiv:1307.3536.
 [49] C.R. Das, L.V. Laperashvili and H.B. Nielsen, New LHC resonance with mass 750 GeV and the vacuum stability in the Standard Model, submitted to the Intern. Conf., JINR, Dubna, Russia, 2016.
 [50] J. Olsen and M. Kado, LHC seminar ‘ATLAS and CMS physics results from Run 2’, https://indico.cern.ch/event/442432/ .
 [51] ATLAS Collaboration, ATLASCONF2015081, Search for resonances decaying to photon pairs in 3.2 fb of protonproton collisions at TeV with the ATLAS detector.
 [52] CMS Collaboration, CMSPASEXO15004, Search for new physics in high mass diphoton events in protonproton collisions at 13 TeV.
 [53] L.D. Landau, Dokl. Akad. Nauk Ser. Fiz. 60, 207 (1948).
 [54] C.N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 77, 242 (1950).
 [55] T. Modak, S. Sadhukhan and R. Srivastava, Phys. Lett. B756, 405 (2016), arXiv:1601.00836.
 [56] C.D. Froggatt, H.B. Nielsen and L.V. Laperashvili, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A20, 1268 (2005); arXiv:hepph/0406110.
 [57] V. Branchina, E. Messina and M. Sher, Phys. Rev. D91, 013003 (2015); arXiv:1408.5302.
 [58] K.A. Olive et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C38, 090001 (2014) and 2015 update.
 [59] C.D. Froggatt and H.B. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. D80, 034033 (2009); arXiv:0811.2089.
Appendix A Appendix: Multiple Point Principle, literature
References
 [60] L.V. Laperashvili, H.B. Nielsen and C.R. Das,New results at LHC confirming the vacuum stability and Multiple Point Principle, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A31, 1650029 (2016), arXiv:1601.03231; C.R. Das, L.V. Laperashvili, H.B. Nielsen, A. Tureanu and C.D. Froggatt, Graviweak unification and multiplepoint principle, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 78 3, 440 (2015) [Yad. Fiz. 78 5, 471 (2015)]; Kiyoharu Kawana, Multiple Point Principle of the Gauged BL Model, arXiv:1504.06707; Kiyoharu Kawana, Multiple Point Principle of the Standard Model with Scalar Singlet Dark Matter and Right Handed Neutrinos, PTEP 2015, 023B04 (2015), arXiv:1411.2097; C.D. Froggatt, C.R. Das, L.V. Laperashvili, H.B. Nielsen and A. Tureanu, GraviWeak Unification and Multiple Point Principle, arXiv:1311.4413; D.L. Bennett, The multiple point principle: Characterization of the possible phases for the SMG, Bled Workshops, Phys. 10, no.2, pp. 918 (2009); D.L. Bennett, L.V. Laperashvili and H.B. Nielsen, Finestructure constants at the Planck scale from multiple point principle, in: Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on “What Comes Beyond the Standard Model”, Bled, Slovenia, 1727 September, 2007, eds. M. Breskvar et al. (Bled Workshops in Physics, Vol. 8 no. 2, DMFAZaloznistvo, Ljubljana, 2007), arXiv:0711.4681;D.L. Bennett, L.V. Laperashvili and H.B. Nielsen, Relation between fine structure constants at the Planck scale from multiple point principle, in: Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on “What Comes Beyond the Standard Model”, Bled, Slovenia, 1626 September, 2006, eds. M. Breskvar et al. (Bled Workshops in Physics, Vol. 7, no. 2, DMFAZaloznistvo, Ljubljana, 2006), arXiv:hepph/0612250; C.D. Froggatt, R. Nevzorov and H.B. Nielsen, Multiple point principle as a mechanism for the suppression of FCNC and CPviolation phenomena in the 2HDM, arXiv:0710.2457; C.D. Froggatt, R. Nevzorov and H.B. Nielsen, Smallness of the cosmological constant and the multiple point principle, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 110, 072012 (2008), arXiv:0708.2907; C.D. Froggatt, Larisa Laperashvili, R.B. Nevzorov, H.B. Nielsen and Marc Sher, Implementation of the multiple point principle in the twoHiggs doublet model of type II, Phys. Rev. D73, 095005 (2006), arXiv:hepph/0602054; C.R. Das and L.V. Laperashvili, Phase transition in gauge theories, monopoles and the multiple point principle, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A20, 5911 (2005), arXiv:hepph/0503138; C.D. Froggatt, L.V. Laperashvili, R.B. Nevzorov, H.B. Nielsen and M. Sher, The Two Higgs doublet model and the multiple point principle, arXiv:hepph/0412333; C. Froggatt, L. Laperashvili, R. Nevzorov and H.B. Nielsen, Noscale supergravity and the multiple point principle, arXiv:hepph/0411273; L.V. Laperashvili, The Multiple point principle and Higgs bosons, Phys. Part. Nucl. 36, S38S40 (2005), arXiv:hepph/0411177; C.D. Froggatt, L.V. Laperashvili, R.B. Nevzorov and H.B. Nielsen, Cosmological constant in SUGRA models and the multiple point principle, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 67, 582 (2004) [Yad. Fiz. 67, 601 (2004)], arXiv:hepph/0310127; G.E. Volovik, Coexistence of different vacua in the effective quantum field theory and multiple point principle, JETP Lett. 79, 101 (2004) [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 79, 131 (2004)], arXiv:hepph/0309144; D.L. Bennett and H.B. Nielsen, The multiple point principle: Realized vacuum in nature is maximally degenerate, Proceedings of Institute of Mathematics of NAS of Ukraine 50, Part 2, 629636 (2004), http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C0306234/papers/bennett.pdf; L.V. Laperashvili and H.B. Nielsen, Multiple point principle and phase transition in gauge theories, Bled1998, “What comes beyond the standard model”, pp.1519, 29 Jun – 9 Jul 1998, Bled, Slovenia; D.L. Bennett, H.B. Nielsen and C.D. Froggatt, Standard model parameters from the multiple point principle and antiGUT, arXiv:hepph/9710407.
Appendix B Appendix: Noncommutativity, the main references
References
 [61] M. Chaichian, P.P. Kulish, K. Nishijima and A. Tureanu, Phys. Lett. B604, 98 (2004), arXiv:hepth/0408069; M. Chaichian, M.M. SheikhJabbari and A. Tureanu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2716 (2001), arXiv:hepth/0010175; M. Chaichian, P. Presnajder and A. Tureanu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 151602 (2005), arXiv:hepth/0409096; M. Chaichian, P. Presnajder, M.M. SheikhJabbari and A. Tureanu, Eur. Phys. J. C29, 413 (2003), arXiv:hepth/0107055; M. Chaichian, P. Presnajder, M.M. SheikhJabbari and A. Tureanu, Phys. Lett. B526, 132 (2002), arXiv:hepth/0107037; M. Chaichian, A. Demichev, P. Presnajder, M.M. SheikhJabbari and A. Tureanu, Phys. Lett. B527, 149 (2002), arXiv:hepth/0012175; M. Chaichian, A. Demichev and P. Presnajder, Nucl. Phys. B567, 360 (2000), arXiv:hepth/9812180; M. Chaichian, K. Nishijima and A. Tureanu, Phys. Lett. B568, 146 (2003), arXiv:hepth/0209008; B.G. Sidharth, The Thermodynamic Universe: Exploring the limits of physics, (World Scientific, Singapore, 2008) p. 293; B.G. Sidharth, The Chaotic Universe: From the Planck to the Hubble Scale, (Nova Science, New York, 2001); B.G. Sidharth, The New Cosmos, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 18 (1), pp.197201 (2003); B.G. Sidharth, The Universe of Fluctuations: The Architecture of Spacetime and the Universe, (Springer, Netherlands, 2005), pp. 8890 ; H.S. Snyder, Phys. Rev. 72, 68 (1947). B.G. Sidharth, Int. J. Th. Phys. 37, 1307 (1998); B.G. Sidharth, Int. J. of Mod. Phys. A13, 2599 (1998), arXiv:quantph/9808031; B.G. Sidharth, Proc. of the Eightth Marcell Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, Jerusalem, May 1997, ed. T. Piran, (World Scientific, Singapore , 1999), pp. 476479; B.G. Sidharth, Found. Phys. 38 (8), 695 (2008); B.G. Sidharth, Found. Phys. 38 (1), 89 (2008); B.G. Sidharth, Found. Phys. Lett. 18 (7), 757 (2006); B.G. Sidharth, Found. Phys. Lett. 18 (4), 393 (2005); B.G. Sidharth, Int. J. Th. Phys. 43 (9), 1857 (2004); B.G. Sidharth, arXiv:1201.0915; B.G. Sidharth, A. Das and A.D. Roy, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 55, 801 (2016); B.G. Sidharth and A. Das, ExtraRelativistic Effects and the Chandrasekhar limit, to be published; B.G. Sidharth, Nuovo. Cim. B116, 735 (2001), arXiv:physics/0106051; B.G. Sidharth and A. Das, arXiv:1602.06334; B.G. Sidharth, A. Das and A.D. Roy, IJTP, (2015); B.G. Sidharth, A. Das and A.D. Roy, New Advances in Physics, Vol. 9 (1), 67 (2015); A. Das and B.G. Sidharth, EJTP 12, No. IYL 1534, 139 (2015); L.V. Laperashvili, H.B. Nielsen and B.G. Sidharth, New Advances in Physics, Vol. 9 (1), 27 (2015), arXiv:1503.03911.
Appendix C Appendix: The vacuum stability problem has a long history:
References
 [62] N. Cabibbo, L. Maiani, G. Parisi and R. Petronzio, Nucl. Phys. B158, 295 (1979); P.Q. Hung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 873 (1979); R.A. Flores and M. Sher, Phys. Rev. D27, 1679 (1983); M. Lindner, Z. Phys. C31, 295 (1986); D.L. Bennett, H.B. Nielsen and I. Picek, Phys. Lett. B208, 275 (1988); M. Sher, Phys. Rept. 179, 273 (1989); M. Lindner, M. Sher and H.W. Zaglauer, Phys. Lett. B228, 139 (1989); P. Arnold, Phys. Rev. D40, 613 (1989); G. Anderson, Phys. Lett. B243, 265 (1990); P. Arnold and S. Vokos, Phys. Rev. D44, 3620 (1991); C. Ford, D.R.T. Jones, P.W. Stephenson and M.B. Einhorn, Nucl. Phys. B395, 17 (1993), arXiv:heplat/9210033; M. Sher, Phys. Lett. B317, 159 (1993), Addendumibid. B331, 448 (1994), arXiv:hepph/9307342, arXiv:hepph/9404347; G. Altarelli and G. Isidori, Phys. Lett. B337, 141 (1994); J.A. Casas, J.R. Espinosa and M. Quiros, Phys. Lett. B342, 171 (1995), arXiv:hepph/9409458; J.R. Espinosa and M. Quiros, Phys. Lett. B353, 257 (1995), arXiv:hepph/9504241; J.A. Casas, J.R. Espinosa and M. Quiros, Phys. Lett. B382, 374 (1996), arXiv:hepph/9603227; B. Schrempp and M. Wimmer, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 37, 1 (1996), arXiv:hepph/9606386; C.D. Froggatt, H.B. Nielsen and Y. Takanishi, Phys. Rev. D64, 113014 (2001), arXiv:hepph/0104161; V. Branchina and E. Messina, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 241801 (2013), arXiv:1307.5193; V. Branchina, E. Messina and M. Sher, Phys. Rev. D91, 013003 (2015), arXiv:1408.5302; V. Brancina, E. Messina and A. Platania, JHEP 1409, 182 (2014), arXiv:1407.4112; G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. EliasMiro, J.R. Espinosa, G.F. Giudice, G. Isidori and A. Strumia, JHEP 1208, 098 (2012), arXiv:1205.6497; D. Buttazzo, G. Degrassi, P.P. Giardino, G.F. Giudice, F. Salab, A. Salvio and A. Strumia, JHEP 1312, 089 (2013), arXiv:1307.3536; G. Isidori, G. Ridolfi and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B609, 387 (2001), arXiv:hepph/0104016; J.R. Espinosa, G.F. Giudice and A. Riotto, JCAP 0805, 002 (2008), arXiv:0710.2484; J. Ellis, J.R. Espinosa, G.F. Giudice, A. Hoecker and A. Riotto, Phys. Lett. B679, 369 (2009), arXiv:0906.0954; J. EliasMiro, J.R. Espinosa, G.F. Giudice, G. Isidori, A. Riotto and A. Strumia, Phys. Lett. B709, 222 (2012), arXiv:1112.3022; A.V. Bednyakov, B.A. Kniehl, A.F. Pikelner and O.L. Veretin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 201802 (2015), arXiv:1507.08833; L.V. Laperashvili, H.B. Nielsen and C.R. Das, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A31, 1650029 (2016), arXiv:1601.03231.
Appendix D Appendix: Theory of the new bound state 6t + 6antit
References
 [63] C.D. Froggatt and H.B. Nielsen, Trying to understand the Standard Model parameters, Surveys High Energy Phys. 18, 55 (2003), arXiv:hepph/0308144; C.D. Froggatt, H.B. Nielsen and L.V. Laperashvili, Hierarchyproblem and a bound state of 6 t and 6 antit, in proceedings of Coral Gables Conference on Launching of Belle Epoque in HighEnergy Physics and Cosmology (CG 2003), Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 1721 December, 2003; C.D. Froggatt, H.B. Nielsen and L.V. Laperashvili, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A20, 1268 (2005), arXiv:hepph/0406110; C.D. Froggatt and H.B. Nielsen, Phys. Rev. D80, 034033 (2009), arXiv:0811.2089; C.D. Froggatt and H.B. Nielsen, Hierarchy Problem and a New Bound State, arXiv:hepph/0312218; C.D. Froggatt, The Hierarchy problem and an exotic bound state, arXiv:hepph/0412337; C.D. Froggatt, L.V. Laperashvili and H.B. Nielsen, A New bound state 6t + 6 antit and the fundamentalweak scale hierarchy in the Standard Model, arXiv:hepph/0410243; C.D. Froggatt, L.V. Laperashvili and H.B. Nielsen, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 69, 67 (2006) [Yad. Fiz. 69, 3 (2006)], arXiv:hepph/0407102; C.D. Froggatt, L.V. Laperashvili, R.B. Nevzorov and H.B. Nielsen, The Production of 6t + 6antit bound state at colliders. Presented by H.B. Nielsen at CERN, 2008, preprint CERNPHTH/2008051; C.D. Froggatt, L.V. Laperashvili, R.B. Nevzorov, H.B. Nielsen and C.R. Das, New Bound States of TopantiTop Quarks and Tballs Production at Colliders (Tevatron, LHC, etc.), arXiv:0804.4506; C.D. Froggatt and H.B. Nielsen, New Bound States of several Topquarks bound by Higgs Exchange, arXiv:0810.0475; C.R. Das, C.D. Froggatt, L.V. Laperashvili and H.B. Nielsen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A26, 2503 (2011), arXiv:0812.0828; C.D. Froggatt, C.R. Das, L.V. Laperashvili and H.B. Nielsen, New indications of the existence of the 6 topantitop quark bound states in the LHC experiments, Yad. Fiz. 76, 172 (2013), arXiv:1212.2168; C.D. Froggatt, C.R. Das, L.V. Laperashvili and H.B. Nielsen, Diphoton decay of the Higgs boson and new bound states of top and antitop quarks, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A30, 1550132 (2015), arXiv:1501.00139; L.V. Laperashvili, H.B. Nielsen and C.R. Das, New results at LHC confirming the vacuum stability and Multiple Point Principle, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A31, 1650029 (2016), arXiv:1601.03231.
Appendix E Appendix: Resonance 750 GeV
Recently both the ATLAS and CMS collaborations observed an excess in diphoton events with an invariant mass in the region of 750 GeV. Although more data is needed to confirm or exclude the excess, a large number of works have already appeared on this possible new physics signal:
References
 [64] S. Sun, arXiv:1411.0131; S. Gopalakrishna, T.S. Mukherjee and S. Sadhukhan, arXiv:1504.01074; C.W. Chiang, A.L. Kuo and T. Yamada, JHEP 1601, 120 (2016), arXiv:1511.00865; M.A. Daz, B. Koch and S. UrrutiaQuiroga, arXiv:1511.04429; A. Biswas and A. Lahiri, arXiv:1511.07159; K. Harigaya and Y. Nomura, Phys. Lett. B754, 151 (2016), arXiv:1512.04850; M. Backovic, A. Mariotti and D. Redigolo, arXiv:1512.04917; Y. Nakai, R. Sato and K. Tobioka, arXiv:1512.04924; S. Knapen, T. Melia, M. Papucci and K. Zurek, arXiv:1512.04928; D. Buttazzo, A. Greljo and D. Marzocca, arXiv:1512.04929; R. Franceschini et al., arXiv:1512.04933; S. Di Chiara, L. Marzola and M. Raidal, arXiv:1512.04939; A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D93, 015017 (2016), arXiv:1512.04931; J. Ellis, S.A.R. Ellis, J. Quevillon, V. Sanz and T. You, arXiv:1512.05327; B. Bellazzini, R. Franceschini, F. Sala and J. Serra, arXiv:1512.05330; R.S. Gupta, S. Jger, Y. Kats, G. Perez and E. Stamou, arXiv:1512.05332; E. Molinaro, F. Sannino and N. Vignaroli, arXiv:1512.05334; S.D. McDermott, P. Meade and H. Ramani, Phys.Lett. B755, 353 (2016), arXiv:1512.05326; M. Low, A. Tesi and L.T. Wang, arXiv:1512.05328; C. Petersson and R. Torre, arXiv:1512.05333; B. Dutta, Y. Gao, T. Ghosh, I. Gogoladze and T. Li, arXiv:1512.05439; A. Kobakhidze, F. Wang, L. Wu, J.M. Yang and M. Zhang, arXiv:1512.05585; P. Cox, A.D. Medina, T.S. Ray and A. Spray, arXiv:1512.05618; D. Becirevic, E. Bertuzzo, O. Sumensari and R.Z. Funchal, arXiv:1512.05623; J.M. No, V. Sanz and J. Setford, arXiv:1512.05700; S.V. Demidov and D.S. Gorbunov, arXiv:1512.05723; W. Chao, R. Huo and J.H. Yu, arXiv:1512.05738; S. Fichet, G. von Gersdorff and C. Royon, arXiv:1512.05751; D. Curtin and C.B. Verhaaren, arXiv:1512.05753; L. Bian, N. Chen, D. Liu and J. Shu, arXiv:1512.05759; A. Ahmed, B.M. Dillon, B. Grzadkowski, J.F. Gunion and Y. Jiang, arXiv:1512.05771; P. Agrawal, J. Fan, B. Heidenreich, M. Reece and M. Strassler, arXiv:1512.05775; C. Csaki, J. Hubisz and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. D93, 035002 (2016), arXiv:1512.05776; A. Falkowski, O. Slone and T. Volansky, JHEP 1602, 152 (2016), arXiv:1512.05777; D. Aloni, K. Blum, A. Dery, A. Efrati and Y. Nir, arXiv:1512.05778; Y. Bai, J. Berger and R. Lu, arXiv:1512.05779; S. Ghosh, A. Kundu and S. Ray, arXiv:1512.05786; J.S. Kim, J. Reuter, K. Rolbiecki and R.R. de Austri, Phys. Lett. B, (2016), arXiv:1512.06083; A. Alves, A.G. Dias and K. Sinha, arXiv:1512.06091; E. Megias, O. Pujolas and M. Quiros, arXiv:1512.06106; J. Bernon and C. Smith, arXiv:1512.06113; W. Chao, arXiv:1512.06297; M.T. Arun and P. Saha, arXiv:1512.06335; C. Han, H.M. Lee, M. Park and V. Sanz, Phys. Lett. B, (2016), arXiv:1512.06376; S. Chang, arXiv:1512.06426; A. Ringwald and K. Saikawa, arXiv:1512.06436; I. Chakraborty and A. Kundu, arXiv:1512.06508; R. Ding, L. Huang, T. Li and B. Zhu, arXiv:1512.06560; H. Han, S. Wang and S. Zheng, arXiv:1512.06562; H. Hatanaka, arXiv:1512.06595; M.X. Luo, K. Wang, T. Xu, L. Zhang and G. Zhu, arXiv:1512.06670; J. Chang, K. Cheung and C.T. Lu, arXiv:1512.06671; D. Bardhan, D. Bhatia, A. Chakraborty, U. Maitra, S. Raychaudhuri and T. Samui, arXiv:1512.06674; T.F. Feng, X.Q. Li, H.B. Zhang and S.M. Zhao, arXiv:1512.06696; O. Antipin, M. Mojaza and F. Sannino, arXiv:1512.06708; F. Wang, L. Wu, J.M. Yang and M. Zhang, arXiv:1512.06715; J. Cao, C. Han, L. Shang, W. Su, J.M. Yang and Y. Zhang, arXiv:1512.06728; F.P. Huang, C.S. Li, Z.L. Liu and Y. Wang, arXiv:1512.06732; M. Dhuria and G. Goswami, arXiv:1512.06782; X.J. Bi, Q.F. Xiang, P.F. Yin and Z.H. Yu, arXiv:1512.06787; J.S. Kim, K. Rolbiecki and R.R. de Austri, arXiv:1512.06797; L. Berthier, J.M. Cline, W. Shepherd and M. Trott, arXiv:1512.06799; W.S. Cho, D. Kim, K. Kong, S.H. Lim, K.T. Matchev, J.C. Park and M. Park, arXiv:1512.06824; J.M. Cline and Z. Liu, arXiv:1512.06827; M. Chala, M. Duerr, F. Kahlhoefer and K. SchmidtHoberg, Phys. Lett. B755, 145 (2016), arXiv:1512.06833; K. Kulkarni, arXiv:1512.06836; D. Barducci, A. Goudelis, S. Kulkarni and D. Sengupta, arXiv:1512.06842; A.E.C. Hernndez and I. Nisandzic, arXiv:1512.07165; U.K. Dey, S. Mohanty and G. Tomar, arXiv:1512.07212; G.M. Pelaggi, A. Strumia and E. Vigiani, arXiv:1512.07225; J. de Blas, J. Santiago and R. VegaMorales, arXiv:1512.07229; P.S.B. Dev and D. Teresi, arXiv:1512.07243; W.C. Huang, Y.L.S. Tsai and T.C. Yuan, arXiv:1512.07268; M. Chabab, M. CapdequiPeyranre and L. Rahili, arXiv:1512.07280; S. Moretti and K. Yagyu, arXiv:1512.07462; K.M. Patel and P. Sharma, arXiv:1512.07468; M. Badziak, arXiv:1512.07497; S. Chakraborty, A. Chakraborty and S. Raychaudhuri, arXiv:1512.07527; Q.H. Cao, S.L. Chen and P.H. Gu, arXiv:1512.07541; M. Cveti, J. Halverson and P. Langacker, arXiv:1512.07622; B.C. Allanach, P.S.B. Dev, S.A. Renner and K. Sakurai, arXiv:1512.07645; H. Davoudiasl and C. Zhang, arXiv:1512.07672; K. Das and S.K. Rai, arXiv:1512.07789; K. Cheung, P. Ko, J.S. Lee, J. Park and P.Y. Tseng, arXiv:1512.07853; J. Liu, X.P. Wang and W. Xue, arXiv:1512.07885; J. Zhang and S. Zhou, arXiv:1512.07889; J.A. Casas, J.R. Espinosa and J.M. Moreno, arXiv:1512.07895; L.J. Hall, K. Harigaya and Y. Nomura, arXiv:1512.07904; H. Han, S. Wang and S. Zheng, arXiv:1512.07992; J.C. Park and S.C. Park, arXiv:1512.08117; D. Chway, R. Dermek, T.H. Jung and H.D. Kim, arXiv:1512.08221; L. Del Debbio, B. Lucini, A. Patella, C. Pica and A. Rago, arXiv:1512.08242; A. Salvio and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Lett. B, (2016), arXiv:1512.08184; G. Li, Y.n. Mao, Y.L. Tang, C. Zhang, Y. Zhou and S.h. Zhu, arXiv:1512.08255; M. Son and A. Urbano, arXiv:1512.08307; Y.L. Tang and S.h. Zhu, arXiv:1512.08323; H. An, C. Cheung and Y. Zhang, arXiv:1512.08378; J. Cao, F. Wang and Y. Zhang, arXiv:1512.08392; F. Wang, W. Wang, L. Wu, J.M. Yang and M. Zhang, arXiv:1512.08434; C. Cai, Z.H. Yu and H.H. Zhang, arXiv:1512.08440; Q.H. Cao, Y. Liu, K.P. Xie, B. Yan and D.M. Zhang, arXiv:1512.08441; J.E. Kim, Phys. Lett. B755, 190 (2016), arXiv:1512.08467; J. Gao, H. Zhang and H.X. Zhu, arXiv:1512.08478; W. Chao, arXiv:1512.08484; X.J. Bi et al., arXiv:1512.08497; L.A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, H. Goldberg, X. Huang, D. Lust and T.R. Taylor, Phys. Lett. B755, 312 (2016), arXiv:1512.08502; P.S.B. Dev, R.N. Mohapatra and Y. Zhang, JHEP 02, 186 (2016), arXiv:1512.08507; N. Bizot, S. Davidson, M. Frigerio and J.L. Kneur, arXiv:1512.08508; A. Pich, Acta Phys. Polon. B47, 151 (2016), arXiv:1512.08749; L.E. Ibanez and V. MartinLozano, arXiv:1512.08777; C.W. Chiang, M. Ibe and T.T. Yanagida, arXiv:1512.08895; S.K. Kang and J. Song, arXiv:1512.08963; Y. Hamada, T. Noumi, S. Sun and G. Shiu, arXiv:1512.08984; S. Kanemura, K. Nishiwaki, H. Okada, Y. Orikasa, S.C. Park and R. Watanabe, arXiv:1512.09048; S. Kanemura, N. Machida, S. Odori and T. Shindou, arXiv:1512.09053; P.V. Dong and N.T.K. Ngan, arXiv:1512.09073; I. Low and J. Lykken, arXiv:1512.09089; A.E.C. Hernndez, arXiv:1512.09092; Y. Jiang, Y.Y. Li and T. Liu, arXiv:1512.09127; K. Kaneta, S. Kang and H.S. Lee, arXiv:1512.09129; A. Dasgupta, M. Mitra and D. Borah, arXiv:1512.09202; S. Jung, J. Song and Y.W. Yoon, arXiv:1601.00006; C.T. Potter, arXiv:1601.00240; E. Palti, arXiv:1601.00285; T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Lett. B755, 306 (2016), arXiv:1601.00386; P. Ko, Y. Omura and C. Yu, arXiv:1601.00586; U. Danielsson, R. Enberg, G. Ingelman and T. Mandal, arXiv:1601.00624; W. Chao, arXiv:1601.00633; C. Csaki, J. Hubisz, S. Lombardo and J. Terning, arXiv:1601.00638; A.E.C. Hernndez, I.d.M. Varzielas and E. Schumacher, arXiv:1601.00661; T. Modak, S. Sadhukhan and R. Srivastava, arXiv:1601.00836; B. Dutta, Y. Gao, T. Ghosh, I. Gogoladze, T. Li, Q. Shafi and J.W. Walker, arXiv:1601.00866; X.F. Han, L. Wang and J.M. Yang, arXiv:1601.04954; H. Okada and K. Yagyu, arXiv:1601.05038; A. Martini, K. Mawatari and D. Sengupta, arXiv:1601.05729; C.W. Chiang and A.L. Kuo, arXiv:1601.06394; U. Aydemir and T. Mandal, arXiv:1601.06761; V. Branchina, E. Messina and D. Zappala, arXiv:1601.06963; S. Abel and V.V. Khoze, arXiv:1601.07167; L. A. HarlandLang, V.A. Khoze and M.G. Ryskin, arXiv:1601.07187; M.J. Dolan, J.L. Hewett, M. Krmer and T.G. Rizzo, arXiv:1601.07208; B.J. Kavanagh, arXiv:1601.07330; T. Nomura and H. Okada, arXiv:1601.07339; C.Q. Geng and D. Huang, arXiv:1601.07385; J. Kawamura and Y. Omura, arXiv:1601.07396; E. Bertuzzo, P.A.N. Machado and M. Taoso, arXiv:1601.07508; I. BenDayan and R. Brustein, arXiv:1601.07564; A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, J. Phys. G43, 04 (2016), arXiv:1601.07774; F. del Aguila, Z. Kunszt and J. Santiago, arXiv:1602.00126; N. D. Barrie, A. Kobakhidze, M. Talia and L. Wu, Phys. Lett. B755, 343 (2016), arXiv:1602.00475; L. Aparicio, A. Azatov, E. Hardy and A. Romanino, arXiv:1602.00949; R. Ding, Y. Fan, L. Huang, C. Li, T. Li, S. Raza and B. Zhu, arXiv:1602.00977; K. Harigaya and Y. Nomura, arXiv:1602.01092; T. Li, J.A. Maxin, V.E. Mayes and D.V. Nanopoulos, arXiv:1602.01377; H. Ito, T. Moroi and Y. Takaesu, arXiv:1601.01144; H. Zhang, arXiv:1601.01355; A. Berlin, arXiv:1601.01381; S. Bhattacharya, S. Patra, N. Sahoo and N. Sahu, arXiv:1601.01569; F. D’Eramo, J. de Vries and P. Panci, arXiv:1601.01571; I. Sahin, arXiv:1601.01676; S. Fichet, G. von Gersdorff and C. Royon, arXiv:1601.01712; D. Borah, S. Patra and S. Sahoo, arXiv:1601.01828; N. Sonmez, arXiv:1601.01837; M.T. Arun and D. Choudhury, arXiv:1601.02321; M. Fabbrichesi and A. Urbano, arXiv:1601.02447; L.G. Xia, arXiv:1601.02454; C. Hati, arXiv:1601.02457; P. Ko and T. Nomura, arXiv:1601.02490; J. Cao, L. Shang, W. Su, Y. Zhang and J. Zhu, arXiv:1601.02570; J. H. Yu, arXiv:1601.02609; R. Ding, Z.L. Han, Y. Liao and X.D. Ma, arXiv:1601.02714; S. Alexander and L. Smolin, arXiv:1601.03091; J.H. Davis, M. Fairbairn, J. Heal and P. Tunney, arXiv:1601.03153; I. Dorsner, S. Fajfer and N. Kosnik, arXiv:1601.03267; Z. Fodor, K. Holland, J. Kuti, S. Mondal, D. Nogradi and C.H. Wong, arXiv:1601.03302; A.E. Faraggi and J. Rizos, arXiv:1601.03604; A. Djouadi, J. Ellis, R. Godbole and J. Quevillon, arXiv:1601.03696; L.A. HarlandLang, V.A. Khoze and M.G. Ryskin, arXiv:1601.03772; T. Appelquist et al., arXiv:1601.04027; D. Bardhan, G. Bhattacharyya, D. Ghosh, M. Patra and S. Raychaudhuri, arXiv:1601.04165; A. Ghoshal, arXiv:1601.04291; T. Nomura and H. Okada, arXiv:1601.04516; W. Chao, arXiv:1601.04678; M.R. Buckley, arXiv:1601.04751; A. Salvio, F. Staub, A. Strumia and A. Urbano, arXiv:1602.01460; S.F. Ge, H.J. He, J. Ren and Z.Z. Xianyu, arXiv:1602.01801; S.I. Godunov, A.N. Rozanov, M.I. Vysotsky and E.V. Zhemchugov, arXiv:1602.02380; S.B. Giddings and H. Zhang, arXiv:1602.02793; U. Ellwanger and C. Hugonie, arXiv:1602.03344; P. Draper and D. McKeen, arXiv:1602.03604; C. Arbelez, A.E.C. Hernndez, S. Kovalenko and I. Schmidt, arXiv:1602.03607; K.J. Bae, M. Endo, K. Hamaguchi and T. Moroi, arXiv:1602.03653; C. Gross, O. Lebedev and J.M. No, arXiv:1602.03877; Y. Hamada, H. Kawai, K. Kawana and K. Tsumura, arXiv:1602.04170; C. Han, T.T. Yanagida and N. Yokozaki, arXiv:1602.04204; B. Dasgupta, J. Kopp and P. Schwaller, arXiv:1602.04692; F. Goertz, A. Katz, M. Son and A. Urbano, arXiv:1602.04801; C. Frugiuele, E. Fuchs, G. Perez and M. Schlaffer, arXiv:1602.04822; C. Delaunay and Y. Soreq, arXiv:1602.04838; S.F. Mantilla, R. Martinez, F. Ochoa and C.F. Sierra, arXiv:1602.05216; Florian Staub (CERN) et al., arXiv:1602.05581; S. Baek and J.H. Park, arXiv:1602.05588; M. Cvetic, J. Halverson and P. Langacker, arXiv:1602.06257; P. Ko, T. Nomura, H. Okada and Y. Orikasa, arXiv:1602.07214; J. Ren and J.H. Yu, arXiv:1602.07708; F. Domingo, S. Heinemeyer, J.S. Kim and K. Rolbiecki, arXiv:1602.07691; C.W. Chiang, H. Fukuda, M. Ibe and T.T. Yanagida, arXiv:1602.07909; C. Bonilla, M. Nebot, R. Srivastava and J.W.F. Valle, arXiv:1602.08092; Y. Kats and M. Strassler, arXiv:1602.08819; T. Li, J.A. Maxin, V.E. Mayes and D.V. Nanopoulos, arXiv:1602.09099; Y. Tsai, L.T. Wang and Y. Zhao, arXiv:1603.00024; M. He, X.G. He and Y. Tang, arXiv:1603.00287; A. Delgado, M. GarciaPepin, M. Quiros, J. Santiago and R. VegaMorales, arXiv:1603.00962; C.Y. Chen, M. Lefebvre, M. Pospelov and Y.M. Zhong, arXiv:1603.01256; A. Ahriche, G. Faisel, S. Nasri and J. Tandean, arXiv:1603.01606; U. Aydemir, D. Minic, C. Sun and T. Takeuchi, arXiv:1603.01756; M. Badziak, M. Olechowski, S. Pokorski and K. Sakurai, arXiv:1603.02203; J. Bernon, A. Goudelis, S. Kraml, K. Mawatari and D. Sengupta, arXiv:1603.03421; M. Perelstein, Y.D. Tsai, arXiv:1603.04488; E.E. Boos, V.E. Bunichev and I.P. Volobuev, arXiv:1603.04495; D.T. Huong and P.V. Dong, arXiv:1603.05146; D. Bardhan, P. Byakti, D. Ghosh and T. Sharma, arXiv:1603.05251; E. Morgante, D. Racco, M. Rameez and A. Riotto, arXiv:1603.05592; X. Liu and H. Zhang, arXiv:1603.07190; S. Di Chiara, A. Hektor, K. Kannike, L. Marzola and M. Raidal, arXiv:1603.07263; J.L. Hewett and T.G. Rizzo, arXiv:1603.08250; L.A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, H. Goldberg, X, Huang, D. Lust and T.R. Taylor, arXiv:1603.08294; P. Ko, C. Yu and T.C. Yuan, arXiv:1603.08802; A. Carmona, arXiv:1603.08913; B.M. Dillon and V. Sanz; arXiv:1603.09550; N. Liu, W. Wang, M. Zhang and Rui Zheng, arXiv:1604.00728; J. McDonald, arXiv:1604.01711; P. Lebiedowicz, M. Luszczak, R. Pasechnik and A. Szczurek, arXiv:1604.02037; M. Chala, C. Grojean, M. Riembau and T. Vantalon, arXiv:1604.02029; A. Kusenko, L. Pearce and L. Yang, arXiv:1604.02382; N.D. Barrie, A. Kobakhidze, S. Liang, M. Talia and L. Wu, arXiv:1604.02803; H.P. Nilles and M.W. Winkler, arXiv:1604.03598; A. Bolanos, J.L. DiazCruz, G. HernÃ¡ndezTome and G. TavaresVelasco, arXiv:1604.04822; M. Duerr, P.F. Perez and J. Smirnov, arXiv:1604.05319; L.D. Luzio, J.F. Kamenik and M. Nardecchia, arXiv:1604.05746; S. Gopalakrishna and T.S. Mukherjee, arXiv:1604.05774; X. Calmet, arXiv:1604.06185; K. Hamaguchi and S.P. Liew, arXiv:1604.07828; Y. Bai, V. Barger and J. Berger, arXiv:1604.07835; B. Dutta, Y. Gao, T. Ghosh, I. Gogoladze, T. Li and J.W. Walker, arXiv:1604.07838; K.J. Bae, C.R. Chen, K. Hamaguchi and I. Low, arXiv:1604.07941; K.J. Bae, K. Hamaguchi, T. Moroi and K. Yanagi, arXiv:1604.08307; D. Choudhury and K. Ghosh, arXiv:1605.00013; H. Davoudiasl, P.P. Giardino and C. Zhang, arXiv:1605.00037; K. Choi, S.H. Im, H. Kim and D.Y. Mo, arXiv:1605.00206; A. Djouadi, J. Ellis and J. Quevillon, arXiv:1605.00542; A. Djouadi and A. Pilaftsis, arXiv:1605.01040.