Is the "massless quark" hypothesis ever useful?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter dextercioby
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Quark
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the utility of the "massless quark" hypothesis in theoretical physics, particularly in the context of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and hadron physics. Participants explore whether assuming quarks to be massless can yield useful theoretical results, despite the known masses of quarks from experimental data.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the rationale behind assuming quarks to be massless, suggesting that this assumption contradicts the observed masses of quarks.
  • Another participant compares the massless quark assumption to idealizations used in teaching, such as frictionless planes, implying that it serves a similar purpose in simplifying calculations.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes that assuming massless quarks can facilitate calculations in theoretical models, particularly in low-energy regimes where perturbation theory is not applicable.
  • One participant elaborates on the complexities of defining quark masses due to confinement in hadrons and discusses the importance of the massless-quark limit for understanding hadrons and developing effective quantum-field theories.
  • The same participant notes that chiral symmetry plays a significant role in the massless limit and discusses the implications of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, including the existence of Nambu-Goldstone modes like pions.
  • Chiral perturbation theory is mentioned as a successful framework that treats explicit chiral-symmetry breaking due to quark masses as a perturbation, indicating its relevance in hadron physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the usefulness of the massless quark hypothesis, with some arguing for its theoretical utility while others question its validity given the known masses of quarks. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in defining quark masses due to confinement and the challenges in applying perturbative methods in certain energy regimes. The role of chiral symmetry and its breaking is also a complex aspect that remains under exploration.

dextercioby
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
13,408
Reaction score
4,190
TL;DR
It all started with a debate on another site. Someone told me that "massless quarks" are useful (in theory I presume).
So here it goes. All known theorized quarks are found from scattering experiments to be massive, i.e. have a rest mass. Someone with more knowledge than me told me that assuming (against logic, from my point of view) quarks to be massless, i.e. just like a gas of photons, is theoretically useful. It is true? If so, why can't one simply assume that quarks are the way they are, massive, and get better theoretical results??

P.S. This is not about the Higgs mechanism.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you saying "why is this often a good approximation?": Same reason we talk about frictionless planes, massless pulleys, etc.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ohwilleke
No, those are idealizations for sake of teaching students. A different concept. Here is simply: assume mass of whatever quark equals zero. Do whatever calculations and get a physical relevant result (which you can even measure). Why assume mass equal zero in the first place?
 
Because it makes the calculation easier. Why not use GR to solve incline plane problems?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ohwilleke and DEvens
That's a very complicated issue. The light-quark (u, d, in some sense also s) masses are nowadays defined through lattice QCD:

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2019/reviews/rpp2018-rev-quark-masses.pdf
The reason of the difficulty to define quark masses is of course that they are, together with gluons, "confined" in hadrons, i.e., there are no asymptotic free quarks, which could be defined as definite mass eigenstates and their mass then measured in experiments.

Now, however, the massless-quark limit, is of great importance to understand hadrons and to build effective quantum-field theoretical models, describing them. From first principles we can calculate their masses quite accurately using lattice QCD, but that's more or less it. To describe dynamical hadrons, we need effective field theories as an approximation of QCD in the low-energy regime, where perturbation theory is inapplicable, because the strong coupling constant becomes large in this regime ("asymptotic freedom" of QCD).

Now nature comes to rescue! QCD does not only have its defining fundamental local color-gauge symmetry, but in the light-quark sector and approximate chiral symmetry. In the massless-light-quark limit this symmetry becomes exact, and one can build effective hadronic QFTs by assuming chiral symmetry as an approximation. Now chiral symmetry would on the first glance imply that for each hadron of definite parity (and parity is a good quantum number as long as we can neglect weak interactions, which break parity symmetry, but dealing only with the strong interaction, parity is conserved and thus space reflection a good symmetry) there must be a "chiral partner" hadron with the opposite parity and the same mass. This is obviously not true! E.g., there's no chiral partner with the same mass of the protons and neutrons.

On the other hand, as the determination of the "current-quark masses" as explained in the above quoted summary article of the particle-date group indicates that the light u and d quarks have really small masses (a few MeV) on the typical hadronic mass scale (of about a GeV).

The solution of this apparent paradox has been found in the early 60ies, i.e., well before QCD has been known as the underlying fundamental theory of the strong interaction: The chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken, i.e., the ground state (vacuum state) is not chirally symmetric. Being a global symmetry then chiral symmetry implies that there must be some massless scalar or pseudoscalar bosons (the Nambu-Goldstone modes of broken chiral symmetry). Indeed, there are the pseudoscalar pions, which have a quite small mass of around 140 MeV. That they are not strictly massless is due to the explicit breaking of chiral symmetry.

Today the breaking of chiral symmetry is understood as the formation of a socalled quark condensate in the vacuum state of full interacting QCD, i.e., the order parameter of this symmetry ##\langle \bar{\psi} \psi \rangle \neq 0## (with ##\psi## the light-quark flavor doublet). This is a scalar field, and the usual association of the chiral partner of the pions is the ##\sigma## meson, which however is a very broad "two-pion resonance". Nevertheless it's in accord with chiral symmetry.

The explicit chiral-symmetry breaking by the quark masses can treated as a perturbation, and this works amazingly well. An entire "industry" in theoretical hadron physics has been built, known as "chiral perturbation theory", and it is used successfully on many subjects related with hadron physics.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: ohwilleke, dextercioby, DarMM and 1 other person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
13K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K