M Theory Lesson 260
This CKM business is getting a bit messy, so let us recall that the Fourier transform of a complex circulant sum takes the form 
Carl Brannen's values for the CKM matrix (perhaps slightly inaccurate) are
.
In particular, , which has norm 1. The point is that, focusing on the real parts, it is better to think of these numbers in the form . No doubt Carl will fix the numerical fit and blog about it shortly. The number 27 (or rather its square, ) is a natural normalisation factor for products of MUB type matrices.
Carl Brannen's values for the CKM matrix (perhaps slightly inaccurate) are.
In particular, , which has norm 1. The point is that, focusing on the real parts, it is better to think of these numbers in the form . No doubt Carl will fix the numerical fit and blog about it shortly. The number 27 (or rather its square, ) is a natural normalisation factor for products of MUB type matrices.
posted by Kea | 9:48 AM
2 Comments:
One of the things I was exploring the other day was what the Koide translation of (I,J,K) and (R,G,B) looked like. It seemed a little interesting but nothing outstanding.
This morning, I realized that when I did the calculations, I used the squares of these values. In doing this, I miss the minus signs in J and B. To get those minus signs (which reminds me of how the neutrino mass formula needs a minus sign for the square root of the lowest mass neutrino), I need to modify my program. Will talk more about this later. Right now things are kind of busy.
The IJK values are:
valence = 0.3217343717
sea = 0.6515997325
delta = 0.459091 degrees
RGB are:
valence = 0.087167109
sea = 0.140933472
delta = -10.45260 degrees
Only interesting thing is that the two angles seem close to 0 and 10 degrees, and differ from these by the same amounts.
In terms of topological phases, of course the angles need to be tripled so they are close to 0 and -30 degrees. On doing this, one finds that the average of the errors from 0 and 30 degrees is about 1.3675 degrees. A numerologically interesting thing I noticed when computing this is that twice this value, i.e. 2.735, is just 10 degrees less than 12.73 degrees, the familiar value for 2/9 radians.
I think that this is a dead end, and will now go look at the stuff you've most recently posted.
Post a Comment
<< Home