Talk:Pomeron

Family of particles-- Outlandish?

Somebody wrote that the definition of pomeron on this page, a Regge trajectory with particles lying on it, is "outlandish". Maybe it is sort of arguable, because I don't think that any actual particles are definitively established to be on the pomeron trajectory, but there are candidates. The problem, as I understand it, is that there is mixing between quark vacuum condensates and pure glue vacuum condensates, so that identifying a glueball is difficult. That's an unfortunate thing--- it makes the trajectory appear more mysterious than it would be in a pure glue world, where you would think that there would be clear spin 0, spin 2, spin 4, spin 6 particles etc. on the pomeron. But I don't think it's a lie to say what it says, even though it is a simplification, because it gets the main idea across. Perhaps there's a way to say it better.Likebox (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

...assuming only that the cross sections do not fall

Sorry, I don't understand "assuming only that the cross sections do not fall." Can someone rewrite this so it is clear to someone who does not have intimate knowledge of experimental particle physics? I cannot imagine how a cross section can fall. David Spector (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A cross section has a very special meaning in particle physics and quantifies the probability of particles to interact (scatter) with each other and is expressed as an effective area. Is is one of the quantities that can be measured in collider experiments, where particles are smashed together. In contrast to a hard object, the cross section of elementary particles is energy dependent since the probability of interactions is dependend on centre-of-mass energy during the collision, because this dictates which particles can be produced in the collision. I am pretty sure that it is meant that the assumption was that the cross sections do not decrease with either rising or decreasing energy. I think it is meant that the cross sections do not fall with increasing energy, but I am not sure about that.Elimik31 (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"I am pretty sure that", "I think it", "but I am not sure"

You've pretty well reinforced the OP's call for a re-write. The previous link (cross-sections) immediately preceded by the word "falling", leaves the matter conclusive; nowhere in the linked article does the word "fall" appear at all. JohndanR (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Not included in list of unsolved problems in physics

There is a link to a list of unsolved problems_in_physics and under it a box with what seems a formulation of the currently seemingly unsolved question whether there are observable particles in the pomeron trajectory. I clicked on the link and opened the list of unsolved problems in phyiscs, but didn't find this problem in this formulation anywhere. I thought the box text is a quote from that list. So I would either completely remove the box or add the problem (if it still exists) to that list. Otherwise, it is confusing.Elimik31 (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Reggeon

At present, Reggeon is a redirect to Regge theory. But the word 'reggeon' doesn't occur in the Regge theory article. I propose that Reggeon should redirect here to Pomeron instead. At least there will be one hit on 'reggeon' in the article text, and a search for that word will also find the title of Eugene Levin's 1998 paper. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Glueballs

Aren't odderons a special kind of glueballs? And how about the pomeron? Is reggeon an old synonym of pomeron? See it:Glueball#Voci correlate --Ernsts (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)