[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Here's something to think about regarding the nature of photons and EM radiation. We know that particle/wave duality can be applied for photons just as for particles of matter (particles with measurable rest mass). We know as well that physical matter has a measurable density of mass in a given volume of space. But is there such thing as density of photons? What defines intensity of light (and other EM radiation), is the amplitude of EM wave and not density of photons within that wave. Is there any space, where density of photons is 0 (except a space which is in 100% filled by some object with rest mass - if there is even such an object)? So called "empty vacuum" is full of multiple EM waves, like microwave background and even inside a hypothetical perfect hollow blackbody there's a measurable EM radiation - so it's also "full" of photons...

Throughout the history, physicists tried to find the non-existent aether, which would be the medium through which photons are propagating in form of EM waves, until it was generally concluded, that it's the "empty" space (vacuum) itself, what makes the medium for EM radiation "up there" in space. But what if all this time our general idea of photons was completely wrong? What if photons don't propagate in any medium, but ARE in fact the medium itself? What if instead treating photons as single objects (packets of energy), which are constantly "produced" by sources of EM radiation, we would treat them as a hypothetically infinite FIELD, which fills every tiniest bit of physical space that at a given moment is not occupied by object(s) with a rest mass (matter)? What if instead thinking about photons as about single packets of energy, which propagate through "empty vacuum" as EM waves, we would start to treat them like a kind of immatterial ocean in which those packets of energy propagate as waves?

If you don't understand the difference, let me ask you a simple question: does an underwater earthquake produce a finite number of water molecules when a tsunami wave is being formed? I don't think so - and yet this is exactly how physicists think about creation of EM radiation. We know that light just like any other EM radiation is a type of a transverse wave - just like waves on the ocean's surface. It means, that energy in form of a transverse EM wave can be "transferred" between "vibrating" photons and move through space without carrying those photons together with it. This concept makes even more sense, if we consider the fact that photons are quantum "objects" with properties like superposition of states, which allow them to remain in one location on the dimensional axis (X), which is defined by the direction of EM wave propagation, while constantly "vibrating" with different frequencies and magnitudes in dimensions Z and Y, which are perpendicular to the direction of wave propagation. This property is allowing them to transfer multiple EM waves simultaneously and serve as a medium for multiple kinds of EM radiation, that can occupy one volume of space at one moment of time. Because of it's undetermined superposition, one photon can carry light at different colors, radio waves, wi-fi, microwaves or even gravitational waves at the same time. Going back to the ocean analogy: photons are like molecules of water, that can form a giant tsunami wave together with tiny wrinkles on the surface of that wave and each molecule is making both tsunsami and the wrinkles at the same time. In the case of photons and EM radiation, gravitational wave is like a tsunami (with huge wavelenght), while GRB's or X-rays (short wavelenghts) are like tiny wrinkles in the fabric of spacetime (and of course, in the difference to water molecules, photons don't have a rest mass).

As I said earlier, physicists are well aware that each kind of EM radiation is carried by transverse waves and yet according to mainstream science, source of radiation "produces" photons and radiates them out, so they can then travel through space all the way to some point of destination - what fits much better to waves with longitudinal characteristics, rather than transverse ones. However it's clear to me, that EM radiation,  which is being carried by transverse EM waves makes MUCH more sense, if those EM waves are propagating in a "stationary" photon field with number of photons which is (theoretically) infinte and doesn't change during radiation and absorption of EM waves - all what changes in those cases, is the magnitude and frequency of photons which are constantly vibrating "up/down & left/right" along the Z and Y spatial dimensions, while maintaining the the same position on the X axis, which is defined by EM wave propagation/momentum.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z9bw6yc/revision/3

To show you a practical use of such concept, I will give you a simple thought experiment as an example:
Imagine a source of light, like a led lamp (almost no emission of heat), which is enclosed inside a hollow sphere with a perfect mirror as it's inner surface. What do you think will happen, if that source will continuouslly emit light with a constant intensity and frequency, which will be then continuously reflected inside the sphere? Keep in mind, that there won't be no absorption of energy by the inner surface (100% of energy reflected from the perfect mirror)...

Correct me please, if I'm wrong, but using the mainstream science, I can think of 2 possible scenarios:
1. If the sphere is made of a breakable material, then density of light/energy/photons will become great enough to "inflate" that sphere, similar to a baloon and make it "pop" after some time.
2. If the sphere is somehow 100% indestructible, then energy inside it (density of photons) will become such high, that it will form a black hole - such hypothetical phenomenon has even it's own term, known as "kugelblitz".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelblitz_(astrophysics)

Personally, I consider both those options as completely wrong and physically impossible. I will give you the proper solution, but first I would like to hear your predictions as for the possible results of such experiment. I wonder, if any of you will figure out the valid mechanism of light behavior and guess the most possible results. Some time ago I did the same "experiment" on another internet forum and I didn't get even a single valid answer. Maybe it will go better here...  

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I think, that this thread is a much better place to respond to Janus, than the closed thread about gravity...

With the pond, the waves travel relative to the water which acts like a medium.  There is no medium for light traveling in a vacuum.  So the waves made by a boat in the pond is not a valid analogy.
But neither does light behave exactly like a bullet fired from a gun according to Newtonian physics.  A bullet fired from a moving train has its speed increased relative to the ground as measured from the ground, light does not. While the observer would measure it traveling at an angle along a diagonal, they would also measure it as moving at c along the diagonal.
You can also examine the train scenario by reversing the roles. Put the source on the ground and have the observer on the "moving" train.   The train observer will measure the light as traveling at a diagonal relative to the train.  In other words, it doesn't matter which one, the source or observer, you assume is moving, the observer observes exactly the same thing, and he can't tell which one is "really" moving. The very idea of who is "really moving" and who is "really stationary" is meaningless.

Sorry that it took me so long,but I had a busy week. Anyway I did some research and found out that this topic is very rarely discussed on the internet. Then I came to a conclusion, that the same principle can be applied to a rotating source of light and found a proper term, which describes this subject or which is very closely related to it - it's called "tangential component of velocity". On the image below I've tried to show how the rotational motion of a light source would affect the direction of light propagation if your animations would be correct:

But I found only one source, where similar topic is being discussed - the rest is mostly about polarization of light and not about the direction of it's propagation:
https://www.quora.com/Does-a-photon-emitted-radially-from-the-equatorial-surface-of-a-spinning-object-depart-with-a-tangential-component-to-its-velocity

I've also managed to find this animation:

And if I would apply this model to propagation of light, it would seem to support "my" version - path of motion is straight in the frame of a stationary observer, while being curved in the rest frame of rotating source.

Then I found another term called "relativistic beaming" and it seems that most of avaliable sources are supporting your explanation. Here is what I found (you have to register to use the animation): https://open.relativity.net.au/animation/beaming

But then I thought about the Doppler's effect and it's geometry, which seems to support my claims:

And finally I ended up with 2 depictions of relativistic Doppler's effect, which contradict each other. One from Wikipedia, which supports "your" model of light propagation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

And second depiction from a site with a interactive online tool, which on the other hand is consistent with "my" model of light propagation: https://worldscienceu.com/lessons/39-2-the-relativistic-doppler-effect-with-light-waves/

Both images represent a source of light which moves at 0,7c to the right... So, in the end it seems, that even professional physicists aren't sure, which model of light propagation is the right one....

And when it comes to aberration of light, which is a well known process - it can be explained with my model of relativity:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82070.msg639704#msg639704

[puppypower]

Years ago I had the theory that the wave/particle nature of photons, was grounded on the particle nature of the photon, moving at the speed of light, while also being a spinning particle. Since spin is an acceleration, it has the units of d/t/t. The spin contains an extra dimension of time, compared to photon's linear velocity at the speed of light; d/t. The photon spin and extra time potential is  connected to the frequency of its wave nature.

If we had a wheel on a wagon, that is rotating as the wagon moves forward, with the hub of the wheel and wagon moving at the speed of light, there will be points in the rotation of the perimeter of the wheel, that will exceed the speed of light. The reason is the perimeter of the wheel has to get ahead of the hub each turn of the wheel, for the wagon to move forward.

Since the speed of light cannot be exceeded in space-time, that fraction of the rotation that exceeds the speed of light, will not be seen within its particle state. Rather it will appear as the wavelength in space connected to the hub frequency. This is consistent with the uncertainty principle and  wave functions. The particle has uncertainty due to cyclically and partially exceeding the speed of light. The wavelength is connected to the uncertainty void, and helps fills in the wave probability volume. 

The paradox of photons is that they move at the speed of light, yet show a variety states in terms of wavelength and frequency; radio waves to gamma rays. However, if you plug the speed of light into the SR equations, photons should not have a variety of wavelengths. They should all be the same due to the discontinuity in time and space that v=c creates in the math. The photon does not behave like something in a pure c-reference according to the math. Something causes it to behave more like matter, while moving at the speed of light. 

The work around is again connected to the particle rotation. Since this is an acceleration, the rotation causes the speed of light particle to contain extra time potential, so the photon is not fully definable by SR; d/t. It becomes more definable by GR; d/t/t. This allows a wider range of finite expressions in space-time. Photons are impacted by gravity, due to the extra time dimension of its rotational acceleration. The result can be a time or frequency shift; inner clock changes time and the wavelength follows.

When photons interacts with matter, they immediately decelerate from the speed of light to the velocity of the matter into which they are absorbed. When matter gives off photons, we have an immediate acceleration to a final velocity at the speed of light. The difference between each state is time potential; d/t <--> d/t/t* , due to t*. While the quantum leap in each direction, appears to be connected to the hidden aspect of the particle rotation, from which the wave emerges. 

[Bored chemist]

However, if you plug the speed of light into the SR equations, photons should not have a variety of wavelengths.

SR does not say that.

[Origin]

SR does not say that

I kind of admire you for taking the time to read Puppypowers ramblings, hopefully you did not read CrazyScientist post in the same time frame, that could have a negative impact on anyone's IQ.  I think there should be a pseudoscience overload warning when those two have consecutive posts.

[Bored chemist]

SR does not say that

I kind of admire you for taking the time to read Puppypowers ramblings, hopefully you did not read CrazyScientist post in the same time frame, that could have a negative impact on anyone's IQ.  I think there should be a pseudoscience overload warning when those two have consecutive posts.

They should both be kicked off for trolling.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

SR does not say that

I kind of admire you for taking the time to read Puppypowers ramblings, hopefully you did not read CrazyScientist post in the same time frame, that could have a negative impact on anyone's IQ.  I think there should be a pseudoscience overload warning when those two have consecutive posts.

SR does not say that

I kind of admire you for taking the time to read Puppypowers ramblings, hopefully you did not read CrazyScientist post in the same time frame, that could have a negative impact on anyone's IQ.  I think there should be a pseudoscience overload warning when those two have consecutive posts.

They should both be kicked off for trolling.

I've made couple comments recently - I'm sorry if any of my claims weren't in 100% consistent with the generally accepted scientific worldview. It would be however nice of you, if you would tell me which ones of my claims are the ones you disagree with or don't like, so maybe I can somehow improve myself .

Was it the one about God or about black holes? I admit that I was wrong about black holes and I thanked you for the correction, however nowhere there I didn't try to appear as someone who has any authority in this field - did I?

And if it was the one about God, then sorry that I hurt your feelings by publically explaining  the scientific basis of my private relligion. Do you really discriminate me because of my faith? Isn't this a hate crime? I don't force anyone to share with me my beliefs and sorry if I hurt somehow your feelings. On the other hand OP of that thread seemed to like it...

To be honest, I don't have nothing against any of you - I don't think about you as about my enemies. We don't have to agree in our private worldviews - let's discuss the disagreement, while sticking to science as much as we can.

Speaking of which, it's sad that I still didn't hear anything about a possible solution to my scenario from any of you.

Whatever you think about puppypower, he's the only one in this thread, who tries.to have an actual scientific discussion with me ... Oof?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Years ago I had the theory that the wave/particle nature of photons, was grounded on the particle nature of the photon, moving at the speed of light, while also being a spinning particle. Since spin is an acceleration, it has the units of d/t/t. The spin contains an extra dimension of time, compared to photon's linear velocity at the speed of light; d/t. The photon spin and extra time potential is  connected to the frequency of its wave nature.

Second time unit in d/t/t doesnt imply the existence of another timeline (time dimension) - it uses the same unit of time, just squared. In my model the primary units of time are derived from the constant c. Speed of light defines the universal ruler fo the entire spacetime

Take a wave with a specific wavelenght and make it to propagate at contant c and you end up with an universal unit of frequency. If you then compare this frequency to other EM waves at different frequencies, you will be able to determine differences between the relative rates of time flow in two frames, which will be associated with those specific frequencies - of course the higher is the frequency the faster is the relative rate of time flow associated with it.

If we had a wheel on a wagon, that is rotating as the wagon moves forward, with the hub of the wheel and wagon moving at the speed of light, there will be points in the rotation of the perimeter of the wheel, that will exceed the speed of light. The reason is the perimeter of the wheel has to get ahead of the hub each turn of the wheel, for the wagon to move forward.

I'm not sure, if this is exactly, what you ment here, but it is already experimentally proven, that angular velcoity of light propagation CAN exceed the constant c - what results in reversed order of information transfer between 2 frames:

https://www.livescience.com/54467-light-trick-proves-time-reversal.html

Since the speed of light cannot be exceeded in space-time, that fraction of the rotation that exceeds the speed of light, will not be seen within its particle state.

It won't be seen in the rest frame of that particle, but it WILL be visible in the frame of a stationary observer.

Rather it will appear as the wavelength in space connected to the hub frequency. This is consistent with the uncertainty principle and  wave functions. The particle has uncertainty due to cyclically and partially exceeding the speed of light. The wavelength is connected to the uncertainty void, and helps fills in the wave probability volume.

 

Quantum mechanics allows this particle to exceed the constant c in one frame and don't exceed it in some other frame at the same time - it all depends on a specific point of view (since it's called relativity

The entire "trickness" of light propagation comes from the "magical" properties of quantum states, which allow one wave to have different disributions of probability in different frames simultneously, depending on the relative motion of those frames.

The paradox of photons is that they move at the speed of light, yet show a variety states in terms of wavelength and frequency; radio waves to gamma rays. However, if you plug the speed of light into the SR equations, photons should not have a variety of wavelengths. They should all be the same due to the discontinuity in time and space that v=c creates in the math. The photon does not behave like something in a pure c-reference according to the math. Something causes it to behave more like matter, while moving at the speed of light. 

They ABSOLUTELY should have a variety of wavelengths - one wave can have different wavelenghts only due to relative motion of it's source and it's receiver (for exaple due to Doppler's shift).

The work around is again connected to the particle rotation. Since this is an acceleration, the rotation causes the speed of light particle to contain extra time potential, so the photon is not fully definable by SR; d/t. It becomes more definable by GR; d/t/t. This allows a wider range of finite expressions in space-time. Photons are impacted by gravity, due to the extra time dimension of its rotational acceleration. The result can be a time or frequency shift; inner clock changes time and the wavelength follows.

You just complicate evereything and add completely unnecessary values. I'm a simple polish guy - I like, when things are as strightforward, as it can be. If we ignore for now the gravity, each kind of relative motion can be in 100% explained using the same 4D framework (5D if we include the spatial scale - but I still didn't get there in my explanations).

When photons interacts with matter, they immediately decelerate from the speed of light to the velocity of the matter into which they are absorbed. When matter gives off photons, we have an immediate acceleration to a final velocity at the speed of light. The difference between each state is time potential; d/t <--> d/t/t* , due to t*. While the quantum leap in each direction, appears to be connected to the hidden aspect of the particle rotation, from which the wave emerges.

Only here photons can't decelarate during absorbtion, since they don't propagate at all - they just vibrate "up/down" allowing the transverse propagation of EM waves.

During absorbtion, photons which are placed near the receiving matter loose part of their energy and start to vibrate less, as part of their vibration is given to the particles of matter - now this is what I understand as being simple and strightforward...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I went through at least 20 layers of mud and soil of google search results and I wasn't able to find too many sources, which would directly support my idea of a "stationary photon field" - according to everyone except me, emission of EM radiation means creation a concrete number of additional photons. This is what mainstream science tells us about variable density of photons in space

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=19313&t=photon-number,-energy,-and-wavelength
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/110703/do-photons-occupy-space

What makes it completely nonsensical, is the idea, that density of photons in a given volume/distance decreases as the wavelenght of EM get's shorter and frequency grows. That means number of photons inside a given volume is getting lower when the energy densisty of this volume gets higher. This doesn't make sense - if we'll treat each photon as a single peak in an EM wave, then increased frequency (shorter wavelenght) means, that more of those peaks is distributed in a given distance/volume and number of photons is then higher:

But on the other hand, the idea of "light field" is being succesfully applied in 3D graphics softwares, to simulate natural light - only until now physicists didn't try to apply it in practical physics...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_field

It's even more funny, since I've previously used 3Dfx software to simulate light behavior in my model of relativity

Of course I also wasn't the first one, who got the idea of light trapped within a spherical mirror (or other variations of such experiment) and the most accepted answer is, that despite the constant emission of EM radiation, energy density inside a volume enclosed by mirroring surface(s) will reach a constant equilibrium after a short time.  Here are  some interesting links:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/12417/what-happens-to-light-in-a-perfect-reflective-sphere
https://www.quora.com/If-a-light-was-placed-inside-a-perfect-mirrored-sphere-what-would-happen-to-the-light

Personally I consider this answer as the best one:

The energy from the light bulb will build up to an astronomical level, where by the sphere will eventually collapse, and form a black hole.

The nova blast will be so intense you’ll discover a new weapon of mass destruction, using just a single incandescent bulb, more powerful than a modern nuclear bomb.

. . . .

Sarcastic answer aside,

Probably nothing. At worst, the sphere will be too hot to touch and may cause 3rd degree burns.

I can also add from myself, that for a source, that doesn't produce heat radiation, shere won't even get hot... As long as the surface is capable to withstand the constant pressure of EM wave, entire system will reach and remain in a constant equilibrium of energy - photons enclosed within the sphere will reach a perfect harmony in a specific frequency and energy density will become constant.

Receiving surface can absorb or reflect EM radiation leading to 2 possible effects: absorption increases thermal energy of matter (heats it up), while reflection produces mechanical pressure on particles of matter - this is why so called "space sails" works only, when they are made of reflective material, while black clothes heat faster than white ones in sunlight. In real life interaction of light and matter is a combination of absorption & reflection, where a perfect 100% can't be reached by any of those results. However none of this doesn't change the number of photons in the environment - part of energy is absorbed and part reflected, changing the frequency (wavelenght) of "X-stationary" photons, that directly interact with receiving matter - but the entire process doesn't create new photons or annihilate the old ones,

It seems however, that recently ideas similar to the one presented here started to appear among the scientific community:

The Nature of Light: What Are Photons?
https://spie.org/Publications/Proceedings/Volume/6664?SSO=1

Can a deeper understanding of the measured behavior of light remove wave-particle duality?
https://spie.org/Publications/Proceedings/Paper/10.1117/12.740189

Our starting platform is the staggering and pervasive successes of the Huygens-Fresnel principle (HFP) from macro to nano photonics fields, which model the propagation as if each point on the wave front serves as a secondary point source. Summation of the complex amplitudes of these secondary wave fronts with proper inclination factor gives us remarkably accurate results for every possible realistic situation. Therefore, we take the concept of secondary point source of "energy" as a reality in all of cosmic space, irrespective of whether the space is "empty" or filled with "materials" as we understand them. It amounts to accepting the existence of an all pervading cosmic tension field (CTF). We justify our platform by comparing and contrasting with the various "material" based propagating waves that we can generate and experience, which always require the existence of uniform tension field energy at every point. Then we show that two of the key motivations behind Dirac's quantization of the EM field can easily be accommodated by semi-classical model a la Jaynes (quantized atoms and classical EM wave packet). They are: (i) Photo electric effects that require photon to be indivisible packets of energy; and (ii) QM transition rule requiring the emission of a unique frequency ν would violate "monochromaticity" rule implied by Fourier's time-frequency theorem and "coherence theory" if photons were to be time-finite classical wave packets.

Photon position eigenvectors lead to complete photon wave mechanics
https://spie.org/Publications/Proceedings/Paper/10.1117/12.730703

We have recently constructed a photon position operator with commuting components. This was long thought to be impossible, but our position eigenvectors have a vortex structure like twisted light. Thus they are not spherically symmetric and the position operator does not transform as a vector, so that previous non-existence arguments do not apply. We find two classes of position eigenvectors and obtain photon wave functions by projection onto the bases of position eigenkets that they define, following the usual rules of quantum mechanics. The hermitian position operator, r⁁(0), leads to a Landau-Peierls wave function, while field-like eigenvectors of the nonhermitian position operator and its adjoint lead to a biorthonormal basis. These two bases are equivalent in the sense that they are related by a similarity transformation. The eigenvectors of the nonhermitian operators r⁁(±½) lead to a field-potential wave function pair. These field-like positive frequency wave functions satisfy Maxwell's equations, and thus justify the supposition that MEs describe single photon wave mechanics. The expectation value of the number operator is photon density with undetected photons integrated over, consistent with Feynman's conclusion that the density of non-interacting particles can be interpreted as probability density.


T.B.C.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Great! I've spent last couple days writing a new post and ended up with at least 2 a4 pages of text only to realize today, that I've lost the actual meaning somewhere on the way and instead of describing the essence of this subject, I started to focus on all the nitty-gritty details - what by accident gave a mental birth to a Cthulu-like monster with a countless number of slimy tentacles, that are seemingly stretching themselves up to infinity.

In shortcut I've found myself in a strange position, where I wasn't able to tell, which part of my model is still consistent with practical science and which part is just some bold assumption based on my own limited understanding of the given subject. In order to focus my thoughts on the most important aspects, I decided to go back to the very roots in my scientific journey into quantum physics and look once more at the very basics of QM and EM radiation. Luckily just so happens, that I know an ideal source of knowledge, where all the most important information is given in a way, that can be easily assimilated by a non-specialized and pretty regular person - I'm talking about the YouTube channel called Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJ0yBou72Lz9fqeMXh9mkog

And finally after watching couple videos, I've came to the conclusion, that those 2 pages of plain text, were a complete waste of time, as those movies explain almost everything, what I wanted to discuss here and they do it much better, than I'm capable of - so the best, if I simply paste links to those movies and add couple comments later.

First movie should begin at a timemark, which points out to things, which I've discussed in the previous posts (1:11 if it doesn't work) - notice that photons as particles of EM radiation are depicted in most of those animations, as  X-stationary "molecules", that allow the transverse propagation of EM waves by "vibrating" in directions perpendicular to the momentum vector of wave propagation. Notice as well, how at the end of the movie, we learn that the "bouncing marble" interpretation of a quantum object, is completely inconsistent with the observed reality.

Together with the information presented on the movies below, we should get a pretty decent grasp on the general idea of EM radiation in terms of quantum fields and probability distribution (at least for a non-proffesional physics enthusiast). When it comes to math of theoretical physics, I don't consider myelf as some one with an extraordinary level of intelligence, so I was pleasantly surprised, when it turned out, that even quantum physics can be in big part understood, if the knowledge is presented in a proper way...

And  for the end a movie, which gives us a slightly deeper insight in the primary mechanics of QFT.

I'm sure, that many of you think about EM waves or wavefunctions of probability distribution, as about some abstract mathematical concepts, that exist only somewhere within the twisted mind of a quantum physicist, only so he can spend time by calculating things, that won't make no sense to absolutely any one, except another quantum physicist. Most peole don't think, that quantum mechanics is being reflected in some part in the mechanics of actual physical reality, as we observe it in our everyday lives. If so, then I'm sorry to tell you, that this couldn't be more wrong...

Every single photon/EM wave/EM radiation DOES occupy a finite and measurable space. As crazy as it sounds, wavefunction of an EM wave is an actual physical entity, with a specific lenght and magnitude in a given spatial dimension and is being described by metric units (mostly nanometers). It's only because of the invalid description of the photon field, that most physicists treat photons and EM waves as some non-physical abstracts, that can't be properly defined and/or localized in the observable physical space. However against the rational understanding of physics, something as undetermined as a "virtual" probability distribution, IS in fact the most basic building block of the "solid" and fully determined physical reality, which we observe at the macro scale.

Thanks to our modern-day technology, we are in fact capable to see the actual shape and size of a single photon/EM wave - so things, that can be directly observed in real-life can't be treated as some non-physical abstract ideas. Since we CAN directly observe the probability distribution of an EM wave, then it should be obvious, that even if those waves remain invisible to the naked eye, they are just as physically real, as solid rocks and surround us everywhere and all the time. Being invisble to a naked eye doesn't mean, doesn't mean to be physically non-existent in the natural environment.

Electron clouds, in which every single electron remain in a constant superposition and doesn't have any specific location or momentum, exist physically in this unspecified form and can be directly observed as density of probability with a super-powerful electron microscope. Images of atoms show us, that a cloud of undetermined probability, is the natural state of electrons, which don't turn into solid marbles of matter, when we take pictures of atoms...

It doesn't mean of course, that we can't observe every single electron as a spatially localized "marble" of energy - we can and we do, when we use the most powerful electron microscopes, to get actual pictures:of a single electron

And I will end for now with something, what I just found and what seems to confirm everyhing I said until now...
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/scientists-squeeze-light-one-particle-at-a-time

Like a lot of quantum physics, the principles behind squeezing light involve some mind-boggling concepts.

It begins with the fact that wherever there are light particles, there are also associated electromagnetic fluctuations. This is a sort of static which scientists refer to as “noise”. Typically, the more intense light gets, the higher the noise. Dim the light, and the noise goes down.

But strangely, at a very fine quantum level, the picture changes. Even in a situation where there is no light, electromagnetic noise still exists. These are called vacuum fluctuations. While classical physics tells us that in the absence of a light source we will be in perfect darkness, quantum mechanics tells us that there is always some of this ambient fluctuation.

"If you look at a flat surface, it seems smooth and flat, but we know that if you really zoom in to a super-fine level, it probably isn't perfectly smooth at all," Atature said. "The same thing is happening with vacuum fluctuations. Once you get into the quantum world, you start to get this fine print. It looks like there are zero photons present, but actually there is just a tiny bit more than nothing."

Importantly, these vacuum fluctuations are always present and provide a base limit to the noise of a light field. Even lasers, the most perfect light source known, carry this level of fluctuating noise.

This is when things get stranger still, however, because, in the right quantum conditions, that base limit of noise can be lowered even further. This lower-than-nothing, or lower-than-vacuum, state is what physicists call squeezing.

In the Cambridge experiment, the researchers achieved this by shining a faint laser beam on to their artificial atom, the quantum dot. This excited the quantum dot and led to the emission of a stream of individual photons. Although normally, the noise associated with this photonic activity is greater than a vacuum state, when the dot was only excited weakly the noise associated with the light field actually dropped, becoming less than the supposed baseline of vacuum fluctuations.

Explaining why this happens involves some highly complex quantum physics. At its core, however, is a rule known as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This states that in any situation in which a particle has two linked properties, only one can be measured and the other must be uncertain.

In the normal world of classical physics, this rule does not apply. If an object is moving, we can measure both its position and momentum, for example, to understand where it is going and how long it is likely to take getting there. The pair of properties – position and momentum – are linked.

In the strange world of quantum physics, however, the situation changes. Heisenberg states that only one part of a pair can ever be measured, and the other must remain uncertain.

I think that I found the proper terms, to describe this phenomenon. What we observe as the photon field is not a sum of two separate fields with 2 different types of photons - Those "two sides" of EM radiation are simply potential/kineic aspects of a single unified EM field. All known fields in macroscale (magnetic, electric and gravitational) have such aspects - Field exist in energetic equilibrium as a potential well of probability, distributed in some localized volume of space, until someone won't introduce additional energy to the sysem. When some concentration of energy enters a static/potential field, it experiences addition of energy in it's own rest frame, as some form of external kinetic force, that is being applied to it - nothing new here. Am I really the first one, who figured this out? Really?

And I still didn't get to the actually interesting things, which I've got in mind for you... What will you say, when I will introduce you to the idea of probability distribution in spatial scale dimension. What do you think about 5D fractal geometry of quantum fields? I have a nice visual example of an EM field at atomic scales, to begin with. All what we have to do, is to compare it to all types of fields at planetary or galactic scales...  "As Above So Below"... Hmm..

Problem is, that you don't even have any properly described framework, where it would be possible to calculate transformations of frame coordinates in 5D fractal geometry. Mainstream physics appears to be completely incapable to handle the simple theoretical premise of time flow rate being dependent on the size of observers. Here's an experimetally provable statement: rate of time flow is increasing from macro- to microscales - frequencies of orbital and rotational cycles have MUCH lower frequency for a spiral galxy or a solar system, than for (let's say) atom of Fe. Can modern day science say anything about those correlations? Relativity of wavelenghts in spatial scales? Sure, such exotic thing, like the Scale Relativity exist in the bottomless black hole, which is modern day theoretical physics, but I can bet $50 that 95% of you never heard abot such thing before. And not that recently there's some major progress in the ongoing research (if there's any at all). It's just that physicists don't seem to be interested in personal observation, as a possible source of practical information, when it comes to the most obvious mechanics of physical reality... How many of you - you my dear physicists (or other proffesional scientists) - saw a movie called "Ant-man"? Didn't any of you gave just a single thought to things which happen to the hero in the bathtub scene? No? And you dare to call yourselves sientists?

Here, let me help you with a nicely sounding name for a brand new theoretical model - Relativity Of Electromagnetic Fields In 5D - Frequency Of Cycles In Dimensional Scale or Pobability Distribution As Function Of Density In 5D Fractal Geometry. If there's someone, who's interested in a cooperation - I'm willing to share all possible profits and rights to intellectual property...

Sure, because of the complexity of probability distribution, which keeps to increase together with the growing density, spatial geometry of physical matter doesn't maintain a 100% symmetry in scale dimension - and even if so, anyone who has some actual interest in physics, should be able to notice such obvious similarities of those 2 objects from opposite sides of spatial scale. How comes, that "It's probably just another weird and completely unsignificant coincidence.... Move along peasant!  Nothing for you to see in here." is being widely accepted as the proper answer to so many questions. What happened to good old "but what if...?" or ancient and long forgotten "maybe if we try to...?". No sense to even mention something like ".what if <something> is somehow possible?" - for modern day theoretical physicists that's apparently far too much to handle... For someone, who wants to be respected by the scientific community, it's better not to think too much about the nature of physical reality. Independent thinking process might lead to conclusions, which won't fit too nicely in the generally accepted scientific worldview...

What will happen to the scientific carreer of a young and promising physicist, if he'll start to speak in public about things like the "Unified Self-Aware Fractal Geometry of Conciousness Distribution"....

The Quantitative Comparison Between the Neuronal Network and the Cosmic Web
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.525731/full

I know... I know...  "It's probably just another weird and completely unsignificant coincidence.... Move along peasant!  Nothing for you to see in here."

[Bored chemist]

Personally, I consider both those options as completely wrong and physically impossible.

Can you do better than an "argument from personal disbelief"?
For example, can you show us actual reasoning, based on observed facts?

[Bored chemist]

Whatever you think about puppypower, he's the only one in this thread, who tries.to have an actual scientific discussion with me ... Oof?

So, the only one who engages in "scientific" conversation with you, is the one how gets stuff just plain wrong.

You might want to think about the implications of that.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Personally, I consider both those options as completely wrong and physically impossible.

Can you do better than an "argument from personal disbelief"?
For example, can you show us actual reasoning, based on observed facts?

How nice of you to give me a question, which has something to do with actual science - and not only with some subjective impressions. Sure, that I can show you some actual reasoning! I'm sure, that you know what is "wave interference":

As you probably know, EM waves which propagate in vacuum don't interact with each other - and without the presence of matter as an intermediate medium, there's no physical limit to the number of EM waves, that can occupy one volume of space.- in shortcut, theres no critical limit to the light, which is trapped inside a spherical mirror. Does it satisfy you in some part?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Whatever you think about puppypower, he's the only one in this thread, who tries.to have an actual scientific discussion with me ... Oof?

So, the only one who engages in "scientific" conversation with you, is the one how gets stuff just plain wrong.

You might want to think about the implications of that.

Sadly, in this thread, I don't have the luxury of choice, when it comes to any scientific discussion...

[Bored chemist]

Personally, I consider both those options as completely wrong and physically impossible.

Can you do better than an "argument from personal disbelief"?
For example, can you show us actual reasoning, based on observed facts?

How nice of you to give me a question, which has something to do with actual science - and not only with some subjective impressions. Sure, that I can show you some actual reasoning! I'm sure, that you know what is "wave interference":

As you probably know, EM waves which propagate in vacuum don't interact with each other - and without the presence of matter as an intermediate medium, there's no physical limit to the number of EM waves, that can occupy one volume of space.- in shortcut, theres no critical limit to the light, which is trapped inside a spherical mirror. Does it satisfy you in some part?

But we know from E= MC^2 that the energy trapped in the mirror has mass so we know that this

EM waves which propagate in vacuum don't interact with each other

Is true in (very) classical physics, but not in GR.

And that's what causes the gravitational collapse.

That's why the science says what it does; if photon pressure doesn't break the shell then gravity will collapse it.

[Bored chemist]

Sadly, in this thread, I don't have the luxury of choice, when it comes to any scientific discussion...

You have the choice to learn the science.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Personally, I consider both those options as completely wrong and physically impossible.

Can you do better than an "argument from personal disbelief"?
For example, can you show us actual reasoning, based on observed facts?

How nice of you to give me a question, which has something to do with actual science - and not only with some subjective impressions. Sure, that I can show you some actual reasoning! I'm sure, that you know what is "wave interference":

As you probably know, EM waves which propagate in vacuum don't interact with each other - and without the presence of matter as an intermediate medium, there's no physical limit to the number of EM waves, that can occupy one volume of space.- in shortcut, theres no critical limit to the light, which is trapped inside a spherical mirror. Does it satisfy you in some part?

But we know from E= MC^2 that the energy trapped in the mirror has mass so we know that this

EM waves which propagate in vacuum don't interact with each other

Is true in (very) classical physics, but not in GR.

And that's what causes the gravitational collapse.

That's why the science says what it does; if photon pressure doesn't break the shell then gravity will collapse it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics
In fact 2 photons can theoretically  interact with each other without any intermediate medium - but it can happen only at extremely high energies of interacting photons (gamma frequencies) and in practice it doesn't produce a gravitational singularity. What is being observed, is the creation of a pair of a matter particle and a corresponding antiparticle, which then annihilate each other in a tiny fraction of a second...

But from your post I might conclude, that according to GR photons can if fact interact with each other gravitationally(). Is this true?

[puppypower]

However, if you plug the speed of light into the SR equations, photons should not have a variety of wavelengths.

SR does not say that.

If we had a rocket ship that was 100 meters long, with a velocity close to the speed of light, it would appear distance contracted to a stationary reference. At the speed of light, the distance contraction would make it appear like a point. If we had at 10 meter space ship moving at the speed of light, it too would appear like a point, due to the discontinuity in the SR equations at c.

Substitute the length of the space ships, with three photons with three different wavelengths=d1, d2 and d3, with all these little space ships having a velocity equals to speed of light. All wavelength; lengths, should appear contacted to a point.  We should not see any finite or inertial variety in length due to the discontinuity at c; like the space ships.

The fact that photons can show a variety of finite attributes; wavelength measured in meters, while moving at the speed of light, tells me photons are not entirely a speed of light phenomena or else we would expect to see only points for all wavelengths. Photons contain inertial attributes not connected to the speed of light. This conclusion comes from what is called applied science; new uses for old theory.

One way to model this was a rotating wagon wheel, with the hub moving at the speed of light. This scenario gives us a particle and a wave, via the hub and perimeter. respectively.  But it also leads to the situation of the speed of light being exceeded by the perimeter; from 9 to 3, of else the hub and wheel could not move forward in space. From 3 to 9 the opposite occurs; inertial speeds less than c due to velocity subtraction. This does not impact the particle=hub, but only the perimeter; wavelength. The anomaly created is a finite wavelength, that appears reference detached from the hub=c, within space-time. It does not follow SR as one might expect. We may see red and blue shift but not all the way to a point.

This compound phenomena creates a bridge between the speed of light reference; hub, and all inertial references; perimeter. All reference will see the same hub speed of light; speed of light is the same in all references, but each reference might see a different blue and red shift in the wavelength or perimeter.

When photons interact with matter, such as exciting a hydrogen atom, the photons decelerate from v=c, instantly, when absorbed. This is dependent on the wavelength, since the first energy level of the hydrogen atom is specific wavelength dependent. The speed of light has little to so with the ability of any specific photon to be absorbed by a specific matter situation. It is connected to that  part of the perimeter rotation that exceeds the speed of light; 9 to 3,  since it defines a gap or discontinuity in space-time.

If you look at this in more detail, the photons move at the speed of light, decelerates, then move at the speed of the hydrogen atom. We go from d/t to d/t/t, to d/t. The instant deceleration is connected to a secondary time vector, that instills an infinite deceleration, so it can occur in zero time in our reference. This is where time potential from the speed of light comes in, or where time can propagate apart from distance; hub reference. At the speed of light, time detaches from distance; omnipresent, and can appear to exceed the speed of light.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

That's why the science says what it does; if photon pressure doesn't break the shell then gravity will collapse it.

Actually this is only what GR tells us about possible results of this experiment, however QM predicts something else...

Here are couple answers to the given problem:
https://www.quora.com/If-a-light-was-placed-inside-a-perfect-mirrored-sphere-what-would-happen-to-the-light

I consider those two to be the most probable predictions:

OK, the inside of the sphere is perfectly-reflecting, and there's an ideal optical diode to let light in but keep it inside. As you keep the light turned on, the photon density in the sphere goes up and up, of course. It "looks" brighter and brighter, but you don't see that because the light can't escape. After turning the light off, it stays bright, the photons just keep bouncing around. If you "stick your head in" to look, you see a bright uniform glow that quickly dies away because your head and eyes are absorbing all the photons.
But do the photons bounce around forever? No!! Even a perfectly-reflective sphere will still interact with the light, because of radiation pressure. Each time a photon bounces off a wall, the wall gets kicked backwards, gaining energy at the expense of the photon (on average). Light can't produce a smooth force, only a series of kicks with shot noise statistics, because one photon hits the wall at a time. These kicks eventually heat up the walls, and cool down the photons. (From the photon's point of view, the photon frequency is going down because of Doppler-shifts during reflection off the moving walls.) Eventually everything equilibrates to a uniform temperature, hotter than the sphere started out. I don't know how long that would take. [In any realistic circumstance this radiation pressure effect can be ignored, because it is much less important than the "reflection is not 100% perfect" effect.

Nothing will happen. because, you are relaying the waves oscillations only through the photon's simple harmonic motions linearly by p- wave only(pressure wave). Not any mass at all. Here, only the moment is conserved, without any increase in mass. The mass doesn't gain any thing at all,

At the focal point, if the light is of thermal,the heat developed is diluted into the space. If it is of plasma light, led or bio luminous cold light, there won't be any heat also.

In opposite collisions, they absorbs and or relinquishes . The waves balances their echo system well during compacts either by demoting or by promoting within themselves amicably. like two slit interference or crowd polarisation.

In the end it seems that QM handles the behavior of light much better than GR - but if you prefer to believe in black holes made of pure light, then it's up to you... I prefer sticking to science, which seems to give scientifically possible answers...

[Bored chemist]

You have an "interesting" definition of a perfect mirror; it absorbs energy from the light it reflects.
Would you like to try again with a better definition?