Regge Poles and Resonances

  • T. K. Radha

Abstract

Just before this discussion of Regge poles and resonances was prepared, we received information that at Brookhaven it was found that the diffraction peaks in π-p and K-p scattering do not shrink with energy, while in the case of p-p scattering the peak is much smaller than heretofore believed.1 The logarithmic shrinking of the diffraction peak2 was a unique prediction of the Regge poles hypothesis for high-energy scattering. Since the experimental data are not yet confirmed, we shall proceed in the usual way and try to understand the possible reasons for the diffraction peak not to shrink. Since the title of this paper refers to resonances, I shall not go into the details of the analytic properties of the functions involved.

Keywords

Ghost Terion 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A.P. Balachandran, Private communication.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Diddens et al., Report to CERN Conference (1962).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Regge, Lectures delivered at Summer School held at Trieste (1962).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rev. 112: 1344 (1958).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Regge, Nuovo Cimento 14: 951 (1959); 18: 947 (1960). Also, A. Bottino, A.M. Longoni, and T. Regge, Nuovo Cimento 23: 954 (1962).MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    G.F. Chew, S. Mandelstam, and S.C. Frautschi, Phys. Rev. 126: 1202 (1962).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Lovelace and D. Masson, University of London, Preprint and report to CERN Conference (1962).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Gell-Mann, S.C. Frautschi, and F. Zachariasen, Phys. Rev. 126: 2204 (1962).MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Froissart, Phys. Rev. 123: 1053 (1961).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Blankenbecler and M.L. Goldberger, Phys. Rev. 126: 766 (1962).MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    G.F. Chew and S.C. Frautschi, Phys. Rev. Letters 7: 394 (1961); 8: 41 (1962).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A.H. Rosenfeld, UCRL-10492.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Rev. Letters 8: 263 (1962).MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    V.N. Gribov and I. Pomeranchuk, Phys. Rev. Letters 8: 349 and 412 (1962).MathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    B.M. Udgoankar, Phys. Rev. Letters 8: 142 (1962).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    K. Igi, Preprint, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    B. Hahn et al., Report to CERN Conference (1962).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Mandelstam, Report to CERN Conference (1962).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    V.N. Gribov, Report to CERN Conference (1962).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Eden, Report to CERN Conference (1962).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    B. Lee and R. Sawyer, Preprint, Princeton Institute of Advanced Study (1962).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D. Amati et al., Phys. Letters 1: 29 (1962); and Report to CERN Conference (1962).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Gell-Mann and B.M. Udgoankar, Phys. Rev. Letters 8: 346 (1962).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1966

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. K. Radha
    • 1
  1. 1.MatscienceMadrasIndia

Personalised recommendations