• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,054 questions , 2,207 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,719 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  How Exactly Does Linear Regge Trajectories Imply Stability?

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

(for a more muddled version, see physics.stackexchange: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14020/whats-with-mandelstams-argument-that-only-linear-regge-trajectories-are-stable)

There is a 1974 argument of Mandelstam's that linear Regge trajectories implies stability, from "Dual-Resonance Models" from 1974, sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370157374900349. Expand the Regge trajectory function $\alpha(s)$ in a dispersion relation with two subtractions:

$$ \alpha(s) = b + as + {1\over i\pi} \int_0^\infty {\mathrm{Im}(\alpha(s'))\over s-s'} ds'$$

The imaginary part of $\alpha(s)$ gives the decay of the string states, since where it hits an integer tells you where the poles are. So if the string resonances are exactly stable, then the imaginary part is zero, and the trajectory is linear.

This argument bugged me for these reasons:

  • It seems to work just as well with two subtractions, three subtractions, etc. Can you conclude that exactly quadratic or exactly cubic Regge trajectories are also stable? What is a quadratic or cubic trajectory?
  • The Regge trajectory function appears in the exponent, so you have to take a log to extract it. Why is it clear that it has a representation like the above, without a cut contribution at negative s?
  • In string theory, the trajectories are linear when they are long-lived, but the trajectory function doesn't look as fundamental today. Is there a more modern formulation of this, which would tell you which string limits are non-interacting just from a condition on the spectrum?

Mandelstam generously emailed me a short remark, saying essentially that the trajectory function imaginary part is a lifetime, and indeed this is obvious from the fact that it gives the position of the resonances, but I am still confused regarding the questions above.

Even a partial answer would be appreciated.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Oct 7, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by Ron Maimon (7,720 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Apr 19, 2014 by dimension10

1 Answer

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

I don't have any sharp answer, but the argument seems sketchy. I think we know in the infinite-$N_c$ limit of QCD that we have exactly stable resonances, and some nearly-linear Regge trajectories in some region, but that they're not perfectly linear and they fail badly to be linear at negative s where BFKL describes Regge physics. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0603115 by Brower, Polchinski, Strassler, and Tan looks at this kind of thing in some detail, and might point to some older literature that has something to say.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Oct 9, 2011 by Matt Reece (1,630 points) [ no revision ]
The word "sketchy" is ambiguous, you probably mean "wrong". I know the Brower Polchinski Strassler Tan stuff, and their argument links up perturbative BFKL to nonperturbative pomeron. I believe that the turnaround location depends on N in a way consistent with Mandelstam, so that in the pure large N limit the pomeron trajectory is straight. I am not sure, however, but it is a good thing to verify. Thanks for the answer.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights