Reddit mentions of Six Not-So-Easy Pieces (Helix Books)

Upvotes for the Feynman. Parts of his lecture series on physics is quite good too. The whole thing is quite expensive, unfortunately.

1. Physics does not say. The closest we can come is "what if the mirror were made of light", and in that case it would just go on ahead of the light forever and nothing would be reflected. (But wait! you say. Wouldn't an observer on the mirror see the light coming at c, like every observer? You're right, but you forget that an observer moving at c also sees the universe contract to a point and does not experience the passage of time. So really, they can't be trusted.)
   
   
2. I think you would see it moving at about 57% normal speed and most of the previously-visible light would be shifted out of the visible spectrum (you'd see yourself in UV, which is usually dimmer anyway, without the doppler shift), but I don't actually know how this works for reflected light vs. emitted light, and it seems to me the effect might be stronger for reflected light (as in a mirror). It would also be dimmed by a similar factor.
   
   
3. Let me clarify. The 'continuous stream of light' I talked about would have to be coming from you at a single moment, not over time. That is, you'll never see yourself at a standstill because there has to be new light coming in constantly (in order for you to keep seeing the image indefinitely), but that new light has to have all been emitted at the one time of the 'snapshot' you're seeing (or else it would show you moving). So even without considering relativity, it's clear that if you're seeing yourself slowed down 2x, you'll be 2x dimmer (since the light has to be spread out over twice as much time).
   
   If you're interested, go check out the fairly old book Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland -- it's sometimes hard to find books about this that explain the ideas without oversimplifying things or getting major things wrong, with the result that people are left with a bunch of perfectly reasonable unanswered questions or impressions of paradoxes where there are none. You can get the book (bundled with another of Gamow's books, which you should ignore) here.
   
   If you have a good math background and are willing to work through things slowly and logically (it won't be easy, but it will answer every one of these questions), you can try Feynman's lectures on the subject. You can get them most cheaply as Chapter Three of Six Not-So-Easy Pieces.
   
   Contrary to what physicists will tell you, Feynman is not the clearest teacher (his books are a lot more popular with physicists than with their students) but this is because he will never simplify anything to the point of teaching you something that's wrong (which you later have to unlearn when you advance a level). So sometimes this means he teaches things in strange orders (relativity before basic mechanics), or he looks at complicated parts of simple problems which most teachers would ignore. But if you're willing to go slowly, stick to it, and follow the math of each example carefully, by the end of a Feynman chapter you will have a better understanding of that area of physics than the average university physics student.
   
   The Wikipedia page on special relativity is also a good place to start.

The Feynman Lectures are an excellent way to learn the baiscs of physics. I'd suggest the OP pick up Six Easy Pieces and Six Not-So-Easy Pieces, both put together from excerpts from his Lectures. Consider them the starter version for lay-people.

> You are, I believe, talking about indirect and subjective observation

Um, no. Photons are what you see. If you say you can't see photons directly, then you are blind.

> a photon is a rather unique particle.

This is factually incorrect. It behaves with substantially the same behaviors as all the other subatomic particles.

> It behaves as if it was both!

Also factually incorrect. It always behaves as a particle. Again, Einstein got a Nobel prize for his paper explaining this. Indeed, the very name "quantum mechanics" is based on the fact that photons are particles.

They sometimes behave in a manner consistent with the same mathematical formulas that waves obey. That doesn't make them waves, any more than a pedestrian obeying a traffic signal is a driver.

> incorporates probabilities, which is a way of saying "we don't really know".

Also incorrect. The probabilities are inherent in the reality, and it's very provably not anything to do with whether we can measure them. The probabilistic values (the choice of "heads" or "tails") quite literally is not there until you look, any more than it's there before the coin lands.

> Now I believe that we live in a deterministic universe

Physicists world-wide disagree.

> we can say with certainty if one throw or another will produce tails.

This is factually incorrect.

> Then again, my understanding of such things is laymanish.

No, your understanding of such things is mistaken. If you care to be less ignorant of this topic, may I suggest the lectures the greatest teacher of physics wrote for his wife?

http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

You can also watch them online if you like. Just google youtube. Someone found them on an old film recording and uploaded them.

If you'd also like to understand relativity at slightly-less-than-layman level, I can also suggest

http://www.amazon.com/Six-Not-So-Easy-Pieces-Helix-Books/dp/0201328429

Neither one requires math above the level of the Pythagorean theorem (you know, the one about the size of the sides of a right triangle), or science past about sixth grade level.

Also note that when I say "ignorance", I do not mean anything pejorative. You just never learned this tremendously unintuitive field of study. :-) But I think it's really cool, so I highly recommend sitting back for a couple of evenings if you have time and inclination.