Pole Masses of Light Quarks

In summary, the pole masses of heavy quarks (c, b, and t) are relatively well defined in QCD, while the masses of light quarks (u, d, and s) are usually referenced at 1 or 2 GeV in an MS renormalization scheme. Naive extrapolation of light quark masses to lower energy scales gives larger hypothetical pole masses, but confinement implies that these values may not be physically meaningful. A paper discussing this issue suggests that perturbative calculations are not reliable below 0.6 GeV and questions whether there is a non-perturbative way to determine the pole masses of light quarks. The definition of light quark masses remains a tricky subject, as they are
  • #1
ohwilleke
Gold Member
2,347
1,339
The pole masses of the heavy quarks (c, b and t) are relatively well defined in QCD (i.e. the solution of m²(p²) = p² extrapolated using the beta function and the available data from other values of µ usually obtained based upon model dependent decompositions of hadron masses that include these heavy quarks).

Generally speaking, when we talk about the masses of the light quarks (u, d, and s) we use the masses at µ corresponding to 1 GeV or 2 GeV in an MS renormalization scheme (or some similar alternative) and those are the masses referenced by the particle data group.

Naively extrapolating light quark masses to lower energy scales gives much larger hypothetical pole masses for these particles (approaching constituent quark approximation masses), but it isn't obvious that these pole masses are meaningful because confinement implies that light quarks are always present in hadrons, and there are no hadrons lighter than the pion (ca. 140 MeV) and the protons (a bit under 1 GeV). So, perhaps pole masses for these particles are simply "non-physical".

The discussion of the issue in one paper (http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9712201v2.pdf) states:
As we noted already, the values of the light quark masses mq(mq) (q = u, d, s) should not be taken rigidly, because the perturbative calculation below µ ∼ 1 GeV seems to be not reliable. In order to see the reliability of the calculation of αs(µ), in Fig. 4, we illustrate the values of the second and third terms in { } of (B4) in Appendix B separately. The values of the second and third terms exceed one at µ ≃ 0.42 GeV and µ ≃ 0.47 GeV, respectively. Also, in Fig. 5, we illustrate the values of the second and third terms in { } of (4.5) separately. The values of the second and third terms exceed one at µ ≃ 0.58 GeV and µ ≃ 0.53 GeV, respectively. These means that the perturbative calculation is not reliable below µ ≃ 0.6 GeV. Therefore, the values with asterisk in Tables I, II and VI should not be taken strictly. These situations are not improved even if we take the four-loop correction into consideration. For example, for nq = 3, d(αs/π)/d ln µ is given by [22] d(αs/π) d ln µ = − 9 2 αs π 2 " 1 + 1.79 αs π + 4.47 αs π 2 + 21.0 αs π 3 + · · ·# . (5.1) Since the value of αs/π is αs/π ≃ 0.16 at µ ≃ 1 GeV, the numerical values of the right-hand side of (5.1) becomes d(αs/π) d ln µ = − 9 2 αs π 2 [1 + 0.28 + 0.11 + 0.085 + · · ·] , (5.2) so that the fourth term is not negligible compared with the third term. This suggests that the fifth term which is of the order of (αs/π) 6 will also not be negligible below µ ∼ 1 GeV. However, we consider that the evolution of mq(µ) above µ ∼ 1 GeV (from µ ≃ 1 GeV to µ ∼ mZ) is reliable in spite of the large error of αs(µ) at µ ∼ 1 GeV.

Is there a non-perturbative way to determine the light quark pole masses below µ ∼ 1 GeV? Is it simply too hard to calculate but well defined? Or, are these quantities ill defined or truly non-physical?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
Thanks for the reference, although the pdg review dances around the subject rather than really attacking it head on.
 
  • #4
I don't understand what you mean. It explains, how the mass values they quote are determined. As I said, it's a tricky business since quarks are not observable as "asymptotic free states".
 
  • #5
The crux of the issue is whether determining these values is simply difficult, or whether the concept of quarks have a well defined mass at a scale far less than the smallest hadron masses of hadrons that contain them is itself is in some respect unsound.
 

1. What are pole masses of light quarks?

The pole mass is a theoretical parameter used in particle physics to describe the mass of a quark. It is the mass a quark would have if it were isolated and could exist as a free particle.

2. How do pole masses differ from current masses?

Current masses are a different type of theoretical parameter used to describe the mass of a quark. They take into account the effects of the strong force and how it binds quarks together, whereas pole masses do not.

3. Why are pole masses important?

Pole masses are important because they are used in theoretical calculations and predictions of particle interactions and decays. They also provide a way to compare and contrast different theories and models of particle physics.

4. How are pole masses measured?

Since pole masses are theoretical parameters, they cannot be directly measured. Instead, they are calculated using experimental data and theoretical models. The current best values for pole masses of light quarks come from the Particle Data Group, which compiles data from various experiments.

5. How do pole masses of light quarks relate to the overall understanding of the Standard Model?

The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory that describes the fundamental particles and their interactions. The pole masses of light quarks play a crucial role in this model, as they are used to calculate other important parameters, such as the masses of other particles. Therefore, understanding and accurately measuring pole masses is essential for furthering our understanding and testing the predictions of the Standard Model.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
994
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
609
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
997
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
13
Views
3K
Back
Top