Mark Hopkins
May17-04, 05:05 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nTaking the latest data I have\nsin^2 (T) = .23117 +/- .00016\nfor the Weak mixing angle T, I get:\ntan^2(T) = .3007 +/- .0003 ~~ 3/10.\n\nA priori, one would want tan^2(T) to be some simple rational number if the\neigenvalues of the couplings for the Z to the various fermions are to be\nrational multiples of each other, as they are for all the other bosons.\n\nThe usual anomaly cancellation argument only explains the assignments\nto the U(1)_Y hypercharge sector; it doesn\'t explain why the photon\ncouplings are rational with relation to each other (i.e. why electric\ncharge is quantized). These are functions of the weak mixing angle and\ncould, a\' priori, be anything rational or not. Since they\'re rational,\nthen the attention is focused on whether the other mass eigenstate\nmixture involving the weak mixing angle -- the Z -- has charge\nquantization.\n\nThe Z charges are quantized if and only if tan^2(T) is rational. The\nnear coincidence of tan^2(T) to 3/10, then, in this light is interesting.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Taking the latest data I have
sin^2 (T) = .23117 +/- .00016
for the Weak mixing angle T, I get:
tan^2(T) = .3007 +/- .0003 ~~ 3/10.
A priori, one would want tan^2(T) to be some simple rational number if the
eigenvalues of the couplings for the Z to the various fermions are to be
rational multiples of each other, as they are for all the other bosons.
The usual anomaly cancellation argument only explains the assignments
to the U(1)_Y hypercharge sector; it doesn't explain why the photon
couplings are rational with relation to each other (i.e. why electric
charge is quantized). These are functions of the weak mixing angle and
could, a' priori, be anything rational or not. Since they're rational,
then the attention is focused on whether the other mass eigenstate
mixture involving the weak mixing angle -- the Z -- has charge
quantization.
The Z charges are quantized if and only if tan^2(T) is rational. The
near coincidence of tan^2(T) to 3/10, then, in this light is interesting.
sin^2 (T) = .23117 +/- .00016
for the Weak mixing angle T, I get:
tan^2(T) = .3007 +/- .0003 ~~ 3/10.
A priori, one would want tan^2(T) to be some simple rational number if the
eigenvalues of the couplings for the Z to the various fermions are to be
rational multiples of each other, as they are for all the other bosons.
The usual anomaly cancellation argument only explains the assignments
to the U(1)_Y hypercharge sector; it doesn't explain why the photon
couplings are rational with relation to each other (i.e. why electric
charge is quantized). These are functions of the weak mixing angle and
could, a' priori, be anything rational or not. Since they're rational,
then the attention is focused on whether the other mass eigenstate
mixture involving the weak mixing angle -- the Z -- has charge
quantization.
The Z charges are quantized if and only if tan^2(T) is rational. The
near coincidence of tan^2(T) to 3/10, then, in this light is interesting.