Verifications of running charge / running mass

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter metroplex021
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Charge Mass Running
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The phenomenon of running charge, as predicted by Quantum Field Theory (QFT), has been experimentally verified, confirming that the physical charge on an electron varies with the energy at which it is measured. Key experiments confirming this include measurements of the running mass of the bottom quark from Z-boson decays, with values reported in literature such as arXiv:hep-ph/9905495v2. The discussion emphasizes that mass is distinct from coupling, with the pole mass being a strictly perturbative concept that does not account for non-perturbative effects, particularly in the context of quarks.

PREREQUISITES
  • Quantum Field Theory (QFT) fundamentals
  • Understanding of running mass and coupling concepts
  • Knowledge of particle physics, specifically quark behavior
  • Familiarity with Z-boson decay processes
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the experimental verification of running charge in QFT
  • Study the implications of pole mass versus running mass in particle physics
  • Examine the role of confinement in defining quark mass
  • Explore the latest measurements of top quark mass at the LHC
USEFUL FOR

Particle physicists, researchers in Quantum Field Theory, and students studying the interactions of fundamental particles will benefit from this discussion.

metroplex021
Messages
148
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Looking for citations of experimental confirmations of electronic running charge, and also running mass (if these exist).
Hi everyone,
I understand that the phenomenon of running charge predicted by QFT has been experimentally verified: the physical charge on an electron really does vary with the energy at which it is measured. I have two questions:
(1) Does anyone know what the canonical experiments confirming this are?
(2) Has there been a similar experimental confirmation of its 'running mass' (since formally mass behaves just like a coupling here)?
Any input most appreciated. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and metroplex021
You can for example measure the running mass of the bottom quark from Z-boson decays and compare it to the running mass measured at lower scales:

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9905495v2 states a value of
##m_b(m_Z)=2.56\pm 0.72(\rm{stat.})^{+0.28}_{-0.38}(\rm{syst.})^{+0.49}_{-1.48}(\rm{theor.})## GeV,
the PDG quotes
##m_b(m_b)=4.18^{+0.03}_{-0.02}## GeV.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and metroplex021
Orodruin said:
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0507078
Mass is not the same as coupling. The physical mass is independent of the renormalisation scale. It refers to the pole of the propagator.
Thank you Orodruin. I thought the pole mass was just the mass of the *free* particle in its own frame -- which is why, given confinement, the pole mass isn't well-defined for quarks. And I thought that the 'running' mass of the particle was its effective mass when undergoing interactions at scale E. Is that not right?
 
Reggid said:
You can for example measure the running mass of the bottom quark from Z-boson decays and compare it to the running mass measured at lower scales:

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9905495v2 states a value of
##m_b(m_Z)=2.56\pm 0.72(\rm{stat.})^{+0.28}_{-0.38}(\rm{syst.})^{+0.49}_{-1.48}(\rm{theor.})## GeV,
the PDG quotes
##m_b(m_b)=4.18^{+0.03}_{-0.02}## GeV.
Thank you Reggid. Is this consistent with what Orodruin writes above - ie what we're measuring when we measure this 'running mass' is something different from the mass of bottom quark itself?
 
Due to confinement the pole mass of a quark is not more a physical mass than any other mass scheme. The pole mass is only a strictly perturbative concept, since the full propagator of a quark does not have a pole due to non-perturbative effects.

This leads to an ambiguity in the definition of the pole mass of order ##\mathcal{O}(\Lambda_{\rm{QCD}})##, which is the reason why you will usually not see pole mass values for quarks very often. The only exception is the top quark, but also here this ambiguity might start to play a role when LHC takes more data and gains higher precision on top mass measurements, definitely with possible future lepton-colliders.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
987
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K