Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Classical Physics
Quantum Physics
Quantum Interpretations
Special and General Relativity
Atomic and Condensed Matter
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Beyond the Standard Model
Cosmology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Other Physics Topics
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
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
.
Forums
Physics
High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Pole mass and non stationary mass of a particle
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="Reggid, post: 6606537, member: 654378"] The PDG ( [URL]https://pdg.lbl.gov/2021/tables/rpp2021-sum-quarks.pdf[/URL] ) quotes as their average of the results for top quark pole mass measurements $$ m_t = 172.5 \pm 0.7\, \rm{GeV} $$ How this works is that you calculate the ## t \bar{t} ## production cross section to high precision as a function of the pole mass, then measure this cross section at a collider and from that fit for the mass. For direct top quark mass measurements (from taking the invariant mass of all the top's reconstructed decay products and comparing the resulting distribution to a Monte Carlo template for different values of the mass parameter) they give as their average $$ m_t = 172.76 \pm 0.30 \, \rm{GeV} $$ This is not exactly the pole mass but will include an additional, not yet fully understood shift with respect to the pole mass of up to ## \mathcal{O}(1 \,\rm{GeV}) ##, but you see that you are in the same range as for the pole mass measurments above. So yeah, with your 173 GeV that you wrote above you are compatible within the current uncertainties with the pole mass. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Physics
High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Pole mass and non stationary mass of a particle
Back
Top