- #1
ChrisVer
Gold Member
- 3,378
- 464
I was reading through this paper:
A Model for Strong Flavor Dynamics for the Top Quark
Ehab Malkawi, Tim Tait, C.--P. Yuan
It's pretty old, so maybe some things might have changed...
I have two questions.
Q1:
I quote from abstract:
Q2:
And finally I don't really understand the mass-hierarchy for the fermion mass spectrum (again mentioned in the intro).
[itex] \frac{m_t}{m_c} \approx 134 ~~,~~ \frac{m_c}{m_u} \approx 561 [/itex]
Any idea? Or is the "relative" mass compared to something else (like the QCD scale)?
A Model for Strong Flavor Dynamics for the Top Quark
Ehab Malkawi, Tim Tait, C.--P. Yuan
It's pretty old, so maybe some things might have changed...
I have two questions.
Q1:
I quote from abstract:
and from introIf one takes the Rb data seriously
Were (or are) the measurments that showed the inconsistencies (to SM predictions) of Rc and Rb considered non-serious? In fact reading in a paper "taking those measurements seriously" made me giggle and think if I should take what's written "seriously" (or if I am badly mistaken).If one takes the above measurements seriously, one can advocate specific types of new physics which tackle these experimental concerns
Q2:
And finally I don't really understand the mass-hierarchy for the fermion mass spectrum (again mentioned in the intro).
The top quark mass is relatively as larger to charm quark mass (3rd to 2nd), as charm is to up (2nd to 1st)... In numbers:The relatively large mass of the third generation fermions may suggest a dynamical behavior different from that of the first two generations
[itex] \frac{m_t}{m_c} \approx 134 ~~,~~ \frac{m_c}{m_u} \approx 561 [/itex]
Any idea? Or is the "relative" mass compared to something else (like the QCD scale)?