Is the Left Angle of the CKM Unitarity Triangle Really Pi Minus Gamma?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the relationship $$V_{us}V^{*}_{ub}+V_{cs}V^{*}_{cb}+V_{ts}V^{*}_{tb}=0$$ within the context of the CKM unitarity triangle, specifically questioning whether the left angle is $$\pi - \gamma$$. The user attempts to derive the angle using the argument properties of CKM matrix elements, ultimately concluding that the left angle equals $$\gamma - \beta_s$$ instead. The discussion highlights the need for clarity in understanding the unitarity triangle and the definitions of angles within it.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of CKM matrix and its unitarity conditions
  • Familiarity with complex numbers and their geometric representation
  • Knowledge of the Wolfenstein parameterization of CKM matrix elements
  • Basic proficiency in quantum mechanics and particle physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the CKM matrix and its implications for particle decay processes
  • Learn about the derivation and significance of the unitarity triangle in the context of the Standard Model
  • Explore the experimental techniques for measuring CKM matrix elements
  • Investigate the relationship between angles in the unitarity triangle and their physical interpretations
USEFUL FOR

Particle physicists, students studying quantum mechanics, and researchers interested in the properties of the CKM matrix and flavor physics.

Valeriia Lukashenko
Messages
6
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



I want to proof for $$V_{us}V^{*}_{ub}+V_{cs}V^{*}_{cb}+V_{ts}V^{*}_{tb}=0$$ unitarity triangle that left angle is $$\pi-\gamma$$ (see below picture from my lecture notes).

b22b2a512910t.jpg

Homework Equations


[/B]
$$\gamma \approx - arg(V_{ub})$$
$$\beta_s \approx arg(V_{ts})+\pi$$
$$arg(V_{us}V_{ub}^{*})=arg(V_{ub}^{*})$$
since only Vub*has an imaginry part on this order of Wolfstein parametrization.
$$arg(V_{ts}V_{tb}^{*})=arg(V_{ts})$$
same reason

Vcs and Vcb* are real.

The Attempt at a Solution


Let's call the angle we want to know δ.

$$\delta=\pi+arg(V_{us}V_{ub}^{*})-arg(V_{ts}V_{tb}^{*})=\pi+arg(V_{ub}^{*})-arg(V_{ts})=\pi - arg(V_{ub})+\pi - \beta_s =2\pi -(\beta_s+arg(V_{ub}))=-(\beta_s-\gamma)=\gamma-\beta_s$$

and it is not equal to π-γ.
Could anyone, please, check my solution, because I don't get where my mistake is.
 

Attachments

  • b22b2a512910t.jpg
    b22b2a512910t.jpg
    6.2 KB · Views: 751
Physics news on Phys.org
Valeriia Lukashenko said:

Homework Statement



I want to proof for $$V_{us}V^{*}_{ub}+V_{cs}V^{*}_{cb}+V_{ts}V^{*}_{tb}=0$$ unitarity triangle that left angle is $$\pi-\gamma$$ (see below picture from my lecture notes).

What do you mean by "proof for"? If you assume unitarity of the CKM matrix, it follows directly from one of the elements of the unitarity condition ##V^\dagger V = 1##. If you want to have an experimental confirmation of this you need to measure each of the elements. If you want to know why those numbers form a triangle in the complex plane, it is a simple matter of addition of complex numbers.
 
Orodruin said:
What do you mean by "proof for"? If you assume unitarity of the CKM matrix, it follows directly from one of the elements of the unitarity condition ##V^\dagger V = 1##. If you want to have an experimental confirmation of this you need to measure each of the elements. If you want to know why those numbers form a triangle in the complex plane, it is a simple matter of addition of complex numbers.

Yeah, I guess I was not clear in my question. So, ##\gamma## is defined using "The" unitarity triangle (##V_{ud}V_{ub}^{*}+V_{cd}V_{cb}^{*}+V_{td}V_{tb}^{*}=0##). In the triangle above ##\gamma## appears again. In the picture, it appears in left angle ##\pi - \gamma##. I tried to check if this is correct and it didn't work. The result that I get is ##\gamma-\beta_s## for the same angle. I couldn't find any references to cross-check the above triangle (usually one draws "The" unitarity triangle and very schematically other without indicating angles). And I am trying to get is it my lack of understanding of how to properly build/work with unitarity triangle, so I don't get the right answer or my answer is correct and there is a mistake in lecture notes.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K