Paper detail

Does the empirical meson spectrum support the Hagedorn conjecture?

It has long been conjectured that strong interactions give rise to a Hagedorn spectrum and theoretical arguments have been presented in support of Hagedorn spectrum in large $N_c$ QCD. This paper discusses the extent to which the meson spectrum should be viewed as evidence for a Hagedorn spectrum and argues that data do not provide a strong evidence for the Hagedorn conjecture. The conclusion is based on three reasons. It is shown that "realistic" quark models have a spectrum in which the number of mesons up to 2.3 GeV grows with mass in a very similar way to the spectrum of physical mesons up to 2.3 GeV. However, these models can be shown not to have Hagedorn spectra. It is also shown that the available data are insufficient to determine the Hagedorn temperature. The data can be described with comparable accuracy by various functional forms of the prefactor that yield radically different Hagedorn temperatures. An analysis of the behavior of the spectrum for the various parity-spin-charge conjugation-isospin channels also appears to be inconsistent with what one expects if the data were in the regime dominated by exponential behavior.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.