• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

146 submissions , 123 unreviewed
3,953 questions , 1,403 unanswered
4,889 answers , 20,761 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
506 active unimported users
More ...

Are there non interacting particles?

+ 0 like - 4 dislike

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 (22 points) [ revision history ]
closed Sep 6, 2014 as per community consensus
Most voted comments show all comments

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.

@VladimirKalitvianski There is no deleted comment here.

@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.

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

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

Most recent comments show all comments

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

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.

1 Answer

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

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 (1,950 points) [ no revision ]

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

Your rights