Re: Up & Down Quark Mass or Charge Problem?
From: Arnold Neumaier (Arnold.Neumaier_at_univie.ac.at)
Date: 08/30/04
- Next message: alistair: "Re: why general relativity is non-linear"
- Previous message: Daniel A. Morgan: "Re: Question on observer's role in QM"
- In reply to: Matthew Nobes: "Re: Up & Down Quark Mass or Charge Problem?"
- Next in thread: Matthew Nobes: "Re: Up & Down Quark Mass or Charge Problem?"
- Reply: Matthew Nobes: "Re: Up & Down Quark Mass or Charge Problem?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 30 Aug 2004 04:57:39 -0400
Matthew Nobes wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, Jamie Vicary wrote:
>
>>Nobody even knows if quarks /have/ a "defined" mass, because nobody
>>really knows what mass is, however much they tell you that they do.
>
> Mass is a parameter in a Lagrangian.
No. The parameters in the Lagrangian all diverge under renormalization.
The mass is described by a pole in the Green's function,
or in terms of decay constants of correlations (in lattice gauge theory).
In nonrelativistic quark models, however, the (effective) mass is a
parameter in an effective Hamiltonian.
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2004/reviews/contents_sports.html#partpropetc
contains online documents by the particle data group, among others one
on 'Quark Masses'. This is the yearly updated official consensus of
the physics community.
Arnold Neumaier
- Next message: alistair: "Re: why general relativity is non-linear"
- Previous message: Daniel A. Morgan: "Re: Question on observer's role in QM"
- In reply to: Matthew Nobes: "Re: Up & Down Quark Mass or Charge Problem?"
- Next in thread: Matthew Nobes: "Re: Up & Down Quark Mass or Charge Problem?"
- Reply: Matthew Nobes: "Re: Up & Down Quark Mass or Charge Problem?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
