Re: Photons before the matter-energy

From: Dace (
Date: Fri Feb 01 2002 - 03:20:08 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: Photons before the matter-energy"

    Received: by id DAA06106 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 03:24:45 GMT
    Message-ID: <004001c1aacf$5b9f4000$be24f4d8@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: Photons before the matter-energy
    Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:20:08 -0800
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
    X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
    Precedence: bulk

    > > Let me ask you this. If a theoretical "entity,"
    > > capable of vision in the early universe, had been
    > > looking around, what would this "eye" have seen?
    > Assuming our eing was not turned into plasma as a
    > result of the temperatures (greater than the surface
    > photosphere of the sun).... i.e. a completely
    > impossible "being" to have "eyes" but lets engage then
    > in the virtual world. OK?
    > It would be like being on the inside of a bright
    > lightfilled fog, coming at you at every wavelength.
    > Everything is there. Nothing is "not there".

    So you're saying it would have been extremely bright in there.

    > When we see the Cosmic Microwave Background what we
    > are gazing at is the "edge" of this "fireball". After
    > that point in time the universe went transparent -

    How could the primordial universe have been bright at the same time it was
    opaque? If something is opaque, then nothing can be seen in it. It's the
    precise opposite of brightness. Not just dim but all the way black.

    > electrons were bound around the nuclei to make atoms,
    > and light was free to travel, uninterupted from the
    > "edge" to the COBE observer

    If photons were unable to travel in the early universe, how could they have
    possessed *any* wavelength, much less "every wavelength," as you assert?
    How can you use the term "light" or even radiation to describe a collection
    of photons bound to electrons and therefore unable to strike them from a
    distance and illuminate them? The whole proposition of light has been
    thrown out the window. Nothing is left of the traditional meaning of the
    term. It's not light. It's just photons. It's the particles which, when
    assembled, will constitute light. To say an unformed set of photons
    constitutes light is like saying a stack of bricks is a house.


    > Does this help?
    > Regards
    > John

    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 01 2002 - 03:33:19 GMT