I'm pretty sure E=mc^2 does apply in all situations.
I'm aware that mass isn't matter. The standard model is pretty incomplete, but I take matter to mean any combination of the elemetary particles.
My point is that "Energy" doesn't exist outside of interactions between "matter". The term "pure energy" isn't part of a physicist's vocabulary.
Why is mc^2 considered energy? Because mathematically, it must be taken into account to comply with energy conservation. "Energy" is a term that is used to describe a specific property of some object; it's a mathematically useful tool in calculating the interactions between objects. E=mc^2 is simply Einstein's revelation that to achieve energy conservation, you have to take into account the object's rest mass when undergoing a lorentz transformation.
Thus, in my oppinion, it doesn't make any sense to have a being of "pure energy". The term is not scientifically valid.
EDIT: i see that stingc is replying to Lebell. oops
__________________
And if you say to me tomorrow, oh what fun it all would be.
Then what's to stop us, pretty baby. But What Is And What Should Never Be.
|