Talk:Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa matrix

message: 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)
thread_title: Kobayashi-Maskawa mechanism

message: Is there a reason why the matrix is not symmetric? --HappyCamper 02:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason that it should be. The only requirement is that it be unitary. -- Josh Thompson 01:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matrix elements 

message: 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)
replies: text: I made this edit. Will it suffice? --HappyCamper 02:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. Thanks. -- Josh Thompson 22:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't appear in search? 

message: 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. 
::\begin{bmatrix} V_{ud} & V_{us} & V_{ub} \\ V_{cd} & V_{cs} & V_{cb} \\ V_{td} & V_{ts} & V_{tb} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \left| d \right \rangle \\ \left| s \right \rangle \\ \left| b \right \rangle \end{bmatrix} =  \begin{bmatrix} \left| d' \right \rangle \\ \left| s' \right \rangle \\ \left| b' \right \rangle \end{bmatrix} —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dauto (talk • contribs) 19:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A minor issue 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't know what, if anything I can add to this discussion, but here's a go at it. In his The Road to Reality (which is my only source on things in this area), Roger Penrose introduces a few of the concepts dealt with in this article (specifically the Cabibbo angle) through discussion of the K0 meson, which he describes as "an eigenstate of strong interactions" (his italics, not mine). If that applies here or not, I couldn't begin to say. 204.52.215.69 (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  strong force eigenstate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Uncertainties 

message: Either condition \sum_k V_{ij}V^*_{ij}=0 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
V_{ud}V^*_{cd}+V_{us}V^*_{cs}+V_{ub}V^*_{cb}=0.
Using the CKM values given, this yields
0.97419 \times 0.2256 + 0.2257 \times 0.97334 + 0.00359 \times 0.0415= ~0.4396, 
which is evidently not zero.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is that whoever copied the values from the Particle Data Group only copied the absolute values – that is, the numerical values given there are really |V_{ud}|, |V_{cd}| and so on – and didn't bother with the phases. Markus Poessel (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unitary triangles. 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is the proper usage see WP:ENDASH.TR 15:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  En-dashed name 

message: 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)
replies: text: New comments belong to the bottom of the page, where I moved this. The matrix elements are, of course,  unitless pure numbers. The usage is that of the PDG, the professional instrument you might take your gripe too. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Units