![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
How can the pomeron have "the quantum numbers of the vacuum" as stated in the article if it is a "family of particle of increasing spin"...doesn't the vacuum only have spin 0? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.108.32.110 ( talk) 13:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
How can the pomeron have "the quantum numbers of the vacuum" as stated in the article if it is a "family of particle of increasing spin"...doesn't the vacuum only have spin 0? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.108.32.110 ( talk) 13:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)