AG-2026.04-1355·hep-ph·cross-listed: hep-th
Quark hierarchies and CP violation from the Siegel modular group
Authors
- M. Carducci
- D. Meloni
- M. Parriciatu
- J. T. Penedo
Abstract
We investigate theories of flavour based on genus $g=2$ modular invariance and analyze how fermion mass hierarchies can be generated in this context, in the vicinity of invariant points or regions in moduli space where a residual symmetry is preserved. We apply this mechanism of modular proximity-induced hierarchies to the quark sector, with the vacuum expectation values of the moduli being the only sources of spontaneous breaking of the flavour and CP symmetries. We present a benchmark model where quark mass hierarchies and CP violation are explained, with mass ratios vanishing in the symmetric limit, and quark mixing is reproduced. In this model, the values of the moduli turn out to be close to special values such as $τ_1 \simeq ω$ and $τ_2 \simeq ω, i$.
Submitted
23 April 20261 month ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2604.21979
Summary
A new theory explains why quarks have vastly different masses and why nature violates mirror symmetry by using mathematical structures called modular groups, where the theory sits near special symmetric points in its parameter space.
- The theory uses 'modular invariance'—a mathematical symmetry from string theory—applied to the quark sector, offering a fresh framework for why some quarks are heavy and others light.
- Mass hierarchies emerge naturally when the theory's parameters (moduli) camp near special symmetric points, like ω, where extra symmetries appear and suppress certain interactions.
- CP violation and quark mixing ratios are simultaneously reproduced in a single model where only the moduli values break the fundamental symmetries—a more economical setup than typical flavor theories.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.