Mhhh... light cannot escape, and therefore it must be swirling around, hitting particles falling into the black hole. Therefore, your field of view will be entirely lit... at what color/frequencies is beyond me.


From an outsider's perspective, it would take forever. From your own perspective, it would obey the f=m*a equation ...

But those are only guesses...

These seem like simple questions, but they are not -- and definitely not as simple as pop science makes them out to be.

You must first start with the concept that there is no preferred frame of reference. To that, you must add the nature of light (its speed and how it propagates), and how that pertains to the perception of time and distance.

Think some more, and get back to me.

 

Think some more, and get back to me.

... sure thing ... but you're gonna have to wait a little ... right now I'm thinking on how to make more money ...

 

Hi,

The limit of the speed of light is such an amazing thing. I have to wonder if it is regulating everything or just telling us that things happen to be regulated in the universe we know.

It's probably related to the clock frequency of the computer that is running our simulation.

 

It's probably related to the clock frequency of the computer that is running our simulation.

 

Cloned crayfish conquers the world in this version of the Matrix.

 

There is a neat game I like to play in my mind.

Imagine you are a photon. What does the universe look like?

Hi,

I've often thought about this. It's like the photon lives in a universe all it's own. It's like pure energy.

 

It's like pure energy.

Just like that.

 

Even energy is relative, energy is never seen to exist on its own so there really is no pure energy because its a property of massive and massless particles in a system.

 

Even energy is relative, energy is never seen to exist on its own so there really is no pure energy because its a property of massive and massless particles in a system.

Right ... just like mass is a property and not an entity ...

 

Mhhh... light cannot escape, and therefore it must be swirling around, hitting particles falling into the black hole.

A black hole is really just a star that has an excessively large gravitational footprint. It doesn't really "suck up light and swirl it around" tho so much as it overpowers light incident to certain angles while it shines (usually axially) in other situations.

Another thing about the speed of light that people sometimes forget is that it's a moving target. Like Zeno's paradox, except no matter where you're at you're always right back at the starting point; accelerate to 99.99% c and then do it all over again, ad infinitum. Quite strange, isn't it?

 

...there really is no pure energy

Hmmm....

E=hf.

Relative, yes, but it seems pretty pure to me.

 

Hmmm....

E=hf.

Relative, yes, but it seems pretty pure to me.

http://www.quantum-field-theory.net/chap10/
e=mc2:
Planck’s Law says that the energy of a quantum is given by e = hf, where f is frequency and h is Planck's constant. Combining this with the equation in footnote 2 gives e = mc2.

e=mc2 is simplified, the energy of light represents the Momentum p in the mass/energy equivalence relationship so it's impossible to isolate 'pure' energy outside a system.

http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/04/q-what-is-energy-what-is-pure-energy-like/

 

http://www.quantum-field-theory.net/chap10/
e=mc2:
Planck’s Law says that the energy of a quantum is given by e = hf, where f is frequency and h is Planck's constant. Combining this with the equation in footnote 2 gives e = mc2.

e=mc2 is simplified, the energy of light represents the Momentum p in the mass/energy equivalence relationship so it's impossible to isolate 'pure' energy outside a system.

http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/04/q-what-is-energy-what-is-pure-energy-like/

We are having a semantic argument over the meaning of "pure".

Considering energy and mass are interchangeable (and exist simultaneously), there are many possible states between pure mass at zero energy and pure energy at zero mass.

Photons are massless. Thus, pure energy.

I don't deny the mass equivalence of energy. Or the "existence" of relativistic mass. Or that a photon has momentum.

But if you accept photons propagate at c, they must be massless -- and therefore, pure energy.

 

Even energy is relative, energy is never seen to exist on its own so there really is no pure energy because its a property of massive and massless particles in a system.

Hi,

I dont think i can agree with that there is no such thing as pure energy. One reason is because as far as i know right now the current idea in science is that energy "congeals" into matter, although the process that causes this is not known yet. To me this means that we have to start with something that is not of this world in that we have little experience with and then have it combine with other somethings with possibly a change in something else and the end result is matter. What we first started with however must be called pure energy. It is probably what a super string is if you can accept super string theory.

The thing about these subjects is that we are dealing with things that we have little experience with mostly because we only can experience matter. It is possible that the study of dark matter and dark energy will change all that, but for now we are in the dark (maybe a little pun intended there).

So much of physics is happening at a scale we cant experience directly either, so it's harder to understand. We might say that all of these particles live in a world of their own. Light always made me thiink more though because it's already going as fast as anything can go, and according to relativity it must not experience time. But then does a particle have to experience time? It has no brain that needs to comprehend this phenomenon, it's at a very basic low level similar to low level routines in a massive program like a Windows program. It does not have to comprehend us, it is us that has to comprehend it.

 

We are having a semantic argument over the meaning of "pure".

Maybe, because it's a distinction without scientific foundation.

What is impure energy, energy with mass? What is pure energy, God? Purity of energy is a metaphysical concept in physics. "Pure energy" doesn't mean anything in physics, its just another science journalism phrase.

Energy is a property.
https://profmattstrassler.com/artic...tter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/

Summing Up

This article is long, but I hope it is illuminating and informative for those of you who want details. Let me give you a summary of the lessons it contains:

• Matter and Energy really aren’t in the same class and shouldn’t be paired in one’s mind.
• Matter, in fact, is an ambiguous term; there are several different definitions used in both scientific literature and in public discourse. Each definition selects a certain subset of the particles of nature, for different reasons. Consumer beware! Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context.
• Energy is not ambiguous (not within physics, anyway). But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has.
• The term Dark Energy confuses the issue, since it isn’t (just) energy after all. It also really isn’t stuff; certain kinds of stuff can be responsible for its presence, though we don’t know the details.
• Photons should not be called `energy’, or `pure energy’, or anything similar. All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not.
• The stuff of the universe is all made from fields (the basic ingredients of the universe) and their particles. At least this is the post-1973 viewpoint.

What is meant by “pure energy”? This is almost always used in reference to photons, commonly in the context of an electron and a positron (or some other massive particle and anti-particle) annihilating to make two photons (recall the antiparticle of a photon is also a photon.) But it’s a terrible thing to do. Energy is something that photons have; it is not what photons are. [I have height and weight; that does not mean I am height and weight.]

The term “pure energy” is a mix of poetry, shorthand and garbage. Since photons have no mass, they have no mass-energy, and that means their energy is “purely motion-energy”. But that does not mean the same thing, either in physics or intuitively to the non-expert, as saying photons are “pure energy”. Photons are particles just as electrons are particles; they both are ripples in a corresponding field, and they both have energy. The electron and positron that annihilated had energy too — the same amount of energy as the photons to which they annihilate, in fact, since energy is conserved (i.e. the total amount does not change during the annihilation process.) (See Figure 3 of the particle/anti-particle annihilation article.

 

I think I can see both sides of the argument... but I tend to side with NSA, because if we talk about "pure energy" then we're talking about a massless entity, and in the case of the photon, it would be a massless entity belonging to the electromagnetic spectrum. So even that form of "pure energy" belongs to a specific entity. Which begs the question; what other particles are out there that are massless? Surely they must have the "pure energy" property as well? ... The only one whose existence has been verified is the Gluon.

EDIT: And apparently neutrinos too, when they're morphing into their massless variants as they oscillate.

 

I think I can see both sides of the argument... but I tend to side with NSA, because if we talk about "pure energy" then we're talking about a massless entity, and in the case of the photon, it would be a massless entity belonging to the electromagnetic spectrum. So even that form of "pure energy" belongs to a specific entity. Which begs the question; what other particles are out there that are massless? Surely they must have the "pure energy" property as well? ... The only one whose existence has been verified is the Gluon.

EDIT: And apparently neutrinos too, when they're morphing into their massless variants as they oscillate.

Hi there,

I guess we are talking about what has been proven perfectly and what is *likely* to be proven perfectly but has not yet been measured directly.

It's hard to talk about this unless you state your belief system along with your argument (that goes for anyone including myself and others here).

If you believe what most scientists believe, then you believe that life in the universe is not limited to our own planet.
More to the point, if you believe in super string theory then you believe in pure energy, but if you dont believe in SST then maybe you dont believe in pure energy.

It's wrong to totally dismiss this though because although it is not proven, it is still not science fiction.
Science fiction is something totally made up without necessarily any grounds to show that it is real. That's not what science does. The Higgs boson is a good example of how this process works. If the shoe fits, wear it

 

The thing about these subjects is that we are dealing with things that we have little experience with mostly because we only can experience matter. It is possible that the study of dark matter and dark energy will change all that, but for now we are in the dark (maybe a little pun intended there).

Sure most don't have experience but other people do beyond the purely scientific arena of Theoretical Physics in the material sciences and other applied physics applications. Sure, there are plenty of unknowns in the universe for us to discover but it has to be fundamentally compatible with our current knowledge and current theory at our present scale of experiment. Black holes are a good example of what could change that compatibility at the extreme scale.

 

Sure most don't have experience but other people do beyond the purely scientific arena of Theoretical Physics in the material sciences and other applied physics applications. Sure, there are plenty of unknowns in the universe for us to discover but it has to be fundamentally compatible with our current knowledge and current theory at our present scale of experiment. Black holes are a good example of what could change that compatibility at the extreme scale.

Hi,

You still seem to be implying that in order for us to say that something can be "pure energy" that we need to show this in an experiment. But from what i have read although we cant prove it right now, it is not science fiction either. It's in that realm of believable just like life in other parts of the universe even though we cant prove it we have a certain amount of circumstantial evidence then it becomes a belief.

So if you believe in super string theory or not, that's the main question.

 

It's hard to talk about this unless you state your belief system along with your argument (that goes for anyone including myself and others here).

So far, I believe in the scientific method. It's not perfect, but it has never let me down. Also, we have to remember that our theories and the entities that we call "particles" and such, are but our representations (that is, models) of reality that best fit the facts... So the models we've constructed in our minds are not the external reality in itself, but are rather tools (that can later be discarded or updated for better ones) to help us deal with what our senses and intellect are telling us...

Inevitably, we're now treading into the realm of philosophy.