4
$\begingroup$

I'm simply asking what theoretical origins are behind 'coincidences' in CKM matrix elements, such as the decay of charm to strange quarks, and the decay of up to down quarks both having a coupling of $g_w cos\theta_c$. Another example is charm quarks decaying to down quarks, and up quarks to up strange both with a coupling magnitude of $g_w sin\theta_c$.

In other words, what connects charm and down quarks in the same way as connecting up and strange quarks? Or is it all a numerical 'coincidence'?

Phrased differently using the CKM matrix terminology, why are $|V_{ud}| = |V_{cs}| = |V_{tb}|$ and $|V_{us}| = |V_{cd}|$ etc?

Wikipedia has the following image so I'm starting to believe its just a 'coincidence'.

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ How did your instructor explain the Wolfenstein parameterization, eqn (12.4) , (12.5) to you? The structure you confirm is only approximate. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 7, 2021 at 19:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The devil is in the details. When you use detailed numbers, you see the interesting parameters entering, and invalidating your "leading Wolfenstein picture". If you were asking "why is the Wolfenstein parameterization a good one?", nobody knows. The PMNS matrix for leptons lacks anything similar. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 7, 2021 at 21:14

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$
  1. The unitary $3\times 3$ CKM matrix $V^i{}_a$ contains 9 real DOF, consisting of 6 complex phases and 3 Euler angles.

  2. However there is a residual $\frac{U(1)^3\times U(1)^3}{U(1)}$ flavor symmetry. The absolute values of the CKM matrix elements $|V^i{}_a|$ (which are invariant under this residual flavor symmetry) therefore only contain 4 real DOF, consisting of 1 complex phase and 3 Euler angles.

  3. In the standard parametrization it happens that the 3 Euler angles form a hierarchy $\theta_{13}\ll \theta_{23}\ll \theta_{12}\ll 1$, where the complex phase $e^{i\delta}$ (needed for CP violation) is tucked away next to the small $\sin\theta_{13}$. So the standard parametrization becomes roughly on the form $$V~\approx~\begin{pmatrix} \cos\theta_{12} & \sin\theta_{12} & 0 \cr -\sin\theta_{12} & \cos\theta_{12} & \sin\theta_{23} \cr \sin\theta_{12}\sin\theta_{23} & -\sin\theta_{23} & 1 \end{pmatrix},$$ which explains OP's observed numerical patterns.

  4. A better approximation is given by the Wolfenstein parametrization, cf. above comments by Cosmas Zachos.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ So are you saying the DOF decreases from 9 to 4 from the flavour symmetry, such that the actual matrix would have terms which are more complicated functions of the 4 degrees of freedom than the matrix shown, but then 'it turns out' that the sizes of these angles causes the matrix to simplify into the form shown above? $\endgroup$
    – Alex Gower
    Commented Apr 9, 2021 at 11:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $\uparrow$ Yes. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Commented Apr 9, 2021 at 12:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.