Register

Adv. Query

Q&A (4870)

Reviews (203)

Open problems (47)
Meta (439)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,082 questions , 2,232 unanswered
5,353 answers , 22,789 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
820 active unimported users
More ...

Are there non interacting particles?

1646 views

In justifying bare parameter values, they say non-interacting particles may have different masses and charges, different from physical ones. To be more precise, the non-interacting particles are those that are described with the free Lagrangian. So I would like to see pros and contras about existence of non-interacting particles.

Closed as per community consensus as the post is Rhetorical question

asked Sep 5, 2014 in Closed Questions by Vladimir Kalitvianski (102 points) [ revision history ]
closed Sep 6, 2014 as per community consensus

This is a stupid question. Noninteracting particles are a mathematical idealization, obviously there are no noninteracting particles. Please stop filling up the site with stupidity. This question is vague and low-level.

commented Sep 6, 2014 by Ron Maimon (7,730 points) [ no revision ]

You deleted my comment. Why not to delete yours, Ron?

commented Sep 6, 2014 by Vladimir Kalitvianski (102 points) [ no revision ]

@VladimirKalitvianski There is no deleted comment here.

commented Sep 6, 2014 by dimension10 (1,985 points) [ no revision ]

@VladimirKalitvianski I agree with Ron - I was sure this was a rhetoric when I first saw this question, but assumed I wasn't seeing something the question was actually asking, but as you have not defended your question, so upvoting the closevote.

commented Sep 6, 2014 by dimension10 (1,985 points) [ no revision ]
reshown Sep 6, 2014 by Dilaton

My comment was: I agree with you in the part that there are no noninteracting constituent particles. The stupidity is not mine. It is written in textbooks and in papers, in particular, in G. 't Hooft's one. As far as this stupidity is omnipresent, there is no additional harm if I ask this question on this site.

commented Sep 6, 2014 by Vladimir Kalitvianski (102 points) [ no revision ]
edited Sep 6, 2014

As this inappropriate rhetoric question causes nothing but off-topic and distracting noise, I think it should not even be here. Voting to remove.

commented Sep 6, 2014 by Dilaton (6,240 points) [ no revision ]

@Dilaton: This question is basic for understanding QFT, it is not noise. If you are unable to answer it, the stay away.

commented Sep 6, 2014 by Vladimir Kalitvianski (102 points) [ no revision ]

@VladimirKalitvianski, Your question has been answered, NO. A non-interacting particle is unobservable by definition.

commented Sep 6, 2014 by dimension10 (1,985 points) [ no revision ]

Your comment on this question:

To answer, leave an answer instead. Comments are usually for non-answers.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
To alert a user, please use the "@" command and remove spaces from the username, example, the user "John Doe" should be pinged as "@JohnDoe", while the user "Johndoe" should be pinged as "@Johndoe". The post author is always automatically pinged (unless you are the post author).
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.

Live preview (may slow down editor) Preview

Your name to display (optional):

Email me at this address if a comment is added after mine:

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:
p$\hbar\varnothing$sicsOverflow
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

1 Answer

No, your question is a rhetoric. A non-interacting particle is unobservable by definition. A physical non-interacting particle is an oxymoron.

answered Sep 6, 2014 by dimension10 (1,985 points) [ no revision ]

Your comment on this answer:

To answer, leave an answer instead. Comments are usually for non-answers.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
To alert a user, please use the "@" command and remove spaces from the username, example, the user "John Doe" should be pinged as "@JohnDoe", while the user "Johndoe" should be pinged as "@Johndoe". The post author is always automatically pinged (unless you are the post author).
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.

Live preview (may slow down editor) Preview

Your name to display (optional):

Email me at this address if a comment is added after mine:

Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.

Anti-spam verification:

[captcha placeholder]

Please complete the anti-spam verification

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

Your rights

...