Precision of direct measurements
The argument
Because linked claim and linked claim, the precise direct determination (world average 172.57 ± 0.29 GeV) can be read as the pole mass, and given the stability boundary near a 171 GeV top pole mass it then sits about 5.1 standard deviations above that boundary, so absolute stability is effectively excluded rather than consistent with measurement.
Does it work?
Not yet evaluated.
Premises
- SupportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →The Monte Carlo top-quark mass equals the pole mass to within a few hundred MeV
- UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →Direct measurements determine the top-quark mass near 172.5 GeV with uncertainty below 0.5 GeV
Where it is made
Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.
No source is recorded as making it.
Earlier ratings
- Jul 19, 2026
The arithmetic is sound: granting the premises, a 172.57 ± 0.29 GeV pole mass sits about five standard deviations above a stability boundary near 171 GeV, which would exclude absolute stability. The measurement premise, that direct measurements pin the top mass near 172.5 GeV to better than half a GeV, is uncontested; the argument therefore stands or falls with the identification of the Monte Carlo mass with the pole mass to within a few hundred MeV, which remains actively disputed, with ambiguity estimates ranging up to about a GeV. Until that premise is settled, the exclusion it delivers is conditional rather than established.