The Big Bang as a Mirror: a Solution of the Strong CP Problem

Latham Boyle1 , Martin Teuscher1,2 and Neil Turok1,3

1
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 2Y5
2
École Normale Supérieure, Paris, France, 75005
3
Higgs Centre for Theoretical Physics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH8 9YL
(Dated: August 2022)
We argue that the Big Bang can be understood as a type of mirror. We show how reflecting
boundary conditions for spinors and higher spin fields are fixed by local Lorentz and gauge symmetry,
and how a temporal mirror (like the Bang) differs from a spatial mirror (like the AdS boundary),
providing a possible explanation for the observed pattern of left- and right-handed fermions. By
regarding the Standard Model as the limit of a minimal left-right symmetric theory, we obtain a
new, cosmological solution of the strong CP problem, without an axion.
arXiv:2208.10396v1 [hep-ph] 22 Aug 2022

INTRODUCTION increases away from the bang) [3]; and (iv) the homo-
geneity, isotropy and flatness of the Universe [5], among
In a series of recent papers [1–5], we have argued that others. In a forthcoming paper [9], we show that, with
the Big Bang can be described as a mirror separating our new mechanism for ensuring conformal symmetry at
two sheets of spacetime. Let us briefly recap some of the the bang [4], this picture can also explain the observed
observational and theoretical motivations for this idea. primordial density perturbations.
Observations indicate that the early Universe was In this Letter, we show that: (i) there is a crucial dis-
strikingly simple [6]: a fraction of a second after the tinction, for spinors, between spatial and temporal mir-
Big Bang, the Universe was radiation-dominated, almost rors; (ii) the reflecting boundary conditions (b.c.’s) at
perfectly homogeneous, isotropic, and spatially flat; with the bang for spinors and higher spin fields are fixed by
tiny (around 10−5 ) deviations from perfect symmetry local Lorentz invariance and gauge invariance; (iii) they
also taking a highly economical form: random, statisti- explain an observed pattern in the Standard Model (SM)
cally gaussian, nearly scale-invariant, adiabatic, growing- relating left- and right-handed spinors; and (iv) they pro-
mode density perturbations. Although we cannot see all vide a new solution of the strong CP problem [10].
the way back to the bang, we have this essential observa-
tional hint: the further back we look (all the way back to
REFLECTING B.C.’S: SPINORS, HIGHER SPIN
a fraction of a second), the simpler and more regular the
Universe gets. This is the central clue in early Universe
cosmology: the question is what it is trying to tell us. Locally, a mirror is a codimension-one hyperplane with
In the standard (inflationary) theory of the early Uni- a unit normal nµ . Reflecting b.c.’s at such a mirror are
verse one regards this observed trend as illusory: one almost uniquely fixed by local Lorentz symmetry. To
imagines that, if one could look back even further, one describe fields of arbitrary spin, it will be convenient to
would find a messy, disordered state, requiring a period work in 2-component spinor (dotted/undotted index) for-
of inflation to transform it into the cosmos we observe. malism (we follow the conventions of Appendix E in [11]:
An alternative approach is to take the fundamental clue in particular, we will work in signature (+, −, −, −)[12]).
at face value and imagine that, as we follow it back to We define σ µ = (I, σ j ), σ̄ µ = (I, −σ j ) with σ j the Pauli
the bang, the Universe really does approach the ultra- matrices. Under a mirror reflection, a left-chiral spinor
simple radiation-dominated state described above (as all ϕα is mapped to a right-chiral spinor χ̄α̇ . Covariance
observations so far seem to indicate). Then, although we under the Lorentz group implies that, at the mirror,
have a singularity in our past, it is extremely special [7].
nαα̇ χ̄α̇ = ξ ϕα where nαα̇ ≡ nµ (σ µ )αα̇ (1a)
Denoting the conformal time by τ , the scale factor a(τ ) α̇α 0 α̇ α̇α µ α̇α
is ∝ τ at small τ so the metric gµν ∼ a(τ )2 ηµν has an an- n̄ ϕα = ξ χ̄ where n̄ ≡ nµ (σ̄ ) (1b)
alytic, conformal zero through which it may be extended where ξ and ξ 0 are U(1)-phases. We shall call this a
to a “mirror-reflected” universe at negative τ [8]. Dirac-type boundary condition. Since nαα̇ n̄α̇β = n2 δαβ
In [1–5] we point out that, by taking seriously the sym- and n̄α̇α nαβ̇ = n2 δβ̇α̇ we see that ξξ 0 = n2 , and that
metries and complex analytic properties of this extended
Eqs. (1a) and (1b) are equivalent.
two-sheeted spacetime, we are led to elegant and testable
So far, ϕα and χ̄α̇ are independent. Now define the
new explanations for many of the observed features of
charge conjugate spinors
our Universe including: (i) the dark matter [1, 2]; (ii)
the absence of primordial gravitational waves, vorticity, ϕ̄α̇ ≡ εα̇β̇ ϕ̄β̇ ≡ εα̇β̇ (ϕβ )∗ (2a)
or decaying mode density perturbations [1, 3]; (iii) the
β β̇ ∗
thermodynamic arrow of time (i.e. the fact that entropy χα ≡ εαβ χ ≡ εαβ (χ̄ ) (2b)
 2

It is compatible with Lorentz invariance to set χ̄α̇ = ϕ̄α̇ , STANDARD MODEL & GAUGE INVARIANCE
ϕα

i.e. so χ̄α̇ is a Majorana spinor. With this restriction,
the Dirac-type b.c. (1) reduces to a Majorana-type b.c., So far, our choice of b.c.’s was fixed by local Lorentz
α̇
nαα̇ ϕ̄ = ξϕα . (3) invariance. Can we make them compatible with local
gauge invariance? At first glance, the answer might seem
Now let us generalize to higher spins. For spin 1/2, in to be “no,” given that the Standard Model’s chiral nature
the Dirac-type b.c. (1), we partnered every left-handed precisely means that one cannot pair up left- and right-
spinor ϕα with an independent right-handed spinor χ̄α̇ . handed spinors in this way. However, with the Higgs
For higher spins, we partner ϕα β̇1 ...β̇n
(in the (m/2, n/2) doublet h included, the answer is in fact “yes.” From the
1 ...αm
irreducible representation of the Lorentz group) with representation of the SM fields, [17]
χ̄α̇1 ...α̇m
β1 ...βn in the (n/2, m/2) irrep. Then the Dirac-type
reflecting b.c. (1) generalizes to SU(3)C SU(2)L U(1)Y
qL = (udLL ) 3 2 +1/6
nα1 α̇1 · · · nαm α̇m n̄β̇1 β1 · · · n̄β̇n βn χ̄α̇1 ...α̇m β̇1 ...β̇n
β1 ...βn = ξ ϕα1 ...αm (4a) Quarks uR 3 1 +2/3
0 α̇1 ...α̇m dR 3 1 −1/3
n̄α̇1 α1 · · · n̄α̇m αm nβ1 β̇1 · · · nβn β̇n ϕβ̇α11...β̇n
...αm = ξ χ̄β1 ...βn (4b) (8)
lL = (νeLL ) 1 2 −1/2
0
where ξ, ξ ∈ U(1). Again, these are equivalent only if Leptons νR 1 1 0
eR 1 1 −1
ξξ 0 = (n2 )m+n . (5)
Higgs h 1 2 +1/2
Likewise, we define the charge conjugate fields
if we define h0 = iσ 2 h∗ , ĥ = h/|h|, ĥ0 = h0 /|h0 | and
ϕ̄α̇1 ...α̇m
β1 ...βn = ε
α̇1 γ̇1
· · · εα̇m γ̇m εβ1 δ1 · · · εβn δn ϕ̄δγ̇11...δ
...γ̇m (6a)
n

χβ̇α11... β̇n β̇1 δ̇1

· · · εβ̇n δ̇n χγδ̇ 1...
...γm uL ≡ (ĥ0† qL ) dL ≡ (ĥ† qL ) (9a)
...αm = εα1 γ1 · · · εαm γm ε 1 n δ̇
(6b)
0† †
νL ≡ (ĥ lL ) eL ≡ (ĥ lL ), (9b)
γ1 ...γm γ̇1 ...γ̇m ∗
where ϕ̄γ̇δ11...δ δ̇1 ...δ̇n ∗
...γ̇m ≡ (ϕγ1 ...γm ) and χδ̇1 ...δ̇n ≡ (χ̄δ1 ...δn )
n

and see again that setting χ̄ = ϕ̄ is compatible with it follows that {uL , dL , νL , eL } transform under SU(3)C ×
Lorentz invariance. With this constraint, the Dirac-type SU(2)L × U(1)Y exactly like {uR , dR , νR , eR }. Therefore,
b.c. (4) reduces to the Majorana-type b.c. the Standard Model’s gauge symmetry is compatible with
these Dirac-type boundary conditions:
nα1 α̇1 · · · nαm α̇m n̄β̇1 β1 · · · n̄β̇n βn ϕ̄α̇1 ...α̇m β̇1 ...β̇n
β1 ...βn = ξ ϕα1 ...αm . (7)
ξ uL,α = nαα̇ uα̇
R ξ dL,α = nαα̇ dα̇
R (10a)
α̇
Now, comparing Eq. (7) to its complex conjugate and ξ νL,α = nαα̇ νR ξ eL,α = nαα̇ eα̇
R (10b)
using εαβ εα̇β̇ n̄β̇β = (nαα̇ )∗ , we find consistency requires
(−n2 )m+n = 1. We infer that, for fermionic fields (m + n with nµ = (1, 0) for the bang and we can adjust the
odd), Majorana-type b.c.’s are only consistent when nµ relative phase of uL and uR , etc, to set ξ = 1.
is spacelike. The Anti de Sitter (AdS) boundary is an Note that ĥ and ĥ0 live on the unit 3-sphere S3 . In
example: massless spinors satisfy a Majorana-type re- three spatial dimensions they are generically well-defined
flecting b.c. (7), with a field ϕ being related to its charge except on a set of measure zero, even at the bang, where
conjugate ϕ̄ [13–15]. h satisfies a Neumann boundary condition (see below).
In contrast, the Big Bang is a mirror with a timelike This section has two main conclusions. First, for Stan-
normal nµ . The key result of this section is that fermions dard Model fermions (including right-handed neutrinos),
must satisfy a Dirac-type b.c. (4), where a field ϕ is re- reflecting b.c.’s at the bang (10) are uniquely deter-
lated to another field χ̄ which is not its charge conjugate. mined by local Lorentz and gauge symmetry. Second,
reflecting b.c’s require that all Standard Model fermions
One can check (7) for the familiar situation of an or- can – using the Higgs as in (9) – be grouped into left-
dinary mirror in electromagnetism. A reflection acts on and right-handed pairs that transform identically under
spacetime as xµ → Rµν xν , with Rµν = η µν − 2nµ nν /n2 . gauge transformations. Thus, the big-bang-as-mirror hy-
With a spacelike normal nµ = (0, n), the b.c.’s for a per- pothesis gives a new explanation for this observed fact.
fectly conducting, “electric” mirror are n × E = n · B =
0. This is equivalent to imposing reflection symmetry
on the field strength Fκλ = ±Rκρ Rλσ Fρσ , when pick- LEFT-RIGHT SYMMETRY AND STRONG CP
ing the lower sign. Then, writing Fµν → Fαα̇β β̇ →
ϕαβ εα̇β̇ + ϕ̄α̇β̇ εαβ , where ϕ̄ is the self-dual part (for de- Now consider the minimal left-right symmetric exten-
tails see Ch. 3 and Ch. 5, p. 320 in [16]), Eq. (7) with sion of the Standard Model: the LRSM. It is based on the
(m, n) = (2, 0) and ξ = 1 yields “electric” mirror b.c.’s; gauge group SU(3)C × SU(2)L × SU(2)R × U(1)B−L [18].
while a general ξ gives a mixed electric-magnetic mirror. This theory, where each field has a left/right partner that
 3

gauge transforms similarly, has a simpler table: reflected spacetime coordinate; in the spinor transforma-
tion (12b), ψL,R stands for either qL,R or lL,R and the
SU(3)C SU(2)L SU(2)R U(1)B−L
upper/lower option (i.e γ 5 or 1) applies when a(τ ) is
qL 3 2 1 +1/3
even/odd respectively; and in the vector transformation
qR 3 1 2 +1/3
(12c), AL,R
µ stands for either WµL,R (the gauge fields for
hL , lL 1 2 1 −1 SU(2)L,R , respectively) or Gµ or Bµ (the gauge fields for
hR , lR 1 1 2 −1 SU(3)C or U(1)B−L , which do not carry an L/R label).
Here hL is the usual SU(2)L Higgs doublet (previously Demanding the action SLRSM for the LRSM is invari-
called h0 in the SM) and hR is its new SU(2)R counter- ant under this CT symmetry forbids the θGG̃ dual term
part. If the latter acquires a vacuum expectation value, it in the Lagrangian, because it requires that the Yukawa
breaks SU(2)R × U(1)B−L down to U(1)Y and the LRSM matrices are hermitian Y = Y † (so there is no overall
reduces to the SM below this scale. Yukawa phase, and hence the θGG̃ is not regenerated by
Hall and Harigaya [18] have argued that the LRSM is the chiral anomaly) [23]. (Note that demanding that T
not only phenomenologically viable but has several ex- rather than CT symmetry would not be correct: it would
planatory advantages over the SM. An independent ar- eliminate the θGG̃ term, but it would also require that
gument [19] is that incorporating the SM fermions into the Yukawa matrices are real, Y = Y ∗ , in conflict with
the recently-noticed connection between the SM and a observations.) Relatedly, note that the SLRSM yields
special mathematical object (the exceptional Jordan al- classical equations that are symmetric under the corre-
gebra) [20–22], requires embedding the SM in the LRSM. sponding linear/analytic time-reversal transformation
In the LRSM, the mirror b.c.’s at the bang take a more
symmetrical form, as we can define h̃L,R (x) → h̃R,L (x0 ) (scalars) (13a)
 5
γ
uL,R ≡ ĥ†L,R qL,R dL,R ≡ ĥ0L,R
†
qL,R (11a)
i
ψ̃L,R (x) → γ 0 ψ̃R,L
i
(x0 ) (spinors) (13b)
1
νL,R ≡ ĥ†L,R lL,R eL,R ≡ ĥ0L,R
†
lL,R (11b) ÃL,R ν R,L 0
µ (x) → Rµ Ãν (x ) (gauge fields) (13c)
and then write the b.c.’s as in (10).
These mirror b.c.’s will only yield genuine mirror sym- precisely when all the Yukawa’s satisfy Y = Y † , and that
metry between the two sheets of spacetime (on either side a solution invariant under this transformation precisely
of the bang) if the dynamical theory is also appropriately satisfies the Dirac-like mirror boundary condition (10).
symmetric. We now explain the appropriate symmetry. In other words: In the LRSM, requiring the two sheets
In our earlier paper [2], we show in detail how C, P of spacetime (before and after the bang) to be related by
and T act on fields on an FRW background in which a(τ ) a mirror symmetry – so that, at the quantum level, the
is even or odd under τ → −τ . As in that paper, we use bang is a surface of CT symmetry (12) and, at the clas-
conventions where ~ = c = 1 and the spacetime coordi- sical level, the solutions of the equations of motion are
nates are dimensionless so that the metric gµν has dimen- invariant under the corresponding transformation (13) –
sions mass−2 ; and we work for convenience in the confor- also solves the strong CP problem.
mal frame where the fields and couplings have all been
rescaled by a power of the scale factor corresponding to
their mass dimension: i.e. ϕ̃(x) = a(τ )ϕ(x) (for scalars), BACK TO THE STANDARD MODEL
ψ̃(x) = a3/2 (τ )ψ(x) (for spinors), õ (x) = Aµ (x) (for
vectors); and g̃µν (x) = a−2 (τ )gµν (x) (for the metric), The left-right symmetry of the LRSM is generally bro-
so the fields effectively live in a static spacetime back- ken spontaneously (see, e.g., [18]) because the two VEVs
ground. In this convention, all dimensionful couplings hhR i and hhL i differ in magnitude. If |hhR i|  |hhL i|, at
become functions of τ ; and, in particular, if a(τ ) is even energies  |hhR i| the LRSM reduces to the SM. Likewise,
(resp. odd) under τ → −τ , then couplings of odd mass in the limit |hhR i| → ∞, the LRSM is just the SM.
dimension are even (resp. odd) under τ → −τ . How does this work in our two-sheeted, CT -symmetric
Now consider an anti-linear CT transformation which cosmology? For the symmetry (13) to be gauge invari-
also swaps each field with its L ↔ R partner, so the fields ant, the gauge groups on the two sheets must be related:
transform as: elements of the local gauge group SU(3)C × SU(2)L ×
SU(2)R × U(1)B−L must obey (g3 , g2L , g2R , g1 )(τ, x) =
h̃L,R (x) → h̃R,L (x0 )∗ (scalars) (12a)
 5 (g3 , g2R , g2L , g1 )(−τ, x). This suggests that, from the two-
γ
i
ψ̃L,R (x) → γ 0 ψ̃R,L
i
(x0 )∗ (spinors) (12b) sheeted perspective, the natural bosonic fields are e hL,R
1 µ µ
and AL,R , which equal hL,R and AL,R when τ > 0,
e
ν R,L 0 ∗
ÃL,R
µ (x) → Rµ Ãν (x ) (gauge fields) (12c) and hR,L and AµR,L when τ < 0. Indeed, the limit
where, Rµν = diag(−1, 1, 1, 1) is the matrix represent- |he
hR i| → ∞ is compatible with our reflection symmetry,
ing reflection through the bang and x0µ ≡ Rµν xν is the whereas |hhR i| → ∞ is not.
 4

Φ Thus, although e
hR corresponds to hL before the bang,
and hR after it, there is no discontinuity since hL be-
fore the bang and hR after the bang parameterize the
ℎ!
hyperbolae in two non-overlapping Milne wedges in field
Ω space, and the global coordinate H is perfectly continu-
ous. From the point-of-view of the left-right symmetric
theory, the natural scalar fields are e
hL,R rather than hL,R
𝐻 and the SM is then neatly recovered in the appropriate
limit |he
hR i| → ∞. Hence, our solution of the strong CP
Ω problem in the LRSM extends to a corresponding solu-
tion in the SM itself! – a subtle solution that we might
never have guessed without the help of the LRSM.
ℎ!

FIG. 1. Cosmological solutions in the vicinity of the bang in CLASSICAL VERSUS QUANTUM
global Minkowski (Φ, H) and local Milne (Ω, h̄) coordinates
on field space. The solutions are straight lines in (Φ, H) (see
dashed line). Mirror symmetry ensures they pass through the In this paper, we have seen how the requirement that
origin, avoiding the antigravity region (dot-filled). the Big Bang is a surface of quantum CT symmetry
yields a new solution to the strong CP problem. It
also gives rise to classical solutions that are symmetric
under time reversal, and satisfy appropriate reflecting
Further support for this view comes from coupling
boundary conditions at the bang. The classical solu-
the theory to general relativity, and implementing a
tions we describe are stationary points of the action and
“Weyl lift” [24]. After taking the limit |he hR i| → ∞
are analytic in the conformal time τ . Hence they are
and setting gµν = Ω2 geµν , the Einstein-Higgs action be-
p natural saddle points to a path integral over fields and
comes ( 12 Ω2 R−3(∂Ω) 2
+Ω2 |De
hL |2 −Ω4 V (e g d4 x
R
e hL )) −e four-geometries. The full quantum theory is presumably
with 8πG
= 1. Let us work in “unitary gauge” where based on a path integral between boundary conditions at
hL ≡ h̄0 , with h̄ > 0. Similarly, as we are inter-
e
future and past infinity that are related by CT -symmetry.
ested in studying our theory on an FRW background, The cosmologically relevant classical saddles inherit their
we can choose conformally static gauge for g̃µν , so R e=
analytic, time-reversal symmetry from this path inte-
6κ with κ parameterizing the spatial curvature. Near gral, although the individual paths are not required to be
the bang the gauge field mass and spatial curvature time-symmetric in the same sense (and, moreover may,
terms vanish as Ω2 while the Higgs potential term van- in general, be highly jagged and non-analytic). We will
ishes as Ω4 . Neglecting these terms, the action be- describe in more detail the quantum CT -symmetric en-
comes Vc (−n−1 (3 Ω̇2 − Ω2 h̄˙ 2 ) − n r)dτ, with Vc the
R
semble which implements (12), including the question of
comoving volume, n the lapse (whose variation yields whether all of the analytic saddles are necessarily time-
the Friedmann constraint), and we have included the symmetric [26, 27], and the calculation of the associated
radiation density r/Ω4 , where r is a constant. Rec- gravitational entanglement entropy, elsewhere [9].
ognizing the line element on (Ω, h̄) field space as 2d Acknowledgements: Research at Perimeter Insti-
Minkowski in Milne coordinates, √ we pass to√global

co- tute is supported by the Government of Canada, through
ordinates (Φ, H) ≡ Ω cosh(h̄/ 3), sinh(h̄/ 3) . The Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Canada
action becomes Vc (−3n−1 ( Φ̇2 − Ḣ 2 ) − n r)dτ. Classi-
R
and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry
cal trajectories consist of straight lines in the (Φ, H)- of Research, Innovation and Science. The work of NT
plane whose 2-velocity is “time-like” since r > 0 (see is supported by the STFC Consolidated Grant ‘Particle
Fig. 1). The symmetry (13) extends to Ω(τ ) → −Ω(−τ ), Physics at the Higgs Centre’ and by the Higgs Chair of
Φ(τ ) → −Φ(−τ ), H(τ ) → −H(−τ ): solutions satisfy- Theoretical Physics at the University of Edinburgh.
ing this condition pass through the origin of the (Φ, H)-
plane and never enter the “antigravity” region [25]. As τ
approaches zero, h̄ tends to a constant, consistent with
the Neumann boundary condition identified in Ref. [3].
When finite temperature effects are included, at long [1] L. Boyle, K. Finn, and N. Turok, CPT-Symmetric
wavelengths the statistical ensemble of classical saddles Universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 251301 (2018),
arXiv:1803.08928 [hep-ph].
for h̄ will average to zero near the bang, with h̄ only
[2] L. Boyle, K. Finn, and N. Turok, The Big Bang, CPT,
acquiring a nonzero VEV which breaks SU(2)^ × U(1) ] and neutrino dark matter, Annals Phys. 438, 168767
L Y
gauge symmetry at the electroweak phase transition. (2022), arXiv:1803.08930 [hep-ph].
 5

[3] L. Boyle and N. Turok, Two-Sheeted Universe, Analyt- [17] For a pedagogical introduction to the SM, see Ref. [30],
icity and the Arrow of Time, (2021), arXiv:2109.06204 particularly Section 8.1.
[hep-th]. [18] L. J. Hall and K. Harigaya, Implications of Higgs Discov-
[4] L. Boyle and N. Turok, Cancelling the vacuum en- ery for the Strong CP Problem and Unification, JHEP
ergy and Weyl anomaly in the standard model with 10, 130, arXiv:1803.08119 [hep-ph].
dimension-zero scalar fields, (2021), arXiv:2110.06258 [19] L. Boyle, The Standard Model, The Exceptional Jordan
[hep-th]. Algebra, and Triality, (2020), arXiv:2006.16265 [hep-th].
[5] N. Turok and L. Boyle, Gravitational entropy and the [20] I. Todorov and M. Dubois-Violette, Deducing the sym-
flatness, homogeneity and isotropy puzzles, (2022), metry of the standard model from the automorphism and
arXiv:2201.07279 [hep-th]. structure groups of the exceptional Jordan algebra, Int.
[6] P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Planck 2015 results. XIII. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, 1850118 (2018), arXiv:1806.09450
Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 [hep-th].
(2016), arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]. [21] M. Dubois-Violette and I. Todorov, Exceptional quantum
[7] R. Penrose, Singularities and time-asymmetry, in Gen- geometry and particle physics II, Nucl. Phys. B 938, 751
eral Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, edited (2019), arXiv:1808.08110 [hep-th].
by S. W. Hawking and E. Israel (Cambridge University [22] J. C. Baez, Exceptional Quantum Geometry and
Press, 1979). Particle Physics, The n-Category Cafe, 27 Aug.
[8] Although it is only an approximation to treat the ra- 2018, https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2018/
diation as a perfect fluid, in the static conformal frame
√ 08/exceptional_quantum_geometry_a.html, .
the fluctuations in the radiation density scale as 1/ N , [23] See [18] for a more detailed introduction to the LRSM
where N is the number of relativistic degrees of freedom. Lagrangian; and for a detailed explanation of how im-
Since N ∼ 102 in the Standard Model, the perfect fluid posing an analogous P symmetry on SLRSM solves the
approximation is reasonable all the way to the bang. Our strong CP problem, see [31] and Section 4 in [18]. The
mirror symmetry and analyticity conditions at the bang argument is intimately related to ours, since P and CT
exclude metric perturbations that blow up there [1, 3], symmetry are related by the CP T symmetry of SLRSM ,
and primordial black holes. Finally, including dimension though of course our line of reasoning, in which the bang
zero fields which cancel the trace anomaly, the radiation is an actual CT mirror, is physically and conceptually
fluid may be perfectly conformal near the bang [4, 9]. quite distinct.
[9] L. Boyle and N. Turok (2022), in preparation. [24] I. Bars, P. Steinhardt, and N. Turok, Local Conformal
[10] G. ’t Hooft, Symmetry Breaking Through Bell-Jackiw Symmetry in Physics and Cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 89,
Anomalies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 8 (1976). 043515 (2014), arXiv:1307.1848 [hep-th].
[11] A. Zee, Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell: (Sec- [25] I. Bars, S.-H. Chen, P. J. Steinhardt, and N. Turok, Anti-
ond Edition), In a Nutshell (Princeton University Press, gravity and the Big Crunch/Big Bang Transition, Phys.
2010). Lett. B 715, 278 (2012), arXiv:1112.2470 [hep-th].
[12] For an useful alternate introduction to 2-component [26] R. P. A. C. Newman, On the Structure of conformal sin-
spinors, see Ref. [28], but beware that the conventions gularities in classical general relativity, Proc. Roy. Soc.
used in this paper slightly differ from ours. Lond. A 443, 473 (1993).
Also, the expert reader may know the peculiar fact about [27] R. P. A. C. Newman, On the Structure of conformal sin-
pinor group that Pin(1, 3)  Pin(3, 1), but our results are gularities in classical general relativity. 2. Evolution equa-
valid in both signatures (1, 3) and (3, 1) [29]. tions and a conjecture of K.P. Tod, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond.
[13] S. J. Avis, C. J. Isham, and D. Storey, Quantum Field A 443, 493 (1993).
Theory in anti-De Sitter Space-Time, Phys. Rev. D 18, [28] H. K. Dreiner, H. E. Haber, and S. P. Martin, Two-
3565 (1978). component spinor techniques and Feynman rules for
[14] P. Breitenlohner and D. Z. Freedman, Stability in Gauged quantum field theory and supersymmetry, Phys. Rept.
Extended Supergravity, Annals Phys. 144, 249 (1982). 494, 1 (2010), arXiv:0812.1594 [hep-ph].
[15] S. W. Hawking, The Boundary Conditions for Gauged [29] M. Berg, C. DeWitt-Morette, S. Gwo, and E. Kramer,
Supergravity, Phys. Lett. B 126, 175 (1983). The Pin groups in physics: C, P, and T, Rev. Math.
[16] R. Penrose and W. Rindler, Spinors and Space-Time, Phys. 13, 953 (2001), arXiv:math-ph/0012006.
Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Vol. 1 [30] P. Langacker, The standard model and beyond (Taylor &
(Cambridge University Press, 1984). Francis, 2017).
[31] K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, A Solution to the
Strong CP Problem Without an Axion, Phys. Rev. D
41, 1286 (1990).