Kobayashi Maskawa Matrix Error ?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Anne-Sylvie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Error Matrix
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the unitarity of the Kobayashi-Maskawa (KM) matrix in the context of electroweak interactions. Participants are examining whether the matrix presented in the original paper is indeed unitary, as expected, and are exploring the implications of their findings.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the unitarity of the KM matrix, stating that their computations do not yield the identity matrix when multiplying the matrix by its conjugate transpose.
  • Another participant references the Wikipedia page on the CKM Matrix, suggesting that the standard parametrization can be factored into Euler-angle rotations, which implies unitarity.
  • Some participants assert that the matrix, as presented, is unitary, supporting the claim with references to its parametrization.
  • A later reply acknowledges that the matrix is unitary but notes a discrepancy with the original paper, specifically regarding the V_3,3 term, which they claim has a sine term instead of a cosine term.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is disagreement regarding the specific form of the KM matrix as presented in the original paper versus the form discussed in the thread. While some participants agree on the unitarity of the matrix, the exact parameters and their representation remain contested.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential limitations in the understanding of the matrix's parameters and their implications for unitarity. There are unresolved questions about the correctness of the terms used in the original paper versus those derived from other sources.

Anne-Sylvie
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone,

I'm studying some lectures on electroweak interactions and I was reading the paper from Kobayashi and Maskawa, particulary the matrix :

47c2893dc9404e8ed5d48c7c6f9f3a32.png


But these matrix have to be unitary... And my professor said that it was not the case. When I compute the product of this matrix and its conjugate transpose, I actually don't find the identity matrix but I don't rely on my computation...

Is there REALLY an error in the paper ?
(I computed for many values of θ1, θ2 and θ3 numerically the product and I never have the identity.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you look at the Wikipedia page on the CKM Matrix, they show that the "standard" parametrization can be factored into three Euler-angle rotations. This makes it obvious that the result is unitary. And although they don't do it, the "original" KM parametrization can be factored in a similar manner.

(If only I knew how to write a matrix!) But anyway, it's a rotation by θ3 in the 23 plane, followed by a rotation by θ1 in the 12 plane, followed by a rotation by θ2 again in the 23 plane. The matrix is correct as you give it.
 
And the matrix as you give it is unitary.
 
Thanks very much for your answer.
In fact, the matrix that I give is unitary as you said.
But this is not EXACTLY the matrix as in the paper of Kobayashi and Maskawa ;
The V_3,3 term have been corrected. In the paper they write a sin(θ3) term in place of a cos(θ3) term.

Thank you ! :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K