text:
# Non-analytic dependence of the transition temperature of the homogeneous dilute Bose gas on scattering length

## Abstract

We show that the shift in the transition temperature of the dilute homogeneous Bose gas is non-analytic in the scattering amplitude, $`a`$. The first correction beyond the positive linear shift in $`a`$ is negative and of order $`a^2\mathrm{ln}a`$. This non-universal non-analytic structure indicates how the discrepancies between numerical calculations at finite $`a`$ can be reconciled with calculations of the limit $`a0`$, since the linearity is apparent only for anomalously small $`a`$.

The shift of the critical temperature of the dilute homogeneous Bose gas, $`T_c`$, with interactions has had a long and controversial history  (and further references therein). The correction to the ideal gas critical temperature, $`T_c^0`$, is now established theoretically  (see also ) to be linear in the scattering length $`a`$ in leading order

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c}{T_c^0}=\frac{T_cT_c^0}{T_c^0}=can^{1/3},an^{1/3}0,$$
(1)
where $`n`$ is the particle density. The variation of $`T_c`$ is determined primary by large distance, or small momenta, contributions. Due to infrared divergencies around the transition point, pertubation theory is not applicable, and the coefficent $`c`$ cannot be obtained by simple perturbative techniques. Except in special cases, e.g., a large number of internal degrees of freedom, the constant $`c`$ must be evaluated numerically.

However, even numerical calculations have not settled this issue. Whereas Ref.  provides $`c=2.33\pm 0.25`$ from a direct calculation of the coefficient first taking the limit $`an^{1/3}0`$, Ref.  predicts $`c=0.34\pm 0.06`$ after numerical extrapolation of the calculation to the limit $`a0`$. In this paper we show that the difference in these two results is attributable to a non-analytic structure, $`a^2\mathrm{ln}a`$, of the transition temperature in $`a`$. This correction, which is negative, does not introduce a new length scale beyond $`n^{1/3}`$, but because of its logarithmic character it gives rise to a strong dependence on $`a`$ even in the very dilute limit, $`an^{1/3}0`$. Very recently, Refs.  obtain $`c1.3`$ from a classical $`\varphi ^4`$ model on a lattice extrapolated to the continuum, a result qualitatively consistent with the larger value found in Ref. . In these calculations the logarithmic terms enter as corrections to the continuum limit.

Equation (1) is only the beginning of an asymptotic expansion, as one might suspect, since for $`a<0`$ the system is unstable. Inclusion of the $`a^2\mathrm{ln}a`$ term, when one extrapolates numerical data from finite $`a`$ values to the limit $`a0`$, provides a first resolution of the apparent discrepancies between numerical calculations done at finite $`a`$  and those valid for $`a0`$ . To obtain a quantitative estimate, we explicitly calculate the logarithmic correction in a model with $`N`$ internal degrees of freedom, to leading order in $`1/N`$. The result suggests that the linear increase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c`$ at small but finite $`a`$ is noticeably suppressed for the physical case of $`N=2`$.

We consider a uniform system of bosons of mass $`m`$ at temperature $`T`$, and assume that the two-body interaction can be described by the $`s`$-wave scattering length $`a`$. Above the critical temperature, the density $`n`$ is given in terms of a sum over Mastubara frequencies, $`z_\nu =2\pi i\nu T`$ ($`\nu =\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$), of the single particle Green’s function $`G(k,z)`$:

$$n=T\underset{\nu }{}\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}G(k,z_\nu ),$$
(2)
where ($`\mathrm{}=k_B=1`$)

$$G^1(k,z)=z+\mu \frac{k^2}{2m}\mathrm{\Sigma }(k,z),$$
(3)
and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential; the condition $`\mu =\mathrm{\Sigma }(0,0)`$ determines the Bose-Einstein condensation point.

The shift of the critical temperature at fixed density is more conveniently calculated in terms of the shift, $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_c=n_c(a,T_c)n_c(0,T_c)`$, in the critical density at fixed $`T`$; the two shifts are related, to the orders of interest (less than $`a^2`$), by $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c/T_c=(2/3)\mathrm{\Delta }n_c/n_c`$. As shown in , the leading linear shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c^{(1)}`$ is given solely by the zero Matsubara frequency term:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c^{(1)}}{T_c^0}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2T_c^0}{3n}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\left[G(k,0)G_0(k,0)\right]}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\lambda }{3\pi \zeta (3/2)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{U(k)}{k^2+U(k)}},`$ (5)
where $`\lambda =(2\pi /mT)^{1/2}`$ is the thermal wavelength, $`\zeta (3/2)=2.612\mathrm{}`$, $`G_0`$ is the Green’s function of the ideal Bose gas at $`T_c^0`$, and

$$U(k)=2m(\mathrm{\Sigma }(k,0)\mathrm{\Sigma }(0,0)).$$
(6)
At the critical temperature, $`U(k)`$ can be calculated to order $`a^2/\lambda ^4`$ by considering only the $`\nu =0`$ sector, which corresponds to a classical field theory. At the transition, $`U(k)`$ has the scaling structure,

$$U(k)=\frac{a^2}{\lambda ^4}\sigma (k\lambda ^2/a),$$
(7)
from which the linearity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c^{(1)}`$ in $`a`$ follows . If $`U(k)`$ is calculated by classical field theory, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c^{(1)}`$ is strictly linear in $`a`$.

The next-to-leading order corrections, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c^{(2)}`$, arise in terms with non-zero Matsubara frequencies, both explicitly \[Eq. (2)\] and in internal loops, in the calculation of $`U(k)`$. As we show below, the internal loop corrections begin at order $`a^2`$ and $`a^3\mathrm{ln}a`$; the $`a^2\mathrm{ln}a`$ terms may be extracted from

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c^{(2)}}{T_c}=\frac{2T_c^0}{3n}\underset{\nu 0}{}\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\left[G(k,z_\nu )G_0(k,z_\nu )\right].$$
(8)
Since the infrared behavior is regular for $`\nu 0`$, we expand the denominator of $`G`$ to first order in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(k,z_\nu )\mu `$, and write

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c^{(2)}}{T_c}}`$ (9)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2T_c^0}{3n}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu 0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(k,z_\nu )\mathrm{\Sigma }(k,0)+U(k)/2m}{(z_\nu k^2/2m)^2}}.`$ (10)
From pertubation theory we know the functional form of $`U(k)`$ outside the critical region in $`k`$,

$$U(k)\frac{a^2}{\lambda ^4}\mathrm{ln}\frac{k\lambda ^2}{a},k\frac{a}{\lambda ^2};$$
(12)
this logarithmic behavior is valid to all orders of pertubation theory, as one can verify by power counting. Since the dominant contribution to the integral in Eq. (LABEL:nonzero) comes from momenta $`k\lambda ^1`$, the ultraviolet behavior of $`U(k)`$ generates a logarithmic shift in the critical temperature:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c^{(2)}}{T_c}\frac{a^2}{\lambda ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{a}{\lambda }.$$
(13)
Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(k,z_\nu )\mathrm{\Sigma }(k,0)`$ tends to zero for large momenta $`k`$, the contribution of this term in Eq. (LABEL:nonzero) remains of order $`a^2/\lambda ^2`$. Thus the next-to-leading order to the critical temperature shift is proportional to $`a^2\mathrm{ln}a`$ and is always negative for small $`a`$.

In order to estimate the shift quantitatively, we calculate it in the large $`N`$ model. The $`\nu =0`$ sector, equivalent to a classical $`\varphi ^4`$ field theory in three spatial dimensions, is described by the action ,

$`S\{\varphi (r)\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3r\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\varphi _i(r)]^2`$ (15)
$`m\mu T{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\varphi _i^2(r)+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{4!}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\varphi _i^2(r)\right]^2\},`$
with $`u=96\pi ^2a/\lambda ^2`$. The classical field theory suffers from ultraviolet divergencies, which can be regularized by introducing a large momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. As shown in Refs. , the leading order corrections to the critical density are dominated by long distance properties and $`U(k)`$ is independent of the cutoff. Therefore one can derive $`U(k)`$ with a fixed cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the action, take the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, and determine the corrections to the critical density from Eqs. (5) and (LABEL:nonzero).

Instead of this procedure we will obtain the next-to-leading order corrections in an independent way, which has the advantage of making contact with the numerical $`\varphi ^4`$ lattice calculations. Starting from the finite temperature quantum field action, one can derive the effective action of the classical field theory by integrating pertubatively over the non-zero frequency quantum modes, $`\nu 0`$, which provides a large momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{mT}1/\lambda `$ and renormalized effective coefficients of the Euclidean action . Following , the corrections to the transition temperature are given in this effective field theory by

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c}{T_c}=\frac{4\lambda }{3\pi \zeta (3/2)}_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑k\frac{U_\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)}{k^2+U_\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)},$$
(16)
where the subscript $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ indicates the explicit dependence on the ultraviolet cutoff which incorporates the leading effects of non-zero Matsubara frequencies.

In the large $`N`$ limit $`U_\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)`$ is given in terms of the particle-hole bubble, $`B(q)`$, by

$`U_\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)={\displaystyle \frac{Nu^2}{18}}{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{B(q)}{1+NuB(q)/6}}`$ (18)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(kq)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}\right];`$
to leading order in $`1/N`$ in three dimensions ,

$$B(q)=\frac{1}{8q}\frac{6}{Ng^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }}+𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)$$
(19)
where $`g^{}=48\pi ^2/N`$. Following Ref. , we obtain the critical temperature shift

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c}{T_c}=\frac{4\lambda }{3\pi \zeta (3/2)}_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑k\frac{U_\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)}{k^2}.$$
(20)
As we see from the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dependence of the bubble, Eq. (19), the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dependence of $`U_\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)`$ gives rise to higher order corrections in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$. These terms arise effectively from the internal non-zero Matsubara frequencies, and lead to corrections $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c/T_c`$, which we can neglect. Thus

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c}{T_c}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{64\lambda }{3\pi \zeta (3/2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\tau }}𝑑k{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{\Lambda }\tau /k}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k(xk+1)}}`$ (22)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{|1+x|}{|1x|}}1\right],`$
where $`\tau =(Nu/48)^1`$. To obtain the leading order corrections we differentiate with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\tau `$, which allows us to isolate the contributions around $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\tau \mathrm{}`$. Integrating back we find

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_c}{T_c}=\frac{8\pi }{3\zeta (3/2)}\frac{a}{\lambda }\left\{1+16N\frac{a}{\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{ln}\frac{Na}{\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}+𝒪\left(\frac{Na}{\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)\right\}.$$
(23)
The integration constant is given by the large $`N`$ result for the linear shift, Ref. . In contrast to the linear corrections in $`a`$, the next-order terms depend on the short length scale properties of the system, modelled by the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and therefore are not universal.

To estimate the influence of the logarithmic terms we take $`N=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda =(2\pi )^{1/2}`$ in Eq. (23). The corrections to the linear behavior of $`T_c`$ found in this way are precisely those one finds for $`N=2`$ by including the particle-hole bubble sum in $`U(k)`$ . The resulting dependence of the transition temperature on $`a`$ is shown in Fig. 1. For a gas parameter $`na^310^6`$, corresponding to the experimental region of Bose-Einstein condensation in atomic gases  and liquid 4He in Vycor , and to the lowest density Monte Carlo data of Ref. , the nonlinear corrections depress the linear shift by $`50\%`$; instead of the $`a0`$ result $`c2.33`$ in Eq. (1), one obtains a coefficient $`c1.2`$ for $`an^{1/3}10^2`$. Even if the extrapolation from the large $`N`$ expansion to $`N=2`$ is unjustified, this calculation suggests that the logarithmic terms play an important role for present numerical and experimental parameters. The noticeable depression of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c`$ in this parameter regime is also confirmed by self-consistent numerical model calculations .

A qualitatively similar strong dependence on $`a`$ is found in the renormalization group calculations of Ref. , which derives an $`a\mathrm{ln}a`$ correction . Such a result would follow from Eq. (5) were $`U(k)`$ to be linear in $`k`$ up to an ultraviolet cutoff. However, in the regime $`a/\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, corresponding to the dilute limit, $`a/\lambda 1`$, $`U(k)`$ is given by the perturbative result (12) for momenta in the region $`a/\lambda ^2k\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ rather than being linear in $`k`$.

The next-to-leading order corrections are important for classical $`\varphi ^4`$ calculations as well ; in the universal region where the influence of the ultraviolet cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is unimportant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$), classical field theory provides perfect scaling, implying a linear shift of $`T_c`$ for all $`a`$. Variations in $`a`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c`$ in  are due to non-universal corrections and are sensitive to the details of the scheme used to regularize the classical $`\varphi ^4`$ theory . Extrapolation to the universal small coupling region, $`a/\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, together with finite size scaling to the thermodynamic limit allows one not only to extract the coefficient $`c`$ of the linear shift in $`T_c`$, but should also provide the magnitude of the non-universal $`a^2\mathrm{ln}a`$ corrections for the physical case $`N=2`$.

We dedicate this article to our recently deceased friend, Dominique Vautherin, with whom we had many stimulating discussions on this subject. We are grateful to Henk Stoof for stimulating discussions both during his Workshop on Bose-Einstein condensation at the Lorentz Center in Leiden, and at the Ecole Normale Supérieure. We also thank Peter Arnold, Nikolay Prokof’ev, and Boris Svistunov for helpful comments on their lattice calculations. Author GB would like to thank the ENS for its hospitality in the course of this work. This research was facilitated by the Cooperative Agreement between the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, and supported in part by the NASA Microgravity Research Division, Fundamental Physics Program and by National Science Foundation Grant PHY98-00978. Laboratoire Kastler Brossel de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure is UMR 8552 du CNRS and associé à l’Université Pierre et Marie Curie.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The fermionic mass spectrum and the mixing angles are intimately connected in the Standard Model . However, the number of independent (Yukawa) couplings being larger than the total number of masses and mixing angles, one cannot deduce, without additional assumptions concerning flavour physics beyond the Standard Model, one-to-one relationships between mixing angles and (ratios of) fermion masses. In general, any relation between them involves arbitrary entries of the Yukawa matrices; renormalization group arguments  add to this indetermination by showing that the latter can undergo large variations when the largest mass scale runs from the electroweak scale to the unification scale. The presence of a number of zeroes in the Yukawa matrices at the unification scale can eventually reduce the number of independent variables to the one of measurable quantities, and this possibility was extensively studied    . The missing information could also be supplied by introducing additional flavour symmetries into the Standard Model or its extensions (see for example  and references therein).

In the present article, we derive general “asymptotic” relations between mixing angles and quark masses, valid, strictly speaking, when the two heaviest quarks of the $`u`$\- and $`d`$\- type have masses much larger than the others. These relations are obtained from the following requirements, the first being dictated by experiment:
\- there exist hierarchies between the quark masses inside each family;
\- one must be able to describe correctly, i.e. accurately and coherently, physics with a given number of observed families, even if there exist additional families.

In the case of two generations, taking into account the existence of separate hierarchies between the masses of the two charge $`2/3`$ quarks and the masses of the two charge $`1/3`$ quarks, and the fact that the Cabibbo angle is small, we show that the latter behaves like $`\theta _c\mu _1/m_s\pm \mu _2/m_c`$ when $`m_sm_d`$ and $`m_cm_u`$, where $`m_s,m_d`$, $`m_c`$, $`m_u`$ are respectively the masses of the $`s`$, $`d`$, $`c`$ and $`u`$ quarks, $`\mu _{1,2}`$ are real independent mass scales and $`|\mu _1|m_s,|\mu _2|m_c`$.

As the method used for $`n=2`$ generations cannot be straightforwardly extended to a larger number of families, for $`n=3`$, we do not make any hypothesis concerning the existence of hierarchies or the smallness of the mixing angles but, instead, we introduce another requirement, shown to be very mild: like the $`2\times 2`$ upper-left sub-matrix of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix $`K`$  matches the Cabibbo matrix to a very good approximation, we require that, for each ($`u`$ and $`d`$) type of quarks, taking as Yukawa mass matrix for two generations the upper-left $`2\times 2`$ sub-matrix of the one for three generations yields an uncertainty in the mass spectrum (of two generations) which is much smaller than the larger of the two quark masses. This condition yields by itself interesting constraints on the asymptotic behaviour of mixing angles. For two generations, one recovers the well-known result that the Cabibbo angle behaves, when $`m_sm_d,m_cm_u`$ like $`\sqrt{ϵ_d(m_d/m_s)}\sqrt{ϵ_u(m_u/m_c)}`$, where $`ϵ_d,ϵ_u1`$. For $`n=3`$, a similar behaviour is demonstrated for the elements $`K_{13},K_{31},K_{23},K_{32}`$ of the CKM mixing matrix.

The above “stability” of the mixing matrix as one goes from $`n`$ to $`(n\pm 1)`$ generations could be fortuitous: nature may be such that the whole structure of mass matrices for $`(n1)`$ generations is totally spoiled when one goes to $`n`$ 111As this is evidently untrue for their diagonal form, this would tend to emphasize the role of non-diagonal elements. ; one then would probably face the fact that, if there exist generations beyond the ones presently known, the knowledge about Yukawa matrices established at our energies is mostly illusory and, from it, we cannot expect reliable hints for the “complete” theory. In particular, this would spoil the renormalization group arguments which evolve Yukawa matrices to the unification scale , where one can expect higher generations. As can be easily seen, “stable” Yukawa mass matrices yield “stable” mixing matrices; we go further and demand here that the “stability” of the Yukawa matrices be a necessary condition for the one of the mixing matrix.

Adding the information that there exist hierarchies for the masses of the $`u`$\- and $`d`$\- type quarks and that the mixing angles are small, as represented in a Wolfenstein-like parameterization  of the CKM mixing matrix, this behaviour can be strengthened into a $`1/m_{b,t}`$ behaviour, like for two generations.

## 2 Basic properties of Yukawa matrices in the Standard Model

The following well known properties concerning the Standard Model will be extensively used in the paper. Let $`M_u`$ and $`M_d`$ be the Yukawa mass matrices for the $`u`$\- and $`d`$-type quarks.

$``$ (i) A priori, $`M_u`$ and $`M_d`$ have no special property of symmetry, and their eigenvalues (defined as the roots of their characteristic equations) are not the quark masses; the latter are determined by diagonalizing $`MM^{}`$ and $`M^{}M`$, which are hermitian, by unitary $`U`$ and $`V`$ matrices, according to:

$$U_u^{}M_uM_u^{}U_u=D_u^2,V_u^{}M_u^{}M_uV_u=D_u^2,U_d^{}M_dM_d^{}U_d=D_d^2,V_d^{}M_d^{}M_dV_d=D_d^2.$$
(1)
The entries of the diagonal matrices $`D_u`$ and $`D_d`$ are the quark masses. Their signs are irrelevant. $`M_u`$ and $`M_d`$ are brought to their diagonal forms by bi-unitary transformations

$$U_u^{}M_uV_u=D_u,U_d^{}M_dV_d=D_d,$$
(2)
corresponding to acting on left-handed fermions with the $`U`$’s and on right-handed ones with the $`V`$’s. The CKM mixing matrix is then 222 A trivial consequence of (3) is that, in a basis where $`M_u`$ is diagonal ($`U_u=𝕀=V_u`$), $`K=U_d`$.

$$K=U_u^{}U_d.$$
(3)
The unitarity of $`U`$ and $`V`$ ensures that the kinetic terms keep diagonal.

$``$ (ii) Arbitrary independent rotations can be performed on $`u`$\- and $`d`$-type right-handed quarks (i.e. quark fields), and identical transformations on left-handed $`u`$\- and $`d`$-type quarks.

$``$ (iii) One can swap columns in $`M`$ by a rotation on right-handed quarks (equivalent to right-multiplying $`MMR`$); one can swap lines by a rotation on left-handed quarks, but the same rotation must be done on $`u`$\- and $`d`$-type quarks ($`M_uLM_u,M_dLM_d`$).

$``$ (iv) Any mass matrix can be brought to a triangular form by rotations on right-handed quarks.

$``$ (v) Polar decomposition theorem : any complex matrix $`M`$ can be written like the product of an hermitian matrix $`(MM^{})^{1/2}`$ times a unitary matrix; in the Standard Model, the latter can always be absorbed by a rotation on right-handed quarks; hence, there, all mass matrices can always be taken to be hermitian; one has then $`U=V`$, and the quark masses become identical to the eigenvalues of the mass matrices.

$``$ (vi) $`K`$ (3) is left invariant if $`U_u`$ and $`U_d`$ are multiplied by the same unitary matrix $`A`$; this is also true for the corresponding right-handed mixing matrix $`K_R=V_u^{}V_d`$ (of no relevance in the Standard Model) when $`V_u`$ and $`V_d`$ are multiplied by $`A`$; thus $`M_u`$ and $`M_d`$ are determined up to a common unitary transformation $`M_uA^{}M_uA,M_dA^{}M_dA`$.

## 3 The case of two generations

We investigate here the relation between the Cabibbo angle $`\theta _c`$ and the quark masses. The case of two generations is considered separately and can be treated in a simple way which only supposes the existence of hierarchies among each type of quarks and uses the observed smallness of the mixing angle. The Yukawa matrices can be taken to be real, which we assume here.

First, we exploit the existence of mass hierarchies for the $`u`$\- and $`d`$-type quarks, i.e. that $`m_sm_d`$ and $`m_cm_u`$. For each type of quarks, this hierarchy of masses requires that at least one of the entries in the corresponding Yukawa matrix $`M`$ must be larger than – or equal to – the larger of the two quark masses; otherwise all eigenvalues of $`MM^T`$ and $`M^TM`$ 333The superscript “$`T`$” means “transposed”. would be smaller than the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ set by the larger quark mass. $`M`$ can have one, two, three or four entries larger or equal to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The case of four large entries can always be reduced to three by a right-handed rotation which, for example, brings $`M`$ to the upper triangular form. If there are three large entries, the sum and the product of the eigenvalues of $`MM^T`$ are large, which mean that both quark masses are larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The case with two large entries can be further reduced in that they cannot be both on the diagonal, since, then, the two quark masses are again larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Furthermore, they must be on the same column. Suppose indeed that they are on the same line. A right-handed rotation can then always reduce the number of large entries to one. For instance 444Throughout the paper the use the abbreviated notations $`c`$ for $`\mathrm{cos}`$ and $`s`$ for $`\mathrm{sin}`$. The subscripts referring to the corresponding angles should avoid any confusion with the the charm and strange quarks.

$$MR=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1& \mathrm{\Lambda }_2\\ a& b\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill c_\phi & \hfill s_\phi \\ \hfill s_\phi & \hfill c_\phi \end{array}\right)c_\phi \left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1& 0\\ a+b\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1& a\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+b\end{array}\right)\text{for}s_\phi =c_\phi \mathrm{\Lambda }_2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1$$
(4)
where $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}|\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`|a|,|b|\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, has only one large entry at the $`[1,1]`$ position. The same argument applies when the two initial large entries are on the second line.

Suppose, accordingly, that the two large entries are on the same column, and use the freedom to make common left-handed rotations on both $`u`$ and $`d`$ type quarks:

$$LM=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill c_\phi & \hfill s_\phi \\ \hfill s_\phi & \hfill c_\phi \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1& a\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_2& b\end{array}\right)c_\phi \left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1& a+b\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\\ 0& a\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+b\end{array}\right)\text{for}s_\phi =c_\phi \mathrm{\Lambda }_2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1;$$
(5)
$`LM`$ has now only one large entry at the $`[1,1]`$ position and this rotation does not alter the structure of the second mass matrix, supposed to also have two large entries on the same column (whatever be the column). So we can state:

For two generations, the existence, for each type of quarks, of one mass larger than a certain scale, the other being much smaller than this scale, entails that one can restrict to Yukawa matrices having either one large entry each, or to the case where one of them has two large entries in the same column and the other has only one large entry; by a right-handed rotation, the latter can be put in any column.

$``$ Accordingly, we consider, first, for example, $`M_u`$ with two large entries on the same column and $`M_d`$ with only one

$$M_u=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1& a\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_2& b\end{array}\right),|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1|,|\mathrm{\Lambda }_2||a|,|b|,M_d=\left(\begin{array}{cc}u& v\\ w& \mathrm{\Lambda }_3\end{array}\right),|\mathrm{\Lambda }_3||u|,|v|,|w|.$$
(6)
The successive steps are the following. From (3), the Cabibbo angle can be written as

$$\theta _c=\theta _d\theta _u.$$
(7)
Using (6) and diagonalizing $`M_dM_d^T`$ we get

$$\mathrm{tan}(2\theta _d)=2\frac{uw+v\mathrm{\Lambda }_3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_3^2+w^2u^2v^2}.$$
(8)
Thus, when $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_3||u|,|v|,|w|`$, $`\theta _d`$ is small and behaves like $`\theta _dv/\mathrm{\Lambda }_3`$. From (6) one finds similarly

$$\mathrm{tan}(2\theta _u)=2\frac{ab+\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2+b^2a^2}.$$
(9)
We now use as input our knowledge about the Cabibbo angle: as $`\theta _c`$ is experimentally small and $`\theta _d`$ has just been proven to be small, (7) requires that $`\theta _u`$ is also small. This can only occur if $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1||\mathrm{\Lambda }_2|`$ or $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_2||\mathrm{\Lambda }_1|`$. Let us consider, for example, $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1||\mathrm{\Lambda }_2|`$. Then $`\theta _u`$ behaves like $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$. Thus, $`\theta _c`$ behaves like $`v/\mathrm{\Lambda }_3+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$. The quark masses are

$$|m_d||u|,|m_s||\mathrm{\Lambda }_3|,|m_u|\frac{|a\mathrm{\Lambda }_2b\mathrm{\Lambda }_1|}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2}}|b|,|m_c|\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^2}|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1|.$$
(10)
The limits $`m_sm_d,m_cm_u`$ do not depend on the non-diagonal elements $`a`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ $`v`$, $`w`$ of the mass matrices, which stand, in this limit, as independent entries only determined by physics of flavour beyond the Standard Model. This allows the claim: given the fact that $`m_sm_d,m_cm_u`$,

$$\theta _c\frac{v}{m_s}\pm \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{m_c},m_s|v|,m_c|\mathrm{\Lambda }_2|.$$
(11)
$``$ The case when the two mass matrices $`M_u`$ and $`M_d`$ have only one large entry each is trivial since, then, one also gets a small $`\theta _u`$ and the equivalent of (8) for $`\mathrm{tan}(2\theta _u)`$.

$``$ One can consequently state the general result for the Cabibbo angle:

$$\theta _c\frac{\mu _1}{m_s}\pm \frac{\mu _2}{m_c},m_s|\mu _1|,m_c|\mu _2|,$$
(12)
where $`\mu _{1,2}`$ are independent real mass scales and we have neglected corrections in higher inverse powers of $`m_s`$ and $`m_c`$. The mass scales $`\mu _{1,2}`$ depend on the basis. If one goes to a basis where, e.g., $`M_u`$ is diagonal, then $`\theta _u=0`$ and $`\mu _2=0`$. This reflects the similar roles held by the two members inside an $`SU(2)`$ doublet and, in particular, that one cannot push one of the two masses alone to infinity without breaking the renormalizability of the theory 555One has then to implement a non-linear realization of the gauge symmetry  .

## 4 Defining hierarchical matrices; algebraic properties

Consider the following set $`\{\}_h`$ of real $`n\times n`$ matrices $``$ ($`n`$ is here the number of generations of fermions) such that, for any of them:
\- the modulus of its diagonal element $`_{nn}`$ is of order unity $`|_{nn}|1`$:
\- its non-diagonal border ( i.e. in the lowest line and extreme right column) elements are small in the following sense: $`_{in}=\lambda _i/\mathrm{\Lambda }_i,_{nj}=\xi _j/\mathrm{\Xi }_j,i,j=1\mathrm{}(n1),|\lambda _i||\mathrm{\Lambda }_i|,|\xi _j||\mathrm{\Xi }_j|`$;
\- its other elements $`_{ij},i,j=1\mathrm{}(n1)`$ satisfy $`|_{ij}|_{i,j=1\mathrm{}(n1)}1`$.

We shall call hereafter such matrices hierarchical 666This definition constrains only the non-diagonal elements on the border to be small. .

Property 1: Neglecting terms of second order in $`\lambda _i/\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ and $`\xi _j/\mathrm{\Xi }_j`$, and considering the usual multiplication of matrices:
\- the product of two hierarchical matrices is hierarchical;
\- the multiplication of hierarchical matrices is of course associative;
\- the unit matrix, which is hierarchical, is the identity element;
\- the inverse of a hierarchical matrix is also hierarchical.

$`\{\}_h`$ would form a group, but for the stability which is not ensured for the product of a very large number of hierarchical matrices.

The CKM mixing matrix $`K`$ being given by (3) the properties just stressed entail that if $`U_u`$ and $`U_d`$ are hierarchical, then so is $`K`$.

Property 2: in the same limit of neglecting terms of second order in $`\lambda _i/\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ and $`\xi _j/\mathrm{\Xi }_j`$, the $`(n1)\times (n1)`$ sub-matrix $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ with entries $`\stackrel{~}{}_{ij}=_{ij},i=1\mathrm{}(n1),j=1\mathrm{}(n1)`$ of a hierarchical $`n\times n`$ matrix $``$ which is the product of two $`n\times n`$ hierarchical matrices $`𝒰`$ and $`𝒱`$ only depends of the two corresponding $`(n1)\times (n1)`$ sub-matrices $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}`$ of $`𝒰`$ and $`𝒱`$.

A consequence is that the hierarchical structure of the Cabibbo matrix $`C`$ can be studied without reference to the third generation after the CKM matrix has been proven to be itself hierarchical; explicitly, $`K`$ is first proven to be hierarchical from the property (“upper” hierarchy) $`m_bm_s,m_d,m_tm_c,m_u`$ by proving that $`U_u`$ and $`U_d`$ (suitably normalized) are both hierarchical; then $`C`$ can be proven to be hierarchical from the property (“lower” hierarchy) $`m_sm_d,m_cm_u`$, without worrying anymore about the third generation.

Property 3: any unitary matrix $`U`$ can be made hierarchical by left- or right- multiplication. Indeed, for example, the equation $`UA=U_h`$ with $`U_h`$ hierarchical, has always a solution $`A=U^{}U_h`$.
A consequence is that:

Property 4: in the Standard Model and when the mixing matrix $`K`$ is hierarchical, one can always go to a basis where $`U_u,U_d`$ and the two (hermitian) mass matrices $`M_u,M_d`$, normalized to the largest scale available (see below), are hierarchical.

Let us first go in a basis where $`M_u`$ and $`M_d`$ are hermitian, which is always possible by the polar decomposition theorem (property (v) of section 2). Then, we multiply each of the two unitary matrices $`U_u`$ and $`U_d`$ by the same unitary matrix $`B`$, which, as stressed in section 2 (property (vi)), leaves the mixing matrix $`K`$ invariant. One chooses $`B`$ such that $`BU_u=U_{uh}`$ is hierarchical, which is always possible as mentioned above; $`BU_d=U_{dh}`$ is then also hierarchical since $`U_{dh}=KU_{uh}`$, $`K`$ has been supposed to be hierarchical, and hierarchical matrices are stable by multiplication.

These transformations on $`U_u`$ and $`U_d`$ are equivalent to a change of basis for quarks $`M_uBM_uB^{}`$, $`M_dBM_dB^{}`$ since the diagonalisation equations for $`M_u`$ and $`M_d`$ write $`D_u=U_u^{}M_uU_u=U_{uh}^{}(BM_uB^{})U_{uh}`$ and $`D_d=U_d^{}M_dU_d=U_{dh}^{}(BM_dB^{})U_{dh}`$; let us go to the mass matrices normalized to the largest entry $`m_{un}`$ of $`D_u`$ and $`m_{dn}`$ of $`D_d`$: $`𝒟_u=D_u/m_{un}`$, $`_{uh}=U_{uh}^{}(BM_uB^{})U_{uh}/m_{un}`$, $`𝒟_d=D_d/m_{dn}`$, $`_{dh}=U_{dh}^{}(BM_dB^{})U_{dh}/m_{dn}`$; from $`𝒟_u=U_{uh}^{}_{uh}U_{uh}`$, $`𝒟_d=U_{dh}^{}_{dh}U_{dh}`$, from the fact that $`𝒟_u`$ and $`𝒟_d`$ are hierarchical, and from the stability property of hierarchical matrices, one deduces that $`_{uh}`$ and $`_{dh}`$ are hierarchical.

## 5 The case of $`𝒏\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ generations

A direct demonstration like the one of section 3, which uses the smallness of the mixing angles, needs, to be extended to $`n`$ generations, inspecting all possible configurations of $`n\times n`$ mass matrices which lead to mass hierarchies between fermions. If feasible, it would become extremely tedious and inelegant. This is why we perform the generalization to $`n=3`$ generations along another line which does not require any hypothesis concerning the properties of the mixing matrix. It provides, in the $`n=2`$ case, a well-known constraint on $`\theta _c`$, though weaker than the one deduced in section 3.

### 5.1 General requirement for Yukawa matrices

In the following, like in section 4, $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ stands for the $`(n1)\times (n1)`$ upper left sub-block of any given $`n\times n`$ matrix $`M`$. One takes $`M`$ hermitian (see section 2); $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is then also hermitian. A single unitary matrix $`U`$ is needed to diagonalize $`M`$ into $`D`$.

If one steps up or down one generation from $`n`$ to $`(n+1)`$ or $`(n1)`$, one must be able to find a renormalizable description of the corresponding physics: for example, before the third generation was suspected, and discovered, the Cabibbo description of two generations was perfectly coherent, and our present description of physics with three generations, also coherent, is supposed to be very little influenced by the eventual presence of higher generations.

Keeping the previous notations for $`n`$ generations, let us step down to $`(n1)`$ generations. According to our requirement, there exist, in this case, too, Yukawa matrices $`\underset{¯}{M}`$, which can also be taken to be hermitian, and the unitary matrices which diagonalize them into $`\underset{¯}{D}`$ are called $`\underset{¯}{U}`$.

In general, $`\underset{¯}{M}\stackrel{~}{M},\underset{¯}{U}\stackrel{~}{U}`$. Experimentally, however, the (unitary) Cabibbo matrix $`C\underset{¯}{U_u^T}\underset{¯}{U_d}`$ is very close to the upper $`2\times 2`$ (non-unitary) sub-matrix $`\stackrel{~}{K}=\stackrel{~}{U_u^TU_d}`$ of the CKM matrix $`K`$.

As proposed, we demand that this property of “stability” of the mixing matrix be the image of an equivalent property for the Yukawa matrices:

$$\underset{¯}{M}=\stackrel{~}{M}ϵm_{n1}𝕀_{n1},$$
(13)
where:
\- $`m_n`$ and $`m_{n1}`$ are the largest quark masses of the type considered ($`u`$ or $`d`$), respectively for $`n`$ and $`(n1)`$ generations; for instance $`m_n=m_borm_t`$ and $`m_{n1}=m_sorm_c`$ for $`n=3`$; $`m_n=m_sorm_c`$ and $`m_{n1}=m_dorm_u`$ for $`n=2`$;
\- $`ϵ`$, which can a priori depend on the entries of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, is small in the sense $`ϵ|1`$;
\- $`𝕀_{n1}`$ is any $`(n1)\times (n1)`$ matrix with entries of moduli not larger than one, for example the $`(n1)\times (n1)`$ identity matrix 777We shall make in the rest of the paper the choice of the identity matrix for simplicity, but this choice is not mandatory. .

Expanding

$$\stackrel{~}{M}\stackrel{~}{UDU^{}}=\stackrel{~}{U}\underset{¯}{D}\stackrel{~}{U}^{}+m_n\stackrel{~}{A},$$
(14)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is an $`(n1)\times (n1)`$ matrix which contains the elements of the mixing matrix for which we are seeking information; one gets from (13) the condition

$$\underset{¯}{M}\underset{¯}{U}\underset{¯}{D}\underset{¯}{U}^{}=\stackrel{~}{U}\underset{¯}{D}\stackrel{~}{U}^{}+m_n\stackrel{~}{A}ϵm_{n1}𝕀_{n1},|ϵ|1,or$$
(15)
$$\stackrel{~}{A}=\frac{\underset{¯}{M}\stackrel{~}{U}\underset{¯}{D}\stackrel{~}{U}^{}+ϵm_{n1}𝕀_{n1}}{m_n}=\frac{\underset{¯}{U}\underset{¯}{D}\underset{¯}{U}^{}\stackrel{~}{U}\underset{¯}{D}\stackrel{~}{U}^{}+ϵm_{n1}𝕀_{n1}}{m_n},|ϵ|1.$$
(16)
(16) will provide the scaling behaviour for the elements of the mixing matrix that we are seeking for (see the precise examples below). For this purpose, we shall use the property that the highest mass scale occurring in the numerator of the r.h.s. of (16) is $`m_{n1}`$ and that all the matrix elements involved have, because of unitarity, moduli smaller or equal to $`1`$. So, the modulus of the numerator is $`m_{n1}\times `$ (coefficient of modulus $`2(n1)^2+1`$) 888The $`2(n1)^2+1`$ comes from the following: each entry in $`\underset{¯}{U_d}\underset{¯}{D_d}\underset{¯}{U_d}^{}`$ and in $`\stackrel{~}{U_d}\underset{¯}{D_d}\stackrel{~}{U_d}^{}`$ is the sum of $`(n1)^2`$ terms, each of them being the product of a $`(mass)`$ and of two matrix elements of modulus smaller or equal to $`1`$; $`𝕀_2`$ contributes the last $`1`$. . As cancellations are expected between $`\underset{¯}{U}\underset{¯}{D}\underset{¯}{U}^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{U}\underset{¯}{D}\stackrel{~}{U}^{}`$, this bound is expected not to be saturated (see subsection 5.2 below.)

Further comments about the condition (13) are due, to show that the property 4 of section 4 makes it a very mild assumption. First, if a $`3\times 3`$ mass matrix $``$ ($``$ is the mass matrix $`M`$ normalized to the largest corresponding quark mass) is hierarchical, the eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ differ very little from the quark masses for two generations (see the demonstration below); so, $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ has the right mass spectrum, which is a necessary condition for $`\stackrel{~}{}\underset{¯}{}`$; then, as far as masses are concerned, the spectrum of fermions is the only property which can be detected in the framework of the Standard Model, in the sense that no criterion exists a priori, without additional assumptions concerning, e.g., flavour symmetry, which can select one among several Yukawa matrices yielding the same spectrum.

Our assumption can be rephrased as follows: in a basis where $``$ is hierarchical, among all possible $`\underset{¯}{}`$’s which lead to the right quark spectrum for $`(n1)`$ generations, the choice of the $`(n1)\times (n1)`$ upper left sub-matrix $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ for $`\underset{¯}{}`$ is considered to be the natural one. By stating that the mass matrix for $`n`$ generations can be obtained by “dressing” the one for $`(n1)`$ generations, we express in particular our view, emphasized in the introduction, that a coherent description of the physics for $`(n1)`$ generations knows very little about higher generations.

Last, according to property 4 of section 4, $`_u`$ and $`_d`$ can always be chosen as hierarchical (by a common change of basis on $`u`$\- and $`d`$-type quarks) if the mixing matrix $`K`$ is hierarchical. Hence, in this case, our results do not depend on the basis chosen for $`_u`$ and $`_d`$.

The proposition above concerning the eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is easily proven. Up to an overall normalization factor, a hierarchical hermitian $``$ can be written as

$$=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a_{11}& a_{12}& \eta _1\\ \overline{a_{12}}& a_{22}& \eta _2\\ \overline{\eta _1}& \overline{\eta _2}& 1\end{array}\right),\text{with}|\eta _1|,|\eta _2|1.$$
(17)
Its characteristic equation reads $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda )=0`$ with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda )=(1\lambda )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\lambda )+\lambda (|\eta _1|^2+|\eta _2|^2)a_{11}|\eta _2|^2a_{22}|\eta _1|^2+a_{12}\overline{\eta _1}\eta _2+\overline{a_{12}}\eta _1\overline{\eta _2},$$
(18)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\lambda )`$ is the characteristic equation for $`\stackrel{~}{}`$; (17) shows that, up to order $`\eta ^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda )`$ vanishes for $`\lambda =1`$ and for the eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$; the roots of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda )=0`$ build up the quark spectrum and thus, in particular, up to $`𝒪(\eta ^2)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ has the right spectrum for $`(n1)`$ generations.

### 5.2 Example 1: the case of two generations

Let us for example consider $`d`$-type quarks. $`M_d`$ is a (real) symmetric $`2\times 2`$ matrix and we have

$$M_d=U_dD_dU_d^T\text{with}D_d=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_d& 0\\ 0& m_s\end{array}\right)\text{and}U_d=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill c_d& \hfill s_d\\ \hfill s_d& \hfill c_d\end{array}\right).$$
(19)
One has $`\stackrel{~}{U}_d=c_d,m_n=m_s,m_{n1}=m_d,\underset{¯}{M_d}=\underset{¯}{D_d}=m_d`$.
$`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is defined by $`\stackrel{~}{U_dD_dU_d^T}(U_dD_dU_d^T)_{11}=\stackrel{~}{U}_d\underset{¯}{D_d}\stackrel{~}{U}_d^T+m_s\stackrel{~}{A}`$, and one has explicitly $`\stackrel{~}{U_dD_dU_d^T}=c_d^2m_d+s_d^2m_s`$, $`\stackrel{~}{U}_d\underset{¯}{D_d}\stackrel{~}{U}_d^T=c_d^2m_d`$. This yields $`\stackrel{~}{A}=s_d^2`$. The condition (15) takes the form

$$m_d=c_d^2m_d+s_d^2m_sϵ_dm_d\text{or}s_d^2=\frac{ϵ_dm_d}{m_sm_d},\text{with}ϵ_d1,$$
(20)
and, for $`m_sm_d`$, the small $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _d\theta _d`$ scales likes $`\sqrt{ϵ_d\frac{m_d}{m_s}}`$ with $`ϵ_d1`$. The same argument applied to $`u`$-type quarks yields: $`\theta _u`$ scales like $`\sqrt{ϵ_u\frac{m_u}{m_c}},ϵ_u1`$ when $`m_cm_u`$.

So, the (small) Cabibbo angle $`\theta _c=\theta _d\theta _u`$ scales like

$$\theta _c\sqrt{ϵ_d\frac{m_d}{m_s}}\sqrt{ϵ_u\frac{m_u}{m_c}},ϵ_d,ϵ_u1,\text{when}m_s,m_cm_d,m_u,$$
(21)
which is well known  (see also  and references therein) to be compatible with the experimental values of the quark masses. This encouraging result we shall extend to the case of three generations.

### 5.3 Example 2: the case of three generations

One has

$$M_d=U_dD_dU_d^{}\text{with}D_d=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_d& 0& 0\\ 0& m_s& 0\\ 0& 0& m_b\end{array}\right)\text{and}\underset{¯}{D_d}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_d& 0\\ 0& m_s\end{array}\right).$$
(22)
The general condition (13) writes

$$\underset{¯}{M_d}=\underset{¯}{U_d}\underset{¯}{D_d}\underset{¯}{U_d}^{}=\stackrel{~}{U_dD_dU_d^{}}ϵ_dm_s𝕀_2,|ϵ_d|1.$$
(23)
According to (14), the equation

$$\stackrel{~}{U_dD_dU_d^{}}=\stackrel{~}{U}_d\underset{¯}{D_d}\stackrel{~}{U}_d^{}+m_b\left(\begin{array}{cc}|(U_d)_{13}|^2& (U_d)_{13}\overline{(U_d)_{23}}\\ \overline{(U_d)_{13}}(U_d)_{23}& |(U_d)_{23}|^2\end{array}\right)$$
(24)
defines $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ as the $`2\times 2`$ matrix factorizing $`m_b`$. (16) writes now:

$$\stackrel{~}{A}\left(\begin{array}{cc}|(U_d)_{13}|^2& (U_d)_{13}\overline{(U_d)_{23}}\\ \overline{(U_d)_{13}}(U_d)_{23}& |(U_d)_{23}|^2\end{array}\right)=\frac{\underset{¯}{U_d}\underset{¯}{D_d}\underset{¯}{U_d}^{}\stackrel{~}{U_d}\underset{¯}{D_d}\stackrel{~}{U_d}^{}+ϵ_dm_s𝕀_2}{m_b},|ϵ_d|1.$$
(25)
All elements of the unitary matrices $`U_d`$ and $`\underset{¯}{U_d}`$ having moduli bounded by $`1`$, and the highest mass scale occurring in the numerator of the l.h.s. of (25) being $`m_s`$, one gets

$$[|(U_d)_{13}|,|(U_d)_{23}|][\eta _{13},\eta _{23}]\sqrt{\frac{m_s}{m_b}},$$
(26)
where $`\eta _{13},\eta _{23}`$ are coefficients at most equal to $`2(n1)^2+19`$. The unitarity of $`U_d`$ ensures that the same bounds occur for $`|(U_d)_{31}|,|(U_d)_{32}|`$. The same argument applied to $`u`$-type quarks entails that

$$[|(U_u)_{13}|,|(U_u)_{23}|,|(U_u)_{31}|,|(U_u)_{32}]|[\zeta _{13},\zeta _{23},\zeta _{31},\zeta _{32}]\sqrt{\frac{m_c}{m_t}},$$
(27)
with $`\zeta `$ coefficients at most equal to $`9`$. Equations (26) - (28), being direct consequences of the general requirement (13), have been obtained independently of the existence of any mass hierarchy. However, it is clear that they can be of no use when there is no hierarchy. When $`m_sm_b`$, $`m_cm_t`$, this proves the hierarchical property of $`U_u`$ and $`U_d`$ in the general sense defined in section 4. By the properties emphasized there and the definition (3), it entails that $`K`$ is hierarchical according to:

$$[|K_{13}|,|K_{23}|,|K_{31}|,|K_{32}|][\beta _{13},\beta _{23},\beta _{31},\beta _{32}]\sqrt{\frac{m_c}{m_t}}\pm [\delta _{13},\delta _{23},\delta _{31},\delta _{32}]\sqrt{\frac{m_s}{m_b}},$$
(28)
with $`\beta ,\delta `$ coefficients formally not exceeding $`9`$ and typically much smaller than $`9`$.

## 6 Strengthening the bounds

By two different methods, we have obtained two different types of scaling behaviors for the Cabibbo angle. Using as input in section 3 the existence of hierarchies and the experimentally observed smallness of this angle, we deduced in (11) a scaling behaviour like the inverse of the heaviest ($`s`$ and $`c`$) quarks. Using the milder “stability” requirement (13) for Yukawa matrices in section 5, and no particular input concerning either hierarchies of masses or smallness of mixing angles, we have instead deduced in (21) a behaviour like the inverse of the square root of the heaviest quark masses. This last result is certainly not optimal since very little information has been used. The combined action of large cancellations in the numerator of the r.h.s. of (25) and of a possible dependence of $`ϵ`$ on the quark masses and on $`m_{ij}`$ (the sole condition on it is that it is bounded by $`1`$) can concur to strengthen the results obtained there. It is consequently instructive to consider the possibility of strengthening the bounds by incorporating our experimental knowledge on mass hierarchies and on the smallness of the mixing angles. We study explicitly the case of three generations. It proves convenient, for the problem of interest, to use a triangular basis for the mass matrices .

As stated in property (iv) of section 2, the change of basis from hermitian to triangular can be achieved by independent right-handed rotations on $`u`$\- and $`d`$-type quarks; it does not modify the mixing matrix $`K`$. Also, when hierarchies exist, the non-diagonal elements generated in the lower triangle when going from upper triangular to hermitian mass matrices differ very little from the transposed conjugates of the ones of the starting triangular matrix , respecting in particular the “stability” requirement 999 The advantage of triangular basis  is that the diagonal elements of the mass matrices, identical, then, to their eigenvalues, are, when hierarchies exist, very close to the quark masses, and that their entries can be expressed in terms of the elements of the CKM mixing matrix and of the quark masses. .

The triangular matrices for $`u`$ and $`d`$-type quarks we call $`T_u`$ and $`T_d`$. Their diagonalisation writes

$$T_dT_d^{}=U_dD_d^2U_d^{},T_uT_u^{}=U_uD_u^2U_u^{}.$$
(29)
Let us work, for example, in the $`d`$ sector, with

$$T_d=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_{11}& m_{12}e^{i\varphi _{12}}& m_{13}e^{i\varphi _{13}}\\ 0& m_{22}& m_{23}e^{i\varphi _{23}}\\ 0& 0& m_{33}\end{array}\right),U_d=(U_d)_{ij},i,j=1\mathrm{}3,D_d=diag(m_d,m_s,m_b),$$
(30)
where the $`m_{ij}`$ are real coefficients. Equation (29) determines the unknown $`(U_d)_{ij},m_d,m_s,m_b`$ as functions of the independent parameters $`m_{ij},\varphi _{ij}`$. In a Wolfenstein-like parameterization of $`K`$  and with $`\lambda .22`$, which includes the information that mixing angles are small, (29), (30) yield respectively for $`(T_dT_d^{})_{33}`$, $`(T_dT_d^{})_{23}`$ and $`(T_dT_d^{})_{13}`$ (see )

$`m_{33}^2=m_b^2|(U_d)_{33}|^2\left(1+𝒪(\lambda ^8)\right),`$ (31)
$`m_{33}m_{23}e^{i\varphi _{23}}=m_b^2\overline{(U_d)_{33}}(U_d)_{23}\left(1+𝒪(\lambda ^4)\right),`$ (32)
$`m_{33}m_{13}e^{i\varphi _{13}}=m_b^2\overline{(U_d)_{33}}(U_d)_{13}\left(1+𝒪(\lambda ^4)\right),`$ (33)
and one finally gets

$`m_b(m_{ij},\varphi _{ij})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|m_{33}|}{|(U_d)_{33}|(m_{ij},\varphi _{ij})}}\left(1+𝒪(\lambda ^8)\right),`$ (34)
$`|(U_d)_{23}(m_{ij},\varphi _{ij})|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|m_{23}|}{m_b(m_{ij},\varphi _{ij})}}\left(1+𝒪(\lambda ^4)\right),`$ (35)
$`|(U_d)_{13}(m_{ij},\varphi _{ij})|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|m_{13}|}{m_b(m_{ij},\varphi _{ij})}}\left(1+𝒪(\lambda ^4)\right).`$ (36)
The last two equations of (36) provide a $`1/m_{b,t}`$ behaviour only if the mass $`m_b`$ in the denominator can be made very large independently of the non-diagonal elements $`m_{13}`$ and $`m_{23}`$ of the Yukawa matrix $`T_d`$. We have seen in section 3 that it is what occurs for two generations.

The authors of the first reference in  have shown that the inversion of the system of equations in (33) plus those associated with the other entries of $`(T_dT_d^{})`$ yields, in particular $`m_b=m_{33}(1+𝒪(\lambda ^4)).`$ Accordingly, the limit of very large $`m_b`$ depends only on $`m_{33}`$, and not on $`m_{13}`$ and $`m_{23}`$. The same argument can be made for the $`u`$-type quarks, and, (3) yields a result for the CKM mixing matrix $`K`$.

In the presence of hierarchies the $`u`$\- and $`d`$\- type quarks ($`m_b`$ and $`m_t`$ are much larger than the other quark masses) and when the mixing angles are small, the non-diagonal “external” matrix elements $`|K_{13}|,|K_{23}|,|K_{31}|,|K_{32}|`$ scale like

$$[|K_{13}|,|K_{23}|,|K_{31}|,|K_{32}|]\frac{[\mu _{13},\mu _{23},\mu _{31},\mu _{32}]}{m_b}\pm \frac{[\nu _{13},\nu _{23},\nu _{31},\nu _{32}]}{m_t}$$
(37)
where the $`\mu `$’s and $`\nu `$’s are independent mass scales.

## 7 Conclusion

We have shown that, under a very general assumption concerning the stability of Yukawa matrices as one steps up or down generations, the non-diagonal border elements (lowest line and right column) of the CKM mixing matrix scale like the inverse square root of the largest masses of the upper generation of fermions. For two generations, one recovers a well known behaviour for the Cabibbo angle. A more constraining behaviour like the inverse of the heaviest masses instead of their square root has been obtained by using the existence of mass hierarchies and the smallness of the mixing angles.  Acknowledgements. We are indebted to M.B. Gavela, with whom this work initiated. It is a pleasure to thank B. Stech and A. Romanino for discussions and suggestions. S.T.P. acknowledges with gratefulness the hospitality of LPTHE, Université. de Paris VI, where part of the work on the present study was done. B.M. wants to thank SISSA, where this work was completed, for the kind hospitality provided to him.