Re: Photons before the matter-energy

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Fri Feb 01 2002 - 03:42:43 GMT

  • Next message: Francesca S. Alcorn: "Re: Perception, Memory, Knowledge, Imagination and Cognition"

    Received: by id DAA06149 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 03:48:29 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: Re: Photons before the matter-energy
    Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:42:43 -0500
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Feb 2002 03:42:44.0270 (UTC) FILETIME=[81EC84E0:01C1AAD2]
    Precedence: bulk

    >From: "Dace" <>
    >To: <>
    >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:

    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