- #1
ohwilleke
Gold Member
- 2,533
- 1,497
- TL;DR Summary
- A pair of new papers make precision determinations of the quark masses and the strong force coupling constant using the renormalization group summed perturbation theory (RGSPT). The values are close to previous estimates, but there is some tension in the strange quark mass determination.
A pair of new papers (here and here) make precision determinations of the quark masses and the strong force coupling constant using the renormalization group summed perturbation theory (RGSPT). For comparison purposes, I have followed each value with the Particle Data Group (PDG) value, and then the 2021 Flavor Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG) value.
α(s)(n(f)=5)(M(Z)) = 0.1171(7)
<----> 0.1179(9) <----> 0.1184(8).
m_b(MS mass pole mass) = 4174.3(9.5) MeV
<----> 4180-20+30 MeV <----> 4203(11) MeV
m_c(MS mass pole mass) = 1281.1(3.8) MeV
<----> 1270(20) MeV <----> 1278(13) MeV
m_s(2 GeV) = 104.34-4.21+4.23 MeV
<----> 93.4-3.4+8.6 MeV <----> 93.44(68) MeV
m_d(2 GeV) = 4.21-0.45+0.48 MeV
<----> 4.67-0.17+0.48 MeV <----> 4.70(5) MeV
m_u(2 GeV) = 2.00-0.40+0.33 MeV
<----> 2.16-0.26+0.49 MeV <----> 2.14(8) MeV
Can anyone explain, at an educated layman's "intermediate" level, why the strange quark mass value in this method has more tension than the other parameters do with previously estimated values?
My gut intuition is that the tension is due to insufficient consideration of non-perturbative effects by RGSPT, which turns out to be maximal for the strange quark, but I don't have a well substantiated basis for that hypothesis.
α(s)(n(f)=5)(M(Z)) = 0.1171(7)
<----> 0.1179(9) <----> 0.1184(8).
m_b(MS mass pole mass) = 4174.3(9.5) MeV
<----> 4180-20+30 MeV <----> 4203(11) MeV
m_c(MS mass pole mass) = 1281.1(3.8) MeV
<----> 1270(20) MeV <----> 1278(13) MeV
m_s(2 GeV) = 104.34-4.21+4.23 MeV
<----> 93.4-3.4+8.6 MeV <----> 93.44(68) MeV
m_d(2 GeV) = 4.21-0.45+0.48 MeV
<----> 4.67-0.17+0.48 MeV <----> 4.70(5) MeV
m_u(2 GeV) = 2.00-0.40+0.33 MeV
<----> 2.16-0.26+0.49 MeV <----> 2.14(8) MeV
Can anyone explain, at an educated layman's "intermediate" level, why the strange quark mass value in this method has more tension than the other parameters do with previously estimated values?
My gut intuition is that the tension is due to insufficient consideration of non-perturbative effects by RGSPT, which turns out to be maximal for the strange quark, but I don't have a well substantiated basis for that hypothesis.
Last edited: