Register to reply 
What is new with Koide sum rules? 
Share this thread: 
#73
Sep1312, 06:36 PM

P: 751

Another useful NCG paper is Kolodrubetz & Marcolli. Also see this lecture, especially slide 10. It seems that one wants to construct a cascade of effective field theories, with a Sumino model at the final stage.
Returning to comment #65... The original Koide triplet relates yukawas from a single mass matrix, but the new triplets for quarks all combine uptype yukawas with downtype yukawas, so the transformation looks unnatural. It's as if we need an extended Higgs mechanism that includes "updown yukawas". We could suppose they are there and set them to zero... but what would they be? The Standard Model mass matrices tabulate coefficients of Yukawa terms in the Lagrangian. These new "updown Yukawa terms" would require something new. Nonetheless: [tex]\left( \begin{array}{ccc} y^u_{11} & 0 & y^u_{12} & 0 & y^u_{13} & 0 \\ 0 & y^d_{11} & 0 & y^d_{12} & 0 & y^d_{13} \\ y^u_{21} & 0 & y^u_{22} & 0 & y^u_{23} & 0 \\ 0 & y^d_{21} & 0 & y^d_{22} & 0 & y^d_{23} \\ y^u_{31} & 0 & y^u_{32} & 0 & y^u_{33} & 0 \\ 0 & y^d_{31} & 0 & y^d_{32} & 0 & y^d_{33} \\ \end{array} \right)[/tex] ... if I may be permitted to introduce this interleaving of up and down Yukawa matrices, without exactly saying what it is; and if we suppose that the "up" and "down" parts are each diagonalized as much as possible, with diagonal entries ordered by size; then the Koide waterfall amounts to saying that there is a "Brannen symmetry" for each 3x3 block on the main diagonal. edit: Whoops, I missed a stage. The Brannen symmetry relates the square roots of the masses. So we would be looking at blocks on the diagonal of a 6x6 matrix whose square is the matrix above. edit #2: The Brannen transformation for a particular block could look like this: [tex]\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \sqrt{2} & e^{i\delta} & e^{i\delta} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & e^{i\delta} & \sqrt{2} & e^{i\delta} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & e^{i\delta} & e^{i\delta} & \sqrt{2} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \end{array} \right)[/tex] 


#74
Oct1512, 07:36 PM

P: 751

There's a new paper on Koide triplets today, in which the author experiments with a Brannen parametrization of uptype masses and downtype masses, and comes out with phases of 2/27 and 4/27. The usual Brannen phase for the charged leptons is 2/9, i.e. 6/27. These are numbers which I first saw on Marni Sheppeard's blog, and which I thought she discovered through discussion with Dave Look, so I'll be writing to the author to let him know  as well as to mention the tbcsud "waterfall" of triplets discussed in this thread. I think of the waterfall as real, and tend to dismiss those quark family triplets as spurious. Given the idea that there are unknown "Koide symmetries" responsible for the "authentic triplets", I suppose it's possible that the same symmetries could be present in uct and dsb too, but with a lot more noise.



#75
Oct1612, 07:32 PM

PF Gold
P: 2,891




#76
Oct1712, 01:01 AM

P: 751

Or to put it another way, the scb angle is 2/3, the eμτ angle is 2/9, and the uct angle is 2/27.
We also have that the eμτ mass scale is 313 MeV (onethird the proton mass, i.e. constituent mass of a firstgeneration quark), and the scb mass scale is three times that. From Sheppeard's blog (1 2), I get that the mass scale for a uct triplet would be about 20 GeV. edit: A few months ago I was thinking about what sort of model would produce just these "family phases"  what Zenczykowski calls δ_{L}, δ_{D}, δ_{U}  simply because that's easier to think about. I was interested in an Adlertype 3HDM (threeHiggsdoublet model) with circulant mass matrices. But you could take any model of the chargedlepton sector, that produces a Koide relation, and try to apply it separately to the uptype and downtype quarks  for example, Ernest Ma's supersymmetric model. 


#77
Oct1712, 08:03 AM

PF Gold
P: 2,891




#78
Oct2812, 11:24 AM

P: 751

Since we don't know where these quantities come from, I don't think we can say that their form is problematic. Would their origin be easier to understand if they were simple fractions of π? Also, it's hard to think of e.g. 2/9 (the actual phase, for eμτ) as a perturbation of π/12 (the phase for eμτ, in the "modified waterfall" that lands on HarariHautWeyers values for dus masses), because normally a perturbation of a quantity x just gives you "x plus a small mess", it doesn't give you a simple rational number! I have noticed that 2/3 (possible phase for scb) is obtained by the first two terms in the Leibniz formula for π/4, as if it were a truncation. One could start thinking about formulas with Grassmann variables, so all the higher terms vanish...
Another line of investigation would be to look for the significance of the "Brannen angle" in the other frameworks that manage to produce Koide triplets. Sumino, in his paper which tries to explain the exactness of the original Koide formula despite RG running, also presents an original derivation of the triplet itself (from the interactions in the scalar sector of his model). Then there's Ma, mentioned above; then there's Koide's original preon theory. Carl Brannen's formula plays no apparent role in any of these, but I wonder if they still look simple when expressed using his variables? edit: Some comments on whether m_{u}=0 is still a live option. (For the general reader of this thread: Alejandro found a "waterfall" of interlocking Koide triplets which works well for the four heaviest quarks and which can be extended to the remaining quarks. The modified waterfall is a version adjusted so that the up quark has exactly zero mass. The heavy quark masses become less accurate but the Brannen angles assume interesting values, and the idea is that the real waterfall is a perturbed version of this modified waterfall, see his paper for details.) Michael Dine gave a talk as recently as 2009 implying that it was still being considered by theorists like Seiberg and Kaplan. Dine's 1993 review "Topics in string phenomenology" points out two ways to get m_{u}=0 from string theory, one from anomalous discrete symmetry, the other from a horizontal symmetry as described in a series of papers (1 2 3). From the other side, 1103.3304 gives in a few sentences (page 83) the reason why workers in lattice QCD might dismiss the m_{u}=0 option as an explanation for no strong CP violation. This argument needs to be confronted with the ideas in reference 3, listed above. 


#79
Nov1212, 10:32 AM

PF Gold
P: 2,891

I am curious about how sensible the prediction of the top mass is to the factor 3 in the jump from leptons to quarks. So here is the "bc l program"
so with the factor 3 argued in my paper, we get
Which are the 1 sigma limits for the mass and angle factors, with this average? Well, pretty narrow, but still some place for perturbative corrections:



#80
Dec512, 10:40 AM

PF Gold
P: 2,891

Probably it is a red herring, but some comments from mitchell have indirectly driven me to look at the mass formula for an stack of Dbranes. I am not sure in how they are in the superstring case, but already in the bosonic string they look a lot as a generalisation of Koide mixing:
[tex] M^2 = \big((n + {\theta_i  \theta_j \over 2 \pi}) {R' \over \alpha'}\big)^2 + {N1 \over \alpha'} [/tex] THis is f. 174 in arXiv:hepth/0007170v3 For n=1, N=1, and i,j from 1 to 3 with i different of j, the stack of three Dbranes looks Koide's formula. I am not sure of which is the mass formula in this case (nor in the fermionic/superstring case...) It should be, if M^2 where instead a seesawed product of two masses, [itex]M^2=m_{ij} M_0[/itex] [tex] m_{ij} = {R'^2 \over M_0 \alpha'^2} (n + {\theta_i  \theta_j \over 2 \pi})^2 [/tex] Note that the basic fact is that the sum of the three differences [itex]\theta_i  \theta_j [/itex] is zero, as in the case of the sum of three cosines in Koide. EDIT: Michael Rios suggested, last year, to use three coincident branes to emulate Koide. EDIT2: Today is the birthday of Lubos Motl, this is my birthday gift: string theory becomes predictive 


#81
Dec712, 02:56 AM

PF Gold
P: 2,891

Unrelated to the previous comment, except for the fact that strings dof come in groups of 8, it could be worthwhile to rethink again the 12x8 ideas in the light of Koide. The "Koide waterfall" in #58 above, with mass of up quark exactly zero in three Koide steps, provides, if we also use the orthogonality condition, some intriguing pairing of leptons and quarks:
t:174.10 GeV b:3.64 GeV tau, c:1.698 GeV mu, s:121.95 MeV e, u:0 d:8.75 MeV On other hand, the most naive way of building a multiplet with 8 degrees of freedom is to use an electroweak pair of Dirac fermions: neutrino, electron for instance, or any up, down combination. This is still possible here, and even it could be convenient if we consider that we are going to broke this pairing of leptons and quarks. But looking at this table, we could take it serioustly and consider that one lepton and the three colours of a quark should be the components of a multiplet. Then the unpaired quarks would correspond to seesawed neutrinos and the whole table is What is intriguing in any case is the mu,s pairing: a charged lepton with a down type quark. It could point to the need of using a SU(2)xSU(2) LR symmetry. 


#82
Dec912, 07:51 AM

P: 751

PatiSalam as we know it, doesn't allow such a scheme. The orthodox way to embed the waterfall in PatiSalam would be to use the conventional generation structure (three sets of two "fourcolor quarks", one of which divides into an uptype quark and a neutrino, the other of which divides into a downtype quark and a charged lepton), a selection of Higgses (there must at least be one to break SU(4)_{c} to SU(3)_{c} and another to break U(1)_{BL} x SU(2)_{R} to U(1)_{Y}), then work out the 3x3 Yukawa matrices for the "fourcolor quarks", and finally the effective Yukawas for the SM quarks and leptons. And since the waterfall has that intricate structure, probably the best way is via flavons: the Yukawas are VEVs of "flavon" fields. (Koide himself uses flavons in his yukawaon models of recent years.) We can then try to obtain a PatiSalam waterfall from flavon symmetries.
This doesn't have the simplicity of just directly associating emutau with usc (or with scb, as might have been suggested by GeorgiJarlskog), but at least it is a type of theory which it is known can be constructed. If you do it this way, the orthodox way, you do get to preserve the direct association of muon with strange quark. So you might suppose that the second generation is a sort of pivot, where there is approximate equality of masses, connecting waterfall Koide triplets on the quark side, and the usual family Koide triplets on the lepton side. Intriguingly, if you imagine interleaving the Yukawas for charged and uncharged leptons in the fashion of #73, then the Brannen transformation matrix for family Koide triplets (rather than sequential, waterfall triplets) looks like this: [tex]\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \sqrt{2} & 0 & e^{i\delta} & 0 & e^{i\delta} \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & e^{i\delta} & 0 & \sqrt{2} & 0 & e^{i\delta} \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & e^{i\delta} & 0 & e^{i\delta} & 0 & \sqrt{2} \\ \end{array} \right)[/tex] (or the obvious counterpart where the two interleaved blocks change places). As I wrote in #73, an "interleaving of Yukawa matrices" has no physical meaning that I can identify. But what I like about this perspective is that the "family Brannen transformation" and the "sequential Brannen transformation" could both plausibly be part of some larger algebraic structure. In both cases they're based on a 3x3 block within the 6x6 matrix, it's just that the spacing is different. So the idea is that a PatiSalam embedding of waterfall + original Koide could result from a flavor symmetry containing that "larger algebraic structure", with family symmetries dominating on the lepton side and sequential symmetries dominating on the quark side, and with the second generation providing the bridge. 


#83
Dec1412, 12:00 PM

PF Gold
P: 2,891

I have scanned a couple of collections which show the history of Koide before Koide. The first set pivotes on HarariHautWeyers and its refutations, the second set is some extra articles of the same age, found while I explored the first selection.
While they will be useful mostly to Carl Brannen, perhaps Mitchell and other crowd can enjoy them too. https://docs.google.com/open?id=1Ufl...qkMlReePUCCGDj https://docs.google.com/open?id=1vRf...PnIwW634ZOhATP And yes, I use a monitor which can pivote 90 degrees. But nowadays you can always cancel the gravitational sensor of your iPad, can you? 


#84
Dec2212, 12:21 AM

PF Gold
P: 2,891

Wow, Zenczykowski paper was accepted for PhysRev D last Thursday (Dec 13, 2012).



#85
Dec2612, 10:16 AM

PF Gold
P: 2,891

Just for the record, it is interesting to look to the solutions in the lepton side ascending from the emutau triple. Remember we are conjecturing a descent where some leptonic object partners with every quark. It could be reasonable to think of Dirac mass terms for neutrinos, for instance.
, t:174.10 GeV , b:3.64 GeV tau, c:1.698 GeV mu, s:121.95 MeV e, u:0 , d:8.75 MeV Now, once we have broken the pairing, we can use Koide separately in each sector... just to see if it has some sense. To ascent from mu, tau to the next two levels, the equation with the above values has discriminant cero, we should look with some care with branch of the answer is it really taken, but anyway here you have both branches. For both of them, the second step is unique, due to negative roots forbidding other solutions.



#86
Dec2712, 05:47 AM

P: 751

Suppose we have six flavors of quark in an SU(4) gauge theory. For the moment, suppose there are no other quantum numbers... Then we will have a 6x6 yukawa matrix.
Next, suppose that these yukawas are flavon vevs, and that the flavon potential has a discrete symmetry generated by the four "sequential" (#73) and two "family" (#82) Brannen transformations, for particular values of δ. And now, let us augment this "theory", so that the usual electric charges for the quarks arise or are introduced, and so that the usual PatiSalam higgsing of SU(4) to SU(3) occurs. It seems that the first step should introduce a "checkerboard" texture to the 6x6 yukawa matrix, and then the second step should "double" the yukawa matrix, so there's one 6x6 yukawa checkerboard for threecolor quarks and another 6x6 yukawa checkerboard for leptons. Finally, let us suppose that the sequential symmetries dominate the quark yukawas, and the family symmetries dominate the lepton yukawas (though the residual family symmetries in the quark yukawas may be strong enough to produce recognizable Koide phases of 2/27 for up quarks and 4/27 for down quarks). This can give us the waterfall for the quarks, and the original Koide relation for the charged leptons. edit: I think the first thing to do, would be to create the theory of the second paragraph. That would be practice at constructing a theory in which a Koide waterfall of masses arose from a 6x6 yukawa matrix. 


#87
Dec2712, 10:42 AM

PF Gold
P: 2,891

by the way, the publication of Phys. Rev. D 86, 117303 (2012) officially raises the number of cites of Brannen's and of myself on this topic!. I get a citation to hepph/0505220 so that the author can refer indirectly to internet forums with a "Brannen, as cited in...". And Carl gets a second citation, directly to http://brannenworks.com/MASSES2.pdf 


#88
Jan213, 05:33 AM

P: 751

I think it would be instructive to express all the fermion pole masses as multiples of the Brannen mass parameter for the original Koide triple, M_{L}, and then use the relationship between the top mass and the Higgs VEV to express the latter in the same units. M_{L} is presumably the fundamental quantity in the waterfall (because it apparently comes from QCD or SQCD), but I don't think we've thought about how to get the Fermi scale from it. Yet surely this should be playing a role in our thinking about the Higgs.



#89
Jan913, 08:54 AM

P: 751

Today I was looking at two new and two old papers. The new papers are "Neutrino Mass and Mixing with Discrete Symmetry" by King and Luhn, and "Topquark and neutrino composite Higgs bosons" by Adam Smetana. The old papers  well, one was a thesis, Francois Goffinet's thesis, "A bottomup approach to fermion masses", and the other was the coauthored paper resulting from it, "A New Look at an Old Mass Relation".
Together, they should have something to say about how to extend the waterfall to the neutrinos, to the mixing angles, and to the properties of the Higgs sector. Goffinet's concept of "pseudomass" was invented precisely to link the Koide relation to mixing angles. King and Luhn review flavon models with discrete family symmetries, for the neutrino sector. And Smetana tries to get the Fermi scale by having both a top condensate and a neutrino condensate, in a broad class of models featuring a gauged flavor symmetry. To get the numbers right he ends up needing a large number of righthanded neutrinos, so probably he is still missing something essential, but it begins to make the connection I called for in the previous comment. 


#90
Jan1013, 12:42 PM

PF Gold
P: 2,891




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Koide and Quarks  High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics  11  
Koide awareness  General Physics  0  
Koide leptons: I am astonished.  General Physics  0  
Koide awareness  General Physics  0 