Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA06149 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 1 Feb 2002 03:48:29 GMT X-Originating-IP: [184.108.40.206] From: "Scott Chase" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Photons before the matter-energy Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:42:43 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F53SZ1kTmrmxLfEZ8z00000936c@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Feb 2002 03:42:44.0270 (UTC) FILETIME=[81EC84E0:01C1AAD2] Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
>From: "Dace" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: Photons before the matter-energy
>Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:20:08 -0800
> > > 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.
Have I been accidentally receiving a bunch of posts from a physics
discussion list lately?
Constructing a filter that excludes posts containing words like "quantum",
"spacetime" and "Heisenberg uncertainty" is an eventual goal I have in
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
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 - 03:57:28 GMT