Talk:Strange quark

Mass as MeV

The article states "mass of somewhere between 80 and 130 MeV" — is it acceptable for mass to be measured in units of energy? ~XarBioGeek ^(talk) 03:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This notation is universal in particle physics and arises through mass-energy equivalence. Eutactic (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is no harm in writing MeV/c² for the mass units, which is the usual habit. In particle physics where units are assumed such that c=1 this reduces to MeV. (In particle physics the only units that appear are powers of MeV. (TimothyRias (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

Sounds good. I could have sworn the article had the c² divisor when I first looked at it. Eutactic (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Reference

if some one can get a hold of C. T. H. Davies, C. McNeile, K. Y. Wong, E. Follana, R. Horgan, K. Hornbostel, G. P. Lepage, J. Shigemitsu, H. Trottier. Precise Charm to Strange Mass Ratio and Light Quark Masses from Full Lattice QCD. Physical Review Letters, 2010; 104 (13): 132003 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.132003 it is purported to have refined values for q_s and q_c Abyssoft (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 PDG values have been posted, http://pdg.lbl.gov/2010/2010/tables/rpp2010-sum-quarks.pdf
I will wait a few more days before making the changes to mass. If there are no objections I'll apply the changes on Friday August 06, 2010 sometime between 0700 and 2200 UTC. Abyssoft (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Particle Mass?

In the sidebar it says the mass is 95Mev but in the article linked it says 93Mev. I'd assume this is an error except the error bars are also different so that's confusing me.LastDodo (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]