Understanding the Unitarity of CKM Matrix and Its Conservation of Probability

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the unitarity of the CKM matrix in the context of weak interactions and its implications for probability conservation. Participants explore the relationship between quark decays, the structure of the CKM matrix, and comparisons to the MNS matrix in the leptonic sector, questioning the conditions under which these matrices are considered unitary.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the CKM matrix is unitary due to the conservation of probability, specifically noting that an up quark decays into three types of down quarks.
  • Others express confusion about the purpose of the initial post, questioning the clarity of the argument presented.
  • A participant introduces the MNS matrix as a lepton analogue to the CKM matrix, raising questions about its unitarity and its relation to probabilities.
  • One participant states that both the CKM and MNS matrices are unitary by construction, suggesting that any non-unitarity in measurements could indicate new physics.
  • Another participant provides a mathematical representation of the CKM matrix and questions the assumptions made regarding its unitarity.
  • There is a discussion about the potential non-unitarity of the MNS matrix and its connection to CP violation, with differing opinions on whether this non-unitarity is a possibility or a certainty under specific conditions.
  • Some participants clarify that the word "if" does not imply eventuality, emphasizing that the unitarity of the MNS matrix is contingent on the existence of three families of neutrinos without new physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the CKM and MNS matrices' unitarity, with some asserting it as a fact while others question the conditions under which this holds true. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the relationship between the MNS matrix's potential non-unitarity and CP violation.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the dependence of the discussion on assumptions about the number of neutrino families and the presence of new physics, which remain unresolved. The mathematical steps and definitions related to the CKM and MNS matrices are also noted as areas of complexity.

plasmon
Messages
36
Reaction score
1
This is a known fact that CKM matrix, a matrix that is used to connect the weak interaction eigenstates to mass eigenstates is unitary. I have studied that this is due to the conservation of probability. i.e. an up type quark will decay into exactly three type of d quarks, nothing more.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say --- it's all correct and true, but why did you decide to post that as a message?
 
I just want to express the fact that an up quark can only decay to three down types of quarks only and thus the unitarity of ckm matrix mathematically.
 
What kind of respons do you want plasmon?
 
Hello, I don't understand the aim of the post too..
but this has raised a question in my mind..
(thanks Plasmon !)

in the leptonic sector, the neutrino also have a CKM-analogue matrix right?
but we don't know yet if it is unitary or not..
if it is just related to probabilites.. where's the problem ?
 
There is a lepton analogue called the MNS matrix, for Maki, Nakagawa and Sakata.

The CKM (and MNS) matrices are unitary by construction. Essentially they are a change in basis - a rotation, if you will - so must be unitary. A separate question is experimental: is the 3x3 matrix that we can measure unitary? If the answer is "no", that's proof for new physics: e.g. a 4th family.

For quarks, the answer is that we cannot tell. Partly this is because the effect of new physics can be made arbitrarily small, but there's a little more to it than that. For example, given only the upper 2x2 CKM matrix, one cannot infer the existence of a 3rd family. Additionally, the numbers don't work out nicely: Vtb is so close to 1 that one needs a measurement of single top production good to better than 0.1% to see the effect of other quarks.
 
Dear All

I guess we can express it as

W-|u>=Vud |d>+Vus |s>+Vub |b>
W-|c>=Vcd |d>+Vcs |s>+Vcb |b>
W-|t>=Vtd |d>+Vts |s>+Vtb |b>

and |d> , |s>, |b> are orthogonal states (not necessary due to GIM mechanism)

<u|W-(adj) W-|u>=1, <c,t|W-(adj) W-|u>=0

=> V as a unitary matrix

Am i right in making above assumptions.
 
Thanks Vanadium for your enriching contribution.
another question, I may be off topic but it's in my mind, so I hope this won't bother you too much :)

Is the eventual non-unitarity of the MNS matrix related to the CP violation ?
 
Atakor said:
Is the eventual non-unitarity of the MNS matrix related to the CP violation ?

There is no "eventual non-unitarity of the MNS matrix". If there are only three families of neutrinos and no new physics, you will get a unitary matrix.
 
  • #10
Vanadium 50,

the eventuality is as you stated it : "If there are only three families of neutrinos and no new physics"

..
 
  • #11
Atakor

The word "if" does not imply an eventuality.
 
  • #12
masudr said:
Atakor

The word "if" does not imply an eventuality.

Really ?

There is no "eventual non-unitarity of the MNS matrix". If there are only three families of neutrinos and no new physics, you will get a unitary matrix.
==
if we say 'there are only 3 families' THEN MNS is unitary,
otherwise (if you don't like the word 'eventuality') MNS doesn't have to be Unitary.

quiet clear for me...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K