Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What is new with Koide sum rules?

  1. Jan 20, 2018 #176
    Some basic remarks on obtaining the Koide relation, and its generalizations, via string theory.

    In the standard model, elementary masses and mixings come from yukawa couplings between two chiral fermions and the Higgs field. This is also the case in string theory realizations of the standard model. A sketch of how it works for intersecting branes may be seen in figure 1 (page 3) here. Each distinct species of elementary particle is found at a specific location in the extra dimensions, at a point where two branes intersect; the particle itself is an open string between the two branes.

    The left-handed fermion is at one location, the right-handed fermion at another location, the Higgs boson is at a third location. The yukawa coupling is a three-way interaction in which e.g. a string jumps from the left-handed site to the right-handed site, by stretching out until it joins with a Higgs string. The probability amplitude for this to happen is dominated by the worldsheet with the minimum surface area, which is the triangle in the picture.

    To a first approximation, the amplitude equals exp(-area). So if you know the mass matrices you want, this is a way to picture the stringy geometry that you need: the Higgs boson will be localized somewhere in the extra dimensions, the elementary chiral fermions will be scattered around it, and the distances and angles must be such that the areas of these triangles are - ln(yukawa).

    But you can't just say that you want the strings to be located at specific points, and then just place them there. Or at least, you can't do that in any stringy model that I ever heard of. In real string theory, you'll have an overall geometry for the extra dimensions, and then the branes will occupy hypersurfaces in that geometry, and all the geometric parameters (the moduli) are dynamical. They will settle into a state of lowest energy, and that will determine the relative locations of everything... Perhaps this could be avoided if the background geometry were hyperbolic and rigid, or if numerous branes form a dense mesh so that there's always an intersection point near where you want your particles to be located. But I am not aware of any brane model where that can be done.

    The masses and mixings present certain patterns or possible patterns, that might guide you in constructing such a brane geometry. But if we take Koide seriously, there's a very special and precise pattern present, specifically in the masses of the charged leptons. In Koide's field-theoretic models, he introduces extra fields, "yukawaons", which enter into the yukawa coupling, in order to produce his relation.

    In terms of string theory, it's possible that the Koide relation, if it can be produced at all, might be due solely to a special symmetry of the compact geometry and the location of branes within it - that might be enough to induce the mass relation. Or, there might be extra string states involved - the worldsheet may trace out an n-gon with n>3. A further interesting possibility is that virtual branes may be involved - branes that wrap some closed hypersurface in the compact geometry, with which the strings interact; a kind of vacuum polarization. It would be interesting indeed if yukawaons were associated with such "Euclidean branes".

    (I will also mention again that a Koide relation among pole masses seems to require still further interactions that produce special cancellations, like the family gauge bosons introduced by Sumino. All the mechanisms mentioned above are also potentially relevant here.)

    How about the generalization of the Koide relation which initiated this thread, the waterfall of quark triplets introduced by @arivero in arXiv:1111.7232? Unlike the original Koide relation, there is still no field-theoretic implementation of the full waterfall, because the triples include quarks with different hypercharges, and that's just more difficult to do. But all my comments still apply, and the paper contains some remarks on the geometry of the mass vectors involved, which, who knows, might be directly relevant to a stringy implementation.

    There's one more notable phenomenon, and that is the appearance of mass scales from QCD - 313 MeV, 939 MeV - in some of these Koide triples, when they are expressed using Carl Brannen's method. 939 MeV is the nucleon mass and it has been obtained from lattice QCD, but I am not aware of any simplified heuristic explanation of where that number comes from, that QCD theorists would agree with. In a few places in this thread, I have posted about papers which do purport to give a field-theoretic derivation of these quantities (Schumacher in #134, Gorsky et al in #136). The holographic QCD of Sakai and Sugimoto also gives a framework (from string theory rather than field theory) in which the nucleon mass can be obtained, once all the parameters of the brane geometry have been specified.

    If the QCD scales do appear in the extended Koide relations for a reason, and not just by chance, I think it has to be because there is some QCD-like theory underlying the standard model. There have been many proposals for what this could be, as has been documented throughout the thread on "the wrong turn of string theory". Presumably one should then look for a stringy implementation of QCD mechanisms like those just described, and then rerun the previous arguments about yukawa couplings on top of that.
  2. Mar 9, 2018 #177


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    An anonymous edition in the wikipedia, deleted because it did not provide sources, points out that Koide equation amounts to say that the square roots [itex]x_n={\sqrt {m_{n}}}[/itex] are the three solutions of a cubic equation
    when [tex]b^{2}=6ac[/tex]

    This idea is along the line of writting Koide formula as [tex] (x_1^2 + x_2^2 + x _3^2) - 4 (x_1 x_2 + x_2 x_3 + x_3 x_1) =0[/tex] A point that Goffinet already exploited to build his quartic equation.

    I was wondering, one can always multiply the cubic by [itex]ax^{3}-bx^{2}+cx-d[/itex], can we? If so, we shoud have also
    [tex]a^2 m^3+(2 a c-b^2) m^2+(c^2-2 b d) m-d^2 = 0[/tex]
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2018
  3. Mar 10, 2018 #178
    Since they are both free particles, the electron's and the muon's masses are both on-shell masses (pole masses): ##m_e(m_e)## and ##m_\mu(m_\mu)##.

    This points to a more serious problem with Koide's mass formula. How well does it hold up at electroweak-unification energy scales or GUT energy scales?
  4. Mar 11, 2018 #179
    That will depend on what happens at intermediate scales. In the past ten years, Koide and his collaborators have considered many variations on the theme that the mass formula is exact at some high scale, and is somewhat preserved at lower scales by a version of Sumino's mechanism, in which the bosons of a gauged flavor symmetry cancel a major electromagnetic contribution to the running. According to this paradigm, even when the Sumino mechanism is included, one has to regard the precision with which the formula works for the pole masses, as partly coincidental.

    To be a little more specific: Sumino said that there would be a unification of electroweak and the flavor symmetry at around 10^3 TeV, and predicted that the next decimal place of the tau lepton pole mass would deviate from the formula. Koide has modified Sumino's theory in ways that imply larger corrections at low scales (and thus the formula's success when applied to the pole masses is more of a coincidence in these theories), but has retained the idea that the new gauge bosons have masses of around 10^3 TeV.

    Meanwhile, one could guess that the pole masses are the important quantities after all, but then some wholly new perspective or mechanism is needed. We do have the concept of an infrared fixed point; maybe there's some nonperturbative perspective that mixes UV and IR in which it makes sense; but right now these models by Koide and friends are the only ones that address this problem.
  5. Mar 11, 2018 #180


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    How compatible could it be a composite Higgs with GUT? One could explain Koide coincidente, the other could explein coupling coincidence.
  6. Mar 13, 2018 #181


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hmm, I should avoid to type from the phone. Well, anyway, the point was that perhaps GUT scale is not relevant for Koide. It is amusing that the main argument that we have (had?) for GUT is another numerical coincidence, the one of the coupling constants, but there was nothing about coincidence of yukawas... at most, variations on the theme of Jarslkog and Georgi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi–Jarlskog_mass_relation.

    Another problem for quarks is that the pole mass is not directly measurable. Worse, Koide formula seems to work better with MSbar masses. Taking as input 4.18 and 1.28 GeV, Koide formula predicts 168.9 GeV for the top quark, while taking the pole masses 4.78 and 1.67 the prediction goes off to 203.2 GeV. (we nail it with intermediate mixes, eg input 4.18 and 1.37 predicts 173.3). Note that we now suspect that the MSbar mass of the top has a very noticeable EW contribution; Jegerlehner says that it actually counterweights the QCD contribution.
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  7. May 21, 2018 #182


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    A new Koide paper:

  8. May 25, 2018 #183


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Koide considers the possibility that his charged lepton rule could be a function of SUSY physics. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.09533

  9. Jun 29, 2018 #184
    While Strings 2018 convened in Okinawa, Koide gave a talk at Osaka University (PDF) reviewing very succinctly the nature of his relation, the contribution of Sumino, and the very latest theoretical ideas.
  10. Jun 29, 2018 #185


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thanks. The presentation is a riot! Such humor and humility.
  11. Jul 16, 2018 at 11:59 AM #186


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    <Moderator's note: twitter link removed: too much advertising and inappropriate source.>

    A skeptical lot. I don't think they give sufficient credit to the fact that Koide's rule was proposed in 1981 when it was a poor fit to the tau mass which has consistently improved for 37 years of increased precision in measurement (even from 2012 to 2018), or to the fact that the number of significant digits of match is high and consistent to MOE with data when it wasn't built to match existing data.

    But, credit to them for getting to a lot of the key related articles quickly (Descarte's circle and quark mass relations) and hitting on some key points quickly.

    -1 for the guy saying that 0.999999... is not equal to 1.

    Is there merit to the analytic expression they reference? How accurate is it? How old is it?

    Also, the other bit of numerology with the analytical expressions of the lepton masses in terms of the fine structure constant and pi was interesting.
    <Moderator's note: twitter link removed: too much advertising and inappropriate source.>

    PDG for the tau mass is 1776.82 +/ 0.12 MeV

    Koide's prediction for the tau mass is 1776.968921 +/- 0.000158 MeV

    This formula predicts a tau mass of 1776.896635 MeV, which is about 0.07 MeV less than the Koide prediction, although there might be some rounding error issues and I don't have a MOE for the formula number. I used the five significant digit estimate of the tau mass to electron mass ratio in the illustration, so a difference in the sixth significant digit could be simply rounding error.

    What to make of Dirac's 1937 Conjecture?

    Dirac's conjecture on the electron radius v. size of the universe being roughly the same as the fine structure constant v. Newton's constant is also intriguing.
    <Moderator's note: twitter link removed: too much advertising and inappropriate source.>

    Baez notes that even though this coincidence holds at the moment, that we have enough data to know that the magnitude of Newton's constant has not changed that dramatically over the history of the universe.

    Neutrino Mass and Koide?

    By the way - do you have links to any of the Koide-ish neutrino mass papers? The mass measurements are quite a bit more constrained that they were then (with normal hierarchy strongly favored, some sense of the CP violating phase, pretty accurate relative mass differences and a fairly tight sum of three neutrino masses cap) so it would be interesting to compare. Plugging in all of those constraints you get:

    Mv1 0-7.6 meV
    Mv2 8.42-16.1 meV
    Mv3 56.92-66.2 meV

    The CP violating phase seems to be centered around -pi.

    Which is more information than it seems because most of the Mv2 an Mv3 mass ranges are perfectly correlated with the Mv1 mass range.

    One ought to be able to look at the Koide-ish neutrino mass papers (which flip a +/- sign IIRC) and numerically run through the allowed range for Mv1 to see what the best fit is and use that to make a prediction for all three absolute neutrino masses.

    Never mind, found it: http://brannenworks.com/MASSES.pdf It puts a negative sign in front of the square root of Mv1 in the denominator and comes up with:

    m1 = 0.000383462480(38) eV
    m2 = 0.00891348724(79) eV
    m3 = 0.0507118044(45) eV (I think this maybe an error in the original as it doesn't seem to be consistent with the Mv3 squared - Mv2 squared value predicted, I think it should be 0.05962528 . . .).

    m22 − m12 = 7.930321129(141) × 10−5 eV2 ------ PDG Value 7.53±0.18 (a 2.22 sigma difference - i.e. a modest tension)
    m32 − m2 2= 2.49223685(44) × 10−3 eV2 ------ PDG Value 2.51±0.05 (less than 1 sigma different)

    There is no value of Mv1 which can make the Koide formula without a sign flip work. I tried to reproduce his calculation and came up with Mv1 of 0.31 meV using current PDG numbers for the M1-M2 and M2-M3 mass gaps, which isn't far off from Brannen's estimate.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 17, 2018 at 11:08 AM
  12. Jul 17, 2018 at 7:53 AM #187
    I looked closely at Mills and his "hydrino" paper. Mills is a fraudster. I assume a deliberate one. Elaborate one, too - you need to look rather closely to find blatant inconsistencies in his formulas, but when I found a place where he said "this quantity needs to be imaginary, so just insert 'i' multiplier here", it is a dead giveaway. No actual honest scientist would ever do that. If by the logic of your theory something has to be imaginary, it must come out imaginary from the math. Inserting multipliers where you need them is nonsense.

    His mass formulas you link to are probably constructed by trying combinations of fine structure constant, pi, and various powers of them until a "match" is "found". E.g. multiplying by (1-alpha) fudges your result by ~0,9% down. Multiplying by sqrt(1-alpha) fudges your result by ~0,3% down. Divisions fudge it up, etc. This way a "formula" for any value may be constructed.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 17, 2018 at 11:09 AM
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted