What is the origin of the name Tri-Bimaximal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mjsd
  • Start date Start date
mjsd
Homework Helper
Messages
725
Reaction score
3
Why "Tri-Bimaximal"?

\displaymath{U_{PMNS}=\begin{pmatrix}<br /> \sqrt{2/3}&amp; 1/\sqrt{3}&amp; 0\\<br /> -1/\sqrt{6}&amp; 1/\sqrt{3}&amp; 1/\sqrt{2}\\<br /> 1/\sqrt{6}&amp; -1/\sqrt{3}&amp; 1/\sqrt{2}\end{pmatrix}}

This matrix implies \theta_{13}=0, \sin \theta_{12} = 1/\sqrt{3} (ie. not maximal mixing) and \theta_{23}=\pi/4 (ie. maximal mixing)

OK, to my question, WHY do we call this matrix "Tri-Bimaximal"? How does this name come about? Two large mixing angles and the 1/\sqrt{3}?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mjsd said:
\displaymath{U_{PMNS}=\begin{pmatrix}<br /> \sqrt{2/3}&amp; 1/\sqrt{3}&amp; 0\\<br /> -1/\sqrt{6}&amp; 1/\sqrt{3}&amp; 1/\sqrt{2}\\<br /> 1/\sqrt{6}&amp; -1/\sqrt{3}&amp; 1/\sqrt{2}\end{pmatrix}}

This matrix implies \theta_{13}=0, \sin \theta_{12} = 1/\sqrt{3} (ie. not maximal mixing) and \theta_{23}=\pi/4 (ie. maximal mixing)

OK, to my question, WHY do we call this matrix "Tri-Bimaximal"? How does this name come about? Two large mixing angles and the 1/\sqrt{3}?

The "bi-maximal mixing" is from the third column -- that means the third mass eigenstate is a maximal mixing state of muon neutrino and tauon neutrino flavor eigenstates.

Whereas the "tri-maximal mixing" can be seen from the second column -- the second mass eigenstate is a full mixing of all the three flavor eigenstates (each of them occupies 1/3)
 
oh well, physicists have weird names for things...but I knew this one has good meaning (for someone told me before, but I forgot). Thanks.
 
mjsd said:
oh well, physicists have weird names for things...but I knew this one has good meaning (for someone told me before, but I forgot). Thanks.

Someone (CarlB?) had a history about a referee rejecting a paper on grounds of the absurdity of using such name, tribimaximal, in the title or abstract of a paper.
 
arivero said:
Someone (CarlB?) had a history about a referee rejecting a paper on grounds of the absurdity of using such name, tribimaximal, in the title or abstract of a paper.

perhaps those guys (like me before) didn't quite know the meaning of tribimaximal when they are using them (although I am very well aware of all the properties of the mixing matrix, I didn't know tri-bimaximal really means tri-maximal and bi-maximal)? May be there are ppl out there who really hate the term tri-bimaximal.
:smile:
 
Actually, it wasn't a referee rejecting it, just a particle theorist who wouldn't read past the title of the Koide paper that said "tribimaximal".

The sociologists have studied how physicists read physics papers and it turns out that very few papers that are "read" actually are considered at all beyond a very shallow level. The mathematics is usually too difficult to allow people to spend the time to read much.

See the paper Does understanding physical science need deep mathematical knowledge? at this site:
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/schoolsanddivisions/academicschools/socsi/staff/acad/collins/expertise/index.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread 'Why is there such a difference between the total cross-section data? (simulation vs. experiment)'
Well, I'm simulating a neutron-proton scattering phase shift. The equation that I solve numerically is the Phase function method and is $$ \frac{d}{dr}[\delta_{i+1}] = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}\frac{V(r)}{k^2}\sin(kr + \delta_i)$$ ##\delta_i## is the phase shift for triplet and singlet state, ##\mu## is the reduced mass for neutron-proton, ##k=\sqrt{2\mu E_{cm}/\hbar^2}## is the wave number and ##V(r)## is the potential of interaction like Yukawa, Wood-Saxon, Square well potential, etc. I first...
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top