
Koide’s coincidence - tacon
https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2018/09/11/koide/
======
magicalhippo
There's a long-running thread over on PhysicsForums:
[https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-new-with-
koide...](https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-new-with-koide-sum-
rules.551549/)

As mfb points out at the end, you can get a lot of interesting results by
juggling operations around. On the other hand, the equation seems to hold up
better as we measure more precise values for the particle masses.

A potentially interesting side-thread with another interesting coincidence is
[https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/implications-of-
nishid...](https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/implications-of-nishidas-
mass-ckm-observation.954659/)

Koide recently gave a talk at a conference where he presented a review and
some new research. At least the review slides are accessible and give some
history.

[http://www.koide-phys.com/us-hep/talk/talk18.html](http://www.koide-
phys.com/us-hep/talk/talk18.html)

Review is the bottom of the two. In it Koide compares his equation with
Kepler's law of planetary motion. The explanation of what was going on had to
wait until Newton's law of gravitation, but in the meantime it lent support to
the heliocentric model of the heavens.

Disclaimer: my physics classes at uni stopped at classical mechanics.

------
nemo1618
Hmm. I was hoping for something more definitive here, like "The masses of each
particle are known to be correct to 5 decimal places. Even if we nudge each
value as far as we can, the result is still slightly less than 2/3."

~~~
anyfoo
I’m not very familiar with the subject, but isn’t that exactly what the author
did, except that the conclusion was that 2/3 can be plausibly reached? (And
that it uses the less constraint standard deviation instead of “decimal
places”.)

------
netgusto
The article does not conclude nor suggests that the 2/3 ratio is a
coincidence. What am I missing?

~~~
rossdavidh
We could have, with this method, discovered "no, it could not be this far off
from 2/3 just due to measurement error of the relevant constants". However, we
did not. It's a negative result, which proves nothing, but it is of interest,
at least in part because of the method used.

