Is magnetic field matter?
Are photons matter?

Does it "matter" ? :D

Originally posted by yinyinwang
Is magnetic field matter?
Are photons matter?
It depends on what you call matter.
If you call all particles matter, then photons are matter.
Magnetic field is composed of photons

A magnetic field is a force.
Photons are energy.

All are properties of matter.

Dreams are brain processes. Brains are matter. Dreams are properties of matter.

Hans

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
A magnetic field is a force.
Photons are energy.

All are properties of matter.

Dreams are brain processes. Brains are matter. Dreams are properties of matter.

Hans

Yes, if u define matter as that which has mass, then photons (although particulate in nature) are not matter.

Originally posted by SoLiDUS
Does it "matter" ? :D
what do you think?

Originally posted by John Connellan
Yes, if u define matter as that which has mass, then photons (although particulate in nature) are not matter.

What about neutrino? It does not have mass. According to you it is not matter.

I would guess that everything is energy; matter and force are just energy at differing vibrational rates.

Originally posted by candy
I would guess that everything is energy; matter and force are just energy at differing vibrational rates.
you missed the subject of dream.

A dream is just another form of energy.

Originally posted by candy
A dream is just another form of energy.
so it is matter?

Originally posted by 1100f
What about neutrino? It does not have mass. According to you it is not matter.

Absolutely. It is a lot easier to say a neutrino is not matter than it is to say a photon is not matter (have u thought of that?). At least photons get absorbed by matter.

I am not sure where you are trying to go with the is a dream matter concept. I think it is like asking is electricity matter.

Originally posted by candy
I am not sure where you are trying to go with the is a dream matter concept. I think it is like asking is electricity matter.

Im sticking by my definition of matter and the definition of electricity being moving electrons and so yes, electricity can be thought of as moving matter!

Neutrinos have mass. Small mass, for sure, < 3 eV, but they have mass.

- Warren

some of the dreams could be materilised ; most of them could not be materialised.:D

Originally posted by chroot
Neutrinos have mass. Small mass, for sure, < 3 eV, but they have mass.

- Warren

That is not sure if they have mass.
Do you claim that if thay have mass they are matter and if they don't have mass, they are not matter?

Compare a dream to a DvD. A sequence of images can be digitalised in a string of nulls and ones. Such string doesn't contain energy or matter. Pure info. Unless a piece of software is considered as containing energy (of the effort of the programmer to conceptualise something...) But then a random string which accidentaly can contain rational info would contain such form of energy too.

I would conclude that rational/abstract (image) belongs to other cathegory of objects then matter or energy.

Originally posted by 1100f
That is not sure if they have mass.
Neutrinos oscillate flavours; this has been experimentally verified. That they have weak interaction means they must have non-zero proper times along whatever worldlines they follow. If they have non-zero proper times, they must not be travelling at c. If they're not travelling at c, they must have some (albeit small) mass.

- Warren

Originally posted by chroot
Neutrinos oscillate flavours; this has been experimentally verified. That they have weak interaction means they must have non-zero proper times along whatever worldlines they follow. If they have non-zero proper times, they must not be travelling at c. If they're not travelling at c, they must have some (albeit small) mass.

- Warren
1. Let me rephrase my original question: Would you consider particles which are left handed Weyl spinors as matter? I would say yes.

2. If there is this flavor oscillations, what you say really make sense. I was not aware of these oscillations Do you mean that a neutrino oscillate between different lepton generation neutrinos (this is the only flavor that I know for leptons). Can you please give me some reference? Thanks

Originally posted by chroot
That they have weak interaction means they must have non-zero proper times along whatever worldlines they follow.

oh? would it also be correct to say that for a particle to interact with the strong interaction, it must have "non-zero proper times" (whatever that means)? in that case, how do you explain the fact that gluons are massless? or photons?

or do you think that any interacting particle must be massive, and therefore the photon is massive?

i am under the impression that there is no theoretical reason why the neutrino must be massless. or any of the quarks or leptons.

Originally posted by yinyinwang
what do you think?

My post was a joke. Sorry you didn't get it :P

1100f,

Yup, the oscillate flavours, generations, whatever you'd like to call them -- from electron-type to muon-type to tau-type. This was the solution originally proposed to solve the so-called "solar neutrino problem," which was the apparent conundrum that we receive only 1/3 as many electron-type neutrinos from the Sun as we should. The conclusion from oscillation is that the other 2/3 had oscillated to a different flavor and did not interact with the detectors, which were sensitive only to electron-type neutrinos.

I can certainly provide references. There are several dozen experiments to look at. They are all available here:

http://neutrinooscillation.org/

In addition, there are lots of resources on the web about neutrino oscillation. Here's a good page:

http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~jgl/nuosc_story.html

There are a variery of so-called "long baseline" experiments being conducted, in which neutrinos are created in one lab and sent through the earth to another lab a long distance away to be analyzed. If the originating lab is producing only electron-type neutrinos, bu muon-type neutrinos are showing up at the detector -- something's happening!

With existing theory and experiment, it seems fairly strongly established that neutrinos have some mass. However, WMAP and other experiments have shown that mass to be < 0.3 eV, which is, by all accounts, remarkably small.

- Warren

Originally posted by lethe
oh? would it also be correct to say that for a particle to interact with the strong interaction, it must have "non-zero proper times" (whatever that means)? in that case, how do you explain the fact that gluons are massless? or photons?
Thanks for the correction -- I meant more specifically that if the neutrino is able to undergo weak decay (is there a better way to describe flavour oscillation that "weak interaction?"), it must not massless.
i am under the impression that there is no theoretical reason why the neutrino must be massless. or any of the quarks or leptons.
I agree -- but there is that 'experiment' stuff you hate so much. ;)

- Warren

Originally posted by chroot
Thanks for the correction -- I meant more specifically that if the neutrino is able to undergo weak decay (is there a better way to describe flavour oscillation that "weak interaction?"), it must not massless.
there is a correct way to describe neutrino oscillation. the correct word to use is "oscillation". it is not a decay. massless particles can participate in decays, whereas they cannot oscillate flavor.

I agree -- but there is that 'experiment' stuff you hate so much. ;)

every experiment to date that measures neutrino mass has shown it to be massless, up to the experimental resolution. in addition there was no theoretical reason not to believe its masslessness until about 2001.

it is the theory of neutrino oscillations that show the neutrino has mass, not experiment.

Originally posted by 1100f
2. If there is this flavor oscillations, what you say really make sense. I was not aware of these oscillations
although the theory of neutrino oscillation had been floating around for over a decade, it was not experimentally verified until only 2 or 3 years ago.

it is identical to the mechanism by which generation changing reactions among quarks happen, which has been known for decades. this is how strange matter decays, for example.

Do you mean that a neutrino oscillate between different lepton generation neutrinos (this is the only flavor that I know for leptons).
yup, that s what it means. and only massive neutrinos can do it, so the inference is that neutrinos are massive. today this is a widely accepted fact, but only since about 2001.
Can you please give me some reference? Thanks
xxx (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9906244)

have right handed neutrinos been observed?

Originally posted by 1100f
have right handed neutrinos been observed?

no.

Originally posted by SoLiDUS
My post was a joke. Sorry you didn't get it :P
me too, the same sorry.

Originally posted by 1100f
That is not sure if they have mass.
Do you claim that if thay have mass they are matter and if they don't have mass, they are not matter?

As i have said many times in this thread YES!!!
(by mine and most definitions of matter)

Originally posted by John Connellan
As i have said many times in this thread YES!!!
(by mine and most definitions of matter)

Well, I disagree with you.
To be matter does not depend on the mass of the particle.
If you take for example two photons that are not colinear, they will have a mass. This composite system according to your definition is matter since it has a mass.

Furthermore, the particles are generally divided inti two groups. The force mediating fields (like the photon, the W and Z, the gluons and the graviton) and the matter field (quarks and leptons). Do you claim that in the massless model of the neutrino (which is a lepton) it does not belong to the matter fields?

Originally posted by 1100f
Well, I disagree with you.
To be matter does not depend on the mass of the particle.
If you take for example two photons that are not colinear, they will have a mass. This composite system according to your definition is matter since it has a mass.

Furthermore, the particles are generally divided inti two groups. The force mediating fields (like the photon, the W and Z, the gluons and the graviton) and the matter field (quarks and leptons). Do you claim that in the massless model of the neutrino (which is a lepton) it does not belong to the matter fields?

I am sticking with my statement that massless particles are not matter. Neutrinos are however, matter because they have mass (10 eV).

Originally posted by yinyinwang
me too, the same sorry.

Yeah. :rolleyes:

Hello YinYinYang

Was the intention of your original question about whether a dream occurs on known matter.

Regards
leeaus

sorry for being late answering.
I am not sure of your question.
dreams by human surely means carried out by matters.

They're a kind of matter: mind matter!

What is the mind? No matter!
What is matter? Nevermind!

:D

Hello Yinyinyang

Are you asking whether or not a dream occurs on atomic matter.
The distinction is between the dream (imagery) and what the dream happens on.

Would not think it was atomic matter that a dream occurs on. It seems to happen on so far undetected matter.

regards

leeaus

Leeaus:
this is what I am still pondering on.
But I would suspect that a dream is a result of human orgags interacting, like brain, sensors and nurves. But the question remains majorly in what happens in the brain. We would not get a solid answer before we know the brain mechanism.

thank you
yinyinwang

I am looking for any study result of blindness. I would like to know if people without eye fuction have any dreams.
Any suggestions?
Thanks

Hello Yinyinyang

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/06/22/tem_alive22.html

http://www.studentbmj.com/back_issues/0501/education/140.html

There is a couple of links you may find useful.

There seems to be two sides to dreaming. First there is what is born from what our senses have taken in. Secondly there seems to be a connection between us anyway. Personally had a dream about someone before meeting that someone.

The question is whether a dream is occurring on brain cells or some sort of so far undetected living plasma.

regards

leeaus

Hello Leeaus
Thank you for the links.
Information useful but not clear enough.
I am concerned with the dreams by people without eye organ completely, at least without the eye atena, not just visually impaired, cause and condition not clear.

Originally posted by yinyinwang
Hello Leeaus
Thank you for the links.
Information useful but not clear enough.
I am concerned with the dreams by people without eye organ completely, at least without the eye atena, not just visually impaired, cause and condition not clear.

Course they do. If you search around you'll find testamony. My grandfather was blind and he said he would dream in sound and smell and touch because that was what was normal to him.

Originally posted by blackholesun
Course they do. If you search around you'll find testamony. My grandfather was blind and he said he would dream in sound and smell and touch because that was what was normal to him.
what is the eye condition of your grandP? Eyeball? Atena?