Top quark mass mt at energy scales μ<mt?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the top quark mass at energy scales below its pole mass, mt. Participants explore whether it is meaningful to consider the top quark mass in contexts where the energy is less than mt, particularly through effective field theory and the implications of gauge coupling constants. The conversation includes theoretical considerations, potential measurement methods, and the impact of the top quark on various particle interactions and decay processes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the validity of discussing the top quark mass at energies below mt, given that all processes involve energy scales above mt due to the rest mass energy.
  • One participant suggests that if the top quark were metastable, it might be possible to measure its mass at low energies by cooling it and summing the decay products' energy.
  • Another participant argues that decay processes would still occur at the top mass, unless the top quark is completely off-shell, which would not yield the top mass.
  • A participant references a study indicating that the top mass can change at different energy scales, citing specific values at high and low energies.
  • One participant claims that the running of the top mass at scales below mt has been indirectly measured through rare B decays, where the top quark's influence is significant.
  • Another participant notes that while the Standard Model forbids flavor-changing neutral currents (FCNC) at tree level, they can appear in higher-order processes.
  • A later reply summarizes that the top quark affects many observables at scales below mt, particularly in loop-mediated processes, and that early estimates of the top mass were derived from theoretical predictions compared to experimental data.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relevance and implications of the top quark mass at energies below mt. There is no consensus on whether it is meaningful to measure or discuss the top mass in this context, and multiple competing perspectives are presented throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific theoretical frameworks and models, such as effective field theory and SU(5) Grand Unified Theories (GUTs), which may introduce assumptions and dependencies that are not fully resolved in the discussion.

unknown1111
Messages
7
Reaction score
3
Does it make sense to talk about the top mass at energies below mt, although in all processes the corresponding energy scale is above mt because of the rest mass energy of the top quark?

Using an effective field theory approach, the top quark decouples at energies below the top quark mass and therefore has no influence on the mass running of the other fermions. Nevertheless, it is possible to compute how the top quark mass mt changes at energies below mt, for example, because of the energy dependence of the gauge coupling constants. For example, in Updated Estimate of Running Quark Masses the authors compute

8KWbX.png

Imagine, for example, the top would be stable for some reason and we could determine its mass somehow using a "scale" at low energies. Would we get the top mass at "room temperature", i.e. a few milli-GeV or only always its mass at around 200 GeV, because of the rest mass energy of the top quark?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
unknown1111 said:
Does it make sense to talk about the top mass at energies below mt

How would you ever measure this?
 
Unfortunately, I have no good idea. Maybe, assuming it's metastable, i.e. with a long but not infinity lifetime, we could bring it to "rest" (cool it to a given temperature) and then sum the energy of the decay products?
 
The decay process would still happen at the top mass. Unless your top is completely off-shell, but then the result is not the top mass anyway.
 
Thanks for your answer. My question is motivated by the result that, assuming a fixed standard model vev, one has in SU(5) GUTs at high energies m_bottom=m_tau. However through the RGE running of the Yukawas one gets at low energies m_bottom=3 m_tau. The top mass in the article I cite above is computed at 10^15 GeV to be around 84 GeV and at 2 GeV to be 360 GeV. Assuming the mass of another particle is around 200 GeV at all energy scales, i.e. the corresponding Yukawa coupling runs much slower. Would the top be able to decay into this new particle at low energies where m_new<m_top, but not at high energies where m_new>m_top?
 
Actually, I think the running of the top mass at scales well below mt has actually been indirectly measured by several processes.

Essentially, all rare B decays (fcnc for example) are mediated by top penguins and boxes. In the predictions of these branching ratios, the top is ran from the top quark pole mass down to mU=mb and used as an input. In some cases, the uncertainty in the top mass as mt, leads to large uncertainties for the process in question. For example, the calculation of B_s-> mU mU at NNLO.

If the top mass were very different to that expected in the SM, it would have also been seen at lep through Z->bb observables too!
 
I thought that the SM forbade fcnc interactions
 
Only at tree level, they appear in higher orders.
 
Yes, sorry if my post wasn't clear.

In summary, the top quark plays an effect on many observables at scales well below mt. The reason being that these processes are only loop mediated, or the loop mediated contribution is large.

In many cases (like rare Bhadron decays or Z->bb B0 mixing etc.) the effects from the top are very significant. In fact, maybe first estimates of the top mass (before direct observation) came from theory predictions of these observable s compared to data, where they extract the top mass.

To do this, generally the msbar (running top mass is used). In the case of B decays, an appropriate scale choice of mu is around the b quark mass.

Hope this helps
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
6K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K