New QCD Parameter Determinations

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on new precision determinations of quark masses and the strong force coupling constant using renormalization group summed perturbation theory (RGSPT). Participants explore the discrepancies between these new values and previously established estimates from the Particle Data Group (PDG) and the Flavor Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents new values for quark masses and the strong force coupling constant, comparing them with established values from PDG and FLAG.
  • The participant questions why the strange quark mass shows more tension with previous estimates than other parameters, suggesting it may be due to RGSPT's insufficient consideration of non-perturbative effects.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on the notation "<---->", which is used to visually distinguish between values from different sources.
  • A different participant criticizes the use of "<---->" as visually unappealing and suggests that a table format would be more effective.
  • There is a comment on the lack of LaTeX formatting, which some participants feel detracts from readability.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the clarity of the notation used for presenting values, with some favoring the current method and others advocating for alternative formats. The question of the strange quark mass tension remains unresolved, with no consensus on the reasons behind it.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects varying preferences for data presentation and highlights the complexity of interpreting new findings in the context of established values, particularly regarding non-perturbative effects.

ohwilleke
Gold Member
Messages
2,662
Reaction score
1,629
TL;DR
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.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
what does

<---->mean?
 
malawi_glenn said:
what does

<---->mean?
I'm merely using it as a way to visually distinguish between the values from each of the three sources for each parameter, while connecting all three values to the definition of the parameter described (which would ideally all appear on the same line).

If you use of comma or semi-colon, they tend to visually blend into each other to my tired middle aged bifocal wearing eyes.

If you you separate lines for each entry, it gets harder to read the post as a whole, since it has six more lines.
 
tableworksfinetoo
the<---->isgarbage

personallyIthink
thelackof
## \LaTeX ##formationis

evenmore
hurtfulto

eyes
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: ohwilleke and Vanadium 50

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 317 ·
11
Replies
317
Views
117K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
12K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
16K
Replies
1
Views
3K