{"id":366,"date":"2006-03-20T19:45:06","date_gmt":"2006-03-21T00:45:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/?p=366"},"modified":"2006-03-23T12:39:35","modified_gmt":"2006-03-23T17:39:35","slug":"new-top-quark-mass-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/?p=366","title":{"rendered":"New Top Quark Mass"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Via <a href=\"http:\/\/dorigo.wordpress.com\/2006\/03\/20\/new-tevatron-average-of-top-quark-mass-13-total-error\/\">Tommaso Dorigo<\/a> of the CDF collaboration, the news that the Tevatron Electroweak Working Group has released a new analysis of combined CDF and D0 data with the most accurate result so far for the top quark mass:  172.5 +\/- 2.3 Gev.  Last summer this value was at 174.3 +\/- 3.4 Gev (see a posting <a href=\"http:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/?p=212\">here<\/a>), an improvement over the earlier value derived just using Run I data of 178.0 +\/- 4.3 Gev.<\/p>\n<p>The paper describing these results is available now <a href=\"http:\/\/tevewwg.fnal.gov\/top\/mtop0603.ps\">here<\/a>, and will soon be on the arXiv as <a href=\"http:\/\/www.arxiv.org\/abs\/hep-ex\/0603039\">hep-ex\/0603039<\/a>.  This new result represents a determination of the top quark mass to 1.3% accuracy, and the paper claims that further Run II data should ultimately allow an accuracy of better than 1%.<\/p>\n<p>For a talk about the significance of the top quark mass, see <a href=\"http:\/\/www-cdf.fnal.gov\/~douglasg\/Workshop\/Tait.pdf\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Via Tommaso Dorigo of the CDF collaboration, the news that the Tevatron Electroweak Working Group has released a new analysis of combined CDF and D0 data with the most accurate result so far for the top quark mass: 172.5 +\/- &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/?p=366\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-366","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/366","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=366"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/366\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=366"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=366"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=366"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}