Riding on a photo [Archive]

mike.james

Dec17-04, 07:54 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>I was listening to a popular account of relativity (special) and the old\nquote about Einstein trying to imagine what the universe would look like\nif he was riding on a light beam.\n\nAlthough I know SR I still feel confused about what it tells us about\nwhat the universe would look like from the point of view of a photon.\nWhile arguments based on limits help they don\'t really give final\nanswers (to my mind) when v=c.\n\nSo some simple questions - using "photon" to mean something like a\nlocalised packet of EM waves:\n\n1) Presumably an observer on a photon sees all other photons as moving at c?\n\n2) What does the EM field look like if you are travelling with it?\n\n3) Is proper time stopped for a photon?\n\n4) If a photon is emitted and absorbed what is its proper time for the\ninterval between these events?\n\nmikej\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I was listening to a popular account of relativity (special) and the old
quote about Einstein trying to imagine what the universe would look like
if he was riding on a light beam.

Although I know SR I still feel confused about what it tells us about
what the universe would look like from the point of view of a photon.
While arguments based on limits help they don't really give final
answers (to my mind) when v=c.

So some simple questions - using "photon" to mean something like a
localised packet of EM waves:

1) Presumably an observer on a photon sees all other photons as moving at c?

2) What does the EM field look like if you are travelling with it?

3) Is proper time stopped for a photon?

4) If a photon is emitted and absorbed what is its proper time for the
interval between these events?

mikej

antimatter33@yahoo.com

Dec19-04, 06:48 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>mike.james wrote:\n\n> Although I know SR I still feel confused about what it tells us about\n> what the universe would look like from the point of view of a photon.\n> While arguments based on limits help they don\'t really give final\n> answers (to my mind) when v=c.\n\nFirst, realize that you can\'t "ride a photon". A photon is not\nlocalizable (has no rest frame) and represents the interaction of the\nEM field with some apparatus. But, it is possible to ask what the world\nlooks like at a very high speed. See here:\n\nhttp://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/\n\nTo summarize:\n\n1) Aberration crams the world into an ever-shrinking forward cone,\naccording to the formula\n\ntan 1/2 A\' = sqrt(1-v/1+v) tan 1/2 A\n\nwhere A\' is the aberrated angle. As v->1 all the world is directly\nahead.\n\n2) Light coming off objects crammed into the forward area by aberration\nis intensely blueshifted as v->1. The frequency has an angular\ndependence.\n\n3) The cramming is conformal on a small scale (that is, a small patch\nof the celestial sphere goes over into a similar small patch), but on a\nlarge scale, objects tend to look curved into arcs around the forward\ndirection.\n\nAll the above is simple kinematics.\n\nThe next most important visualation to understand concerns a moving\nsphere. *A moving sphere always looks spherical, regardless of its\nspeed*. A naive interpretation of the Lorentz transformation would lead\nyou to imagine that a moving sphere would be flattened into a prolate\nellipsoid. Not so, and one must keep this fact uppermost in mind when\ntrying to imagine how the world looks at high speed. Another strange\neffect - the *surface features* of a moving sphere seem to crawl around\non the sphere (Terrell rotation) as the speed changes.\n\nNow to your questions:\n\n> 1) Presumably an observer on a photon sees all other photons as\nmoving at c?\n\nThe photon cannot be localized. But, an observer moving so fast that\nthe world amounts to an intensely blue-shifted dot directly ahead,\nstill measures the speed of light at C.\n\n> 2) What does the EM field look like if you are travelling with it?\n\nThe photon cannot be localized. The free EM field looks like E and B\nstanding perpendicular to each other, and to the direction in which it\npropagates. E and B are the same length in natural units.\n\n> 3) Is proper time stopped for a photon?\n\nThe photon cannot be localized and so has no proper time.\n\n> 4) If a photon is emitted and absorbed what is its proper time for\nthe\n> interval between these events?\n\nNo observer can watch a photon get emitted and subsequently absorbed,\nsince this requires a timelike separation of events. This is consistent\nwith the non-existence of a rest frame for the photon.\n\n-drl\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>mike.james wrote:

> Although I know SR I still feel confused about what it tells us about
> what the universe would look like from the point of view of a photon.
> While arguments based on limits help they don't really give final
> answers (to my mind) when v=c.

First, realize that you can't "ride a photon". A photon is not
localizable (has no rest frame) and represents the interaction of the
EM field with some apparatus. But, it is possible to ask what the world
looks like at a very high speed. See here:

http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/

To summarize:

1) Aberration crams the world into an ever-shrinking forward cone,
according to the formula

tan 1/2 A' = \sqrt(1-v/1+v) tan 1/2 A

where A' is the aberrated angle. As v->1 all the world is directly
ahead.

2) Light coming off objects crammed into the forward area by aberration
is intensely blueshifted as v->1. The frequency has an angular
dependence.

3) The cramming is conformal on a small scale (that is, a small patch
of the celestial sphere goes over into a similar small patch), but on a
large scale, objects tend to look curved into arcs around the forward
direction.

All the above is simple kinematics.

The next most important visualation to understand concerns a moving
sphere. *A moving sphere always looks spherical, regardless of its
speed*. A naive interpretation of the Lorentz transformation would lead
you to imagine that a moving sphere would be flattened into a prolate
ellipsoid. Not so, and one must keep this fact uppermost in mind when
trying to imagine how the world looks at high speed. Another strange
effect - the *surface features* of a moving sphere seem to crawl around
on the sphere (Terrell rotation) as the speed changes.

Now to your questions:

> 1) Presumably an observer on a photon sees all other photons as
moving at c?

The photon cannot be localized. But, an observer moving so fast that
the world amounts to an intensely blue-shifted dot directly ahead,
still measures the speed of light at C.

> 2) What does the EM field look like if you are travelling with it?

The photon cannot be localized. The free EM field looks like E and B
standing perpendicular to each other, and to the direction in which it
propagates. E and B are the same length in natural units.

> 3) Is proper time stopped for a photon?

The photon cannot be localized and so has no proper time.

> 4) If a photon is emitted and absorbed what is its proper time for
the
> interval between these events?

No observer can watch a photon get emitted and subsequently absorbed,
since this requires a timelike separation of events. This is consistent
with the non-existence of a rest frame for the photon.

-drl

John T Lowry

Dec19-04, 06:50 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"mike.james" <mike.james@infomaxgroup.co.uk> wrote in message\nnews:84qdnUzkKfkKHF_cRVnyuQ@eclipse.net.u k...\n>I was listening to a popular account of relativity (special) and the\n>old\n> quote about Einstein trying to imagine what the universe would look\n> like\n> if he was riding on a light beam.\n>\n> Although I know SR I still feel confused about what it tells us about\n> what the universe would look like from the point of view of a photon.\n> While arguments based on limits help they don\'t really give final\n> answers (to my mind) when v=c.\n>\n> So some simple questions - using "photon" to mean something like a\n> localised packet of EM waves:\n>\n> 1) Presumably an observer on a photon sees all other photons as moving\n> at c?\n>\n> 2) What does the EM field look like if you are travelling with it?\n>\n> 3) Is proper time stopped for a photon?\n>\n> 4) If a photon is emitted and absorbed what is its proper time for the\n> interval between these events?\n>\n> mikej\n>\nUnfortunately for purposes of our visualization, a photon is not much\nlike a localized packet of EM waves.\n\nJohn Lowry\nFlight Physics\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"mike.james" <mike.james@infomaxgroup.co.uk> wrote in message
news:84qdnUzkKfkKHF_cRVnyuQ@eclipse.net.uk...
>I was listening to a popular account of relativity (special) and the
>old
> quote about Einstein trying to imagine what the universe would look
> like
> if he was riding on a light beam.
>
> Although I know SR I still feel confused about what it tells us about
> what the universe would look like from the point of view of a photon.
> While arguments based on limits help they don't really give final
> answers (to my mind) when v=c.
>
> So some simple questions - using "photon" to mean something like a
> localised packet of EM waves:
>
> 1) Presumably an observer on a photon sees all other photons as moving
> at c?
>
> 2) What does the EM field look like if you are travelling with it?
>
> 3) Is proper time stopped for a photon?
>
> 4) If a photon is emitted and absorbed what is its proper time for the
> interval between these events?
>
> mikej
>
Unfortunately for purposes of our visualization, a photon is not much
like a localized packet of EM waves.

John Lowry
Flight Physics

Martin Hogbin

Dec19-04, 07:17 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"mike.james" <mike.james@infomaxgroup.co.uk> wrote in message\nnews:84qdnUzkKfkKHF_cRVnyuQ@eclipse.net.u k...\n\n> I was listening to a popular account of relativity (special) and the old\n> quote about Einstein trying to imagine what the universe would look like\n> if he was riding on a light beam.\n>\n> Although I know SR I still feel confused about what it tells us about\n> what the universe would look like from the point of view of a photon.\n> While arguments based on limits help they don\'t really give final\n> answers (to my mind) when v=c.\n\nRemember that Einstein was not doing a rigorous calculation\nat this stage. It was the paradoxes that come to mind when\nyou consider travelling at the speed of light that lead Einstein\non to his theory.\n\n> So some simple questions - using "photon" to mean something like a\n> localised packet of EM waves:\n>\n> 1) Presumably an observer on a photon sees all other photons as moving at c?\n\nThe rest frame of a photon is not a valid inertial frame\nin which to make measurements. There are no observers\non photons.\n\n> 2) What does the EM field look like if you are travelling with it?\n\nYou cannot travel with it. The point is that, if you could\ndo so, the equations that describe the wave would break\ndown, thus there should be no wave.\n\n> 3) Is proper time stopped for a photon?\n\nProper time is not defined for a photon.\n\n> 4) If a photon is emitted and absorbed what is its proper time for the\n> interval between these events?\n\nThe interval between two events connected by a photon\nis zero.\n\nMartin Hogbin\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"mike.james" <mike.james@infomaxgroup.co.uk> wrote in message
news:84qdnUzkKfkKHF_cRVnyuQ@eclipse.net.uk...

> I was listening to a popular account of relativity (special) and the old
> quote about Einstein trying to imagine what the universe would look like
> if he was riding on a light beam.
>
> Although I know SR I still feel confused about what it tells us about
> what the universe would look like from the point of view of a photon.
> While arguments based on limits help they don't really give final
> answers (to my mind) when v=c.

Remember that Einstein was not doing a rigorous calculation
at this stage. It was the paradoxes that come to mind when
you consider travelling at the speed of light that lead Einstein
on to his theory.

> So some simple questions - using "photon" to mean something like a
> localised packet of EM waves:
>
> 1) Presumably an observer on a photon sees all other photons as moving at c?

The rest frame of a photon is not a valid inertial frame
in which to make measurements. There are no observers
on photons.

> 2) What does the EM field look like if you are travelling with it?

You cannot travel with it. The point is that, if you could
do so, the equations that describe the wave would break
down, thus there should be no wave.

> 3) Is proper time stopped for a photon?

Proper time is not defined for a photon.

> 4) If a photon is emitted and absorbed what is its proper time for the
> interval between these events?

The interval between two events connected by a photon
is zero.

Martin Hogbin

island5@earthlink.net

Dec19-04, 07:18 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>mike.james wrote:\n> I was listening to a popular account of relativity (special) and the old\n> quote about Einstein trying to imagine what the universe would look like\n> if he was riding on a light beam.\n>\n> Although I know SR I still feel confused about what it tells us about\n> what the universe would look like from the point of view of a photon.\n> While arguments based on limits help they don\'t really give final\n> answers (to my mind) when v=c.\n>\n> So some simple questions - using "photon" to mean something like a\n> localised packet of EM waves:\n>\n> 1) Presumably an observer on a photon sees all other photons as moving at c?\n>\n> 2) What does the EM field look like if you are travelling with it?\n>\n> 3) Is proper time stopped for a photon?\n>\n> 4) If a photon is emitted and absorbed what is its proper time for the\n> interval between these events?\n>\n> mikej\n\nThis frame of reference is stictly a holistic that Einstein imagined\nwhen he was very young, 16, I believe. The frame is meaningless to\nphysics because information is lost when you try to transform to a\nframe which is moving at c relative to the original, because everything\nis compressed to a single event, and so the transformation is not\nvalid.\n\nIt also derives a paradox:\n\nAn observer on a photon would see all other photons at rest, as length\nin the direction of motion would cease to exist for the co-moving\nobserver, and time would slow to a complete halt, so the universe would\nbe observed as a flat plane, where all events occur simultaneously,\nfrom the perspective of light.\n\nI think that there many interesting implications, because, as I\nunderstand it, Einstein concluded that a beam of light would appear as\nspatially oscillatory electromagnetic field, at rest, but this seems to\nneglect length contraction.\n\nIf that is indeed the case then what else is there to be learned that\nmay have been missed(?), like, it appears that information is passed\ninstantaneously to anywhere in the flat, two-dimentional universe from\nwhere the co-moving observer sits, which is at absolute rest.\n\nIt also appears that time and motion are only relevant for objects that\nmove at less than the speed of light as length and time between events\nare only relative to observers on massive objects that are able to\nperceive relative motion via measured time over "proper" periods of\ndistance in the direction of motion.\n\nBeams, waves, and fields would appear to contract in the direction of\nmotion for an accelerating observer, finally becoming irrelevant as\ndistance between events becomes non-existent once the accelerating\nobserver becomes a co-moving observer at c.\nwww.anthropic-principle.ORG\nEverything you fear...\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>mike.james wrote:
> I was listening to a popular account of relativity (special) and the old
> quote about Einstein trying to imagine what the universe would look like
> if he was riding on a light beam.
>
> Although I know SR I still feel confused about what it tells us about
> what the universe would look like from the point of view of a photon.
> While arguments based on limits help they don't really give final
> answers (to my mind) when v=c.
>
> So some simple questions - using "photon" to mean something like a
> localised packet of EM waves:
>
> 1) Presumably an observer on a photon sees all other photons as moving at c?
>
> 2) What does the EM field look like if you are travelling with it?
>
> 3) Is proper time stopped for a photon?
>
> 4) If a photon is emitted and absorbed what is its proper time for the
> interval between these events?
>
> mikej

This frame of reference is stictly a holistic that Einstein imagined
when he was very young, 16, I believe. The frame is meaningless to
physics because information is lost when you try to transform to a
frame which is moving at c relative to the original, because everything
is compressed to a single event, and so the transformation is not
valid.

It also derives a paradox:

An observer on a photon would see all other photons at rest, as length
in the direction of motion would cease to exist for the co-moving
observer, and time would slow to a complete halt, so the universe would
be observed as a flat plane, where all events occur simultaneously,
from the perspective of light.

I think that there many interesting implications, because, as I
understand it, Einstein concluded that a beam of light would appear as
spatially oscillatory electromagnetic field, at rest, but this seems to
neglect length contraction.

If that is indeed the case then what else is there to be learned that
may have been missed(?), like, it appears that information is passed
instantaneously to anywhere in the flat, two-dimentional universe from
where the co-moving observer sits, which is at absolute rest.

It also appears that time and motion are only relevant for objects that
move at less than the speed of light as length and time between events
are only relative to observers on massive objects that are able to
perceive relative motion via measured time over "proper" periods of
distance in the direction of motion.

Beams, waves, and fields would appear to contract in the direction of
motion for an accelerating observer, finally becoming irrelevant as
distance between events becomes non-existent once the accelerating
observer becomes a co-moving observer at c.
www.anthropic-principle.ORG
Everything you fear...

pirillo

Dec19-04, 07:18 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Unless I don\'t get your question correctly, at least\nfrom the point of view of point particle arguments\nusing SR, an observer riding a photon "probably" would\nnot see anything. No, Ughh, wait! he would cross the path\nof other photons so he\'d see something. Ughh ... I have to\nthink more on this. As far as your question on whether\ntime is stopped for him, I guess it is in the sense that\nthe proper length of a photon worldline is either 0 or\nundefined. Appart from this I don\'t know.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Unless I don't get your question correctly, at least
from the point of view of point particle arguments
using SR, an observer riding a photon "probably" would
not see anything. No, Ughh, wait! he would cross the path
of other photons so he'd see something. Ughh ... I have to
think more on this. As far as your question on whether
time is stopped for him, I guess it is in the sense that
the proper length of a photon worldline is either or
undefined. Appart from this I don't know.

mike.james

Dec20-04, 09:59 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>--\n"pirillo" <ultraman2002@hotmail.com> wrote in message\nnews:1103388912.615540.291800@z14g2000cwz .googlegroups.com...\n> Unless I don\'t get your question correctly, at least\n> from the point of view of point particle arguments\n> using SR, an observer riding a photon "probably" would\n> not see anything. No, Ughh, wait! he would cross the path\n> of other photons so he\'d see something. Ughh ... I have to\n> think more on this. As far as your question on whether\n> time is stopped for him, I guess it is in the sense that\n> the proper length of a photon worldline is either 0 or\n> undefined. Appart from this I don\'t know.\n\nAs a mathematician I appreciate the answers given by other posters -\nbut it is this response that is closest to what happens inside my\nhead when I try to "imagine" being a photon - so I suppose yes you have\nunderstood my question really well.\n\nI know it isn\'t strictly necessary or necessarily sensible to think such\nthings.\nI suppose my question\nreally is - how far can we go in building a physical picture of the world\nfrom a photons point of view?\n\nI agree that the equations don\'t cover the case of v=c and you can\navoid the issue by listing reasons why the attempt to guess what the\nuniverse "looks" like to a photon - photons aren\'t localisable,\ninertial frames with v=c don\'t exist and so on. I don\'t find this\nparticularly\nsatisfying. Its as if there is something missing from the description.\n\nAbout the only thing we can say is that the photon\'s proper time is\nzero - or is it undefined? So can we say that as far as a photon is\nconcerned\nthere emission and absorption are in some sense one and the same event? :-)\nmikej\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>--
"pirillo" <ultraman2002@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103388912.615540.291800@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> Unless I don't get your question correctly, at least
> from the point of view of point particle arguments
> using SR, an observer riding a photon "probably" would
> not see anything. No, Ughh, wait! he would cross the path
> of other photons so he'd see something. Ughh ... I have to
> think more on this. As far as your question on whether
> time is stopped for him, I guess it is in the sense that
> the proper length of a photon worldline is either or
> undefined. Appart from this I don't know.

As a mathematician I appreciate the answers given by other posters -
but it is this response that is closest to what happens inside my
head when I try to "imagine" being a photon - so I suppose yes you have
understood my question really well.

I know it isn't strictly necessary or necessarily sensible to think such
things.
I suppose my question
really is - how far can we go in building a physical picture of the world
from a photons point of view?

I agree that the equations don't cover the case of v=c and you can
avoid the issue by listing reasons why the attempt to guess what the
universe "looks" like to a photon - photons aren't localisable,
inertial frames with v=c don't exist and so on. I don't find this
particularly
satisfying. Its as if there is something missing from the description.

About the only thing we can say is that the photon's proper time is
zero - or is it undefined? So can we say that as far as a photon is
concerned
there emission and absorption are in some sense one and the same event? :-)
mikej

zawy

Dec22-04, 06:01 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Quantum mechanics might answer the question better than the infinities\nof relativity. In QED, a photon instantaneously "measures", "sees",\nor "feels" every possible path (and thereby every particle that can\ninfluence a photon\'s path) in the universe (see details in my\nfootnote). The measurements are taken instantaneously at every instant\nand not limited to the speed of light.\n\nMaybe relativity could be normalized like QED to get rid of its\ninfinities.\n\nBut the question "see" implies an observer like ourselves. What we see\nis NOT the result of a body with mass moving in an inertial reference\nframe. What we see is the result of electrical impulses in our brain.\nThose electrical impulses are the result of photons moving ions across\ncell membranes and synapses. The structure of the brain determines the\npaths of those photons, but the physcal mass of the brain structure is\nnot "seeing" anything unless you can argue that seeing is possible\nafter brain-death. What we "see" is the result of the complex\ninteraction of many many photons with each other and our brain\nstructure. Smaller brains have fewer photons. So does the "smallest\nbrain" have one photon and see nearly nothing at all or does it simply\nlack the confusion of other photons? It reminds me of a quote from a\nmountain dweller reported to be 117 years old when told Americans don\'t\nlive as long as his people: "Hmm...too literate." (National\nGeographic, Jan 1973, p 114)\n\n* Footnnote: A photon instantaneously measures where a unit-vector\n(rotating at the speed of its frequency) would be if it travelled a\nparticular path. It does this for each possible path in the universe\nand then adds up the vectors to get a final "path-vector". A\npath-vector is done for each possible end-point the photon can have.\nThe square of the amplitude of each end-point path-vector is the\nprobability that the photon will have that end-point (after the set of\npath-vectors is normalized to 1). Paths outside of the uncertainty\nprinciple limit usually cancel each other so that the final path is\nusually a straight line.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Quantum mechanics might answer the question better than the infinities
of relativity. In QED, a photon instantaneously "measures", "sees",
or "feels" every possible path (and thereby every particle that can
influence a photon's path) in the universe (see details in my
footnote). The measurements are taken instantaneously at every instant
and not limited to the speed of light.

Maybe relativity could be normalized like QED to get rid of its
infinities.

But the question "see" implies an observer like ourselves. What we see
is NOT the result of a body with mass moving in an inertial reference
frame. What we see is the result of electrical impulses in our brain.
Those electrical impulses are the result of photons moving ions across
cell membranes and synapses. The structure of the brain determines the
paths of those photons, but the physcal mass of the brain structure is
not "seeing" anything unless you can argue that seeing is possible
after brain-death. What we "see" is the result of the complex
interaction of many many photons with each other and our brain
structure. Smaller brains have fewer photons. So does the "smallest
brain" have one photon and see nearly nothing at all or does it simply
lack the confusion of other photons? It reminds me of a quote from a
mountain dweller reported to be 117 years old when told Americans don't
live as long as his people: "Hmm...too literate." (National
Geographic, Jan 1973, p 114)

* Footnnote: A photon instantaneously measures where a unit-vector
(rotating at the speed of its frequency) would be if it travelled a
particular path. It does this for each possible path in the universe
and then adds up the vectors to get a final "path-vector". A
path-vector is done for each possible end-point the photon can have.
The square of the amplitude of each end-point path-vector is the
probability that the photon will have that end-point (after the set of
path-vectors is normalized to 1). Paths outside of the uncertainty
principle limit usually cancel each other so that the final path is
usually a straight line.

Timo Nieminen

Dec23-04, 05:46 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, mike.james wrote:\n\n> I was listening to a popular account of relativity (special) and the old\n> quote about Einstein trying to imagine what the universe would look like\n> if he was riding on a light beam.\n>\n> Although I know SR I still feel confused about what it tells us about\n> what the universe would look like from the point of view of a photon.\n> While arguments based on limits help they don\'t really give final\n> answers (to my mind) when v=c.\n\nWhile you\'ve gotten many replies, I haven\'t seen any pointing out that\nEinstein trying to imagine what the universe would look like if he was\nriding on a light beam predated SR. So, rather than thinking about SR\nwould tell us about the view, which misses the whole point of the\nexercise, one should consider the pre-SR view.\n\nThe problem is this: if you can ride along with a light beam, which we\'ll\nconsider to be a plane EM wave, the E and H fields appear to be static,\nwhile still being having a periodic variation in the direction the wave is\nmoving in. curl(E) and curl(H) are not zero, and yet they are static, so\nthese fields are *not* solutions of the Maxwell equations.\n\nSo, either the Maxwell equations are wrong, or you can\'t travel along with\na light beam, in which case classical mechanics is wrong. Einstein spent a\nlong time on the first option, but, eventually, was convinced of the\nsecond.\n\nFor some further reading:\nJohn D. Norton\nEinstein\'s Investigations of Galilean Covariant Electrodynamics Prior to 1905\nArch. Hist. Exact Sci. 59 (2004) 45-105\n\n--\nTimo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/\nShrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, mike.james wrote:

> I was listening to a popular account of relativity (special) and the old
> quote about Einstein trying to imagine what the universe would look like
> if he was riding on a light beam.
>
> Although I know SR I still feel confused about what it tells us about
> what the universe would look like from the point of view of a photon.
> While arguments based on limits help they don't really give final
> answers (to my mind) when v=c.

While you've gotten many replies, I haven't seen any pointing out that
Einstein trying to imagine what the universe would look like if he was
riding on a light beam predated SR. So, rather than thinking about SR
would tell us about the view, which misses the whole point of the
exercise, one should consider the pre-SR view.

The problem is this: if you can ride along with a light beam, which we'll
consider to be a plane EM wave, the E and H fields appear to be static,
while still being having a periodic variation in the direction the wave is
moving in. curl(E) and curl(H) are not zero, and yet they are static, so
these fields are *not* solutions of the Maxwell equations.

So, either the Maxwell equations are wrong, or you can't travel along with
a light beam, in which case classical mechanics is wrong. Einstein spent a
long time on the first option, but, eventually, was convinced of the
second.

For some further reading:
John D. Norton
Einstein's Investigations of Galilean Covariant Electrodynamics Prior to 1905
Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 59 (2004) 45-105

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

jcgonsowski@yahoo.com

Dec24-04, 06:49 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>mike.james wrote:\n> I was listening to a popular account of relativity (special) and the old\n> quote about Einstein trying to imagine what the universe would look like\n> if he was riding on a light beam.\n>\n\nHere is a description from Tony Smith\'s website:\n\nA being made of massless light-cone particles\nlives on the boundary of the light-cone. It exists in all times and\nsees alternative Worlds branching at all times. The quantum phase,\ntaking values in the helical covering space of U(1), is the means by\nwhich a light-cone being determines the order of events and how\namplitudes interfere. In other words, the quantum phase is the means by\nwhich a light-cone being "tells time".\n\n>From the lattice point of view,\nthe quantum phase is an internal symmetry\nrelated to the coassociative internal symmetry space,\nwhose relative size to the associative physical spacetime\nis the Golden Ratio PHI.\nFor each physical spacetime time-step,\nthe phase should advance by PHI radians,\nor by the fraction 2 pi / PHI of a circle (about 222.5 degrees).\nAlthough pi is transcendental (e^(i pi) = -1) and PHI is algebraic,\nthe continued fraction for PHI = 1 + 1/ 1 + 1/ 1 + 1/ 1 + ...\nshows that PHI is the most irrational number, and\nthat steps of 2 pi / PHI give a maximally uniform distribution\nof phases throughout time (non-unique, as 2 pi / PHI^2 is just as\ngood,\nsee Kappraff - Connections, McGraw-Hill, 1991).\n\nTherefore, a light-cone being always knows when/where it is\nby its phase, in a maximally efficient way.\n\n"In a world of light there are neither points nor moments of time;\nbeings woven from light would live \'nowhere\' and \'nowhen\'; ... One\npoint of CP3 [the \'Penrose paradise\'] is the whole life history of a\nfree photon -- the smallest \'event\' that can happen to light." (Yu. I.\nManin, Mathematics and Physics, Birkhauser (1981), pp. 83-84)\n\nLight-cone beings in our low-energy regime could be made up of any\nmassless (not SU(2) weak bosons or scalar Higgs) and unconfined (not\nSU(3) gluons) gauge bosons, i.e., photons and gravitons,\n\nand\n\nof massless neutrino fermions.\n\nFor Light-cone beings to be STABLE, they must be made of stable\nphotons, gravitons, or neutrinos.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>mike.james wrote:
> I was listening to a popular account of relativity (special) and the old
> quote about Einstein trying to imagine what the universe would look like
> if he was riding on a light beam.
>

Here is a description from Tony Smith's website:

A being made of massless light-cone particles
lives on the boundary of the light-cone. It exists in all times and
sees alternative Worlds branching at all times. The quantum phase,
taking values in the helical covering space of U(1), is the means by
which a light-cone being determines the order of events and how
amplitudes interfere. In other words, the quantum phase is the means by
which a light-cone being "tells time".

>From the lattice point of view,
the quantum phase is an internal symmetry
related to the coassociative internal symmetry space,
whose relative size to the associative physical spacetime
is the Golden Ratio \PHI.
For each physical spacetime time-step,
the phase should advance by \PHI radians,
or by the fraction 2 \pi / \PHI of a circle (about 222.5 degrees).
Although \pi is transcendental (e^(i \pi) = -1) and \PHI is algebraic,
the continued fraction for \PHI = 1 + 1/ 1 + 1/ 1 + 1/ 1 + ...
shows that \PHI is the most irrational number, and
that steps of 2 \pi / \PHI give a maximally uniform distribution
of phases throughout time (non-unique, as 2 \pi / \PHI^2 is just as
good,
see Kappraff - Connections, McGraw-Hill, 1991).

Therefore, a light-cone being always knows when/where it is
by its phase, in a maximally efficient way.

"In a world of light there are neither points nor moments of time;
beings woven from light would live 'nowhere' and 'nowhen'; ... One
point of CP3 [the 'Penrose paradise'] is the whole life history of a
free photon -- the smallest 'event' that can happen to light." (Yu. I.
Manin, Mathematics and Physics, Birkhauser (1981), pp. 83-84)

Light-cone beings in our low-energy regime could be made up of any
massless (not SU(2) weak bosons or scalar Higgs) and unconfined (not
SU(3) gluons) gauge bosons, i.e., photons and gravitons,

and

of massless neutrino fermions.

For Light-cone beings to be STABLE, they must be made of stable
photons, gravitons, or neutrinos.

jcgonsowski@yahoo.com

Dec25-04, 02:01 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>2 white onions, 1 cup chopped celery\nVegetable oil (or hog fat)\nSalt, pepper, garlic, etc.\n\nLightly brown onions, celery, garlic and meat in large heavy pot.\nAdd a little water and the greens (which should be thoroughly cleaned and washed).\nSmother slowly for at least 2 hours, adding small amounts of water\nwhen it starts to stick.\nStir frequently.\nWhen ready - serve with rice, grilled smoked sausage, green salad, and iced tea.\nCoffee and apple pie then brandy.\n\n\n\nMaternity Ward Pot Luck Dinner\n\nIf you can?t get anything fresh from the hospital, nursery, or morgue;\nyou can at least get rid of all the leftovers in your refrigerator.\n\n1 - 2 lbs. cubed meat (human flesh, chicken, turkey, beef...)\n1 -2 lbs. coarsely chopped vegetables\n(carrots, potatoes, turnips, cauliflower, cabbage...)\nBell pepper\nonions\ngarlic\nginger\nsalt pepper, etc.\nOlive oil\nbutter\n\nBrown the meat and some chopped onions, peppers, and garilic in olive oil,\nplace in baking dish, layer with vegetables seasoning and butter.\nBake at 325° for 30 - 45 minutes.\nServe with hot dinner rolls, fruit salad and sparkling water.\n\n\n\nBébé Buffet 1\n\nShow off with whole roasted children replete with apples in mouths -\nand babies? heads stuffed with wild rice. Or keep it simple with a\nhearty main course such as stew, lasagna, or meat loaf.\n\nSome\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>2 white onions, 1 cup chopped celery
Vegetable oil (or hog fat)
Salt, pepper, garlic, etc.

Lightly brown onions, celery, garlic and meat in large heavy pot.
Add a little water and the greens (which should be thoroughly cleaned and washed).
Smother slowly for at least 2 hours, adding small amounts of water
when it starts to stick.
Stir frequently.
When ready - serve with rice, grilled smoked sausage, green salad, and iced tea.
Coffee and apple pie then brandy.

Maternity Ward Pot Luck Dinner

If you can?t get anything fresh from the hospital, nursery, or morgue;
you can at least get rid of all the leftovers in your refrigerator.

1 - 2 lbs. cubed meat (human flesh, chicken, turkey, beef...)
1 -2 lbs. coarsely chopped vegetables
(carrots, potatoes, turnips, cauliflower, cabbage...)
Bell pepper
onions
garlic
ginger
salt pepper, etc.
Olive oil
butter

Brown the meat and some chopped onions, peppers, and garilic in olive oil,
place in baking dish, layer with vegetables seasoning and butter.
Bake at 325° for 30 - 45 minutes.
Serve with hot dinner rolls, fruit salad and sparkling water.

Bébé Buffet 1

Show off with whole roasted children replete with apples in mouths -
and babies? heads stuffed with wild rice. Or keep it simple with a
hearty main course such as stew, lasagna, or meat loaf.

Some

jcgonsowski@yahoo.com

Dec25-04, 02:16 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>on low fire adding small amounts of water and\nseasoning as necessary.\nAfter at least half an hour, add the carrots and potatoes,\nand simmer till root vegetables break with a fork.\nCook a fresh pot of long grained white rice.\n\n\n\nPre-mie Pot Pie\n\nWhen working with prematurely delivered newborns (or chicken) use sherry;\nred wine with beef (buy steak or roast, do not pre-boil).\n\nPie crust (see index)\nWhole fresh pre-mie; eviscerated, head, hands and feet removed\nOnions, bell pepper, celery\n½ cup wine\nRoot vegetables of choice (turnips, carrots, potatoes, etc) cubed\n\nMake a crust from scratch - or go shamefully to the frozen food section\nof your favorite grocery and select 2 high quality pie crusts (you\nwill need one for the top also).\nBoil the prepared delicacy until the meat starts to come off the bones.\nRemove, de-bone and cube; continue to reduce the broth.\nBrown the onions, peppers and celery.\nAdd the meat then season, continue browning.\nDe-glaze with sherry, add the reduced broth.\nFinally, put in the root vegetables and simmer for 15 minutes.\nAllow to cool slightly.\nPlace the pie pan in 375 degree oven for a few minutes so bottom crust is not soggy,\nreduce oven to 325.\nFill the pie with stew, place top crust and with a fork, seal the crusts together\nthen poke holes in top.\nReturn to oven and bake for 30 minutes, or until pie crust is golden brown.\n\n\n\nSudden Infant Death Soup\n\nSIDS: delicious in winter, comparable to old fashioned Beef and Vegetable Soup.\nIts free, you can sell the crib, baby clothes, toys, stroller... and so easy to\nprocure if such a lucky find is at hand (just pick him up from t\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>on low fire adding small amounts of water and
seasoning as necessary.
After at least half an hour, add the carrots and potatoes,
and simmer till root vegetables break with a fork.
Cook a fresh pot of long grained white rice.

Pre-mie Pot Pie

When working with prematurely delivered newborns (or chicken) use sherry;
red wine with beef (buy steak or roast, do not pre-boil).

Pie crust (see index)
Whole fresh pre-mie; eviscerated, head, hands and feet removed
Onions, bell pepper, celery
½ cup wine
Root vegetables of choice (turnips, carrots, potatoes, etc) cubed

Make a crust from scratch - or go shamefully to the frozen food section
of your favorite grocery and select 2 high quality pie crusts (you
will need one for the top also).
Boil the prepared delicacy until the meat starts to come off the bones.
Remove, de-bone and cube; continue to reduce the broth.
Brown the onions, peppers and celery.
Add the meat then season, continue browning.
De-glaze with sherry, add the reduced broth.
Finally, put in the root vegetables and simmer for 15 minutes.
Allow to cool slightly.
Place the pie pan in 375 degree oven for a few minutes so bottom crust is not soggy,
reduce oven to 325.
Fill the pie with stew, place top crust and with a fork, seal the crusts together
then poke holes in top.
Return to oven and bake for 30 minutes, or until pie crust is golden brown.

Sudden Infant Death Soup

SIDS: delicious in winter, comparable to old fashioned Beef and Vegetable Soup.
Its free, you can sell the crib, baby clothes, toys, stroller... and so easy to
procure if such a lucky find is at hand (just pick him up from t

Oz

Dec25-04, 03:03 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>wine\nRoot vegetables of choice (turnips, carrots, potatoes, etc) cubed\n\nMake a crust from scratch - or go shamefully to the frozen food section\nof your favorite grocery and select 2 high quality pie crusts (you\nwill need one for the top also).\nBoil the prepared delicacy until the meat starts to come off the bones.\nRemove, de-bone and cube; continue to reduce the broth.\nBrown the onions, peppers and celery.\nAdd the meat then season, continue browning.\nDe-glaze with sherry, add the reduced broth.\nFinally, put in the root vegetables and simmer for 15 minutes.\nAllow to cool slightly.\nPlace the pie pan in 375 degree oven for a few minutes so bottom crust is not soggy,\nreduce oven to 325.\nFill the pie with stew, place top crust and with a fork, seal the crusts together\nthen poke holes in top.\nReturn to oven and bake for 30 minutes, or until pie crust is golden brown.\n\n\n\nSudden Infant Death Soup\n\nSIDS: delicious in winter, comparable to old fashioned Beef and Vegetable Soup.\nIts free, you can sell the crib, baby clothes, toys, stroller... and so easy to\nprocure if such a lucky find is at hand (just pick him up from the crib and\nhe?s good to go)!\n\nSIDS victim, cleaned\n½ cup cooking oil\nCarrots\nonions\nbroccoli\nwhole cabbage\nfresh green beans\npotato\nturnip\ncelery\ntomato\n½ stick butter\n1 cup cooked pasta (ma\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>wine
Root vegetables of choice (turnips, carrots, potatoes, etc) cubed

Make a crust from scratch - or go shamefully to the frozen food section
of your favorite grocery and select 2 high quality pie crusts (you
will need one for the top also).
Boil the prepared delicacy until the meat starts to come off the bones.
Remove, de-bone and cube; continue to reduce the broth.
Brown the onions, peppers and celery.
Add the meat then season, continue browning.
De-glaze with sherry, add the reduced broth.
Finally, put in the root vegetables and simmer for 15 minutes.
Allow to cool slightly.
Place the pie pan in 375 degree oven for a few minutes so bottom crust is not soggy,
reduce oven to 325.
Fill the pie with stew, place top crust and with a fork, seal the crusts together
then poke holes in top.
Return to oven and bake for 30 minutes, or until pie crust is golden brown.

Sudden Infant Death Soup

SIDS: delicious in winter, comparable to old fashioned Beef and Vegetable Soup.
Its free, you can sell the crib, baby clothes, toys, stroller... and so easy to
procure if such a lucky find is at hand (just pick him up from the crib and
he?s good to go)!

SIDS victim, cleaned
½ cup cooking oil
Carrots
onions
broccoli
whole cabbage
fresh green beans
potato
turnip
celery
tomato
½ stick butter
1 cup cooked pasta (ma

Oz

Dec25-04, 03:26 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>island5@earthlink.net writes\n\n>An observer on a photon would see all other photons at rest, as length\n>in the direction of motion would cease to exist for the co-moving\n>observer, and time would slow to a complete halt, so the universe would\n>be observed as a flat plane, where all events occur simultaneously,\n>from the perspective of light.\n\nI\'m not absolutely sure this is a good way to see it.\n\nA photon only interacts with events on its light cone.\nIt does, therefore, NOT see the *entire* universe as a \'flat plane\'.\nIt can only ever \'see\' a small slice where its lightcone intersects with\nthe universe.\n\nIt sees everything on its light cone as a POINT.\nAlthough I\'m not sure this would be a terribly good measure for a\nphoton-being.\n\nThe lightcone can be imagined as the locus of events where a photon\ncould be absorbed between two events: emission (at one point in\nspacetime) and all possible absorption events.\n\nBut that\'s not a very fruitful way to see it IMHO.\n\nThere is one invariant which, it seems to me, does extend to c.\nOne is thus tempted to imagine that a photon-being would make use of\nthis invariant.\n\nGiven some *specific* photon all observers (and presumably a photon-\nbeing) would see the same number of wavelengths between points on the\nlight cone.\n\nOne could thus define this number of wavelengths as a \'distance\'.\nOf course it isn\'t a \'distance\' or even a \'time\' for a photon-being\nbecause he isn\'t really in the same space as a \'massive\'-being, and\nwouldn\'t share the same concepts or even view of the universe.\n\nOne day I might examine this concept in a bit more detail.\nBut, hey, I\'m not smart enough ....\n\n--\nOz\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>island5@earthlink.net writes

>An observer on a photon would see all other photons at rest, as length
>in the direction of motion would cease to exist for the co-moving
>observer, and time would slow to a complete halt, so the universe would
>be observed as a flat plane, where all events occur simultaneously,
>from the perspective of light.

I'm not absolutely sure this is a good way to see it.

A photon only interacts with events on its light cone.
It does, therefore, NOT see the *entire* universe as a 'flat plane'.
It can only ever 'see' a small slice where its lightcone intersects with
the universe.

It sees everything on its light cone as a POINT.
Although I'm not sure this would be a terribly good measure for a
photon-being.

The lightcone can be imagined as the locus of events where a photon
could be absorbed between two events: emission (at one point in
spacetime) and all possible absorption events.

But that's not a very fruitful way to see it IMHO.

There is one invariant which, it seems to me, does extend to c.
One is thus tempted to imagine that a photon-being would make use of
this invariant.

Given some *specific* photon all observers (and presumably a photon-
being) would see the same number of wavelengths between points on the
light cone.

One could thus define this number of wavelengths as a 'distance'.
Of course it isn't a 'distance' or even a 'time' for a photon-being
because he isn't really in the same space as a 'massive'-being, and
wouldn't share the same concepts or even view of the universe.

One day I might examine this concept in a bit more detail.
But, hey, I'm not smart enough ....

--
Oz

Oz

Dec25-04, 03:36 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>freshly cooked spaghetti or other pasta\n\nMix the ground meats together in a large bowl,\nthen mix each of the other ingredients.\nMake balls about the size of a baby?s fist\n(there should be one lying around for reference).\nBake at 400°for about 25 minutes -\nor you could fry them in olive oil.\nPlace the meatballs in the tomato gravy, and simmer for several hours.\nServe on spaghetti.\nAccompany with green salad, garlic bread and red wine.\n\n\n\nNewborn Parmesan\n\nThis classic Sicilian cuisine can easily be turned into Eggplant Parmesan\nIf you are planning a vegetarian meal. Or you could just as well use veal -\nafter all, you have to be careful - Sicilians are touchy about their young\nfamily members...\n\n6 newborn or veal cutlets\nTomato gravy (see index)\n4 cups mozzarella, 1cup parmesan, 1cup romano\nSeasoned bread crumbs mixed with\nparmesan\nromano\nsalt\npepper\noregano\ngar lic powder\nchopped parsley\nFlour\neggwash (eggs and milk)\nPeanut oil for frying.\n\nPound the cutlets.\nDredge in flour, eggs, then the bread crumb mixture.\nFry till golden brown in 350\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>freshly cooked spaghetti or other pasta

Mix the ground meats together in a large bowl,
then mix each of the other ingredients.
Make balls about the size of a baby?s fist
(there should be one lying around for reference).
Bake at 400°for about 25 minutes -
or you could fry them in olive oil.
Place the meatballs in the tomato gravy, and simmer for several hours.
Serve on spaghetti.
Accompany with green salad, garlic bread and red wine.

Newborn Parmesan

This classic Sicilian cuisine can easily be turned into Eggplant Parmesan
If you are planning a vegetarian meal. Or you could just as well use veal -
after all, you have to be careful - Sicilians are touchy about their young
family members...

6 newborn or veal cutlets
Tomato gravy (see index)
4 cups mozzarella, 1cup parmesan, 1cup romano
Seasoned bread crumbs mixed with
parmesan
romano
salt
pepper
oregano
garlic powder
chopped parsley
Flour
eggwash (eggs and milk)
Peanut oil for frying.

Pound the cutlets.
Dredge in flour, eggs, then the bread crumb mixture.
Fry till golden brown in 350

island5@earthlink.net

Dec26-04, 02:44 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>I really don\'t see why there is any requirement that an observer would\nneed to be anything more than just that. An observer doesn\'t have to\nbe fixed to any laws of physics.\n\nAnyway, a couple of things that come to mind are the lightlike nature\nof light, and the fact that the mass scale defines the length scale.\n\nThe other is something interesting that Willem de Boer said to you the\nlast time that we had this conversation:\n\nhttp://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/messages/45186325fbd14efe,aebffb0aa810f2fc,0c47034ea9bde125 ,d3eafdebb1cd7474,83d65b31c316ab93,f9b0228ac132f5d e?thread_id=255495c068329d8c&mode=thread&noheader=1&q=island@sundial.net#doc_83d65b31c316\n\nab93\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I really don't see why there is any requirement that an observer would
need to be anything more than just that. An observer doesn't have to
be fixed to any laws of physics.

Anyway, a couple of things that come to mind are the lightlike nature
of light, and the fact that the mass scale defines the length scale.

The other is something interesting that Willem de Boer said to you the
last time that we had this conversation:

http://groups-\beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/messages/45186325fbd14efe,aebffb0aa810f2fc,0c47034ea9bde125 ,d3eafdebb1cd7474,83d65b31c316ab93,f9b0228ac132f5d e?thread_id=255495c068329d8c&mode=thread&noheader=1&q=island@sundial.net#doc_83d65b31c316

ab93

mike.james

Jan10-05, 12:23 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message\nnews:Pine.LNX.4.50.0412230835170.10336-100000@localhost...\n>\n> While you\'ve gotten many replies, I haven\'t seen any pointing out that\n> Einstein trying to imagine what the universe would look like if he was\n> riding on a light beam predated SR. So, rather than thinking about SR\n> would tell us about the view, which misses the whole point of the\n> exercise, one should consider the pre-SR view.\n>\n> The problem is this: if you can ride along with a light beam, which we\'ll\n> consider to be a plane EM wave, the E and H fields appear to be static,\n> while still being having a periodic variation in the direction the wave is\n> moving in. curl(E) and curl(H) are not zero, and yet they are static, so\n> these fields are *not* solutions of the Maxwell equations.\n\nWhen I first read your post I was happy to think that this might be\nwhat Einstein ment in the sense that it wasn\'t thinking about the\nuniverse viewed while riding on a light beam but the fact that\nhe\'d noticed it was impossible... then I started to worry.\n\nTake a wave equation.\nTake a solution - make it physical say.\nNow take a fast jet and fly over wave at its speed of propagation v.\nYou see a stationary wave and the medium moving at -v.\nStill a solution of the wave equation because the equations involve the\nmedium after\nthe correct transformation to the new frame.\n\nSo now make the wave equation Maxwell\'s.\nRepeat - doesn\'t work.\nWhy?\nNo medium?\nSo you need something extra not just Maxwell pure and simple?\nYou can\'t just look at the form of Maxwell\'s equation and say\n- you can\'t make an em wave stationary.\nYou also need to know that there isn\'t a medium of propagation.\nHow do you know this without some experimental results?\n\nmikej\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0412230835170.10336-100000@localhost...
>
> While you've gotten many replies, I haven't seen any pointing out that
> Einstein trying to imagine what the universe would look like if he was
> riding on a light beam predated SR. So, rather than thinking about SR
> would tell us about the view, which misses the whole point of the
> exercise, one should consider the pre-SR view.
>
> The problem is this: if you can ride along with a light beam, which we'll
> consider to be a plane EM wave, the E and H fields appear to be static,
> while still being having a periodic variation in the direction the wave is
> moving in. curl(E) and curl(H) are not zero, and yet they are static, so
> these fields are *not* solutions of the Maxwell equations.

When I first read your post I was happy to think that this might be
what Einstein ment in the sense that it wasn't thinking about the
universe viewed while riding on a light beam but the fact that
he'd noticed it was impossible... then I started to worry.

Take a wave equation.
Take a solution - make it physical say.
Now take a fast jet and fly over wave at its speed of propagation v.
You see a stationary wave and the medium moving at -v.
Still a solution of the wave equation because the equations involve the
medium after
the correct transformation to the new frame.

So now make the wave equation Maxwell's.
Repeat - doesn't work.
Why?
No medium?
So you need something extra not just Maxwell pure and simple?
You can't just look at the form of Maxwell's equation and say
- you can't make an em wave stationary.
You also need to know that there isn't a medium of propagation.
How do you know this without some experimental results?

mikej

Timo Nieminen

Jan11-05, 02:27 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nOn Mon, 10 Jan 2005, mike.james wrote:\n\n> You can\'t just look at the form of Maxwell\'s equation and say\n> - you can\'t make an em wave stationary.\n> You also need to know that there isn\'t a medium of propagation.\n\nYes.\n\n> How do you know this without some experimental results?\n\nYou don\'t.\n\nRead the paper I cite in my previous post. Norton covers the apparent\ninfluence of some of the major experimental results. He notes that\nEinstein took the Michelson-Morley experiment as strong support for the\nprinciple of relativity, whereas he notes that many later writers say that\nit supports the constancy of the speed of light.\n\nOf course, you don\'t know that there is a medium, either, without some\nexperimental results.\n\n--\nTimo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/\nShrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, mike.james wrote:

> You can't just look at the form of Maxwell's equation and say
> - you can't make an em wave stationary.
> You also need to know that there isn't a medium of propagation.

Yes.

> How do you know this without some experimental results?

You don't.

Read the paper I cite in my previous post. Norton covers the apparent
influence of some of the major experimental results. He notes that
Einstein took the Michelson-Morley experiment as strong support for the
principle of relativity, whereas he notes that many later writers say that
it supports the constancy of the speed of light.

Of course, you don't know that there is a medium, either, without some
experimental results.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

Baron Bloat

Jan11-05, 03:48 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>mike.james wrote:\n>\n> When I first read your post I was happy to think that this might be\n> what Einstein ment in the sense that it wasn\'t thinking about the\n> universe viewed while riding on a light beam but the fact that\n> he\'d noticed it was impossible... then I started to worry.\n>\n> Take a wave equation.\n> Take a solution - make it physical say.\n> Now take a fast jet and fly over wave at its speed of propagation v.\n> You see a stationary wave and the medium moving at -v.\n> Still a solution of the wave equation because the equations involve the\n> medium after\n> the correct transformation to the new frame.\n>\n> So now make the wave equation Maxwell\'s.\n> Repeat - doesn\'t work.\n> Why?\n> No medium?\n> So you need something extra not just Maxwell pure and simple?\n> You can\'t just look at the form of Maxwell\'s equation and say\n> - you can\'t make an em wave stationary.\n> You also need to know that there isn\'t a medium of propagation.\n> How do you know this without some experimental results?\n>\n> mikej\n\nSo you are riding along with a photon. Since no time passes for you\nwhile moving at light speed you are not aware of anything. You would\nbe one place and then instantly another.\n\nBut it is not that simple. The emmission and absorbtion of a photon is\nactually not all that well defined. In a sense they are one event and\nthe photon is in a rather undefined state unless both are observed. So\nmaybe your consicousness would be split among all the places the photon\nmight be absorbed or emitted until some not-well-understood criteria\nare satisfied.\n\nYou could not see the photon itself because if you did it would cease\nto exist. Then since your location was as ill-defined as the photon\'s\nthen your location is an infinite set. I think.\n\nSuppose you are riding on a neutrino instead, which has some mass and\ntravels almost at the speed of light. Then in transit you would see\nnothing but a very bright point of light straight ahead for a brief\ninstant.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>mike.james wrote:
>
> When I first read your post I was happy to think that this might be
> what Einstein ment in the sense that it wasn't thinking about the
> universe viewed while riding on a light beam but the fact that
> he'd noticed it was impossible... then I started to worry.
>
> Take a wave equation.
> Take a solution - make it physical say.
> Now take a fast jet and fly over wave at its speed of propagation v.
> You see a stationary wave and the medium moving at -v.
> Still a solution of the wave equation because the equations involve the
> medium after
> the correct transformation to the new frame.
>
> So now make the wave equation Maxwell's.
> Repeat - doesn't work.
> Why?
> No medium?
> So you need something extra not just Maxwell pure and simple?
> You can't just look at the form of Maxwell's equation and say
> - you can't make an em wave stationary.
> You also need to know that there isn't a medium of propagation.
> How do you know this without some experimental results?
>
> mikej

So you are riding along with a photon. Since no time passes for you
while moving at light speed you are not aware of anything. You would
be one place and then instantly another.

But it is not that simple. The emmission and absorbtion of a photon is
actually not all that well defined. In a sense they are one event and
the photon is in a rather undefined state unless both are observed. So
maybe your consicousness would be split among all the places the photon
might be absorbed or emitted until some not-well-understood criteria
are satisfied.

You could not see the photon itself because if you did it would cease
to exist. Then since your location was as ill-defined as the photon's
then your location is an infinite set. I think.

Suppose you are riding on a neutrino instead, which has some mass and
travels almost at the speed of light. Then in transit you would see
nothing but a very bright point of light straight ahead for a brief
instant.

gptejms

Jan18-05, 01:20 PM

What would the photon see if it were conscious?The world would shrink to a singularity in space-time.All space & time intervals shrink to zero.This singularity 'unfolds' only if one travels at subluminal speeds.Comments please.