- #1

ndung200790

- 519

- 0

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

In summary, according to the author, one can measure the mass of quarks by using the masses of the pions and kaons, by doing lattice QCD, and by extrapolating down to observed values. One can also get approximate masses from the bound states of the quarks. For the top quark, one must get its mass from the total energy of its decay products.

- #1

ndung200790

- 519

- 0

Physics news on Phys.org

- New quantum error correction method uses 'many-hypercube codes' while exhibiting beautiful geometry
- Researchers advance new class of quantum critical metal that could advance electronic devices
- Researchers make sound waves travel in one direction only, with implications for electromagnetic wave technology

- #2

Simon Bridge

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 17,874

- 1,661

It's like those logic puzzles you did as a kid, where you have to figure which bag of coins has the light coin in it.

- #3

andrien

- 1,024

- 33

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1094&context=physicsbloom&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.co.in%2Fscholar%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dmeasurement%2Bof%2Bquark%2Bmasses%26btnG%3D%26as_sdt%3D1%252C5%26as_sdtp%3D#search=%22measurement%20quark%20masses%22

- #4

Bill_K

Science Advisor

- 4,158

- 206

- #5

lpetrich

- 988

- 180

For the up, down, and strange quarks, one can use a quirk of QCD called "chiral symmetry breaking", and measure their masses using the masses of the pions and kaons:

m

m

m

One has to do lattice QCD to get the results, and that has the problem that one cannot make the up and down masses too small, or else the pions' Compton wavelengths will cover the entire lattice. So one does the calculations with larger masses, and extrapolates down to observed values.

For the charm and bottom quarks, one can get approximate masses from their bound states, like the J/psi, D, upsilon, and B mesons, since those quarks are nonrelativistic in those states. To improve those estimates, one must calculate those states' binding energies with lattice QCD.

For the top quark, one must get its mass from the total energy of its decay products, since it decays before it can hadronize. andrien's paper is an example of doing that.

- #6

kurros

- 453

- 15

Bill_K said:^{-25}sec. Would someone who maintains that virtual particles are not "real" and just a mathematical artifact please tell me - is the top quark real??

You can produce top-quarks on-shell right? So no problem. I do not agree with the contention that virtual particles are not real though.

- #7

mfb

Mentor

- 37,216

- 14,063

I write that sometimes for questions like "why does exactly that Feynman diagram happen?"Bill_K said:^{-25}sec. Would someone who maintains that virtual particles are not "real" and just a mathematical artifact please tell me - is the top quark real??

Or would you accept the idea that a bound electron is constantly exchanging particles (photons) with the nucleus? If yes, how many? And how many photons does it exchange with all other particles around it?

On the other hand, if you write that in terms of Feynman diagrams,

- #8

Bill_K

Science Advisor

- 4,158

- 206

Yes! I agree with that fully.every particle is a virtual particle. Some are just "more virtual" (more off-shell, shorter living) than others.

An apparent difference between real and virtual arises because in many cases a virtual particle must be integrated over. At that point we must face the fact that Feynman diagrams represent quantum amplitudes, and consequently one virtual particle contributes to an infinite number of mutually coherent exchange processes. But it's not the particle's fault, or the idea that virtual particles are different somehow, it's just quantum mechanics coming into play.

Yes. One photon. I know that sounds odd, but each vertex contributes a factor e, and the Coulomb interaction is eOr would you accept the idea that a bound electron is constantly exchanging particles (photons) with the nucleus? If yes, how many?

If you Fourier transform a Coulomb field between two charged particles at rest, you find that it is spatially varying but time-independent, which indicates that their photon carries momentum but zero energy,

- #9

mfb

Mentor

- 37,216

- 14,063

Fine structure is eBill_K said:Yes. One photon. I know that sounds odd, but each vertex contributes a factor e, and the Coulomb interaction is e^{2}. Two-photon exchange would be e^{4}. That one photon spends eternity being exchanged constantly and forever.

Or constant energy?If you Fourier transform a Coulomb field between two charged particles at rest, you find that it is spatially varying but time-independent, which indicates that their photon carries momentum but zero energy,

The mass of a quark is determined through various experiments, including particle accelerators and collider experiments. By studying the interactions between quarks and other particles, scientists can calculate the mass of the quark. This is also done through theoretical calculations and models.

No, we cannot directly measure the mass of a quark since they are confined within particles such as protons and neutrons. However, we can indirectly measure their mass through the behavior and interactions of these particles.

The mass of a quark is incredibly small, estimated to be about 2.2 to 4.7 MeV/c2 (electron-volts divided by the speed of light squared). This is determined through precise measurements and calculations, as well as experimental data from particle collisions.

Yes, there are six known types of quarks: up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom. Each type has a different mass, with the top quark being the heaviest and the up quark being the lightest.

Our understanding of the mass of quarks has evolved over time as scientists have conducted more experiments and refined their calculations. Initially, it was thought that quarks had no mass, but it is now known that they do have a very small mass. As technology and techniques continue to improve, our understanding of the mass of quarks may also continue to evolve.

- Replies
- 46

- Views
- 4K

- Replies
- 20

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 17

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 38

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K

Share: