How does the electron mass run with energy?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter franoisbelfor
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electron Energy Mass
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the running of electron mass with energy in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). It is established that the electron mass increases in the ultraviolet (UV) regime, with a calculated increase of approximately 2% at the Planck energy (10^28 eV) compared to its mass at 511 keV. The relevant renormalization equation is given by dm_e/dlog(μ) = (3e^2/8π^2)m_e at one loop, highlighting the importance of starting the running at the electron mass itself rather than at lower energies. The discussion also emphasizes that weak and strong interactions must be considered for a complete understanding of mass running.

PREREQUISITES
  • Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) fundamentals
  • Understanding of renormalization techniques
  • Familiarity with particle mass scales, particularly electron mass
  • Basic knowledge of the Standard Model of particle physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of renormalization in Quantum Field Theory
  • Study the running of coupling constants in electroweak theory
  • Explore the effects of weak interactions on particle masses
  • Investigate the relationship between QED and the Standard Model at high energy scales
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in particle physics and quantum field theory, as well as students seeking to deepen their understanding of mass renormalization and its implications in high-energy physics.

franoisbelfor
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
Renormalization in QED implies the running of charge and mass. But does the physical electron mass increase or decrease with energy? And what value is reached at the Planck energy? Somewhere I read that the mass change was 16%, but all books I on QED I searched do not give numbers. (Assuming the strong and weak interactions are neglected.)

Does anybody know a reference ?


François
 
Physics news on Phys.org
From a "straightforward" calculation (as straightforward as these calculations can be!):

\frac{dm_e}{d\log\mu} = \left(\frac{3e^2}{8\pi^2}\right)m_e

to one loop. So as you might expect from screening arguments, the mass increases in the UV.
 
To add, you cannot neglect the weak interaction in the UV, as QED is the IR limit of part of the electroweak theory.
 
quite right. the formula I gave is ONLY for QED at one loop - that means photon, electron and positron, NOTHING else. Strictly speaking, this is only correct in the UV up to the muon mass.

To get an accurate and correct number that describes the universe that we live in, of course you must go much further, including the other fermions (leptons and quarks), and then match to EW theory above the W boson mass, if you want to push the calculation up to the Planck scale (assuming that there's a desert from the weak to Planck scales).
 
blechman said:
From a "straightforward" calculation (as straightforward as these calculations can be!):

\frac{dm_e}{d\log\mu} = \left(\frac{3e^2}{8\pi^2}\right)m_e

to one loop. So as you might expect from screening arguments, the mass increases in the UV.

Ok, if one assumes hat the 511keV are measured at \mu= 1 eV, and uses \left(\frac{3e^2}{8\pi^2}\right)=2.7*10^{-4} one gets a electron mass at the Planck energy (10^28 eV) that is (10^28)^(2.7*10^-4)=1.018 times
higher than at 1 eV. Only 2% difference!

Is that correct? (This neglects weak and strong interaction effects, of course.)

François
 
you have to be more careful:

(1) nothing runs below the electron mass itself, so you don't want to start the running at 1 eV, but at m_e(m_e)=511 keV.

(2) you also have to take into account the (very important!) point that e^2 is not a constant but also runs, so the diffEQ is a little more complicated than what you naively wrote down. This will enhance the mass a bit.

But it is true that the effect is not very large... a few percent at most -- QED remains quite weak up to the Planck scale.

And of course, this is in a fictitious universe where there are no other forces or particles other than the electron, positron and photon. In other words, a homework problem, not a true physics result!
 
blechman said:
you have to be more careful:

(1) nothing runs below the electron mass itself, so you don't want to start the running at 1 eV, but at m_e(m_e)=511 keV.

(2) you also have to take into account the (very important!) point that e^2 is not a constant but also runs, so the diffEQ is a little more complicated than what you naively wrote down. This will enhance the mass a bit.

But it is true that the effect is not very large... a few percent at most -- QED remains quite weak up to the Planck scale.

And of course, this is in a fictitious universe where there are no other forces or particles other than the electron, positron and photon. In other words, a homework problem, not a true physics result!

Thank you very much! This was very illuminating. Even after recalculation, the effect
still is in the 2% range.

Thank you again!
François
 
How does the NEUTRINO mass run with energy?

In a separate thread I was told very clearly that even at Planck energy, the electron mass is renormalized (by QED alone) only by a few percent. The renormalization equation is quite simple.

Now, what happens to the *neutrino* mass at Planck energy? Obviously, being neutral, the neutrino mass is not normalized by QED (well, at least not at first order), but by the weak interaction.

Are there any numbers available on how neutrino masses run up to the Planck energy?
(Assuming, of course, that the standard model is valid throughout, i.e., no susy, no technicolor, etc.) Are the renormalization equations as simple as for QED? Are there any books/papers on the issue?

Thank you for any hint!

François
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
952
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K