This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
There is no "Kobayashi-Maskawa mechanism" page. Should one be added to wikipedia? If not there should be a more concrete definition given here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.38.199 ( talk) 05:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the matrix is not symmetric? -- HappyCamper 02:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
A wikipedia search on 'CKM' doesn't find this page. Is there a way to fix that? -- Josh Thompson 01:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I just have a little quibble with the description of the vector on the left side of equation below as being a vector of strong force eigenstates, since the vector on the right side also is a strong force eigenstate vector. More appropriate would be, it seems, to call it a vector of mass eigenstates.
what's an eigenstate of the strong force? IMHO this is a misconception, and the article should read "mass eigenstate" instead. Please confirm. - Saibod 14:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Why aren't uncertaities quoted in this article? Any particular reason besides "nobody's done it yet"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauto ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Either condition doesn't seem to hold up or something is not explained as well as it should be.
Explicited, for i=u and j=c, this is
Using the CKM values given, this yields
which is evidently not zero. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
That was my intuition too, but I wanted to make sure. Been a while since I've dealt with QM. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
My reasoning is that what we call |1>,|2> and |3> in
are given by expressions of the following form
Since the quantities involved are related to u more than they are to d, it makes sense to call |1> --> |u'> rather than |d'>. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Alright I'll expand my position a bit (I'm not saying that's what should go in the article, just the reasons why I feel this way).
Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Any notation that writes down, strange and bottom quarks effectively out of the picture, and denotes a mixture of clearly down-like quarks (all have the same electric charge, after all!) using the name of up-type quarks only (all with the same different electric charge) is very confusing, to say the least. As for the coupling: There is no rule that like only couples with like in the standard model. Neutrinos couple to heavy leptons, quarks of different color charges couple to each other. That's the way it is, so there's not a particularly good case for changing names to accommodate coupling, especially when doing so obscures important differences.
As for the contrafactual CKM matrix: yes, if the laws and parameters of physics were different, our nomenclature would be very different, too. But in this particular universe, calling the mixed states d', s' and b' is useful. If we ever introduce inter-multiverse wikilinks, I'll be glad to reconsider.
Returning to the more narrow focus of what is appropriate for Wikipedia: All the text-books that I've found which address the issue, and in particular the reference currently quoted in support for this very paragraph, use this particular notation. The actual values of the CKM matrix and the up-type/down-type distinction are a good reason for doing so. I've yet to come across a single article that shares your point of view on this. In view of all this, I think the choice is pretty clear. Markus Poessel ( talk) 09:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone calculated the values of the parameters using the PDG values for the CKM matrix. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Could someone confirm that I've placed the angles at the right place? Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The title of this article and the references to the matrix all use an en-dash between the names Cabibbo, Kobayashi, and Maskawa. An en-dash is not the appropriate punctuation. One could argue that a hyphen should replace the en-dash; but I would suggest simply a space: According to Brian Garner's widely used (and highly respected) usage guide, proper nouns used in a compound adjective should not be hyphenated --- Cabibbo Kobayashi Maskawa matrix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.239 ( talk) 11:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Units are multiplicative, and values with uncertainties should be stated with brackets. Alternatively, both value and uncertainty can be written with the corresponding unit. In this article, only the uncertainties in the mixing angles are stated with units. (I have not learned yet how to use or amend the scripted expressions to state values.) 146.200.139.78 ( talk) 09:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
There is no "Kobayashi-Maskawa mechanism" page. Should one be added to wikipedia? If not there should be a more concrete definition given here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.38.199 ( talk) 05:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the matrix is not symmetric? -- HappyCamper 02:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
A wikipedia search on 'CKM' doesn't find this page. Is there a way to fix that? -- Josh Thompson 01:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I just have a little quibble with the description of the vector on the left side of equation below as being a vector of strong force eigenstates, since the vector on the right side also is a strong force eigenstate vector. More appropriate would be, it seems, to call it a vector of mass eigenstates.
what's an eigenstate of the strong force? IMHO this is a misconception, and the article should read "mass eigenstate" instead. Please confirm. - Saibod 14:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Why aren't uncertaities quoted in this article? Any particular reason besides "nobody's done it yet"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauto ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Either condition doesn't seem to hold up or something is not explained as well as it should be.
Explicited, for i=u and j=c, this is
Using the CKM values given, this yields
which is evidently not zero. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
That was my intuition too, but I wanted to make sure. Been a while since I've dealt with QM. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
My reasoning is that what we call |1>,|2> and |3> in
are given by expressions of the following form
Since the quantities involved are related to u more than they are to d, it makes sense to call |1> --> |u'> rather than |d'>. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Alright I'll expand my position a bit (I'm not saying that's what should go in the article, just the reasons why I feel this way).
Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Any notation that writes down, strange and bottom quarks effectively out of the picture, and denotes a mixture of clearly down-like quarks (all have the same electric charge, after all!) using the name of up-type quarks only (all with the same different electric charge) is very confusing, to say the least. As for the coupling: There is no rule that like only couples with like in the standard model. Neutrinos couple to heavy leptons, quarks of different color charges couple to each other. That's the way it is, so there's not a particularly good case for changing names to accommodate coupling, especially when doing so obscures important differences.
As for the contrafactual CKM matrix: yes, if the laws and parameters of physics were different, our nomenclature would be very different, too. But in this particular universe, calling the mixed states d', s' and b' is useful. If we ever introduce inter-multiverse wikilinks, I'll be glad to reconsider.
Returning to the more narrow focus of what is appropriate for Wikipedia: All the text-books that I've found which address the issue, and in particular the reference currently quoted in support for this very paragraph, use this particular notation. The actual values of the CKM matrix and the up-type/down-type distinction are a good reason for doing so. I've yet to come across a single article that shares your point of view on this. In view of all this, I think the choice is pretty clear. Markus Poessel ( talk) 09:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone calculated the values of the parameters using the PDG values for the CKM matrix. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Could someone confirm that I've placed the angles at the right place? Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The title of this article and the references to the matrix all use an en-dash between the names Cabibbo, Kobayashi, and Maskawa. An en-dash is not the appropriate punctuation. One could argue that a hyphen should replace the en-dash; but I would suggest simply a space: According to Brian Garner's widely used (and highly respected) usage guide, proper nouns used in a compound adjective should not be hyphenated --- Cabibbo Kobayashi Maskawa matrix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.239 ( talk) 11:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Units are multiplicative, and values with uncertainties should be stated with brackets. Alternatively, both value and uncertainty can be written with the corresponding unit. In this article, only the uncertainties in the mixing angles are stated with units. (I have not learned yet how to use or amend the scripted expressions to state values.) 146.200.139.78 ( talk) 09:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)