Banner
    J.Markovitch: Mixing Angles Numerology
    By Tommaso Dorigo | December 12th 2011 02:26 AM | 17 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Tommaso

    I am an experimental particle physicist working with the CMS experiment at CERN and the CDF experiment at Fermilab. In my spare time I play chess...

    View Tommaso's Profile
    I received the text  below from Jim Markovitch, and decided it was fun enough to make a guest post entry with it. Markovitch worked for the world's largest supplier of corporate credit information, where he designed and implemented algorithms to estimate the probability of the equivalence, for credit purposes, of two name/address records. More recently he has adapted these algorithms to help identify unusually efficient approximations of fundamental constants. Let us see what this is about - TD

    ---

    Quantum Diaries Survivor readers who happen to play chess will be familiar with the concept of the overworked defender: a piece is "overworked" if it performs multiple defensive functions. Chess players help themselves understand their opponent's position by identifying just such weaknesses.

    There is an equivalent concept in physics which I will call the overworked constant: it is a constant introduced to help fit one set of data, which somehow also manages to fit other, seemingly unrelated, data. In this sense Planck's constant h is a classic overworked constant. Presumably, the more overworked a constant is, the more likely it is to be fundamental. Physicists help themselves understand physics with the aid of just such constants.

    Now consider that if

     x = 10 − 1/30000
    then
     x2 + (x/3)3 = 137.036 000 0023... 
    which fits the 2010 CODATA fine structure constant inverse of 137.035 999 074 to within 6.8 parts per billion (ppb). If x also manages to fit other, seemingly unrelated, data, then x too is, in my parlance, overworked and may for that reason be fundamental.

    As it turns out, substituting for x above gives

     ( 10  1/30000 )2 + ( 10/3  1/30000×3 )3 = 137.036 000 0023...
    whose four constants are "overworked" in that they also closely reproduce the sines squared of the experimental quark and lepton mixing angles (viz., L12, L13, L23, Q12, Q13, and Q23).

    [I -TD- am compelled to add here, to allow uninformed readers to understand what is being discussed, that the "mixing angles" that Jim talks about here are the elements of two matrices which relate the mass and flavour eigenstates of quarks and leptons, respectively. The quark mixing matrix is called "Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix" from the name of the theorists who conceived it (Cabibbo had the original thought of mixing d and s quarks through an angle to explain the phenomenology of weak interactions; Kobayashi and Maskawa extended the formalism to three generations of quarks to include complex phases in the parametrization, thereby allowing CP violation in weak interaction processes). The lepton matrix is much less well known, and its elements still quite uncertain.]

    Specifically,

     10   = 1/(sin2 Q12 / sin2 L23) 
    1/30000
    = sin2 L13 / sin2 Q23
    10/3
    = 1/ sin2 L12
    1/30000×3
    = sin2 Q13 .

    It follows that

     sin2 L12 = 3/10 sin2 Q13 = 1/30000×3 .
    And if we assume that
     sin2 L23 = 0.5
    then
     sin2 Q12 = 0.05 .

    Moreover, because above

     1/30000 = sin2 L13 / sin2 Q23
    it follows that
     sin2 L13 = 1/30000 × sin2 Q23 ,
    which, given that Q23 measures roughly 2.4 degrees, produces an L13 of roughly 1/70th of a degree, and a sin2 L13 of ∼10 −7.

        Sine Squared         Predicted Value    
           sin2 L12       0.3
           sin2 L13    ∼10 −7
           sin2 L23       0.5
           sin2 Q12       0.05
           sin2 Q13       0.000011111...  
           sin2 Q23                -  

    This value for L13 differs from experiment by 2.7 standard deviations, the largest error produced above for L12, L13, Q12, and Q13. (See Ceccucci, Ligeti, and Sakai, Feb. 2010 and Schwetz, Tortola, and Valle, Aug. 2011 for recent quark and lepton mixing data.)

    It is logical to wonder whether all of the above are accidental. The fit achieved for L12? L13? Q12? and Q13? The precise fit of the FSC inverse?

    • With respect to the quark and lepton mixing angles, one can estimate the probability that four randomly-generated angles in the interval [0°, 90°] will fit within 2.7 standard deviations the experimental quark and lepton mixing angles L12, Q13, Q12, and L13. Naturally, all 4×3×2=24 ways that four such generated angles can be paired with the four experimental angles must be taken into account. Monte Carlo methods reveal that four randomly-generated angles in the interval [0°, 90°] can be expected to fit experimental L12, Q13, Q12, and L13 within 2.7 standard deviations once in about every 5,000,000 trials.

    • With respect to the FSC inverse, its earlier fit to 6.8 ppb represents about eight decimal digits worth of information.

    That the simple regular round numbers 10 and 1/30000 reproduce eight digits worth of empirical data is, in itself, excellent evidence of a non-accidental relationship. Why should such simplification be possible? That 10 and 1/30000 independently reproduce the experimental values for L12, Q13, Q12, and L13, despite odds of roughly 5,000,000 to 1 against, represents a separate form of simplification, and confirms that they are overworked to a high degree. This is arresting evidence that 10 and 1/30000 relate non-accidentally to the FSC inverse and the quark and lepton mixing angles.

    Moreover, additional evidence is readily provided by an alternative to the above method, which produces the above values plus experimental Q23 (the only mixing angle whose sine squared is not calculated above); see A Mathematical Model of the Quark and Lepton Mixing Angles (2011 Update) for details. Tables I and II on pages 10 and 11 from this source summarize all eight predictions made by this more robust method and how they have fared since 2007, where these eight predictions are comprised not merely of the mixing matrices' six angles, but also their two phases.

    Comments

    I am afraid Mr Markovitch is a bit overworked.

    The problem of the equivalence of records seems to be also a golden fleece quest, of e-commerce.

    Ideally when matching an incoming record against a database one wants a scoring method that is unaffected by the size of the database. Otherwise the "look elsewhere effect", which grows with the size of the database, will prevent accurate matching. A simple way to achieve such a "self-balancing score" is to add the score of the top scoring record to that of the third best scorer, and subtract twice the score of the second-best record. With such a self-balancing score one can grow the database 1000-fold without increasing mismatches. It also automatically compensates for chance similarities caused by clustering (e.g., there are many companies whose names and addresses are similar in New York's Diamond District)

    I've not seen physicists use this technique to tame the look elsewhere effect in physics, but in physics the situation is not as simple as it is when matching against a database of company names/addresses. The reason is that company names are required by law to be somewhat dissimilar, and so a properly de-duplicated database resembles something like a Hamming Table with its guaranteed Hamming Distance --- all records are clearly distinct. With the data produced by physics no such Hamming Distance exists, and so the method cannot be applied directly. But this does not mean it could not be used at all; it may be possible to devise a work-around.

    In any case, what happens here is that the textures of the CKM matrix have always allowed for very simple parametrizations, so once one fits two or three quantities, and allows for some arbitrary powers, the trick is done. This industry was very developed by Harald Fritzsch (also Froggatt, Nielsen and a lot others) and got a revival after the discovery of neutrino mixing.

    For generic collections of constant fittings, I invite readers to the thread http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=46055

    "That the simple regular round numbers 10 and 1/30000 reproduce eight digits worth of empirical data is, in itself, excellent evidence of a non-accidental relationship."

    How many bits are there in eight digits? About 26. How many bits does it take to specify these two numbers and their modes of combination...?

    If M = N^3/3 + 1

    then N = 3 gives M = 10 so that

    (M-1/(3 M^4))^2 + (M-1/(3 M^4))^3/N^3 = 137.036 000 0023...

    (as in my post), whereas

    M^2-1/M^3 + (M^3-1/M^3)/N^3 = 99.999 + 999.999/3^3 = 137.036 .

    It is not a coincidence that these two values are nearly equal.

    For example, N = 6 gives M = 73 so that

    (M-1/(3 M^4))^3/N^3 + (M-1/(3 M^4))^2 =7130.004 627 047 147 040...

    whereas

    (M^3-1/M^3)/N^3 + M^2-1/M^3 = 7130.004 627 047 147 039....

    The numbers generated in this way are nearly equal because M = N^3/3 + 1 assures that for N >= 3 all but the smallest cross-terms cancel in the above two expressions.

    Because the smallest positive integer solution to M = N^3/3 + 1 gives N=3 and M=10, indirectly producing 10 and 1/30000 as well as 137.036 000 0023... and 137.036, one need not assess the number of bits needed to reproduce 10 and 1/30000, though your suggestion is a good one.

    The constants 10 and 1/30000 occur en passant, as do the two close FSC inverse approximations, and some of the quark and lepton mixing angles.

    The "fine-structure constant", as well as other SM parameters, are not constant but running with the Renormalization Group scale.

    I fail to see how your number manipulation accounts for this basic fact.

    The fine structure constant can run, but it cannot hide its asymptotic value. If that precisely-known asymptotic value links in the above way to the less well-known quark and lepton mixing angles, then experimental results can be correctly anticipated where these mixing angles are concerned. Granted, the above method has does not "explain", but even that limitation by recede over time.

    There is no "asymptotic" or "preferred" value for the fine-structure constant. It just so happens that 1/137.036 corresponds to our observation scale. Unless I'm missing something. your connection of the fine-structure constant to mixing angles is a numerical manipulation that lacks physical content.

    What we should really consider is the "algorithmic complexity" of the whole calculational procedure which produces as its output the low-energy value of alpha and the various mixing angles. As inputs we have the relation between M and N, the stipulation to search for the smallest positive integer solution, further combinations of these values to produce your two important numbers 10 and 1/30000, and then all the polynomial and trigonometric formulae which finally give rise to the desired outputs. Many "bits" are required to fully specify this procedure, and of course the skeptical argument is that there are, let's say, quintillions of comparably complex algorithms, so it's not amazing that one of them manages to produce this set of numbers.

    I do suspect that some parts of your formula are non-accidental, in that they reflect relations which have a cause. This especially might be the case for order-of-magnitude relations among the mixing angles. The close proximity of alpha to the rational number 137.036 is also interesting. I would "explain" your formulae as a result of searching for an algorithm which fits these facts - you found the two polynomials, one of which exactly gives 137.036, the other of which gives a value very close to the real alpha. The question is whether your formulae are of interest only as a pointer towards what needs to be explained, or whether some part of them does reflect the true explanation. Even just 1 bit of extra insight would be very significant!

    If the above of equations are genuinely non-accidental, one would expect that they could be further simplified (i.e., their algorithmic complexity further reduced). Moreover, such simplification should produce additional predictions that match experiment (such as the value for Q23, absent from the above table). And, finally, one would expect to gain from this simplification and generalization something of a physical understanding of the equations (e.g., that N=3 reflects the number of quark colors). These three goals can be achieved simultaneously by exploiting an interesting property of rotation matrices, as explained in the paper cited at the close of the post. 

    If a 3 x 3 rotation matrix whose elements are squared is subtracted from its transpose, a matrix is produced whose non-diagonal elements have a common absolute value, where this value is an intrinsic property of the rotation matrix (the paper explains how the complicating matter of phase is handled). For the CKM matrix with its second and third rows interchanged (i.e., c - t interchange) this value equals one-third the corresponding value for the leptonic matrix (roughly, 0.05 versus 0.15). By imposing this additional constraint on mixing one can calculate Q23, where the value calculated matches experiment. By imposing two additional such constraints one can recover the four "sine squared" equations cited in the post, for a significant reduction in algorithmic complexity. And, finally, for these three constraints N=3 acquires physical meaning in that the above property is possessed equally by the quark and lepton sectors, but because in the quark sector it is distributed among its three colors it therefore measures one third the value it measures in the lepton sector.

    Hmm, while we are on it, and given the expected range of the Higgs particle search, let me note another funny "overwork", in this case of Hans de Vries's semi-classical model for composite W and Z:
    s=1;c=s*(s+1);75.36*sqrt(-c+sqrt(c^2+4*c))
    91.18560
    s=1/2;c=s*(s+1);75.36*sqrt(-c+sqrt(c^2+4*c))
    80.37219
    s=1;c=s*(s+1);75.36*sqrt(c+sqrt(c^2+4*c))
    176.15701
    s=1/2;c=s*(s+1);75.36*sqrt(c+sqrt(c^2+4*c))
    122.38614

    As you can see, it fails with a bit of excess the vacuum energy of the Higgs field (174.1 GeV) and with a bit of defect the rumored search area for the Higgs boson.

    With all due respect, regardless of how close the "fitting through numerology" is, something fundamental is missing from the picture. It may be fun to play with empirical formulas, but these fail to explain what the underlying mechanism of fermion mixing is. The dynamical source behind CKM and PMNS matrices is still unknown and all these efforts do not seem to guide us in the right direction.

    It never hurts to find phenomenological relationships between key numbers in physics. After all, any correct reason for the parameters to have the values that they do must approximate all such relationship. And, usually, they are suggestive of a deeper undiscovered structure in bare numbers, even if the exact relationship can't be teased out with certainty.

    Naiively, it could take up to eight parameters to describe the CKM/PMNS matrixes (since they are unitary), and this approach uses four (two in the formula and two assumed a priori as axioms).

    It takes just four parameters if one makes an assumption of quark-lepton complementarity, which is so far valid as a phenomenological rule, although I think that by assuming that the three non-CP violating mixing angles are real and form a unitary triangle it might be possible to pare the number of parameters to three without working too hard. The suggestion that the electromagnetic coupling constant might have a connection to the ratios of the CKM matrix has also been observed in the literature, although no with anyone really coming up with a solid reason why that should be the case.

    The result is suggestive of some deep relationship between the CKM and PMNS matrix that is somehow intertwined with the electromagnetic coupling, although a different one than the Q-L complementarity principle, which isn't all that far afield, although it is certainly not itself a satisfying answer to why these relationships might be present.

    Fear of "numerology" has probably done physics more harm than good.

    "Fear of "numerology" has probably done physics more harm than good."

    Can you back up your point with examples?

    Stop the presses! Fine Structure Constant Predicts Number of Fingers, Toes. Babylonian Physicists Disagree!

    Ervin, what's being mixed are quantum states, defined by quantum numbers. NumeroIN, numeroOUT, as one may say of computing. There are some 'underlying' polynomials defining the energies, but that business was actually started by another banker, one Olinde Rodrigues, who came from nowhere to set us on the trail of Hermite's set. Before that, Bernoulli introduced eigenunctions, and opened up statistics for insurance.

    The really odd part is that Bode's Law in astronomy is algebraically similar, predicted the asteroid Ceres, and is still in the game (just).

    Add a comment

    The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
    • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite><TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe><u><font>
    • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
    CAPTCHA
    If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.