Beings of "pure energy"

[Babylon Sister]

I was reading an old book from my woo-days (concerning UFOs) and ran across the idea of “beings made of pure energy.” I tried to visualize what that type of being might look like, but I could only picture the glowing, amorphous, floaty thing with the sparkling lights inside that you see in Sci-fi films and TV shows, etc., that always seems to represent some highly advanced/evolved civilization. (Think of just about any Star Trek episode.)

I just can’t wrap my brain around the concept of intelligent blobs of energy. So help me out here: What would a “being of pure energy” look like? Could something like that even be considered “alive,” let alone intelligent? How would it function? Could it function?

I'll admit that I just accepted these "beings" in my woo days, but now I just don't get it.

[Monza]

Interesting question.

The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So they can't procreate? I assume they do not die?

As to what they look like, I too picture just blobs of light. But wouldn't they need mouths in order to eat? How do they poo? And how do they...you know...get their freak on? These questions must be answered!

[Dr. Imago]

On Planet X, anything is possible.

-Dr. Imago

[steve s]

What would a “being of pure energy” look like?


Something like this...

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/2001_starchild.jpg

My favorite chapter in the book 2001 is the one where Clarke describes how the creators of the monolith went from having mortal bodies, to putting their thoughts into machines, to becoming beings of pure energy.

Steve S.

[Slimething]

What is pure energy vs impure energy? You presumably mean no matter at all. I don't think such a being could hold together but, then again, I can only think in four dimensions. (I'm a slacker.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So they can't procreate? I assume they do not die?


Wait a second--matter is conserved too, isn't it? Does that mean we're all immortal? :D

[Z]

The idea of beings of 'pure energy' suffers largely from the problem that energy dissipates over time - that is, without some form of containment, energy will continue to escape, probably in any available direction, until it's all gone.

The concept of coherent energy is, IMHO, pure woo.

Joe: In a sense, we are immortal - the matter and energy that comprises us throughout our life continues to exist, always. And in a theoretically infinite spacetime, that matter and energy is likely to reform us, again and again and again, infinitely.

[Explorer]

Interesting question.

The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So they can't procreate? I assume they do not die?

As to what they look like, I too picture just blobs of light. But wouldn't they need mouths in order to eat? How do they poo? And how do they...you know...get their freak on? These questions must be answered!

They may not have the desire to procreate, as they may never die in the sense of our own physical existence. Ask any biologist and they will tell you that death is the price we have to pay for sex.

As for being blobs of light, this would infer that the entity is losing energy, and presumably over a period of time could lose all of it this way, unless it is able to take in additional replacement energy from an external source. It is difficult to imagine how an energy cycle would work, like in plants and animals without a vehicle of physical matter to process the cycle, unless of course you are talking about some kind of "astral" equivalent to the physical body.

[arthwollipot]

Seems to me that the Second Law of Thermodynamics would be the energy-beings' death knell.

Oh, and see Ladewig's pithy quote in my sig.

[Slimething]

deleted. someone beat me to it.

[Correa Neto]

Before we enter in the "life, but not as we know it, Jim"...

How the "energy" would be arranged (and kept in this state) to store and proccess data, move around, etc.?

A computer does what it does using electricity. But an electrical current without the hardware would do exactly what? Not to mention you would need something physical to create the current...

[Cuddles]

I think I'd prefer to be impure energy. Sounds much more fun.:p

[Jimbo07]

People credit Star Trek with being scientific, but it is incredibly 'guilty' surrounding topics of energy. It led to my confusion as a young person, which required very rigorous education to bash out.

I recently watched a re-run of ST:TNG, and the captain says something like, "fire a beam of energy into space..."

What does he mean by energy? How is it expressed? As Kinetic? Electric? Chemical? What is the carrier? Laser light? Ionized particles? A big stick?

Shame on Star Trek...

...

As for these floating beings:

It's all magnetic fields! They adjust the field geometry to bring in hydrogen, then readjust to contain a fusion reaction which also accounts for the light... a protected set of circuitry and a small thruster pack...

ah, never mind...

:D

[JoeTheJuggler]

Joe: In a sense, we are immortal - the matter and energy that comprises us throughout our life continues to exist, always. And in a theoretically infinite spacetime, that matter and energy is likely to reform us, again and again and again, infinitely.

In a sense that is not at all what "immortal" means. The matter and energy that composes us continues to exist, but we are not immortal. We will die and disintegrate.

As to your assertion that we are likely to reform again--I'm not sure what that even means. Are identical twins the same individual? Even if a human was born with my exact DNA in a replica of my exact environment in a remote place and time, it wouldn't be me--it would have none of my memories, at the very least.

Is spacetime theoretically infinite? Especially time--I thought cosmologists say the universe will either keep expanding and reach a state of complete entropy or begin contracting and eventually end in a big crunch. Granted these things will take a loooong time, but that's not infinite, which means there's no guarantee of extremely improbable events taking place.

[Molinaro]

A real life scientific explanation I cannot give.

The kind of explanations you may hear on Star Trek, I can try!

1) As mentioned already we have to have a way of explaining how all the energy doesn't simply fly off out of the being, spreading them out. One Star Trek type explanation would be that what we see as a being of energy is merely a projection of that being in our universe. The physical aspect of the being actualy resides in sub-space or perhaps in another dimension.

2) The being curves space around itself so that the energy that makes it up follows a curved path that keeps it all within a small region.

Both perfectly valid explanations.. in the world of Star Trek. :blush:

[Z]

In a sense that is not at all what "immortal" means. The matter and energy that composes us continues to exist, but we are not immortal. We will die and disintegrate.

Of course not. But related to why the question was asked...

As to your assertion that we are likely to reform again--I'm not sure what that even means. Are identical twins the same individual? Even if a human was born with my exact DNA in a replica of my exact environment in a remote place and time, it wouldn't be me--it would have none of my memories, at the very least.

Ah, but you seem to be forgetting that memories are just another arrangement of matter and energy. IF there were infinite time and (to correct myself here) a closed system of space, where matter never achieves a static state, it is inevitable that any present configuration of matter must reoccur at some point in time, and will do so repeatedly throughout infinite time. Consider: if the probability of an event occuring is 1 in a googolplex opportunities, and the number of opportunities is infinite - well, you do the math.

Is spacetime theoretically infinite? Especially time--I thought cosmologists say the universe will either keep expanding and reach a state of complete entropy or begin contracting and eventually end in a big crunch. Granted these things will take a loooong time, but that's not infinite, which means there's no guarantee of extremely improbable events taking place.

Of course not. Hence, the 'if'.

The thing is, if it ends in a big 'crunch', it's likely to result in a new big 'bang' - hence, cyclic spacetime. I'm not up to speed on the issue of eventual entropy, but I thought that was one theory being dropped... I don't know.

[DavidS]

Seems to me that the Second Law of Thermodynamics would be the energy-beings' death knell.
How would that be a bigger problem for "them" than it is for "us"? As long as their processes keep the total entropy of the universe increasing monotonically, they're "legal".

I just hate to see the second law of thermodynamics (or quantum mechanics, or relativity, or...) invoked to mediate affairs outside its jurisdiction.

[Starthinker]

Something like this...

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/2001_starchild.jpg

My favorite chapter in the book 2001 is the one where Clarke describes how the creators of the monolith went from having mortal bodies, to putting their thoughts into machines, to becoming beings of pure energy.

Steve S.

But what about CREATURES FROM THE ID??!!

[JoeTheJuggler]

Of course not. But related to why the question was asked...

I asked the question (rhetorically actually) to point out that matter is conserved as well, and that "beings of pure energy" wouldn't have to be immortal any more than beings of matter and energy are.


Ah, but you seem to be forgetting that memories are just another arrangement of matter and energy. IF there were infinite time and (to correct myself here) a closed system of space, where matter never achieves a static state, it is inevitable that any present configuration of matter must reoccur at some point in time, and will do so repeatedly throughout infinite time. Consider: if the probability of an event occuring is 1 in a googolplex opportunities, and the number of opportunities is infinite - well, you do the math.
OK--but even if the same mix of matter occurs (and it isn't likely to--see below), that is still not the same as being immortal. Immortal means "not dying". If I die, and there is a future being that just coincidentally is exactly the same as me in all respects, it still wouldn't make either me or that future being immortal.



Of course not. Hence, the 'if'.


So your entire response to my post was a contrary-to-fact subjunctive? In other words, my rhetorical question should still be answered, "Of course we're not immortal."

Seems like a long way to have gone only to arrive right back there.

[Z]

I asked the question (rhetorically actually) to point out that matter is conserved as well, and that "beings of pure energy" wouldn't have to be immortal any more than beings of matter and energy are.

Very well, then.

OK--but even if the same mix of matter occurs (and it isn't likely to--see below), that is still not the same as being immortal. Immortal means "not dying". If I die, and there is a future being that just coincidentally is exactly the same as me in all respects, it still wouldn't make either me or that future being immortal.

Is your hobby pedantry? Just curious.

So your entire response to my post was a contrary-to-fact subjunctive? In other words, my rhetorical question should still be answered, "Of course we're not immortal."

My response was to point out that our matter continues to exist indefinitely, and that if (note the if) there is infinite time and a closed material space, that matter will recombine to reform us, eventually. Immortality has different meanings to different people, of course. Being remembered for a long time is considered by some to be a form of immortality. Knowing that the matter that makes up me will survive indefinitely is another form of immortality.

It might not be what YOU were asking about, but then, you didn't specify.

Seems like a long way to have gone only to arrive right back there.

I think you're overthinking the situation.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Is your hobby pedantry? Just curious.

Oh come on! I simply pointed out that what Monza said was equally applicable to us.

My response was to point out that our matter continues to exist indefinitely,

I know that. Remember, I'm the one who pointed out that matter is conserved.

Immortality has different meanings to different people, of course. Being remembered for a long time is considered by some to be a form of immortality. Knowing that the matter that makes up me will survive indefinitely is another form of immortality.

It might not be what YOU were asking about, but then, you didn't specify.

Immortality means not dying. Yes, you can use the word figuratively, but I don't think that's what Monza was saying. I didn't specify a meaning because the context was there--where he spoke of procreation and immortality.

And you think I'm being pedantic? :)

[Starrman]

I don't know what it would look like, but it would almost certainly be named "Melllvar".

[Tricky]

I think I'd prefer to be impure energy. Sounds much more fun.:p
I'd recommend you opt for "electrostatic energy" then. You get it when things rub together.

[arthwollipot]

Ah, but you seem to be forgetting that memories are just another arrangement of matter and energy. IF there were infinite time and (to correct myself here) a closed system of space, where matter never achieves a static state, it is inevitable that any present configuration of matter must reoccur at some point in time, and will do so repeatedly throughout infinite time. Consider: if the probability of an event occuring is 1 in a googolplex opportunities, and the number of opportunities is infinite - well, you do the math.

Am I hearing the shade of Tipler again? :)

How would that be a bigger problem for "them" than it is for "us"? As long as their processes keep the total entropy of the universe increasing monotonically, they're "legal".

I just hate to see the second law of thermodynamics (or quantum mechanics, or relativity, or...) invoked to mediate affairs outside its jurisdiction.

You are, of course, quite right. However, it seems to me that the biological processes which keep us together would be much more difficult to achieve in the absence of the material substrate that we possess. The only way an "energy being" could stave off the entropy is by some purely energy based metabolism that I for one cannot even imagine. We can do it because we have a material metabolism. Energy beings would require an energy metabolism in order to do what we do. That means that they would have to ingest energy and convert it into something that they can use. You just can't get away from the fact that metabolism as we know it consists of shuffling atoms and molecules about.

That only leaves the "not as we know it" options, and then you're back to Trek. "Future technology" is an excuse for all sorts of what seem to me to be pointless speculations.

[Cuddles]

Ah, but you seem to be forgetting that memories are just another arrangement of matter and energy. IF there were infinite time and (to correct myself here) a closed system of space, where matter never achieves a static state, it is inevitable that any present configuration of matter must reoccur at some point in time, and will do so repeatedly throughout infinite time. Consider: if the probability of an event occuring is 1 in a googolplex opportunities, and the number of opportunities is infinite - well, you do the math.

Not necessarily. It is possible for there to be an infinite number of possible configurations of matter, even in a finite, closed universe. For example, there are an infinite number of possible energy levels in an atom. That means there is no guarantee that any particular cnofiguration will be repeated, even given an infinite length of time.

[Z]

Not necessarily. It is possible for there to be an infinite number of possible configurations of matter, even in a finite, closed universe. For example, there are an infinite number of possible energy levels in an atom. That means there is no guarantee that any particular cnofiguration will be repeated, even given an infinite length of time.

I was unaware that it was possible for an atom to have an infinite number of possible energy levels. How was this demonstrated, and how can there be any certainty? It sounds a lot like saying there can be an infinite number of stars - even though there's a finite amount of matter/energy to be used.

Or, to put it a bit more caustically, evidence? :D

However, given at least normal chemistry and physics, if there's a finite amount of matter and energy, and a closed system of space, then there's necessarily a finite number of possible combinations for that matter and energy. Of course, our universe farts in the general direction of normal chemistry and physics...

[Glite]

I believe the beings in question reside in dimensional space equal to the one clocks in a Jaguar Land Rover dealership reside, where time is much much much..... slower. When you see them you are essentally looking into the "showroom" of thier dimension, where they do not degrade, break-apart, whatever as quickly.

I say this as an expert on clocks in a Jaguar Land Rover dealership, and with careful study have concluded that they move at a slower pace during the hours I am there "working".

[JoeTheJuggler]

I was unaware that it was possible for an atom to have an infinite number of possible energy levels. How was this demonstrated, and how can there be any certainty? It sounds a lot like saying there can be an infinite number of stars - even though there's a finite amount of matter/energy to be used.

Or, to put it a bit more caustically, evidence? :D

However, given at least normal chemistry and physics, if there's a finite amount of matter and energy, and a closed system of space, then there's necessarily a finite number of possible combinations for that matter and energy. Of course, our universe farts in the general direction of normal chemistry and physics...

I don't know the physics here, but how about this: Visible light exists in a continuous spectrum, doesn't it? So there are an infinite number of possible colors.

Or this: imagine you have two spheres (made out of whatever). You can place them so that they touch each other at one point. You can do so an infinity different ways.

Or this: You have two straight rods. You can place them parallel to each other or at an infinity of different angles (between 0 and 180 degrees).

Also, if the universe is continuously expanding (without reaching entropy), then you don't have your required closed system of spacetime. If it eventually contracts and goes to a big crunch, I don't think there's any certainty that another big bang will produce the same type of universe (with the same physical constants).

Again, I'm not up on the physics and cosmology, but my original point stands: even if all the matter and energy achieved the same configuration, it wouldn't mean that I am immortal. (And I do believe Monza was talking about regular old "never dying" immortality.)

[Smiledriver]

I imagine he'd look like the Q ala Star Trek in his natural form. Kind of a stable constant camera flash...provided it would be visible to us at all.

Maybe they wouldn't be confined spacially. Indeed, perhaps they would be everywhere all at once. Maybe always all at once.

Man...it is the Q.

[GeeMack]

But what about CREATURES FROM THE ID??!!


My thought exactly. What an awesome energy being it is. What a footprint! And with a power source measurable by ten times ten times ten times ten times ten times ten times ten... raised almost to the power of infinity, a constant loss of a mere trickle would be inconsequential.

[Cuddles]

I was unaware that it was possible for an atom to have an infinite number of possible energy levels. How was this demonstrated, and how can there be any certainty? It sounds a lot like saying there can be an infinite number of stars - even though there's a finite amount of matter/energy to be used.

Or, to put it a bit more caustically, evidence? :D

It's technically only theorectical, since it's obviously impossible to make an infinite number of measurements. However, our models of atoms work pretty well, so it's likely to be true. Basically, the energy levels for the electrons in an atom get closer to together the higher you go, so the step between the 6th and 7th might only be 1/10 of the step from 1st to 2nd, for example. This forms an infinite series with a finite sum, so although the ionisation energy of an atom is finite, there are an infinite number of possible positions between the ground state and the free state.

However, given at least normal chemistry and physics, if there's a finite amount of matter and energy, and a closed system of space, then there's necessarily a finite number of possible combinations for that matter and energy. Of course, our universe farts in the general direction of normal chemistry and physics...

Except that the whole point is that there aren't. As long as there is at least one finite-sum infinite series, there will be an infinite number of possible states. In addition, as JoeTheJuggler has pointed out, it is possible to arrange just two particles in an infinite number of ways, even without looking at more obscure things like energy levels. For accuracy's sake I should point out that you actually need three particles, one to act as a reference point, otherwise there is no way to distinguish between the different positionings.

Edit: This assumes continuous space. If space is quantised, there are not actually an infinite number of positions. I also haven't looked at the different sizes of infinity. If the infinity of time is a higher order than the infinity of positions, it could still be possible to cover them all and guarantee repeats.

[Babylon Sister]

I don't understand. How does infinity have "size"?

[Cuddles]

I don't understand. How does infinity have "size"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Mathematical_work

The easiest example to think of is numbers. Take the set of all integers. This is obviously infinite. Now take the set of all even numbers. Even though this misses out half of the set of integers, every member of one set can be matched to a member of the other, so these two infinite sets are the same size. Now take the set of real numbers. It is not possible to make a one-to-one match between members of the real number set and members of the integer set. Although they are both infinite, the infinities are different sizes.

Edit: Generally, thinking about this for more than a couple of minutes will make your head hurt and is best only done when extremely drunk.

[Babylon Sister]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Mathematical_work

The easiest example to think of is numbers. Take the set of all integers. This is obviously infinite. Now take the set of all even numbers. Even though this misses out half of the set of integers, every member of one set can be matched to a member of the other, so these two infinite sets are the same size. Now take the set of real numbers. It is not possible to make a one-to-one match between members of the real number set and members of the integer set. Although they are both infinite, the infinities are different sizes.

I think somewhere in the back of my brain I understand this, but the front of my brain is still going huh?

Edit: Generally, thinking about this for more than a couple of minutes will make your head hurt and is best only done when extremely drunk.

I can attest to the first part of that sentence, and will give the last part a try later on today.

[RenaissanceBiker]

"Excuse me, Mr. Pure Energy Being. You've got a little Dark Energy there on your chin. No, the other side. There. You got it."

[Denver]

The idea of beings of 'pure energy' suffers largely from the problem that energy dissipates over time...

This could take the conversation in a different direction too. The assumption in the thread so far seems to be that an energy being is immortal. But if we drop that one, and allow for the dissipation of energy over time, we could maybe look at these beings as having a very short lifetime.

Very very short. Like, the length of time it takes a lightning discharge to move once around the chemical clouds of Jupiter.

This doesn't help solve the definition of what we mean by 'being' though: organized matter or energy exhibiting sentience? Maybe, in all the lightning discharges that ever have or ever will be generated, the pattern of electrons through an atmosphere in one of them might move through all those chemicals (for that instant) in a way not unlike a thought in an electro-chemical-based brain. But then that brings up the question: was that an energy being, or not?

Maybe we'll have to wait until we discover a planet with an atmosphere based on serotonin...

[JoeTheJuggler]

In addition, as JoeTheJuggler has pointed out, it is possible to arrange just two particles in an infinite number of ways, even without looking at more obscure things like energy levels. For accuracy's sake I should point out that you actually need three particles, one to act as a reference point, otherwise there is no way to distinguish between the different positionings.

True, but as I thought about the idea of a random arrangement that replicates me, I realized that all the matter and energy in the entire universe has to duplicate everything as it is now for it to really be an exact duplicate of "me", so that's what I was thinking of--everything else being exactly the same except two particles, and there's still an infinite number of arrangements (so no reason to have repeats even in infinite time).

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also, is it even theoretically possible for space to be finite and time to be infinite? (I thought space and time were sort of the same thing.)

[Cuddles]

Also, is it even theoretically possible for space to be finite and time to be infinite? (I thought space and time were sort of the same thing.)

I think so. There are three possibilities:
1) Open universe. If the total mass in the universe is less than the critical mass, it will expand forever. This gives a universe with infinite space and infinite time.
2) Closed universe. If the total mass is above the critical mass, the universe will eventually collapse back in on itself. This gives a universe with finite space and finite time. (Note that this says nothing about a possible cyclical universe, that would still be finite in both, but there would be an infinite number of cycles.)
3) Flat universe. If the mass is exactly the critical mass, the universe expands asymptotically (although its spelling might improve), meaning that after an infinite time, space would still be finite.
4) By symmetry there should be a universe with infinite space and finite time, but I don't think I've ever heard of this and can't think of one off the top of my head. Possibly something to do with inflation. And quantum.

The important thing is that time and space dimensions are sort of the same, but not exactly the same. Think of it like a cylinder, with space as the x and y coordinates and time as the z. No matter much longer you make it in z, x and y stay the same, so you can make it infinitely long but it will still have a finite cross-section.