Post by: CrazyScientist on 29/05/2021 02:31:39
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
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F%5Bcenter%5Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F9%2F99%2FEM-Wave.gif%5B%2Fcenter%5D&hash=e4a64845c338391cf186d84b8a2511e3)
(https://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/pluginfile.php/1276199/mod_oucontent/oucontent/65152/643eaa8e/54c3b1a7/s111_topic_8_pt1_f05.eps.gif)
(https://www.physicslens.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/longitudinal-transverse-waves.gif)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/EM-Wave.gif)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/EM-Wave.gif)
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... :)
Post by: CrazyScientist on 29/05/2021 02:50:46
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:
(https://i.postimg.cc/vZVS42KT/ROTATION.jpg)
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:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.relativitycalculator.com%2Fimages%2Fglossary%2FCorioliskraftanimation.gif&hash=774057da518224faed1737b8deb259d3)
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
(https://i.postimg.cc/05FkMfd3/beam1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/QdkhzrGG/beam2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/QdkhzrGG/beam2.jpg)
But then I thought about the Doppler's effect and it's geometry, which seems to support my claims:
(https://www.einstein-online.info/wp-content/uploads/SRT_Dopplereffekt_bewegte_Wellen_%C2%A9_Daniela_Leitner_Markus_Poessel_Einstein-Online.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/xdVpMyrR/dopps1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/vDwwP00Z/unnamed.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/xdVpMyrR/dopps1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/vDwwP00Z/unnamed.gif)
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
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Velocity0_70c.jpg/220px-Velocity0_70c.jpg)
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/
(https://i.postimg.cc/SRMp7B7P/dps.jpg)
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
Post by: puppypower on 29/05/2021 18:52:39
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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/05/2021 19:15:44
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.
Post by: Origin on 29/05/2021 19:57:48
SR does not say thatI 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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/05/2021 20:02:53
They should both be kicked off for trolling.SR does not say thatI 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.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 29/05/2021 21:18:07
SR does not say thatI 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.SR does not say thatI 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.
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?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 29/05/2021 23:57:41
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.
Quote
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
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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).
Quote
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).
Quote
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...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 02/06/2021 04:21:51
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:
(https://i.postimg.cc/zGBr0srx/haffele7.gif)
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 :)
(https://i.postimg.cc/02YZRjBX/dop1.gif)
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.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/06/2021 08:20:09
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.
(https://cosmosmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/200716_photonhologram_1.png)
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...
(https://mlodytechnik.pl/i/images/7/5/5/Y3c9MTE3MCZjaD01MTM=_src_755-atom-wodoru.jpg)
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
(https://wf1.xcdn.pl/files/old/nauka.wiara.pl/grafika/2008/07/03/1215082559/1215082846_54.jpg)
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
Quote
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... :P
(https://cosmosmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/200618-Centaurus-1.jpg)
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/jpg/00/65/87/16/500_F_65871648_xNDf5Ek5fSEdmcQBEN5o662u8bT167bu.jpg)
(https://as1.ftcdn.net/jpg/00/65/87/16/500_F_65871648_xNDf5Ek5fSEdmcQBEN5o662u8bT167bu.jpg)
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
(https://foglets.com/content/images/2020/12/brain-cell-galaxy.jpg)
(https://i1.sndcdn.com/artworks-baThxDsWHTXFHIdR-fads8g-t500x500.jpg)
(https://i1.sndcdn.com/artworks-baThxDsWHTXFHIdR-fads8g-t500x500.jpg)
I know... I know... "It's probably just another weird and completely unsignificant coincidence.... Move along peasant! Nothing for you to see in here."
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 08:45:26
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?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 08:47:27
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.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/06/2021 09:07:57
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":
(https://www.ophysics.com/waves/images/pulses.gif)
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?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/06/2021 09:13:17
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...
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 11:03:33
But we know from E= MC^2 that the energy trapped in the mirror has mass so we know that thisPersonally, 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":(https://www.ophysics.com/waves/images/pulses.gif)
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?
EM waves which propagate in vacuum don't interact with each otherIs 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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 11:03:58
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.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/06/2021 11:28:23
But we know from E= MC^2 that the energy trapped in the mirror has mass so we know that thisPersonally, 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":(https://www.ophysics.com/waves/images/pulses.gif)
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?EM waves which propagate in vacuum don't interact with each otherIs 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?
Post by: puppypower on 07/06/2021 12:11:59
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.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/06/2021 12:37:40
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:
Quote
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.
Quote
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...
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 12:54:26
Would you like to try again with a better definition?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/06/2021 13:28:02
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?
I just pasted here, what other people anwsered to a similar problem.
But on the other hand, in my previous posts I didn't include the fact, that even if the light is in 100% reflected from a perfect mirror it still DOES induce mechanical pressure on the reflective surface. In fact, the more energy is being reflected, the stronger is the pressure of a reflected EM wave - energy is still being transferred into the reflective surface, despite the complete lack of energy absorption. So, in the end the entire system will any way reach a constant energetic eequilibrium after some time...
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 14:11:54
In fact, the more energy is being reflected, the stronger is the pressure of a reflected EM wave - energy is still being transferred into the reflective surface, despite the complete lack of energy absorption.Not quite.
The force which the photons exert does not necessarily mean there is transfer of energy. Energy is transferred when the force moves through a distance
In order to be perfectly reflective the walls have to be infinitely massive (this causes other problems).
However, there's another way to do it.
You can imagine a nearly massless mirror.
When a photon hits it, it will move and take some energy from the photon. But that means that, when another photon hits it on the other side, it will add energy to that photon.
Overall, the sum of the energies will be conserved The wavelengths of the photons will be "scrambled" and will settle down to a black-body distribution.
The energy (on average) imparted to the light, rigid mirror will be Boltzmann's constant times 3 times the temperature. (That's the same energy as would be carried by an electron or proton at that temperature.)
As more photons are added, the temperature will rise. If you do that slowly, you can easily calculate the energy of the mirror.
However, in the end, one of two things will still happen; the sphere will break or it will collapse into a BH.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/06/2021 15:11:43
But as long as the pressure is being applied to the reflective surface, there is some transfer of energy between photons and the mirror. Question is, if this process is sufficient enough, to maintain a constant energy level in the system...In fact, the more energy is being reflected, the stronger is the pressure of a reflected EM wave - energy is still being transferred into the reflective surface, despite the complete lack of energy absorption.Not quite.
The force which the photons exert does not necessarily mean there is transfer of energy. Energy is transferred when the force moves through a distance
In order to be perfectly reflective the walls have to be infinitely massive (this causes other problems).
Quote
However, there's another way to do it.
You can imagine54 a nearly massless mirror.
When a photon hits it, it will move and take some energy from the photon. But that means that, when another photon hits it on the other side, it will add energy to that photon.
Overall, the sum of the energies will be conserved The wavelengths of the photons will be "scrambled" and will settle down to a black-body distribution.
The energy (on average) imparted to the light, rigid mirror will be Boltzmann's constant times 3 times the temperature. (That's the same energy as would be carried by an electron or proton at that temperature.)
As more photons are added, the temperature will rise. If you do that slowly, you can easily calculate the energy of the mirror.
Generally, I have now a problem with the pressure induced by light on the reflective surface and I have now to make a deeper research of this subject, to get some answers.
My question is, if EM waves reflected from a perfect mirror keep their original wavelenght?
If so, then after traveling to the other side of the sphere, they will induce the same amount of pressure during the second reflection (and all other reflections, which will then follow). This would mean, that the kinetic pressure of light is a 100% free energy, that is being added to the system from nowhere.
The only possible solution, I can think of, is that frequency of photons get lower with every reflection, despite the lack of energy absorption...
And if not, then I really don't know the solution - maybe you can help?
Quote
However, in the end, one of two things will still happen; the sphere will break or it will collapse into a BH
I'm sure, that if it would be the case, someone would already use this process, to create some kind of weapon of mass destruction, or just to make a cheap source of heat - a real-life mirror can reflect up to 99% of energy, so it would be enough, to create a BH using an EM radiation with high enough frequency.
Besides you seem to ignore the fact, that photon-photon interactions were achieved using the laws of QM and it is now experimentally proven, that photons don't behave in the way, which is predicted by GR. So, it appears that light collabsing into BH is nothing more, than a completely unproven theoretical fantasy...
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 15:17:07
But as long as the pressure is being applied to the reflective surface, there is some transfer of energy between photons and the mirror.Only if it moves.
And, if it moves then, in due course, it transfers energy back to other photons.
I'm sure, that if it would be the case, someone already use this process, to create some kind of weapon of mass destruction, or just to make a cheap source of heat.Do you understand that the requirements- both the perfect mirror and the
ideal optical diode to let light in but keep it insidedo not, and can not exist?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 15:19:01
My question is, if EM waves reflected from a perfect mirror keep their original wavelenght?They must, by definition.
Because a change in wavelength would mean a change in energy and that is inconsistent with the definition of a "perfect" mirror.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/06/2021 15:38:16
But as long as the pressure is being applied to the reflective surface, there is some transfer of energy between photons and the mirror.Only if it moves.
And, if it moves then, in due course, it transfers energy back to other photons.I'm sure, that if it would be the case, someone already use this process, to create some kind of weapon of mass destruction, or just to make a cheap source of heat.Do you understand that the requirements- both the perfect mirror and theideal optical diode to let light in but keep it insidedo not, and can not exist?
Sure. I've included this fact in the latest edit of my previous post
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/06/2021 15:56:15
My question is, if EM waves reflected from a perfect mirror keep their original wavelenght?They must, by definition.
Because a change in wavelength would mean a change in energy and that is inconsistent with the definition of a "perfect" mirror.
And you are peffectly aware, that this makes each single photon an almost ideal source of a constant and infinite kinetic energy?
Since real life mirrors can use up to 99% of that energy to produce a kinetic energy. All you have to do, is to keep each photon "alive" as long as it is possible.
Post by: Origin on 07/06/2021 16:41:53
And you are peffectly aware, that this makes each single photon an almost ideal source of a constant and infinite kinetic energy?Why would you think that?
Post by: Colin2B on 07/06/2021 16:46:38
And you are peffectly aware, that this makes each single photon an almost ideal source of a constant and infinite kinetic energy?he’s aware of the constant, but not the infinite. By definition the energy available is hf
All you have to do, is to keep each photon "alive" as long as it is possible.To do that you have to keep it from being absorbed by an atom or kicking an electron out of its potential well.
Sorry, I keep meaning to respond to your posts, but haven’t had time to read beyond the 1st. I’ll put some thoughts on it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 17:24:04
And you are peffectly aware, that this makes each single photon an almost ideal source of a constant and infinite kinetic energy?That is equivalent to saying that a bag of pasta can provide energy forever- until you eat it.
Since real life mirrors can use up to 99% of that energy to produce a kinetic energy. All you have to do, is to keep each photon "alive" as long as it is possible.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/06/2021 17:26:26
So this is what I found:
(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images-archive-read-only/wp-content/uploads/sites/222/2016/02/20113243/Figure_30_04_02a.jpg)
(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images-archive-read-only/wp-content/uploads/sites/222/2016/02/20113243/Figure_30_04_02a.jpg)
I guess this settles the issue of photon momentum transfer during reflection.
Sorry to prove you being wrong. Well you can't be always correct, can you?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/06/2021 17:41:58
Think about this scenario as about some source of a buzzing sound, which is submerged in a free sphere of water. Even if you will constantly add energy to the system by emission of sound, frequency of vibration won't go beyond a certain treshold
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 18:06:54
Your problem is, that you think that light emmision inside a spherical shell, is like inflating an empty balloon - and this is totally wrong.Your problem is claiming that you know what I think; you are totally wrong.
I guess this settles the issue of photon momentum transfer during reflection.It was never in dispute; you have shown that I am right.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 18:08:04
Think about this scenario as about some source of a buzzing soundWhy think about a really bad analogy when we can think about the actual science?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/06/2021 18:34:37
Think about this scenario as about some source of a buzzing soundWhy think about a really bad analogy when we can think about the actual science?
Because it properly demonstrates the most possible outcome of my scenario.
Well at least it doesn't turn into a black hole made of pure sound - what should happen if we apply here your way of thinking... :)
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/06/2021 18:37:55
Think about this scenario as about some source of a buzzing soundWhy think about a really bad analogy when we can think about the actual science?
So you don't consider quantum physics as an actual science? What is then actual science for you? Black holes made of pure light?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 18:40:52
So you don't consider quantum physics as an actual science?You seem to have got me mixed up with you.
I think that science works.
You think that we should pretend that light is the same as sound.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 18:42:22
what should happen if we apply here your way of thinkingWhat would happen is that we wouldn't waste time thinking about sound- which is very different from light.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 18:45:13
EM waves which propagate in vacuum don't interact with each other -
Sound waves clearly do interact- especially at high intensities.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/06/2021 18:46:04
Quote from: CrazyScientist link=topic=82373
[quote author=CrazyScientist link=topic=82373.msg642439#msg642439 date=1623083186I guess this settles the issue of photon momentum transfer during reflection.It was never in dispute; you have shown that I am right.
Pretty much not - pressure of photons on the reflective surface is the result of momentum transfer - and it results in change of frequency for the reflected photon.
You claimed that photons will always maintain the same frequency, despite applying pressure on reflective matter.
Maybe you don't actually understand the things, you're trying to discuss
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/06/2021 18:49:10
Quote from: Bored chemist link=topic=82373.
[quote author=CrazyScientist link=topic=82373.msg642376#msg642376 date=1623053277
[quote author=CrazyScientist link=topic=82373.msg642376#msg642376 date=1623053277
EM waves which propagate in vacuum don't interact with each other -
Sound waves clearly do interact- especially at high intensities.
[/quote]
So do EM waves - especially at high intensities. I've pasted earlier the link to wikipedia...
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 18:54:26
and it results in change of frequency for the reflected photon.Only if the mirror is moving.
If you use an infinitely massive mirror, that problem goes away.
I already pointed this out.
In order to be perfectly reflective the walls have to be infinitely massive (this causes other problems).
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 18:56:37
So do EM wavesSo your earlier post was wrong.
EM waves which propagate in vacuum don't interact with each other -
Come back when you have finished arguing with yourself.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 18:58:25
You claimed that photons will always maintain the same frequency,That's the opposite of what I said.
Overall, the sum of the energies will be conserved The wavelengths of the photons will be "scrambled" and will settle down to a black-body distribution.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/06/2021 19:10:19
and it results in change of frequency for the reflected photon.Only if the mirror is moving.
If you use an infinitely massive mirror, that problem goes away.
I already pointed this out.In order to be perfectly reflective the walls have to be infinitely massive (this causes other problems).
Yes but it was your statement nor mine. I was talking about the oryginal scenario
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/06/2021 19:12:00
So do EM wavesSo your earlier post was wrong.EM waves which propagate in vacuum don't interact with each other -
Come back when you have finished arguing with yourself.
Yes and in my next post I corrected myself
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/06/2021 19:17:21
Quote
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?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 19:42:33
But from your post I might conclude, that according to GR photons can if fact interact with each other gravitationally(). Is this true?As far as I'm aware.
And the alternative would be weird for two reasons.
1
Imagine a big strong box with an atom bomb in it floating in a bigger box in deep space.
And imagine that there's a pendulum clock sitting on the bigger box.
It is ticking away because the bomb is so big that it produces a gravitational field (at the wall of the box) that is the same as the Earth's gravity.
When the bomb goes off, all the debris is caught by the inner box. But, in doing so, it gets very hot.
That heat means that (briefly) there will be lots of photons rattling round in the inner box.
Their mass corresponds to the mass which is annihilated by firing the bomb.
Either the clock on the outer box carries on keeping time, in which case the photons must have an gravitational attraction for the pendulum, or it doesn't keep time- in which case you have to explain how it "knows" what has happened inside the box.
2
The easier proof is simple.
We know that light going past a star is diverted from its path.
And we know that light carries momentum.
So we know that the gravity of the star changes the momentum of the light.
But a change in momentum requires a force.
So we know that the start exerts a force on the light.
And by Newton's third law we know that the light must exert an equal and opposite force on the star.
That's the gravitational attraction of the photon for the star.
So we know that the relativistic mass of a photon has a gravitational attraction.
And ew know that the photon is also subject to gravitational attraction.
So we know that two photons attract each other (in a tiny way) via gravity.
That effect is usually too small to consider but, if you keep putting photons into a "box", eventually you end up with enough mass to form a black hole.
Don't try this at home.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/06/2021 21:17:47
But from your post I might conclude, that according to GR photons can if fact interact with each other gravitationally(). Is this true?As far as I'm aware.
And the alternative would be weird for two reasons.
1
Imagine a big strong box with an atom bomb in it floating in a bigger box in deep space.
And imagine that there's a pendulum clock sitting on the bigger box.
It is ticking away because the bomb is so big that it produces a gravitational field (at the wall of the box) that is the same as the Earth's gravity.
When the bomb goes off, all the debris is caught by the inner box. But, in doing so, it gets very hot.
That heat means that (briefly) there will be lots of photons rattling round in the inner box.
Their mass corresponds to the mass which is annihilated by firing the bomb.
Either the clock on the outer box carries on keeping time, in which case the photons must have an gravitational attraction for the pendulum, or it doesn't keep time- in which case you have to explain how it "knows" what has happened inside the box.
Ok, I have no idea why do you describe a light bulb enclosed by a spherical mirror, as a ticking bomb, which is about to explode, implode and turn into a black hole... If causing such a cosmic-scale disaster would be so simple, we would be dead long time ago...
But let's focus on the main issue of your description - you keep treating photons as time-finite packets of energy, which are being created during the emission and which then keep growing in numbers in a limited volume of space and become "squeezed" in that space, until they reach some critical density and explode and/or implode and/or turn into a black hole. Such depiction of the scenario, can be then compared to air molecules, that keep inflating a baloon until it pops (since it probably won't turn into BH). This is a completely invalid depiction a continuous light emission.
Maybe this will help - let's describe the space inside the spherical mirror in terms of fiding a single photon at the same frequency as the light emitted continuously by the source.You make the first measurement and find that photon at a specific location - ok, so a photon is/was present in that location. Then you make a second measurement at the same location and you don't detect this photon anymore in that space - can you then say, that at the time of second measurement there is no photon at the given location?
No! You will ALWAYS find a photon at each possible location in physical space - but it can vibrate at some different frequencies, than the one, which is characteristic for the light emitted by the source inside sphere. Number of photons doesn't change in time - what changes, is the probability distribution for each one of those photons, so in a given moment of time, you can detect that photon only at some specific frequencies. However probability of detecting a photon at some specific frequencies, doesn't determine the factual existence of that photon in space. There are many diiferent things, which we know exist, even if we can't always detect them everywhere around us
Besides it is proven experimentally, that "my" depiction of photons and the EM radiation (consistent mainly with QM), is the one, which is valid. As long, as you will think about this situation in terms of space without photons, that is being gradually "filled" by photons produced during emission by the source, you will get nowhere except a fantasy land, where you can create a BH by enclosing a light source with a reflective material. GR completely fails in this senario and there's no sense to blindly stick to a model, which doesn't work....
TBC
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 21:46:14
I have no idea why do you describe a light bulb enclosed by a spherical mirror, as a ticking bomb, which is about to explode, implode and turn into a black hole... If causing such a cosmic-scale disaster would be so simple, we would be dead long time ago...I didn't.
If you think I did, please post a quote.
It's the longest post I saw yYou should probably look harder.
This is a completely invalid depiction a continuous light emission.All the evidence shows that light is quantised; there is no continuous emission.
You make the first measurement and find that photon at a specific location -The uncertainty principle means that a photon doesn't have a specific location- it has a range of probable locations.
Besides it is proven experimentally,You need to demonstrate that.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/06/2021 22:15:19
Quote
2
The easier proof is simple.
We know that light going past a star is diverted from its path.
And we know that light carries momentum.
So we know that the gravity of the star changes the momentum of the light.
But a change in momentum requires a force.
So we know that the start exerts a force on the light.
And by Newton's third law we know that the light must exert an equal and opposite force on the star.
That's the gravitational attraction of the photon for the star.
So we know that the relativistic mass of a photon has a gravitational attraction.
And ew know that the photon is also subject to gravitational attraction.
So we know that two photons attract each other (in a tiny way) via gravity.
That effect is usually too small to consider but, if you keep putting photons into a "box", eventually you end up with enough mass to form a black hole.
If what you say is true, we should be able to detect even a weak gravitational interaction between 2 parallel laser beams, if we would use lasers with enough power.
Your chain of thoughts has a major flaw - you forgot to take into account the fact, that when a source of gravity interacts with some test object with a rest mass, this object will resist the force, which is being applied to it, because of inertia, that comes from the rest mass.
Sadly Newton laws of motion break down, when we try to apply some external force to a photon. Photons don't have a rest mass and no inertia - besides they can't resist acceleration, since they can't be accelerated anymore. If there's any way, in which photons can give a part of their own energy to the system in somekind of a gravitational interaction, then it is probably only through the transfer of momentum when those photons "collide" into the source object. What a nice coincidence, that we just spoke about the momentum transfer - this mechanism seems to fit perfectly into this subject...
There's also one more thing - athough we are in fact capable to turn light into rest mass, matter created in this proces will always disappear in the moment, when we stop to "shine" the light on that matter - and it is not just the issue of an insufficient energy input. No matter how strong light we would use, matter created through 2-photon interaction will annihilate itself microseconds after it's creaation. It appers, that for some reason it is physically impossible for us to create the inertia of a rest mass by using only the momentum of a photon as a source of energy. Don't ask me why it is so - that's something, what I need to research in the near future...
Don't try this at ho.me
Hold my beer :) Do you want to make a bet? I give $50 that my prediction is the valid one and we won't see anything as spectacular, as light undergoing explosion-->implosion-->collapse into a BH - not even remotely.
Although at this moment I don't have the right conditions, to conduct such experiment, but rest assured, that if I will ever conduct it, I will show you a recording of the result - even if it would turn out, that you we're right... But on the other hand, if your predictions are valid, you will probably observe the results just couple miliseconds after me - right when you'll start being sucked into a black hole made of light, together with the surrounding space... It can be fun...
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 22:49:17
If what you say is true, we should be able to detect even a weak gravitational interaction between 2 parallel laser beams, if we would use lasers with enough power.Do you have any idea how small the effect would be?
besides they can't resist acceleration, since they can't be accelerated anymore.Thanks for clarifying the problem; you do not understand what acceleration is.
Go and look it up.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 10/06/2021 14:39:29
You should probably look harder.
Nah, I have better things to do...
All the evidence shows that light is quantised; there is no continuous emission.
By "continuous" I ment "extended in time" - as in the difference to emission of a single pulse.
The uncertainty principle means that a photon doesn't have a specific location- it has a range of probable locations.
Yes, but when you make an actual measurement of it's location, you will end up with a definitive result: you will find a photon at the given location or you won't find it there - it's called "wavefunction collapse"
You need to demonstrate that.
Well, there are such things, like resonance cavities for photons - for example in lasers or in a microwave owens. What is being observed in those cavities, is that the "trapped" EM radiation forms a standing wave (if the size of cavity is proper for the wavelenght of EM wave).- EM waves behave in such case similarly to sound waves, what shows that my analogy of a buzzing speaker submerged in a sphere of water is in fact valid...
I will soon come back to this subject, as it requires more attention...
Do you have any idea how small the effect would be?
So what? Our technology allows us to make quite precise measurements. Besides, if your concept of time-finite photons is correct, then it should be possible, to trap photons at a specific wavelenghts in a resonance cavity and increase their density to the point, where gravitational interactions would be strong enough, to be measured...
Thanks for clarifying the problem; you do not understand what acceleration is.
Go and look it up.
Acceleration - In mechanics, acceleration is the rate of change of the velocity of an object with respect to time.
So, how this can be applied to gravitational interactions of photons? In what frame velocity of photons is changing in time?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/06/2021 17:23:42
Yes, but when you make an actual measurement of it's location, you will end up with a definitive resultNo.
That's the whole point.
So what? Our technology allows us to make quite precise measurements.We are good, but not that good.
(and you run into the uncertainty principle again.)
Acceleration - In mechanics, acceleration is the rate of change of the velocity of an object with respect to time.OK, technically, it's the velocity that you do not understand.
So, how this can be applied to gravitational interactions of photons? In what frame velocity of photons is changing in time?
Here's a hint, it is not the same as speed.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/06/2021 17:25:45
Besides it is proven experimentally, that "my" depiction of photons and the EM radiation (consistent mainly with QM), is the one, which is valid.No it is not.
And this is not evidence for it.
Well, there are such things, like resonance cavities for photons - for example in lasers or in a microwave owens. What is being observed in those cavities, is that the "trapped" EM radiation forms a standing wave (if the size of cavity is proper for the wavelenght of EM wave).- EM waves behave in such case similarly to sound waves, what shows that my analogy of a buzzing speaker submerged in a sphere of water is in fact valid...
I know about EM radiation and sound in cavities.
It has nothing to do with your claim, has it?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 10/06/2021 17:58:06
Quote from: Bored chemist link=topic=82373.msg642753
No it is not.
And this is not evidence for it.
Actually analogy between sound and EM waves is quite commonly used by physicists throughout the history of physics...
https://www.alamy.com/the-analogy-of-sound-and-light-was-lately-given-by-professor-barrett-of-the-royal-college-of-science-dublin-on-some-experiments-illustrating-the-analogy-of-light-and-sound-the-professor-commenced-by-referring-to-some-of-the-well-about-eight-minutes-to-travel-to-birmingham-a-little-over-one-hundred-miles-while-in-the-same-time-the-light-from-the-flash-would-have-traveled-to-the-sun-a-distance-of-over-ninety-millions-of-miles-but-though-they-so-differ-in-the-rate-of-progress-both-light-and-sound-show-many-phenomena-in-common-flame-was-used-as-a-detector-of-sound-this-delicate-acoustic-image334319414.html
Quote from: Bored chemist link=topic=82373.msg642753
I know about EM radiation and sound in cavities.
It has nothing to do with your claim, has it?
Well I would say, that my scenario is a perfect example of photons trapped in a spherical cavity
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/06/2021 18:02:04
Well I would say, that my scenario is a perfect example of photons trapped in a spherical cavityBut then you say that, even if the mirror is perfect, there's a loss of energy.
That's not whata "perfect mirror" means.
Actually analogy between sound and EM waves is quite commonly used by physicists throughout the history of physics...Yes; Obviously. And we all know that.
But it is not used for doing simulations of blackholes, because it probably won't work.
Post by: talanum1 on 10/06/2021 18:18:46
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/06/2021 18:35:24
Photons are made of Riemann-half-sphere-half-antispheres, with momentum encoded into it by added points of space. An antisphere is a sphere made of left out points of space.Thank you for your "contribution", Talanum.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: CrazyScientist on 10/06/2021 18:58:21
Well I would say, that my scenario is a perfect example of photons trapped in a spherical cavityBut then you say that, even if the mirror is perfect, there's a loss of energy.
Sure - even if a surface is in 100% reflective, photons will loose energy due to momentum transfer. Just as you said, the mirror would need to have an absolute density of mass (made of BH?), to overcome this issue. However, there are other ways to trap EM radiation at a specific frequency within the cavity - e.g. microwaves inside the owen. For practical reasons, this mechanism can be used, to test my claims experimentally.
Quote
That's not whata "perfect mirror" means.Actually analogy between sound and EM waves is quite commonly used by physicists throughout the history of physics...Yes; Obviously. And we all know that.
But it is not used for doing simulations of blackholes, because it probably won't work.
It's you, who claim, that my scenario would lead to the creation of BH. I say, that the system will reach an energetic equilibrium at a specific frequency of resonance and from that moment energy level in the system will remain constant - just like we'd observe in the case of a constant emission of sound in a dense medium.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/06/2021 19:06:16
I say, that the system will reach an energetic equilibrium at a specific frequency of resonance and from that moment energy level in the system will remain constant -That makes no sense.
The proposed system has energy fed into it, there's no way for the energy to get out and you say that the energy stops getting bigger.
How?
Magic?
Where does the energy go?
However, there are other ways to trap EM radiation at a specific frequency within the cavity - e.g. microwaves inside the owen. For practical reasons, this mechanism can be used, to test my claims experimentally.Do you not understand that a microwave oven has the same problem?
The impact of the microwaves on the shell of the oven will impart momentum to it.
Even the best of them only bounce the microwaves back and to a few million times.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.3693409
Post by: CrazyScientist on 10/06/2021 19:13:27
Photons are made of Riemann-half-sphere-half-antispheres, with momentum encoded into it by added points of space. An antisphere is a sphere made of left out points of space.
Actually the "shape" and geometry of a photon is not the issue here. The general idea is, if we should treat photons as time-finite packets of energy with a variable density (number) in a volume of space, or if we should treat them, as time-infinite quanta of the photon field with a constant number (density) in a volume of space...
According to mainstream science photons are created during emission and propagate in "empty vacuum" as EM waves, only to be annihilated during absorbtion. According to me, photons ARE the medium in which EM waves propagate - just like water molecules create the medium for different kind of waves and currents...
Post by: puppypower on 10/06/2021 19:18:05
Quote from: Bored chemist link=topic=82373.msg642753No it is not.
And this is not evidence for it.
Actually analogy between sound and EM waves is quite commonly used by physicists throughout the history of physics...
https://www.alamy.com/the-analogy-of-sound-and-light-was-lately-given-by-professor-barrett-of-the-royal-college-of-science-dublin-on-some-experiments-illustrating-the-analogy-of-light-and-sound-the-professor-commenced-by-referring-to-some-of-the-well-about-eight-minutes-to-travel-to-birmingham-a-little-over-one-hundred-miles-while-in-the-same-time-the-light-from-the-flash-would-have-traveled-to-the-sun-a-distance-of-over-ninety-millions-of-miles-but-though-they-so-differ-in-the-rate-of-progress-both-light-and-sound-show-many-phenomena-in-common-flame-was-used-as-a-detector-of-sound-this-delicate-acoustic-image334319414.htmlQuote from: Bored chemist link=topic=82373.msg642753
I know about EM radiation and sound in cavities.
It has nothing to do with your claim, has it?
Well I would say, that my scenario is a perfect example of photons trapped in a spherical cavity
How about lining your spherical cavity with phosphoresent mirror material? You charge up the light absorbing inner surface with a tuned LED, and then pull the light source. The inner surface will emit photons, which are then absorbed, then reemitted, etc.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 10/06/2021 19:33:37
I say, that the system will reach an energetic equilibrium at a specific frequency of resonance and from that moment energy level in the system will remain constant -That makes no sense.
The proposed system has energy fed into it, there's no way for the energy to get out and you say that the energy stops getting bigger.
How?
Magic?
Where does the energy go?
When EM field inside the cavity is resonating in an unison frequency, those vibrations are transferred to the whole system, so, we'll end up with vibrations of the entire sphere - energy of EM radiation will then turn into kinetic energy of the whole system...
Quote
However, there are other ways to trap EM radiation at a specific frequency within the cavity - e.g. microwaves inside the owen. For practical reasons, this mechanism can be used, to test my claims experimentally.Do you not understand that a microwave oven has the same problem?
The impact of the microwaves on the shell of the oven will impart momentum to it.
Even the best of them only bounce the microwaves back and to a few million times.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.3693409
Sure, but then you can always compensate the loss of energy, by increasing the rate of emission or the magnitude of microwaves. Point is, to create more EM waves, than we loose in time - and it should be possible with our current technology...
Besides microwave owen cavity uses electric field, to trap the photons and I'm not 100% sure, if momentum transfer works here in the same way, as in the case of a mirror - I'd have to look for some info regarding this subject...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 10/06/2021 19:45:46
Quote from: Bored chemist link=topic=82373.msg642753No it is not.
And this is not evidence for it.
Actually analogy between sound and EM waves is quite commonly used by physicists throughout the history of physics...
https://www.alamy.com/the-analogy-of-sound-and-light-was-lately-given-by-professor-barrett-of-the-royal-college-of-science-dublin-on-some-experiments-illustrating-the-analogy-of-light-and-sound-the-professor-commenced-by-referring-to-some-of-the-well-about-eight-minutes-to-travel-to-birmingham-a-little-over-one-hundred-miles-while-in-the-same-time-the-light-from-the-flash-would-have-traveled-to-the-sun-a-distance-of-over-ninety-millions-of-miles-but-though-they-so-differ-in-the-rate-of-progress-both-light-and-sound-show-many-phenomena-in-common-flame-was-used-as-a-detector-of-sound-this-delicate-acoustic-image334319414.htmlQuote from: Bored chemist link=topic=82373.msg642753
I know about EM radiation and sound in cavities.
It has nothing to do with your claim, has it?
Well I would say, that my scenario is a perfect example of photons trapped in a spherical cavity
How about lining your spherical cavity with phosphoresent mirror material? You charge up the light absorbing inner surface with a tuned LED, and then pull the light source. The inner surface will emit photons, which are then absorbed, then reemitted, etc.
But the point is to emit more EM radiation, than is being lost due to imperfection of the system. I doubt, that phosphoresent surface will emit radiation at the same energy level, as the one, which was originally produced by the light source...
Post by: Zer0 on 10/06/2021 20:45:21
SideNote -
Sorry We had that Irreligious scuffle in that Other OP, Unfortunate!
✌️
I Apologize for suggesting You to modify/change your NickName.
🙏
I Do Not Appreciate Unsolicited suggestions, advice or Information.
👍
Science, Religion or Otherwise.
P.S. - Please do Not let this little sidenote distract You, & Please do carry on with the illuminating discussions.
🙂
& Yaa, i Really like Images that you post.
👍
Visualization makes it Alot more easier for Me to understand & absorb concepts.
👌
Nice Work!
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/06/2021 18:10:52
SideNote -
Sorry We had that Irreligious scuffle in that Other OP, Unfortunate!
✌️
I Apologize for suggesting You to modify/change your NickName.
🙏
I Do Not Appreciate Unsolicited suggestions, advice or Information.
👍
Science, Religion or Otherwise.
P.S. - Please do Not let this little sidenote distract You, & Please do carry on with the illuminating discussions.
🙂
& Yaa, i Really like Images that you post.
👍
Visualization makes it Alot more easier for Me to understand & absorb concepts.
👌
Nice Work!
Thanks and no problem :) I rarely take things personally. But honestly, after witnessing the general response, I'm thinking about making a thread: "what if God can be proven by science?". I can bet, that it will be the most active thread for a looooong time... :)
I know the difference between my private beliefs and science, but it could be interesting, to have a place, where we could speak about the meta- side
of physics...What do you think?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/06/2021 18:52:39
(https://static2.olympus-lifescience.com/data/olympusmicro/primer/java/lasers/heliumneonlaser/laserfigure1.jpg)
Although there are no perfect mirrors and a portion of radiation is being released from the cavity, energy loss is compensated with the gain medium, to which EM can transfer their energy, what greatly increases efficiency of the light source. As the result, density of EM radiation inside the cavity is growing faster, than it is being released from it.
I propose a simple experiment - let's take some powerful laser and close the exit hole in the cavity with a mirror. If this, what Bored Chemist claims is true, then we should expect, that the cavity will explode due to the internal pressure of emitted energy. If what I claim is true, then we should expect that the energy level of equilibrium will increase by the level equal to the laser output energy - and that's it...
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2021 18:54:12
When EM field inside the cavity is resonating in an unison frequency, those vibrations are transferred to the whole system, so, we'll end up with vibrations of the entire sphere - energy of EM radiation will then turn into kinetic energy of the whole system...So... exactly the same as with light and a mirrored ball.
Why do you think there is a difference between EM radiation and EM radiation?
- I'd have to look for some info regarding this subject...Here is some info on this subject.
Do you not understand that a microwave oven has the same problem?
The impact of the microwaves on the shell of the oven will impart momentum to it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2021 18:55:43
If this, what Bored Chemist claims is true, then we should expect, that the cavity will explode due to the internal pressure of emitted energyNo.
I don't believe that,.
It is bollocks.
Just because you get things wrong, that's no reason to assume that I don't know what would happen.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/06/2021 19:52:33
When EM field inside the cavity is resonating in an unison frequency, those vibrations are transferred to the whole system, so, we'll end up with vibrations of the entire sphere - energy of EM radiation will then turn into kinetic energy of the whole system...So... exactly the same as with light and a mirrored ball.p
Well, yeah...
Quote
Why do you think there is a difference between EM radiation and EM radiation?
It's because the difference of the wavelenght/frequency of EM radiation.
Now my question: what do you think will cause the increase of energy level in the whole system in my scenario: is it increasing intensity or is it growing frequency of emitted EM waves?
What defines the energy of EM radiation?
Quote
- I'd have to look for some info regarding this subject...Here is some info on this subject.Do you not understand that a microwave oven has the same problem?
The impact of the microwaves on the shell of the oven will impart momentum to it.
Only in your model of radiation, this pressure should grow together with the increasing number of photons inside the cavity, until it won't blow up (because the material of cavity is too weak, to allow a black hole formation inside it)...
Constant emission of EM radiation in cavities causes the increase of intensity, but you keep treating it, like increasing frequency. If you completely isolate a source of heat with the temperature of 1000°C, temperature of a medium won't grow beyond 1000°C despite the constant radiation of heat.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2021 20:25:07
Only in your model of radiation, this pressure should grow together with the increasing number of photons inside the cavity, until it won't blow up (because the material of cavity is too weak, to allow a black hole formation inside it)...That work of fiction is still yours, rather than mine. Don't insult me by linking my name to it.
You see, I'm quite clever, so I can tell the difference between a cylinder and a sphere.
I can see that the light will spill out of the sides of the laser if it can't get out of the ends.
But you seem not to be well enough versed in science to realise that.
Which is why you should stop posting tosh and go and learn some science.
but you keep treating it, like increasing frequency.No
That's bollocks and everyone reading this knows it.
I am treating it as an increasing number of photons (and, accordingly, and increasing mass of photons).
Since you plainly do not understand what I (and mainstream science) say, you are not in a position to criticise it, are you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2021 20:26:26
If you completely isolate a source of heat with the temperature of 1000°C, temperature of a medium won't grow beyond 1000°C despite the constant radiation of heat.Only you hallucinated that it might.
But, in the scenario you described, there is a constant addition of energy via a (hypothetical) one way valve.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2021 20:30:23
What defines the energy of EM radiation?The product of the number of photons and the energy which each photon has.
And, in your opening gambit, you kept increasing the number of photons.
Once you have added C^2 worth of energy you will have increased the mass by 1Kg.
It doesn't matter if that's microwave photons or visible photons which is why this
It's because the difference of the wavelenght/frequency of EM radiation.is nonsense.
Go away and don't come back until either you have learned some science, or until you are prepared to learn some.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/06/2021 20:34:49
Only in your model of radiation, this pressure should grow together with the increasing number of photons inside the cavity, until it won't blow up (because the material of cavity is too weak, to allow a black hole formation inside it)...That work of fiction is still yours, rather than mine. Don't insult me by linking my name to it.
You see, I'm quite clever, so I can tell the difference between a cylinder and a sphere.
I can see that the light will spill out of the sides of the laser if it can't get out of the ends.
But you seem not to be well enough versed in science to realise that.
Which is why you should stop posting tosh and go and learn some science.
So, according to you what makes the most important difference here, is the geometry of cavity?
Quote
quote author=CrazyScientist link=topic=82373.msg642865#msg642865 date=1623437553]but you keep treating it, like increasing frequency.No
That's bollocks and everyone reading this knows it.
I am treating it as an increasing number of photons (and, accordingly, and increasing mass of photons).
Since you plainly do not understand what I (and mainstream science) say, you are not in a position to criticise it, are you?
[/quote][/quote]
Then tell me please, how according to you, growing number of photons is expressed in the properties of EM wave?
Let me help you - it's the growing magnitude/intensity of waves...
Quote
Only you hallucinated that it might.
But, in the scenario you described, there is a constant addition of energy via a (hypothetical) one way valve.
And what is the only difference between light and heat?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2021 20:39:53
So, according to you what makes the most important difference here, is the geometry of cavity?
For a start you need to stop saying that things are "according to" me when they are not.
You keep making up dross and putting it forward as if it's my idea.
That is dishonest.
No
What makes the difference is the big holes in the side of the cavity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2021 20:42:40
And what is the only difference between light and heat?The difference is that heat is the microscopic mechanical energy of a substance- the movement of the atoms etc and can be transferred by conduction, radiation, convection or advection, but light is EM radiation within a range of wavelengths - about 400 to 700 nm.
Again; from the fact that you had to ask that, it's clear that you don't know the basic science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2021 20:44:22
Let me help you - it's the growing magnitude/intensity of waves...So why did you try to pretend that it was
like increasing frequency.and then pretend that it was me who had said that?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/06/2021 20:44:36
Quote
So this is what I learned:Quote from: CrazyScientist on Today at 19:52:33is nonsense.
It's because the difference of the wavelenght/frequency of EM radiation.
Go away and don't come back until either you have learned some science, or until you are prepared to learn some.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/node/682
"We can think of radiation either as waves or as individual particles called photons. The energy associated with a single photon is given by E = hν , where E is the energy (SI units of J), h is Planck's constant (h = 6.626 x 10–34 J s), and ν is the frequency of the radiation (SI units of s–1 or Hertz, Hz) (see figure below). Frequency is related to wavelength by λ=c/ν , where c, the speed of light, is 2.998 x 108 m s–1. Another quantity that you will often see is wavenumber, σ=1/λ, which is commonly reported in units of cm–1."
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/06/2021 21:08:45
So, according to you what makes the most important difference here, is the geometry of cavity?
For a start you need to stop saying that things are "according to" me when they are not.
You keep making up dross and putting it forward as if it's my idea.
That is dishonest.
So, if it's not you, who states all those things, then who is it? Should I understand, that you don't associate with your own claims?
Quote
No
What makes the difference is the big holes in the side of the cavity.
Holes covered by mirrors... So spherical mirror is one hole, which surrounds the inner space?
Sure, there are imperfection in the cavity of laser, but still energy level is growing inside the cavity - more energy is being "trapped", than it is being released.
The difference is that heat is the microscopic mechanical energy of a substance- the movement of the atoms etc and can be transferred by conduction, radiation, convection or advection, but light is EM radiation within a range of wavelengths - about 400 to 700 nm.
Again; from the fact that you had to ask that, it's clear that you don't know the basic science.
Ok, I should be more specific:
What is the difference between emission of light and emission of thermal radiation? Are there any substantial differences between both mechanics?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2021 21:14:18
Holes covered by mirrors..The sides of lasers are not covered by mirrors.
Stop making up nonsense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2021 21:15:14
So, if it's not you, who states all those things, then who is it? Should I understand, that you don't associate with your own claims?You would need to show how you came to the mistaken view that I said any of them.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/06/2021 21:16:00
What defines the energy of EM radiation?The product of the number of photons and the energy which each photon has.
And, in your opening gambit, you kept increasing the number of photons.
Once you have added C^2 worth of energy you will have increased the mass by 1Kg.
It doesn't matter if that's microwave photons or visible photons which is why thisIt's because the difference of the wavelenght/frequency of EM radiation.is nonsense.
Go away and don't come back until either you have learned some science, or until you are prepared to learn some.
So you say, that a constant emission of light inside a perfect spherical cavity will lead to the constant increase of the energy in the system, until a critical level is reached and cavity explodes or a BH is formed
Everything what differs emission of visible light and emission of thermal energy, is the wavelenght of emitted EM waves - do you agree with that?
So now let's replace the constant source of light with a constant source of heat - what will happen in this case?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2021 21:16:38
Ok, I should be more specific:There are differences in detail but the processes are substantially identical.
What is the difference between emission of light and emission of thermal radiation? Are there any substantial differences between both mechanics?
Are you beginning to understand the importance of not saying stupid things?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2021 21:17:10
So you say, that a constant emission of light inside a perfect spherical cavity will lead to the constant increase of the energy in the system, until a critical level is reached and cavity explodes or a BH is formedNo.
Stop doing that.
I never said that.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/06/2021 21:25:38
Holes covered by mirrors..The sides of lasers are not covered by mirrors.
Stop making up nonsense.
Ahh, you were talking about the inner surface of the cylinder... Sure, big portion of photons is absorbed by it - and yet the energy level inside cavity is growing until equiblirium is reached. Why should any other case of photons trapped in a reflective cavity, give us a completely different result?
Quote
So you say, that a constant emission of light inside a perfect spherical cavity will lead to the constant increase of the energy in the system, until a critical level is reached and cavity explodes or a BH is formedNo.
Stop doing that.
I never said that.I am treating it as an increasing number of photons (and, accordingly, and increasing mass of photons).
since mass is a form of energy
Increasing number of photons = increasing mass = increasing energy
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2021 23:28:42
you were talking about the inner surface of the cylinderNo
Stop doing that.
I never said that.
Just stop making up nonsense then pretending it's what I think.
It is clear that you are not interested in any real discussion here.
You only want to argue with rubbish that you claim is my viewpoint.
That sort of straw manning is dishonest.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/06/2021 23:32:35
QuoteQuoting me out of context is also dishonest.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 21:17:10
Quote from: CrazyScientist on Today at 21:16:00
So you say, that a constant emission of light inside a perfect spherical cavity will lead to the constant increase of the energy in the system, until a critical level is reached and cavity explodes or a BH is formed
No.
Stop doing that.
I never said that.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on Today at 20:34:49
I am treating it as an increasing number of photons (and, accordingly, and increasing mass of photons).
You just tried to pretend that I was talking about a source inside the sphere when the actual discussion point was a source outside the sphere with the light (and mass) going in through a hypothetical valve..
You really need to stop making false statements.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 12/06/2021 08:03:34
Quoting me out of context is also dishonest.
You just tried to pretend that I was talking about a source inside the sphere when the actual discussion point was a source outside the sphere with the light (and mass) going in through a hypothetical valve..
You really need to stop making false statements.
Huh? I was talking about a source of radiation placed inside the cavity since the beginning of this thread... This is what is written in the 1st post..
Quote
"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)..."
I didn't mention even once in this thread about a scenario where a source of radiation is placed outside of the cavity - and if I did, please tell me where exactly...
BTW Can you please explain me, why the location of source is here so important, that it completely changes the supposed outcome of photons trapping in a cavity?
I would say, that the build-up of energy in the cavity would just take longer for EM radiation directed from an outside source, than for a source, that is placed inside (energy of radiation is being lost, when it is directed from a source to a specific location) - or greater energy input would be required, to achieve the same effect, as for a point-source inside the cavity. But in the end the final outcome will be almost exactly the same in both cases - system reaches energetic equilibrium after some time of constant emission of EM radiation...
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 10:09:13
It's a one way valve.
OK, the inside of the sphere is perfectly-reflecting, and there's an ideal optical diode to let light in but keep it inside
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 10:16:41
Do you know what a diode does?However the point is still moot. Is power supplied form the outside or not.
It's a one way valve.OK, the inside of the sphere is perfectly-reflecting, and there's an ideal optical diode to let light in but keep it inside
If not, then the energy is obviously limited and the experiment just generates a flat battery.
But, if the power is fed in from outside the sphere to drive the lamp then you have a different problem; anything which can emit light must also absorb it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation
So, the light will bounce around until it is absorbed by the lamp.
That will burn the lamp out.
Again, that's not an interesting experiment.
The case where it can produce a black hole, can not include any light source inside the sphere.
BTW Can you please explain me, why the location of source is here so important, that it completely changes the supposed outcome of photons trapping in a cavity?The conservation laws.
If you are using a battery inside the sphere to provide power then it loses mass as it is used and that exactly compensates for the mass of the photons produced.
If the power source is outside the sphere then it can add relativistic mass to the contents of the sphere, causing it to collapse into a BH
Once again, this is all pretty much high-school physics.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 12/06/2021 15:58:08
Ok, so let's now assume, that the battery is actually placed somewhere outside of the spherical cavity and is powering up a source of heat (thermal radiation), allowing it to maintain a constant temprature of 1000°C. Can you explain the mechanism, which in this case could possibly lead to creation of a BH out of the thermal radiation, which is constantly emitted by the source of heat inside the cavity?
Tell me, how you will solve that. I would love to hear some cool fairytale for good night :)
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 16:24:18
Honestly, I don't know,why he included it in his answer, since the question was about a source placed INSIDE a spherical mirror.Because, if the original energy source (a battery, a chemical reactor or whatever- even a nuke) is inside the mirror you won't get a black hole, but if the source is outside the spherical mirror, and the light is allowed in through some magic valve, you will get a BH.
I presume he wanted to avoid talking about the version that is boring.
Which leads to the interesting question; why are you talking about a version of the experiment which can't produce the interesting outcome?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 16:27:15
, the source won't absorb any energy from the cavityIf the source is able to emit at some wavelength then it will absorb at that wavelength.
The size, shape, cost or colour of the cavity don't affect that.
Post by: Zer0 on 12/06/2021 16:27:47
Thanks and no problem :) I rarely take things personally.
Such Mental Stability & Maturity is a Rare Commodity nowadays.
👍
Glad you have this positive outlook towards Life.
But honestly, after witnessing the general response, I'm thinking about making a thread: "what if God can be proven by science?".
i heard a Scientist once say that, " There was No Space & No Time before the BB. Hence GOD had no space & time to create the Universe. "
IMHO, that was a Foolish Statement!
Believers can Easily think or say that GOD is on the Outside.
Just like a pizza baker need Not get inside of the bread to bake it.
Still, IMHO, it was a Foolish Statement!
Bcoz it Linked...
' Religion ' vs ' Science '
Both Subjects are Completely Different in their Essence.
Religion works on Faiths & Beliefs.
Science implies on Facts & Evidences.
But here's the Point...
Just bcoz a Scientist made One Foolish Statement does Not mean he/she is a Fool.
Just bcoz a group of Scientists repeatedly make Foolish Statements Does Not Mean Sciences are the leisure pastimes of Fools!
🙏
Bottomline - Science Does Not Prove or Disprove the Existence of GOD...Honestly, Science Does Not Care!
🙏
I can bet, that it will be the most active thread for a looooong time... :)
i did Suggest this to the Forum Mods...wished to have
' Philosophy ' & ' Religion ' subsections.
But my suggestions were Not entertained & let to pass.
Rightfully So!
👍
Bcoz NOW i Understand how Futile my suggestion was.
A " Religion " section will attract people of faith & belief to come in here & pass sermons & preach.
But Obvious, Rationale Thinkers would be Uncomfortable & Oppose.
Then, as mostly it is, & has been proven in History...Religion will spark off a Holy War in here.
✌️
A " Philosophy " section would seem attractive & tingle young minds into indulging in it.
Whole days & years they might keep Philosophising in here.
Instead of becoming a Good Doctor, Chemist, Physicist & having a successful career & help in supporting their families...they might end up becoming a Great unpaid Philosopher.
✌️
Even a Dead Logical Thread in here is Alot More Meaningful, than an Active Illogical Meaningless One.
👍
I know the difference between my private beliefs and science, but it could be interesting, to have a place, where we could speak about the meta- side
of physics...What do you think?
i Think You are on the path of Learning, Understanding & acquiring Real Knowledge!
👍
I most certainly would Not wish to deflect you from the Trail of Sciences, & pull you into the Deep Dark Woods of Philosophies.
🙏
IMHO, GOD is Dead & so is Philosophy!
[/quote]
P.S. - Shall Refrain from further Disturbing & Distracting You.
✌️
The Woods are too Dark & too Deep, but We All have our Promises to Keep!
🖖
Tc!
😇
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 16:40:35
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)...That's your scenario and it is trivially impossible.
The light source can't act "continuously" because it will stop when the energy source runs out.
here's a less impossible (hypothetically) version
We trap some light in a perfectly mirrored box.
The first question is does the box weigh less before we fill it with light than afterwards?
I hope you recognise that the answer is yes.
OK now we compress the ball spherically so the density increases. (That's obviously somewhere between impractical and impossible, but never mind.- it's just a thought experiment and I will present a way round it presently)
At some point we will squeeze it inside its own Schwarzschild radius and at that point it will become a black hole.
The radius at which that happens will be a bit bigger than it would be with an empty sphere because of the increased mass due to the photons in it.
Now imagine that we increase the energy inside the sphere and repeat the experiment.
We find that we don't need to compress it so much because the mass is even higher.
Now imagine that we increase the energy in the sphere continuously (with power supplied form outside).
There will be a point where we only need to compress the sphere slightly to get it to collapse.
And shortly after that, there will be a point where it collapses without us needing to compress it at all.
(and, at this point, the impossibility of compression becomes irrelevant).
Post by: CrazyScientist on 12/06/2021 18:23:43
, the source won't absorb any energy from the cavityIf the source is able to emit at some wavelength then it will absorb at that wavelength.
The size, shape, cost or colour of the cavity don't affect that.
Oh really...?
Sorry to inform you, that you couldn't be more wrong. Didn't you learn in high-school, that photons can interact with atoms only at couple specific energy states of the system?
The phase shift induced by a single atom in free space
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.2804.pdf
Quote
In this article we theoretically study the phase shift a single atom imprints onto a coherent state light beam
in free space. The calculations are performed in a semiclassical framework. The key parameters governing
the interaction and thus the measurable phase shift are the solid angle from which the light is focused onto the
atom and the overlap of the incident radiation with the atomic dipole radiation pattern. The analysis includes
saturation effects and discusses the associated Kerr-type non-linearity of a single atom.
Abnormal behaviour of the electromagnetic modes in an annular spherical cavity
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998EJPh...19..319B/abstract
Quote
The fluctuating electromagnetic field in a cavity with perfectly conducting walls is generally composed of two kinds of modes: electric (TM) and magnetic (TE). Conventional wisdom says that if the cavity volume is made smaller, the eigenfrequencies rise. Here, a counterexample is demonstrated: if the cavity is spherical and has annular form (inner radius a and outer radius b), then the eigenfrequencies for the lowest electric modes decrease monotonically if the region is made shallower. This abnormality is of quantum mechanical interest. Thus, if an excited two-level atom of free-space emission frequency 0143-0807/19/4/001/img1 satisfying the condition 0143-0807/19/4/001/img2 is situated in the (vacuum) cavity, the atom will be unable to radiate the photon for a = 0. If a now increases, meaning that the cavity takes an annular form, a point will be reached at which emission is permitted. This abnormal behaviour is characteristic of the spherical geometry and is not present in the analogous cylindrical geometry.
Do you actually identify as a Chemist? Because this statement pretty much invalidates your entire self-imposed authority in this field of science... :)
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 18:29:39
It's one of the laws of physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation
It can be derived from the law of conservation of energy.
If you have a thing which emits then it will absorb.
Sorry to inform you, that you couldn't be more wrong. Didn't you learn in high-school, that photons can interact with atoms only at couple specific energy states of the system?Yes.
Exactly my point.
At those wavelengths where there is a suitable excited state a ground state molecule or atom or LED can absorb light and, at exactly the same wavelengths that excited state can emit light (and return to the ground state).
This is still true if the excited state has been perturbed by a cavity or, indeed, anything else.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 18:33:24
Post by: CrazyScientist on 12/06/2021 18:47:28
OK now we compress the ball spherically so the density increases. (That's obviously somewhere between impractical and impossible, but never mind.- it's just a thought experiment and I will present a way round it presently)
At some point we will squeeze it inside its own Schwarzschild radius and at that point it will become a black hole
Nope.
If you wouldn't stop following the progress in theoretical and practical science after WWII (or maybe even since WWI), you would know, that your quite radical and completely unverified claims were actually verified experimentally - and the observed results completely disproved the model of EM radiation, which you propose here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeezed_states_of_light
Squeezed excitation in cavity QED - Caltech Authors
https://authors.library.caltech.edu/4856/1/TURpra98.pdf
Post by: CrazyScientist on 12/06/2021 18:54:31
Now, would you like to address the point about the BH?
Sure. It's an experimeantally disproved pseudo-scientific fantasy, which is completely inconsistent with the actual physical reallity... Yeah, that motly summarizes the idea, that EM radiation trapped in a cavity can somehow create a black hole
Post by: CrazyScientist on 12/06/2021 19:12:41
It's not me with whom you are arguing.
It's one of the laws of physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation
It can be derived from the law of conservation of energy.
If you have a thing which emits then it will absorb.
Sure, It will absorb, but only when a specific criteria are satisfied - to be specific, when the density of probability in the cavity still has some degree of uncertainty at a specific frequency band of the photon field.
When the density/intensity of EM field in the cavity reaches a specific "capacity" of probability distribution at the frequency of emitted EM waves, source of radiation becomes unable of further emission, until some part of the radiation won't be absorbed back from the system by the source - and then this quanta of EM energy radiates once more into the cavity, only to be absorbed back by the source (and this process is being repeated in a loop, until some external factor won't disturb the energy equilibrium of the system)
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 19:20:00
It's an experimeantally disprovedWho did the experiment?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 12/06/2021 19:22:24
Yes.
Exactly my point.
At those wavelengths where there is a suitable excited state a ground state molecule or atom or LED can absorb light and, at exactly the same wavelengths that excited state can emit light (and return to the ground state).
This is still true if the excited state has been perturbed by a cavity or, indeed, anything else.
Bravo good sir!
And in science situation, in which intensity of a field is reaching a specific level, which prevents any further growth of energy, is called "equilibrium"
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 19:22:55
Sure, It will absorb, but only when a specific criteria are satisfied - to be specific, when the density of probability in the cavity still has some degree of uncertainty at a specific frequency band of the photon field.If I link to that wiki page a third time, will you read it a few more times?
Then maybe you will understand that the probability of emission is dependent on the same criteria as the probability of absorption.
so, if you have anything that's an emitter, it is just as good an absorber.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 19:24:51
which prevents any further growth of energy, is called "equilibrium"If you keep putting energy in, you can't prevent further growth in energy.
If you don't keep putting energy in then you don't finish the experiment.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 12/06/2021 19:25:35
It's an experimeantally disprovedWho did the experiment?
For example those guys:
Q. A. Turchette, N. Ph. Georgiades, C. J. Hood, and H. J. Kimble
Do you know any of them?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 12/06/2021 19:27:38
If you keep putting energy in, you can't prevent further growth in energy.
If you don't keep putting energy in then you don't finish the experiment
Tell this to people, who proved experimentally, that you're wrong...
Squeezed excitation in cavity QED: Experiment and theory
"One of the canonical questions in quantum optics is the nature of the radiative properties of an atom when
the normal vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic reservoir are replaced by the asymmetric, reduced
fluctuations of a squeezed vacuum. While the basic radiative linewidth-narrowing effect has been known for
over a decade @C. W. Gardiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1917 ~1986!#, experimental realizations with operationally
definable definitive manifestations of the quantum nature of the squeezed reservoir have been largely lacking
from subsequent investigations. This paper presents measurements on an experimentally realized atom–
squeezed-light system, in which the squeezed-light output of a subthreshold optical parametric oscillator
illuminates an atom strongly coupled to a high-finesse optical resonator. Transmission of a weak probe field
incident on the atom-cavity system is investigated both theoretically and experimentally. Alteration of the
transmitted probe spectrum has been observed, as has a transmission modulation that depends on the phase of
the squeezed field relative to a saturating coherent field ~displaced squeezing!. In certain parameter regimes,
properties unique to the quantum nature of the squeezed light have been identified in the theoretical treatment,
but complications in the experiment prevent their unequivocal measure. It is found that the observed effects of
the squeezed light are dramatically reduced relative to the predictions of an idealized theory. This is quantitatively
attributed to the effects of atomic beam fluctuations and a simple modeling of the atomic beam as an
additional loss mechanism in the theory leads to reasonable agreement with the data.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 20:00:25
It's not clear that it has any relevance at all.
Now, please show the details for the experiment you claimed was done where someone squashed a mirror ball into a black hole.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 12/06/2021 20:07:09
Thanks and no problem :) I rarely take things personally.
Such Mental Stability & Maturity is a Rare Commodity nowadays.
👍
Glad you have this positive outlook towards Life.
But honestly, after witnessing the general response, I'm thinking about making a thread: "what if God can be proven by science?".
i heard a Scientist once say that, " There was No Space & No Time before the BB. Hence GOD had no space & time to create the Universe. "
IMHO, that was a Foolish Statement!
Believers can Easily think or say that GOD is on the Outside.
Just like a pizza baker need Not get inside of the bread to bake it.
Still, IMHO, it was a Foolish Statement!
Bcoz it Linked...
' Religion ' vs ' Science '
Both Subjects are Completely Different in their Essence.
Religion works on Faiths & Beliefs.
Science implies on Facts & Evidences.
But here's the Point...
Just bcoz a Scientist made One Foolish Statement does Not mean he/she is a Fool.
Just bcoz a group of Scientists repeatedly make Foolish Statements Does Not Mean Sciences are the leisure pastimes of Fools!
🙏
Bottomline - Science Does Not Prove or Disprove the Existence of GOD...Honestly, Science Does Not Care!
🙏
I can bet, that it will be the most active thread for a looooong time... :)
i did Suggest this to the Forum Mods...wished to have
' Philosophy ' & ' Religion ' subsections.
But my suggestions were Not entertained & let to pass.
Rightfully So!
👍
Bcoz NOW i Understand how Futile my suggestion was.
A " Religion " section will attract people of faith & belief to come in here & pass sermons & preach.
But Obvious, Rationale Thinkers would be Uncomfortable & Oppose.
Then, as mostly it is, & has been proven in History...Religion will spark off a Holy War in here.
✌️
A " Philosophy " section would seem attractive & tingle young minds into indulging in it.
Whole days & years they might keep Philosophising in here.
Instead of becoming a Good Doctor, Chemist, Physicist & having a successful career & help in supporting their families...they might end up becoming a Great unpaid Philosopher.
✌️
Even a Dead Logical Thread in here is Alot More Meaningful, than an Active Illogical Meaningless One.
👍
I know the difference between my private beliefs and science, but it could be interesting, to have a place, where we could speak about the meta- side
of physics...What do you think?
i Think You are on the path of Learning, Understanding & acquiring Real Knowledge!
👍
I most certainly would Not wish to deflect you from the Trail of Sciences, & pull you into the Deep Dark Woods of Philosophies.
🙏
IMHO, GOD is Dead & so is Philosophy!
P.S. - Shall Refrain from further Disturbing & Distracting You.
✌️
The Woods are too Dark & too Deep, but We All have our Promises to Keep!
🖖
Tc!
😇
[/quote]
Thanks! I don't consider this distracting at all. In fact I would gladly submerge in a philosophical discussiosn about the meta-physics of existence, with someone who has a different outlook on the subject.
Sadly, I think that there's one, significant problem, which puts rather serious limits in the intellectual capacity of many people, who consider themselves scientists - it's a simple algorythm imprinted directly into their mental structure of thought process, that upon receiving the key-word: "God", executes a short chain of logical associations:
God ---> relligion ---> church ---> temple ---> buch of weird people, who are known to take part in some form of ceremonial magic, where they make weird mystical enchantements to some white, round and completely tasteless waffles and believe, that by eating it, they actually consume the living flesh of a guy, who lived some 2000 years ago, and who they consider as a true incarnation of God...
This creates a simple mental mechanism, which prevents most of scientists from asking themselves a simple theoretical question: "is there by any chance any possibility, that some form of a God Almighty actually exists and can be directly observed, meaured and described in terms of practical physics?"
Ok, I'll be back later. C'ya!
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 21:54:20
"is there by any chance any possibility, that some form of a God Almighty actually exists and can be directly observed, meaured and described in terms of practical physics?"Well, I presume that according to you, someone has done the experiment and that this is a record of it.
The rest of us see that nobody has actually done the relevant experiment.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 12/06/2021 22:15:47
That is an experiment, but not the experiment.
It's not clear that it has any relevance at all.
Now, please show the details for the experiment you claimed was done where someone squashed a mirror ball into a black hole.
Sure, no problem - just after you'll bring me 1 liter of condensed light in form of a syrup (I wan't to check, if it can be used as a substitude of sugar)...
Or maybe you prefer to play on "easy mode" - if so, then give me any experimental evidence, which MIGHT suggest, that you can make a black hole using a mechanical compression of light... And by "experimental", I mean things supported by a direct observation/measurement and not things, which were theoretically deduced by some guy more than century ago... Good luck with that!
Since it isn't any evidence for you, to learn about a practical experiment, which proves directly, that decreasing volume of a optical resonant cavity, leads in fact to a measurable decrease in the intensity of EM radiation inside that cavity, instead of the supposed gain of energy density, which according to your model, should be observed while the volume of cavity is being reduced,- then you can proably give me some ACTUALLY PRACTICAL evidence, that clearly proves the idea of black holes formed from a soup of pure condensed light... Can you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 22:17:55
Sure, no problem - just after you'll bring me 1 liter of condensed light in form of a syrup (I wan't to check, if it can be used as a substitude of sugar)...No.
You said that the experiment had been done.
You said
Tell this to people, who proved experimentally, that you're wrong...So show me the write up of that experiment.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 22:22:53
Or maybe you prefer to play on "easy mode" - if so, then give me any experimental evidence, which MIGHT suggest, that you can make a black hole using a mechanical compression of light.I did, but you didn't understand that changing the direction of motion is acceleration, so you didn't understand that a star exerts a force on light as it goes past (the effect we call gravitational lensing) so you didn't understand that the light must (by Newton's laws) pull on the star so you didn't understand that gravity affects relativistic mass so you didn't understand that two photons attract each other via gravity.
Instead, you said something stupid.
If what you say is true, we should be able to detect even a weak gravitational interaction between 2 parallel laser beams, if we would use lasers with enough power.
Which might be sort-of true but we simply don't have laser beams anything like that powerful.
So the effect would be immeasurably small.
So it's a stupid thing to say.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 12/06/2021 22:24:17
"is there by any chance any possibility, that some form of a God Almighty actually exists and can be directly observed, meaured and described in terms of practical physics?"Well, I presume that according to you, someone has done the experiment and that this is a record of it.
The rest of us see that nobody has actually done the relevant experiment.
And this is exactly why it is a good idea, to make a separate thread, where we could discuss such things, without turning other threads, that deal with actual science, into a battleground of yet another crusade in our history...
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 22:25:34
Since it isn't any evidence for you, to learn about a practical experiment, which proves directly, that decreasing volume of a optical resonant cavity, leads in fact to a measurable decrease in the intensity of EM radiation inside that cavity, instead of the supposed gain of energy density, which according to your model, should be observed while the volume of cavity is being reduced,- then you can proably give me some ACTUALLY PRACTICAL evidence, that clearly proves the idea of black holes formed from a soup of pure condensed light... Can you?If you are right, then that's a breach of the conservation of energy.
There are two issues with that idea.
First, I wouldn't have heard it from some guy on the internet; it would be headline news.
Second it's impossible because of this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 22:27:16
And this is exactly why it is a good idea, to make a separate thread, where we could discuss such things, without turning other threads, that deal with actual science, into a battleground of yet another crusade in our history...To be fair, I was mainly just taking the piss out of your inability to understand what " proved experimentally, that you're wrong..." means.
It doesn't mean citing some random experiment with some of the same words in it.
The religious bit is irrelevant.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 12/06/2021 22:32:52
I did, but you didn't understand that changing the direction of motion is acceleration, so you didn't understand that a star exerts a force on light as it goes past (the effect we call gravitational lensing) so you didn't understand that the light must (by Newton's laws) pull on the star so you didn't understand that gravity affects relativistic mass so you didn't understand that two photons attract each other via gravity.I understand the theoretical premise of your model - I just consider it, as invalid, so I demand some actual results of ANY practical experiments, that can prove the idea that:
a) decrease of the volume of an optical cavity leads to the increase of intensity/magnitude of an EM radiation trapped inside that cavity
b) photons really do interact with each other gravitationally
I don't want to hear your explanations - I want to see some actual measurable results... Anything observable - I'm not so demanding, as you are...
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 22:47:40
Anything observable - I'm not so demanding, as you are...Says the man who demands an experimental observation of a purely hypothetical perfect mirror.
a) decrease of the volume of an optical cavity leads to the increase of intensity/magnitude of an EM radiation trapped inside that cavityDo you accept that photon pressure is real; I presume so because you cited it earlier.
If you compress a mirror box with light in then you do work against that photon pressure.
Where does that energy go?
I contend that it raises the frequencies of the photons in the box. What do you think happens to it?
Or are you really claiming that energy is not conserved?
There is, by the way, experimental evidence of teh shortening of wavelength by reflection froma moving mirror.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/112/4/042050/pdf
Also, I'm still waiting for you to cite the experiment which you say has been done.
When did they squash a light filled box into a space smaller than its Schwarzschild radius and have it not turn into a black hole.
Just the abstract would do...
You said it was experimentally refuted so where are teh experimental details?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 13/06/2021 00:52:12
Anything observable - I'm not so demanding, as you are...Says the man who demands an experimental observation of a purely hypothetical perfect mirror.a) decrease of the volume of an optical cavity leads to the increase of intensity/magnitude of an EM radiation trapped inside that cavityDo you accept that photon pressure is real; I presume so because you cited it earlier.
If you compress a mirror box with light in then you do work against that photon pressure.
Where does that energy go?
Obviously into the atoms, that make the resonance cavity
Quote
I contend that it raises the frequencies of the photons in the box.
Nope. it's exactly opposite - momentum transfer during reflection of an EM wave increases it's wavelenght
(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images-archive-read-only/wp-content/uploads/sites/222/2016/02/20113243/Figure_30_04_02a.jpg)
Quote
What do you think happens to it?
it reaches an equilibrium with rest of the system, when EM field inside the cavity reaches it's maximum capacity of probability density at the frequencies emitted by source - and no more radiation can "fit" in the probability wavefunction of the photon field.
Quote
Or are you really claiming that energy is not conserved?
Well, since no more radiation is being emitted by the source into the system, that remains in the state of energy equilibrium, then no more energy is being "consumed" by that source and energy is being fully conserved
Quote
There is, by the way, experimental evidence of teh shortening of wavelength by reflection froma moving mirror.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/112/4/042050/pdf
And what exactly does it have to do with EM radiation trapped inside a cavity with decreasing volume?
Are you aware, that the mechanism presented in that paper is based mostly on Doppler's effect on light and not on the assumption, that intensity/density of EM radiation will grow inside a cavity with decreasing volume
Quote
Also, I'm still waiting for you to cite the experiment which you say has been done.
When did they squash a light filled box into a space smaller than its Schwarzschild radius and have it not turn into a black hole.
Of course you are fully aware, that the the mass of the trapping box has billions times greater relativistic mass, than all the photons trapped in that box - so even your expactactions are fundamentally flawed
Second of all, why are you are demanding from me an experimental counter-evidence of your own hypothesis? You used the scenario with shrinking cavity, to support another of your claims about the constant increase of energy in a system, where a constant source of EM radiation is placed inside a cavity with a constant volume - and now you demand from me to prove things, that are impossible to verfify by any possible means... This isn't how it works...
Quote
You said it was experimentally refuted so where are teh experimental details?
Here:
for example your claim is that:
Quote
If the source is able to emit at some wavelength then it will absorb at that wavelength.
The size, shape, cost or colour of the cavity don't affect that.
and:
Quote
If you keep putting energy in, you can't prevent further growth in energy.
But when we look some sources, where this subject is discussed, like the link below:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cavity-quantum-electrodynamics/
We will learn that:
"If the antenna is inside a reflecting cavity, however, its behavior changes—as anyone knows who has tried to listen to a radio broadcast while driving through a tunnel. As the car and its receiving antenna pass underground, they enter a region where the long wavelengths of the radio waves are cut off. The incident waves interfere destructively with those that bounce off the steel-reinforced concrete walls of the tunnel. In fact, the radio waves cannot propagate unless the tunnel walls are separated by more than half a wavelength. This is the minimal width that permits a standing wave with at least one crest, or field maximum, to build up—just as the vibration of a violin string reaches a maximum at the middle of the string and vanishes at the ends. What is true for reception also holds for emission: a confined antenna cannot broadcast at long wavelengths.
An excited atom in a small cavity is precisely such as antenna, albeit a microscopic one. If the cavity is small enough, the atom will be unable to radiate because the wavelength of the oscillating field it would "like" to produce cannot fit within the boundaries. As long as the atom cannot emit a photon, it must remain in the same energy level; the excited state acquires an infinite lifetime.
In 1985 research groups at the University of Washington and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology demonstrated suppressed emission. The group in Seattle inhibited the radiation of a single electron inside an electromagnetic trap, whereas the M.I.T. group studied excited atoms confined between two metallic plates about a quarter of a millimeter apart. The atoms remained in the same state without radiating as long as they were between the plates.
Millimeter-scale structures are much too wide to alter the behavior of conventionally excited atoms emitting micron or submicron radiation; consequently, the M.I.T. experimenters had to work with atoms in special states known as Rydberg states. An atom in a Rydberg state has almost enough energy to lose an electron completely. Because this outermost electron is bound only weakly, it can assume any of a great number of closely spaced energy levels, and the photons it emits while jumping form one to another have wavelengths ranging from a fraction of a millimeter to a few centimeters. Rydberg atoms are prepared by irradiating ground-state atoms with laser light of appropriate wavelengths and are widely used in cavity QED experiments.
The suppression of spontaneous emission at an optical frequency requires much smaller cavities. In 1986 one of us (Haroche), along with other physicists at Yale University, made a micron-wide structure by stacking two optically flat mirrors separated by extremely thin metallic spacers. The workers sent atoms through this passage, thereby preventing them from radiating for as long as 13 times the normal excited-state lifetime. Researchers at the University of Rome used similar micron-wide gaps to inhibit emission by excited dye molecules."
And both of your statements turn out to be completely wrong......
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/06/2021 10:18:31
Obviously into the atoms, that make the resonance cavitySo, because the energy is absorbed by the walls, it isn't reflected.
So it isn't a perfectly reflective wall- as specified.
So your "explanation" only makes sense when you move the goal posts.
Of course you are fully aware, that the the mass of the trapping box has billions times greater relativistic mass, than all the photons trapped in that box - so even your expactactions are fundamentally flawedWell, yes and no.
I'm the one who pointed out that a strictly perfect mirror needs to have infinite mass.
But I also pointed out that, if you add enough photons the box collapses- regardless of the original mass of the box.
The box was always pretty much doomed anyway- it was going to be right next to a BH.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/06/2021 10:22:18
Nope. it's exactly opposite - momentum transfer during reflection of an EM wave increases it's wavelenghtImagine doing that experiment, as shown in that diagram and filming it.
Then imagine watching the film backwards.
An electron heading towards the source of radiation (on the right of the picture) strikes the photon and , like hitting a ball with a bat, the photon is sent off towards the top left at a higher energy than it started with (and the electron is slowed down).
That's the scenario we are talking about.
The box wall is moving towards the photon and when it hits it, the energy of the photon is raised.
It's fairly closely analogous to compressing a gas and getting an increase in temperature.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/06/2021 10:29:12
And what exactly does it have to do with EM radiation trapped inside a cavity with decreasing volume?It is the experiment where someone actually did bounce photons off a fast moving mirror and show that the photons' energy was raised.
It experimentally demonstrates that your idea-
Nope. it's exactly opposite - momentum transfer during reflection of an EM wave increases it's wavelenghtis wrong if the mirror moves towards the source.
The picture you show is the case where the photons cause the electron to move.
If you hang a bat on a length of rope and throw a ball at it, the ball will transfer momentum to the bat and will bounce off more slowly than it started out.
But that's not how it would work if you were deliberately squashing the box.
Here:It still isn't "my" claim.
for example your claim is that:
It's Kirchhoff's.
And it's a direct consequence of the conservation of energy.
Things that absorb will also emit.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/06/2021 10:31:08
"If the antenna is inside a reflecting cavity, however, its behavior changesYes.
We know.
I already pointed that out.
Given that I wrote
This is still true if the excited state has been perturbed by a cavity or, indeed, anything else.
the question is now, did you not read that, or not understand it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/06/2021 10:52:37
The suppression of spontaneous emission at an optical frequency requires much smaller cavities. In 1986 one of us (Haroche), along with other physicists at Yale University, made a micron-wide structure by stacking two optically flat mirrors separated by extremely thin metallic spacers. The workers sent atoms through this passage, thereby preventing them from radiating for as long as 13 times the normal excited-state lifetime. Researchers at the University of Rome used similar micron-wide gaps to inhibit emission by excited dye molecules."Well, I have to admit this is rather surprising.
I never thought that the research work I did as a student would ever actually be of any use to me.
As is often the case, I was pretty much copying a piece of research done earlier by someone else.
And I actually did the experiment of putting a fluorescent molecule (well, lots of them) near a mirror- i.e. in a "one sided" cavity.
And I measured their fluorescence half life as a function of distance from the mirror.
Here are the results I got.
Part II shrunk.jpg (39.28 kB . 330x440 - viewed 4787 times)So,yes, I have known for over 30 years, and from personal experience that this is the case.
(My structures were even smaller than the ones your reference refers to: the smallest was just 60 nm wide.- not bad going for 1988 technology)
I'm curious: what was your research field in the late 80s?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 13/06/2021 20:11:39
Obviously into the atoms, that make the resonance cavitySo, because the energy is absorbed by the walls, it isn't reflected.
So it isn't a perfectly reflective wall- as specified.
So your "explanation" only makes sense when you move the goal posts.
Problem is, that when an EM wave hits a surface, it can interact with it only in two ways - the energy can be absorbed or it can be reflected. However even if the surface is 100% reflective, so the radiation isn't absorbed and turned into thermal energy, momentum transfer turns part of the energy carried by EM waves into kinetic energy of atoms that make the surface.
So, in real-life there's no way out of this situation, as energy of EM radiation will be lost, even if the surface is 100% reflective (and yes - 100% reflective surfaces actually DO exist). Besides, even if we'd make the cavity out of a black hole, the outcome won't change anyway - as phhotons can't gain energy due to reflection, so they will simply keep the same energy level all the time
Of course you are fully aware, that the the mass of the trapping box has billions times greater relativistic mass, than all the photons trapped in that box - so even your expactactions are fundamentally flawedWell, yes and no.
I'm the one who pointed out that a strictly perfect mirror needs to have infinite mass.
But I also pointed out that, if you add enough photons the box collapses- regardless of the original mass of the box.
The box was always pretty much doomed anyway- it was going to be right next to a BH.
And this turns out to be incorrect, as each volume of space has a specific "capacity" of probability distribution, so intensity of EM radiation in that volume can't exceed a specific level. When that capacity is fully used by a constant emission of EM radiation at a constant frequency, further emission is prohibited
Post by: CrazyScientist on 13/06/2021 20:20:52
Nope. it's exactly opposite - momentum transfer during reflection of an EM wave increases it's wavelenghtImagine doing that experiment, as shown in that diagram and filming it.
Then imagine watching the film backwards.
An electron heading towards the source of radiation (on the right of the picture) strikes the photon and , like hitting a ball with a bat, the photon is sent off towards the top left at a higher energy than it started with (and the electron is slowed down).
That's the scenario we are talking about.
The box wall is moving towards the photon and when it hits it, the energy of the photon is raised.
It's fairly closely analogous to compressing a gas and getting an increase in temperature.
The only way, in which photons can gain energy due to reflection, is to accelerate the mirror to relativistic velocity (what was done in the paper you presented) - and then energy used to accelerate the mirror is transferred to the reflected photon, allowing conservation of energy in the system. Any other scenario can't lead to the increase of energy level in the system - it would violate everything what we know about physics...
And of cource you didn't mention about the speed at which the cavity is shrinking, so obviously you didn't take it into account and your scenario won't lead to the increase of energy level in the cavity
Post by: CrazyScientist on 13/06/2021 20:27:06
And what exactly does it have to do with EM radiation trapped inside a cavity with decreasing volume?It is the experiment where someone actually did bounce photons off a fast moving mirror and show that the photons' energy was raised.
It experimentally demonstrates that your idea-
Yes - but:
1. It wasn't made in a cavity
2. mirror was moving at relativistic velocity
So, this scenario has nothing to do with the one, which I presented in the first post of this thread... Sorry...
Nope. it's exactly opposite - momentum transfer during reflection of an EM wave increases it's wavelenghtis wrong if the mirror moves towards the source.
The picture you show is the case where the photons cause the electron to move.
If you hang a bat on a length of rope and throw a ball at it, the ball will transfer momentum to the bat and will bounce off more slowly than it started out.
But that's not how it would work if you were deliberately squashing the box.
You know, that even 10yo kids know from physics and chemistry classes, that picturing photons as tiny balls/marbles moving through space, is completely incorrect
Here:It still isn't "my" claim.
for example your claim is that:
It's Kirchhoff's.
And it's a direct consequence of the conservation of energy.
Things that absorb will also emit.
So, obviously this statement can't be applied to a scenario where EM radiation is emitted inside a cavity
Post by: CrazyScientist on 13/06/2021 20:29:51
"If the antenna is inside a reflecting cavity, however, its behavior changesYes.
We know.
I already pointed that out.
Given that I wroteThis is still true if the excited state has been perturbed by a cavity or, indeed, anything else.
the question is now, did you not read that, or not understand it?
You just proved yourself wrong with that statement. Each system will reach an energetic equilibrium, as long as the input energy remains constant
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/06/2021 20:31:36
Problem is, that when an EM wave hits a surface, it can interact with it only in two ways - the energy can be absorbed or it can be reflected. However even if the surface is 100% reflective, so the radiation isn't absorbed and turned into thermal energy, momentum transfer turns part of the energy carried by EM waves into kinetic energy of atoms that make the surface.No.
As I have pointed out a few times, and posted a link to the experimental verification , there are three things that can happen.
If a photon moving left to right bounces off a mirror that is moving right to left then the photon gains energy (at the expanse of the mirror) and it leaves with a shorter wavelength than it starts.
You need to stop ignoring that fact.
So, in real-life there's no way out of this situation,Yes there is. I pointed it out earlier in the thread.
However, there's another way to do it.
You can imagine a nearly massless mirror.
When a photon hits it, it will move and take some energy from the photon. But that means that, when another photon hits it on the other side, it will add energy to that photon.
Overall, the sum of the energies will be conserved The wavelengths of the photons will be "scrambled" and will settle down to a black-body distribution.
But you ignored it.
(and yes - 100% reflective surfaces actually DO exist)No, they do not. (Unless they are infinitely massive).
Because, if a photon hits them, it transfers momentum to the mirror and (usually) loses energy.
They are "perfect" in the sense that the number of photos bouncing off s the same as the number that hit, but they are not perfect in the sense of no energy transfer happening.
And this turns out to be incorrect,Proof by repeated assertion isn't going to work here.
Particular not when you are doing the asserting, since it took you at least three goes to recognise Kirchhoff's law.
[ edited to add that I was mistaken; CrazyScientist still hasn't recognised it. Maybe he will learn this time]
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/06/2021 20:38:29
Yes - but:There's no way the photon can tell if there's another mirror moving away behind it, so there's no way that the second mirror in a cavity could make a difference.
1. It wasn't made in a cavity
2. mirror was moving at relativistic velocity
So, this scenario has nothing to do with the one, which I presented in the first post of this thread... Sorry...
So your first objection is absurd.
Your second objection is absurd because, from the point of view of a photon, all mirrors are relativistic. They never hit them slowly.
You know, that even 10yo kids know from physics and chemistry classes, that picturing photons as tiny balls/marbles moving through space, is completely incorrectThe man who was previously trying to pretend that sound waves act the same was as light waves just broke the irony record.
It's not good enough to say that you don't like the analogy, because what I was relying on wasn't the analog, but the experimental fact that reflection from a moving mirror will shorten the wavelength if the mirror is traveling towards the source.
So, obviously this statement can't be applied to a scenario where EM radiation is emitted inside a cavityThe conservation of energy can be applied universally.
Each system will reach an energetic equilibrium, as long as the input energy remains constantAre you muddling power an energy here?
If you keep putting more net energy into a system, it does not reach equilibrium.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 13/06/2021 21:27:47
I'm curious: what was your research field in the late 80s?
Around this time I was researching the ability to walk and speak :)
Post by: CrazyScientist on 13/06/2021 21:40:10
Problem is, that when an EM wave hits a surface, it can interact with it only in two ways - the energy can be absorbed or it can be reflected. However even if the surface is 100% reflective, so the radiation isn't absorbed and turned into thermal energy, momentum transfer turns part of the energy carried by EM waves into kinetic energy of atoms that make the surface.No.
As I have pointed out a few times, and posted a link to the experimental verification , there are three things that can happen.
If a photon moving left to right bounces off a mirror that is moving right to left then the photon gains energy (at the expanse of the mirror) and it leaves with a shorter wavelength than it starts.
You need to stop ignoring that fact.
1. MIRROR HAS TO MOVE AT RELATIVISTIC VELOCITY
2. IT DOESN'T WORK FOR A STANDING WAVE IN A CAVITY
3. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SCENARIO, WHICH I PROPOSED IN THE FIRST POST
So, in real-life there's no way out of this situation,Yes there is. I pointed it out earlier in the thread.However, there's another way to do it.
You can imagine a nearly massless mirror.
When a photon hits it, it will move and take some energy from the photon. But that means that, when another photon hits it on the other side, it will add energy to that photon.
Overall, the sum of the energies will be conserved The wavelengths of the photons will be "scrambled" and will settle down to a black-body distribution.
But you ignored it.
1. It would require the existence of EM radiation at the same frequency as the one emitted inside the cavity beyond that cavity - and my scenario doesn't include that factor
2. It still wouldn't increase the energy level inside the cavity
(and yes - 100% reflective surfaces actually DO exist)No, they do not. (Unless they are infinitely massive).
Because, if a photon hits them, it transfers momentum to the mirror and (usually) loses energy.
They are "perfect" in the sense that the number of photos bouncing off s the same as the number that hit, but they are not perfect in the sense of no energy transfer happening.
Yes. But still even if a 100% perfect mirror would exist, it still wouldn't increase the energy level inside cavity
And this turns out to be incorrect,Proof by repeated assertion isn't going to work here.
Particular not when you are doing the asserting, since it took you at least three goes to recognise Kirchhoff's law.
[ edited to add that I was mistaken; CrazyScientist still hasn't recognised it. Maybe he will learn this time]
I don't care. What matters, is the fact, that it was YOU, who tried to apply it to the proposed scenario - and it didn't work well.
But it's great, that you are capable to recognize your own mistakes - many people have serious problems with that... :)
Post by: CrazyScientist on 13/06/2021 21:51:11
Yes - but:There's no way the photon can tell if there's another mirror moving away behind it, so there's no way that the second mirror in a cavity could make a difference.
1. It wasn't made in a cavity
2. mirror was moving at relativistic velocity
So, this scenario has nothing to do with the one, which I presented in the first post of this thread... Sorry...
So your first objection is absurd.
And this is where you're wrong again...
Photons DO "know" somehow, if they create a standing wave or not... Research it...
Quote
Your second objection is absurd because, from the point of view of a photon, all mirrors are relativistic. They never hit them slowly.
Then why the frequency of EM waves doesn't increase, when they are reflected by a stationarry mirror or one, that doesn't move fast enough?
Quote
You know, that even 10yo kids know from physics and chemistry classes, that picturing photons as tiny balls/marbles moving through space, is completely incorrectThe man who was previously trying to pretend that sound waves act the same was as light waves just broke the irony record.
Yes - and my analogy of a buzzing speaker submerged in a sphere of water IS in 100% valid...
Learn about the research of PHONONS
Quote
It's not good enough to say that you don't like the analogy, because what I was relying on wasn't the analog, but the experimental fact that reflection from a moving mirror will shorten the wavelength if the mirror is traveling towards the source.
Sure - only it doesn't work in cavities...
Quote
So, obviously this statement can't be applied to a scenario where EM radiation is emitted inside a cavityThe conservation of energy can be applied universally.Each system will reach an energetic equilibrium, as long as the input energy remains constantAre you muddling power an energy here?
If you keep putting more net energy into a system, it does not reach equilibrium.
I never said, that the system is powered by a source, that is increasing it's power output...
If the source of radiation is powered by a battery with a specific and constant power output, then the system WILL reach equilibrium - despite you saying otherwise
Post by: CrazyScientist on 13/06/2021 21:57:34
Ok, so let's now assume, that the battery is actually placed somewhere outside of the spherical cavity and is powering up a source of heat (thermal radiation), allowing it to maintain a constant temprature of 1000°C. Can you explain the mechanism, which in this case could possibly lead to creation of a BH out of the thermal radiation, which is constantly emitted by the source of heat inside the cavity?
Tell me, how you will solve that. I would love to hear some cool fairytale for good night :)
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/06/2021 22:31:50
MIRROR HAS TO MOVE AT RELATIVISTIC VELOCITYA snail moves at a relativistic velocity. But the relativistic correction is small.
IT DOESN'T WORK FOR A STANDING WAVE IN A CAVITYIt's not meaningful to talk about a standing wave in a cavity which is shrinking or moving WRT the source.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SCENARIO, WHICH I PROPOSED IN THE FIRST POSTThe scenario you proposed was dull.
All it did was flatten a battery and warm up some stuff in a fancy box.
If there was enough stored energy in the sphere to create a BH the size of that sphere (or bigger) then it would collapse anyway.
If there was not enough mass to do so then it wouldn't collapse anyway unless you did something more complicated than turn on a light.
So the situation can only be interesting if you talk about the other scenario which you mentioned.
The one with a valve that lets light in, or (roughly equivalently) where the wires feeding the lamp lead outside the sphere.
Learn about the research of PHONONSI did that a bit before the time you should have been learning about where to use CAPITAL LETTERS, and when not to,
Sure - only it doesn't work in cavities...Except, obviously, if the cavity is big then the "far end" is distant enough that its existence is unknown to the interactions at this end because the information about it's presence would only arrive at the speed of light.
In that case, the photons don't know about it.
They set out from the source, get hit by a moving mirror, their wavelength is shorted (and you can demonstrate that classically if you get bored) and they make their way back the way they came in a shorter interval than any information about the far end of the cavity could reach them.
You still seem to ignore the fact that time is reversible. If a photon hitting a stationary atoms sets it moving then (in an ideal system) that same photon could be sent back and bring it to a halt by bouncing off it again.
And you still seem to ignore the fact that , if a mirror hits a photon, momentum is transferred to the mirror.
If the mirror was originally moving towards the photon, then the mirror will be slowed down by the momentum transfer.
If the mirror is slowed down then it loses energy.
And the conservation laws say that energy has to go somewhere.
The only possibility is that it goes into the photon, and raises its energy.
Where else?
I never said, that the system is powered by a source, that is increasing it's power output...Nobody said you did.
If you have a mirrored sphere with a "light valve" in it, and you shine a 1 Watt laser into it then the energy in the sphere rises by 1 J/s.
And that means the mass rises by 1/C^2 Kg/ sec.
It won't reach an equilibrium- because there's always more energy being added.
If the sphere had a "leak" then yes, there would be a point where energy left at the same rate that it entered.
But, unless you are moving the goalposts to make the system boring, there is no leak because the mirrors are prefect.
There is (as I explained twice) a way round the infinite mass requirement.
If the mirror is allowed to move slightly then it will thermalise the photons in the sphere. You can keep putting more and more mass (as energy) into it until it collapses.
You may recall that I said that earlier. In doing so, I made it clear that I know that photons aren't little balls (which wouldn't thermalise)- but yet you somehow thought I did.
Yes - and my analogy of a buzzing speaker submerged in a sphere of water IS in 100% valid...No. Because the compressibility is non linear at high sound levels. Essentially, in air it's possible to get a pressure peak of 2 atmospheres, but you can't get a trough of minus two.
However because, as you say, there's not much interaction between photons, there's no such (relevant) limitation on light energy until there are so many that gravity takes an effect.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/06/2021 22:37:48
It's also interesting, how perfectly you managed to completely ignore this:It's not much of a story.Ok, so let's now assume, that the battery is actually placed somewhere outside of the spherical cavity and is powering up a source of heat (thermal radiation), allowing it to maintain a constant temprature of 1000°C. Can you explain the mechanism, which in this case could possibly lead to creation of a BH out of the thermal radiation, which is constantly emitted by the source of heat inside the cavity?
Tell me, how you will solve that. I would love to hear some cool fairytale for good night :)
This bit
allowing it to maintain a constant temprature of 1000°C.
implies that there's some system which measures the temperature of the sensor and adjusts the power in order to maintain 1000C - a thermostat.
The hot body is enclosed by a perfect mirror. (I'm assuming it's in a vacuum too and is thus thermally insulated).
Power is fed to it and that heats it.
As it reaches 1000C the sensors of the thermostat throttle back the power from the battery.
Once the body is at 1000 C the power fed to it drops to zero.
The body stays hot because there's nowhere for the thermal energy to go.
You can take the battery away now, if you like.
I have a different question or two.
If you remove the thermostat and just let the heater deliver 1 watt of heat to the inside of the sphere (from which none can escape) , and if the heater is magic so it won't burn out,
(1) what happens to the mass of the sphere as a function of time and
(2) what happens win the end?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 13/06/2021 22:59:06
It's also interesting, how perfectly you managed to completely ignore this:It's not much of a story.Ok, so let's now assume, that the battery is actually placed somewhere outside of the spherical cavity and is powering up a source of heat (thermal radiation), allowing it to maintain a constant temprature of 1000°C. Can you explain the mechanism, which in this case could possibly lead to creation of a BH out of the thermal radiation, which is constantly emitted by the source of heat inside the cavity?
Tell me, how you will solve that. I would love to hear some cool fairytale for good night :)
This bitallowing it to maintain a constant temprature of 1000°C.
implies that there's some system which measures the temperature of the sensor and adjusts the power in order to maintain 1000C - a thermostat.
The hot body is enclosed by a perfect mirror. (I'm assuming it's in a vacuum too and is thus thermally insulated).
Power is fed to it and that heats it.
As it reaches 1000C the sensors of the thermostat throttle back the power from the battery.
Once the body is at 1000 C the power fed to it drops to zero.
The body stays hot because there's nowhere for the thermal energy to go.
You can take the battery away now, if you like.
Then no creation of black hole will occur?
If so, then what is the difference between a source of light and a source of heat, so that one is able to create a black hole and the other isn't?
My answer is: NONE. Scenario, which I presented can't lead to creation of a BH, no matter what kind of EM radiation will be trapped inside the cavity
Quote
You can take the battery away now, if you like.
Only then some part of the energy inside the cavity will get absorbed back by the source...
[EDIT] - I see no sense in responding to your previous post, as the outcome of my scenario, which you've presented here, pretty much invalidates everything, what you said before and proves most of my claims from this thread - constant emission of EM radiation inside a reflective cavity, will ALWAYS lead to energetic equilibrium of the system... If you don't agree, you'll have to prove that thermal radiation is somehow completely different from other types of EM radiation and only because of that, this particular scenario (thermal radiation) will have a different outcome.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/06/2021 08:42:55
I see no sense in responding to your previous post,There are many things you do not see; principally because you are starting from mistaken beliefs.
Neither repetition of a falsehood, nor putting it in CAPITALS, makes it true.
Only then some part of the energy inside the cavity will get absorbed back by the source...Do you know that flames absorb light?
It's used a lot in chemical analysis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_absorption_spectroscopy
So your idea that a hot body won't absorb until after you stop supplying power to it is simply wrong.
A fact observed in many labs around the world every day.
(And, of course, it's still one of the documented laws of physics).
But the big problem is still your refusal to accept the conservation of energy.
You really need to revisit your view on this.
And you still seem to ignore the fact that , if a mirror hits a photon, momentum is transferred to the mirror.
If the mirror was originally moving towards the photon, then the mirror will be slowed down by the momentum transfer.
If the mirror is slowed down then it loses energy.
And the conservation laws say that energy has to go somewhere.
The only possibility is that it goes into the photon, and raises its energy.
Where else?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/06/2021 08:45:27
If you don't agree, you'll have to prove that thermal radiation is somehow completely different from other types of EM radiation and only because of that, this particular scenario (thermal radiation) will have a different outcome.The different outcome arises from your decision to turn off the heater when it reaches 1000C.
That's why I asked about the case where that does not happen.
I guess you realise that, if the energy kept going in then you would eventually get a black hole , but don't want to admit it.
That would certainly explain your refusal to discuss it.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 14/06/2021 13:20:48
If you don't agree, you'll have to prove that thermal radiation is somehow completely different from other types of EM radiation and only because of that, this particular scenario (thermal radiation) will have a different outcome.The different outcome arises from your decision to turn off the heater when it reaches 1000C.
That's why I asked about the case where that does not happen.
I guess you realise that, if the energy kept going in then you would eventually get a black hole , but don't want to admit it.
That would certainly explain your refusal to discuss it.
Ahh, so when a source of heat at the temperature of 1000°C will keep heating the inside of cavity, the temperature inside will eventually exceed the 1000°C and keep rising to hypothetical infinity? Strange, because 2 days ago you said yourself, that the medium CAN'T get hotter than the source of heat...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 14/06/2021 14:04:47
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/06/2021 16:12:12
Ahh, so when a source of heat at the temperature of 1000°C will keep heating the inside of cavity, the temperature inside will eventually exceed the 1000°C and keep rising to hypothetical infinity?You are doing it again, I didn't say that, did I?
It is just tosh you made up as a strawman.
Now, stop posting dishonest gibberish, and answer this.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 22:31:50
And you still seem to ignore the fact that , if a mirror hits a photon, momentum is transferred to the mirror.
If the mirror was originally moving towards the photon, then the mirror will be slowed down by the momentum transfer.
If the mirror is slowed down then it loses energy.
And the conservation laws say that energy has to go somewhere.
The only possibility is that it goes into the photon, and raises its energy.
Where else?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/06/2021 16:12:58
ool, huh? According to Bored Chemist, it should be theoretically possible...Why do you keep telling lies like that?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 14/06/2021 17:11:04
Now, stop posting dishonest gibberish, and answer this.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 22:31:50
And you still seem to ignore the fact that , if a mirror hits a photon, momentum is transferred to the mirror.
If the mirror was originally moving towards the photon, then the mirror will be slowed down by the momentum transfer.
If the mirror is slowed down then it loses energy.
And the conservation laws say that energy has to go somewhere.
The only possibility is that it goes into the photon, and raises its energy.
Where else?
I guess, you slept during physics classes, when the Newton's laws of motion were discussed... If you wouldn't sleep, you would know, that to slow down an object, that moves at constant velocity, you need to use a force - so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy... It's basic physics - aren't you ashamed to not know such things?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 14/06/2021 17:14:38
ool, huh? According to Bored Chemist, it should be theoretically possible...Why do you keep telling lies like that?
because this is what you said:
Quote
I guess you realise that, if the energy kept going in then you would eventually get a black hole
And in case of thermal radiation, energy is expressed as the heat - so, increasing energy means increasing temperature - don't you agree? If not, then what kind of energy will keep growing inside the cavity due to constant thermal radiation?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/06/2021 17:57:09
I guess, you slept during physics classes, when the Newton's laws of motion were discussed... If you wouldn't sleep, you would know, that to slow down an object, that moves at constant velocity, you need to use a force - so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy... It's basic physics - aren't you ashamed to not know such things?Are you deliberately missing the point?
so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy
In the same not real way in which an engine uses its energy to slow a car down, and the brakes speed it up by taking energy from it and converting it to heat.
You really are being absurd here.
because this is what you said:Yes.
And this is not what I said.
have a winter jacket, that is pretty good isolator and keep the warm inside, so I will take a liter of water in a sealed container and I will keep it under that jacket at a constant temperature of 60°C until it won't turn into a black hole... Cool, huh? According to Bored Chemist, it should be theoretically possible...
What I said was that, if you keep adding heat (which will obviously heat up the body hotter than 1000C) then it will get hotter.
How are you claiming that is the same as if I don't heat it, it will get hotter?
You just aren't making sense.
And you are lying about what I said.
If not, then what kind of energy will keep growing inside the cavity due to constant thermal radiation?Growing is not the same as constant.
You make no sense.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 14/06/2021 18:20:35
I guess, you slept during physics classes, when the Newton's laws of motion were discussed... If you wouldn't sleep, you would know, that to slow down an object, that moves at constant velocity, you need to use a force - so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy... It's basic physics - aren't you ashamed to not know such things?Are you deliberately missing the point?so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy
In the same not real way in which an engine uses its energy to slow a car down, and the brakes speed it up by taking energy from it and converting it to heat.
You really are being absurd here.
Ahhh, so now photons DON'T spend their energy to slow down an object? So they also don't spend energy to accelerate that object?
That's a VERY interesting physics you're proposing here - I'm sure you have some sources, which will confirm this. Do you?
because this is what you said:Yes.
And this is not what I said.have a winter jacket, that is pretty good isolator and keep the warm inside, so I will take a liter of water in a sealed container and I will keep it under that jacket at a constant temperature of 60°C until it won't turn into a black hole... Cool, huh? According to Bored Chemist, it should be theoretically possible...
What I said was that, if you keep adding heat (which will obviously heat up the body hotter than 1000C) then it will get hotter.
How are you claiming that is the same as if I don't heat it, it will get hotter?
You just aren't making sense.
And you are lying about what I said.If not, then what kind of energy will keep growing inside the cavity due to constant thermal radiation?Growing is not the same as constant.
You make no sense.
From the beginning, I'm speaking about a source of CONSTANT radiation - it's YOU, who keep talking about growing energy - like here:
Quote
It won't reach an equilibrium- because there's always more energy being added.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 14/06/2021 18:29:24
Quote
What I said was that, if you keep adding heat (which will obviously heat up the body hotter than 1000C) then it will get hotter.
Nope. I will add energy to KEEP the source at 1000°C - just as I will add energy to KEEP a light source shining... It's the same principle...
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/06/2021 18:45:32
Nope. I will add energy to KEEP the source at 1000°CWhy?
It can't lose energy- because any EM radiation that it emits is reflected back, and it absorbs it.
So there's no loss.
It is, in effect, perfectly insulated.
So why do you keep adding energy?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 14/06/2021 18:50:53
Nope. I will add energy to KEEP the source at 1000°CWhy?
It can't lose energy- because any EM radiation that it emits is reflected back, and it absorbs it.
So there's no loss.
It is, in effect, perfectly insulated.
So why do you keep adding energy?
Because when you "turn on" the heater for the first time, it has to warm up the surrounding medium - just like a source of light has to brighten up the darkness around it.
And only when the equilibrium is reached by the system, the source doesn't need to be powered up by an external source - this is EXACTLY, what I'm telling you from the beginning.
Source of EM radiatiom inside a cavity will simply stop to drain a battery, when the "capacity" of probability distribution inside the cavity will become "full" of the emitted radiation. No black hole will be formed...
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/06/2021 19:47:34
Well, yes that's true.
But it's not interesting.
In particular, nobody ever suggested that it would create a BH.
On the other hand, you seem to be ignoring the case where a BH would form, because you don't want to admit that it would.
I could say " If you take a sphere 1mm in diameter and put mass into it the, when you get to something like the mass of the earth, it will turn into a black hole."
That's still true if the mass is composed of photons.
What you seem to be saying is that you do not believe this.
And, as evidence, you say that putting a single atom into the sphere doesn't make a black hole.
Well, no it won't.
But if you stop adding stuff before you reach the threshold mass, then you are not looking at the right question.
You are moving the goalposts.
The point isn't what happens if you stop when there's only enough energy in there to get it fairly bright red; the point is what happens when you carry on adding energy.
I have a different question or two.
If you remove the thermostat and just let the heater deliver 1 watt of heat to the inside of the sphere (from which none can escape) , and if the heater is magic so it won't burn out,
(1) what happens to the mass of the sphere as a function of time and
(2) what happens win the end?
I asked that, and you still haven't answered- instead you talked bollocks about coats.
Did you think that was science?
Even allowing for that, you are still pretty much wrong, because you say things like this:
Because when you "turn on" the heater for the first time, it has to warm up the surrounding mediumWhat medium?
There's a vacuum.
The walls don't absorb heat so they don't need to warm up.
Source of EM radiatiom inside a cavity will simply stop to drain a battery,How will that work?
How will the zinc "know" that it has to stop reacting and pulling electrons round the circuit?
You seem to be hoping that magic will happen.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 14/06/2021 20:17:44
In particular, nobody ever suggested that it would create a BH.
Oh really? So you didn't say, that a constant emission of EM radiation in a perfectly reflective cavity will lead to creation of a black hole? Strange, I thought, that this is exactly what you said...
Quote
On the other hand, you seem to be ignoring the case where a BH would form, because you don't want to admit that it would.
It was never the question in this discussion...
Quote
I could say " If you take a sphere 1mm in diameter and put mass into it the, when you get to something like the mass of the earth, it will turn into a black hole."
First you would have to prove, that it is even possible, to compress a bunch of photons into one photon, or that you can squeeze 2 atoms in a single location. Good luck with that...
Quote
That's still true if the mass is composed of photons.
What you seem to be saying is that you do not believe this.
And, as evidence, you say that putting a single atom into the sphere doesn't make a black hole.
Well, no it won't.
But if you stop adding stuff before you reach the threshold mass, then you are not looking at the right question.
You are moving the goalposts.
The point isn't what happens if you stop when there's only enough energy in there to get it fairly bright red; the point is what happens when you carry on adding energy.
What does it even has to do with the discussed subject?
Quote
The point isn't what happens if you stop when there's only enough energy in there to get it fairly bright red; the point is what happens when you carry on adding energy.
You just simply won't be able to add energy, because all atoms of the source will keep being excited without the possibility of EM wave emission
Quote
I have a different question or two.
If you remove the thermostat and just let the heater deliver 1 watt of heat to the inside of the sphere (from which none can escape) , and if the heater is magic so it won't burn out,
(1) what happens to the mass of the sphere as a function of time and
(2) what happens win the end?
No more additional energy will be accepted into the system.
Quote
What medium?
There's a vacuum.
The walls don't absorb heat so they don't need to warm up.
Whatever you like it to be. What a medium does, is only to AMPLIFY the effects of radiation in vacuum. There even doesn't have to be a medium.
Quote
How will that work?
How will the zinc "know" that it has to stop reacting and pulling electrons round the circuit?
You seem to be hoping that magic will happen.
Dear mr Chemist - and how atoms "know", how to react only to certain frequencies of radiation?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/06/2021 20:57:19
Strange, I thought, that this is exactly what you said...No.
What I said was that if you keep adding more and more EM radiation you will get a BH.
Not, if you put a little light in a box and then wait which is what you sometimes seem to be talking about- for example when you say you heat something to red hot and then leave it in a box.
Do you see the difference?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/06/2021 20:59:00
It was never the question in this discussion...
You introduced it in your opeingi post
. 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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/06/2021 20:59:41
You just simply won't be able to add energy, because all atoms of the source will keep being excited without the possibility of EM wave emissionThere is nothing to stop the emission.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/06/2021 21:01:57
First you would have to prove, that it is even possible, to compress a bunch of photons into one photon,Nobody said anything about doing that.
It is another of your tiresome strawmen.
What does it even has to do with the discussed subject?Because that's the mechanism for the mainstream science which you don't want to believe
. 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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/06/2021 21:03:38
There even doesn't have to be a medium.Well, you introduced it.
Because when you "turn on" the heater for the first time, it has to warm up the surrounding medium
My point is that , if you don't introduce a medium, you don't have to warm it up, do you?
How long does it take to warm up nothing?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/06/2021 21:04:35
No more additional energy will be accepted into the system.Again, you are saying what you believe to be true, but you are not offering any evidence.
And we have seen before that you believe things which are not true.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/06/2021 21:06:34
Dear mr Chemist - and how atoms "know", how to react only to certain frequencies of radiation?Resonance, but it has nothing to do with the issue, and you should realise that.
It's still your job to answer the question properly.
How will that work?
How will the zinc "know" that it has to stop reacting and pulling electrons round the circuit?
You seem to be hoping that magic will happen.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/06/2021 21:08:57
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:42:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 22:31:50
And you still seem to ignore the fact that , if a mirror hits a photon, momentum is transferred to the mirror.
If the mirror was originally moving towards the photon, then the mirror will be slowed down by the momentum transfer.
If the mirror is slowed down then it loses energy.
And the conservation laws say that energy has to go somewhere.
The only possibility is that it goes into the photon, and raises its energy.
Where else?
Your idea that the bat speeds up when it hits the ball is not one which the grown-ups will accept, even if it makes sense in your head.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/06/2021 11:41:24
Strange, I thought, that this is exactly what you said...No.
What I said was that if you keep adding more and more EM radiation you will get a BH.
Not, if you put a little light in a box and then wait which is what you sometimes seem to be talking about- for example when you say you heat something to red hot and then leave it in a box.
Do you see the difference?
Nope - I don't see the difference. Since from the beginning, we're talking about a source of constant EM radiation, "adding more and more EM radiation", can mean only: "adding more and more intensity to an EM field" - and this is exactly, what something red hot in a box will do...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/06/2021 11:47:29
It was never the question in this discussion...
You introduced it in your opeingi post. 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.
Yes - because the question is: "what will happen due to constant EM radiation inside a perfectly reflective cavity?" and this is exactly, what most people with so-called "authority" will say (with you being one of them) :)
But for some reason, you keep treating my question, as: "how to make a black hole from EM radiation?"...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/06/2021 12:09:04
There is nothing to stop the emission.
You couldn't be more wrong here... Problem is, that you seem to think, that the entire progress of physics, stopped in the beginning of XX century. But the truth is, that physics keeps moving forward and it's just you, who remains "suspended in time".
You see, there's an entire branch of physics, called Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics, which exist only to deal with the kind of scenarios, which I proposed in my first post. Here's a nice source:
https://www.physik.hu-berlin.de/de/nano/lehre/copy_of_quantenoptik09/Chapter12
And here's what you can learn from it:
The spontanoeus emission of an atom is not an intrinsic property, but depends on the atom's environment!
I guess, that you'll tell now, that you knew about it all along... :)
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/06/2021 12:21:04
And here's what you can learn from it:I don't need to tell you a second time that I was studying it over 30 years ago.
The spontanoeus emission of an atom is not an intrinsic property, but depends on the atom's environment!
I guess, that you'll tell now, that you knew about it all along
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/06/2021 12:23:05
- and this is exactly, what something red hot in a box will do...No
It will not.
You seem determined to ignore the fact that a hot thing absorbs EM radiation just as well as it emits it.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/06/2021 12:24:49
First you would have to prove, that it is even possible, to compress a bunch of photons into one photon,Nobody said anything about doing that.
It is another of your tiresome strawmen.
Oh... So what exactly do you mean, when you're talkinkg about compressing a cavity, which is "full" of EM radiation to Shwarzchild radius? Doesn't it mean, to compress a bunch of photons into much less photons?
What does it even has to do with the discussed subject?Because that's the mechanism for the mainstream science which you don't want to believe
No. That's a mechanism, which according to modern science is completely invalid in case of discussed experiment - and it's only you, who still keep beliving in things, that were already experimentally refuted...
Maybe if instead of unconditionally believing in everything, what you hear from people with self-proclaimed authority, you would try to look for the answers by yourself, you wouldn't now make so many invalid statements...
. 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.
Exactly as it is...
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/06/2021 12:26:43
Yes - because the question is: "what will happen due to constant EM radiation inside a perfectly reflective cavity?"Not much, but I did already answer the question; it depends on whether the walls are infinitely massive.
If so, the light just bounces around forever.
if not, the light gets thermalised.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/06/2021 12:32:09
- and this is exactly, what something red hot in a box will do...No
It will not.
You seem determined to ignore the fact that a hot thing absorbs EM radiation just as well as it emits it.
How can it absorb radiation at lower intensity, than the one which it produces?
I don't say that a red hot thing can't get hotter - it can, but only when the temperature of it's surrounding will be higher than it's own temperature...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/06/2021 12:34:56
Yes - because the question is: "what will happen due to constant EM radiation inside a perfectly reflective cavity?"Not much, but I did already answer the question; it depends on whether the walls are infinitely massive.
If so, the light just bounces around forever.
if not, the light gets thermalised.
So you didn't actually tell, that it will turn into a black hole, just like many other physicists would tell? Then what we were arguing about all this time?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/06/2021 12:37:28
Oh... So what exactly do you mean, when you're talkinkg about compressing a cavity, which is "full" of EM radiation to Shwarzchild radius? Doesn't it mean, to compress a bunch of photons into much less photons?Do you understand that if I say "you are full of s**t" it doesn't mean that all of your matter has been replaced, it's just a turn of phrase.
You can't "fill" a space with photons because any single photon already fills the whole of space. That's how interference fringes work.
So, you seem to be trying to say that it's impossible to have two photons in the visible universe.
Maybe if instead of unconditionally believing in everything, what you hear from people with self-proclaimed authority, you would try to look for the answers by yourself, you wouldn't now make so many invalid statements...
If I believed everything I heard from self proclaimed experts, I would believe you, but I clearly don't.
The reason for this is that I can, and do, think for myself.
So your statement is invalid.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/06/2021 12:38:14
And here's what you can learn from it:I don't need to tell you a second time that I was studying it over 30 years ago.
The spontanoeus emission of an atom is not an intrinsic property, but depends on the atom's environment!
I guess, that you'll tell now, that you knew about it all along
Oh, then probably your memory isn't as good as 30 years ago... Well, you can't be young forever, can you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/06/2021 12:40:41
So you didn't actually tell, that it will turn into a black hole, just like many other physicists would tell? Then what we were arguing about all this time?The interesting question.What happens if you make a mirror ball with a valve in which lets light in, but not out, and you shine a laser into it.
The answer is that you get a black hole composed (almost) entirely of light.
I say "almost" because the remains of the apparatus will fall into it.
And the reason we are discussing it is that you raised it and said it was wrong.
We also got into your weird belief that hitting a ball makes the bat go faster.
And we may, one day, resolve your problem with accepting the conservation of energy.
[Edit]
I forgot to add that we might hope to address your hallucination that the "laser shining into a ball" experiment had been done- and hadn't worked.
You may recall (or you may not) that you said it was experimentally disproven.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/06/2021 12:42:46
My memory may be flaky as hell for things 30 years ago - though I still have the book- I guess I'm getting oldAnd here's what you can learn from it:I don't need to tell you a second time that I was studying it over 30 years ago.
The spontanoeus emission of an atom is not an intrinsic property, but depends on the atom's environment!
I guess, that you'll tell now, that you knew about it all along
Oh, then probably your memory isn't as good as 30 years ago... Well, you can't be young forever, can you?
What's your excuse for not remembering it from a few days ago?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/06/2021 12:45:21
Oh... So what exactly do you mean, when you're talkinkg about compressing a cavity, which is "full" of EM radiation to Shwarzchild radius? Doesn't it mean, to compress a bunch of photons into much less photons?Do you understand that if I say "you are full of s**t" it doesn't mean that all of your matter has been replaced, it's just a turn of phrase.
You can't "fill" a space with photons because any single photon already fills the whole of space. That's how interference fringes work.
So, you seem to be trying to say that it's impossible to have two photons in the visible universe.
No. I'm trying to say, that photons are the most fundamental "units of physical reality" and it's impossible, to make them smaller...
Maybe if instead of unconditionally believing in everything, what you hear from people with self-proclaimed authority, you would try to look for the answers by yourself, you wouldn't now make so many invalid statements...
If I believed everything I heard from self proclaimed experts, I would believe you, but I clearly don't.
The reason for this is that I can, and do, think for myself.
So your statement is invalid.
Thing is, that I never wanted you to believe in my claims - this is exactly why, I'm giving you links to mainstream sources, so you could validate everything what I say by yourself.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/06/2021 12:51:43
So you didn't actually tell, that it will turn into a black hole, just like many other physicists would tell? Then what we were arguing about all this time?The interesting question.What happens if you make a mirror ball with a valve in which lets light in, but not out, and you shine a laser into it.
The answer is that you get a black hole composed (almost) entirely of light.
I say "almost" because the remains of the apparatus will fall into it.
And the reason we are discussing it is that you raised it and said it was wrong.
We also got into your weird belief that hitting a ball makes the bat go faster.
And we may, one day, resolve your problem with accepting the conservation of energy.
[Edit]
I forgot to add that we might hope to address your hallucination that the "laser shining into a ball" experiment had been done- and hadn't worked.
You may recall (or you may not) that you said it was experimentally disproven.
Not really. According to the rules of Cavity QED, intensity of light inside the mirror ball will get so high, that it will become brighter than the incoming laser beam - and the intensity of light inside the ball will stop to grow.
And yes - it is experimentally proven, since lasers obviously don't turn into black holes...
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/06/2021 12:51:59
How can it absorb radiation at lower intensity, than the one which it produces?The hot thing is in equilibrium with its reflection in the mirror.
I don't say that a red hot thing can't get hotter - it can, but only when the temperature of it's surrounding will be higher than it's own temperature...
Given how often you got SHOUTY about equilibrium, it seems that your actual understanding of it is rather poor.
Equilibrium isn't where a reaction stops. It's where the forward and backward reactions happen at the same rate.
Imagine a (fireproof) ant sitting on the red hot thing.
If he looks around all he sees is either the hot body under him, or the reflection of it in all other directions and, since it's a perfect mirror, the reflection looks identical.
He just sees "red hot" all around himself.
And so, he can't tell if he is in a 1000C oven or in a reflective shell.
If he was in a 1000C oven than it's clear that the body would stay at 1000C
And, as far as our ant can tell, he is in such an oven so the block does stay at 1000C
In practice this fact- the maintenance of temperature by reflective surroundings is used in pizza ovens and in this sort of thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverberatory_furnace
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/06/2021 12:55:28
And, of course, notwithstanding your gish-gallop, you still need to address this.Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:42:55
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 22:31:50
And you still seem to ignore the fact that , if a mirror hits a photon, momentum is transferred to the mirror.
If the mirror was originally moving towards the photon, then the mirror will be slowed down by the momentum transfer.
If the mirror is slowed down then it loses energy.
And the conservation laws say that energy has to go somewhere.
The only possibility is that it goes into the photon, and raises its energy.
Where else?
Your idea that the bat speeds up when it hits the ball is not one which the grown-ups will accept, even if it makes sense in your head.
May I ask, why do you speak to yourself?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/06/2021 12:56:04
Not really. According to the rules of Cavity QED, intensity of light inside the mirror ball will get so high, that it will become brighter than the incoming laser beam - and the intensity of light inside the ball will stop to grow.No
The valve lets light in, but not out.
So there is no way to know from outside how bright things are inside.
So there's no way that the light from the laser "knows" that it has to turn back.
And yes - it is experimentally proven, since lasers obviously don't turn into black holes...And, once again.
Please show us the experimental details where this was done.
Not some other experiment; but this one- with the impossible things.
Or do you realise that claiming an experiment (which relies on the impossible perfect (broad band) reflector and also the impossible light valve) has been done, is a bit silly?
You keep telling me this has been done; but you must realise it hasn't.
So why are you lying?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/06/2021 12:56:55
May I ask, why do you speak to yourself?I don't.
Why do you ask irrational questions?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/06/2021 12:58:52
Thing is, that I never wanted you to believe in my claims - this is exactly wYou link to stuff that's mainstream, but irrelevant; and then you claim that people have done experiments which are, in fact, impossible.
You essentially tell me not to believe you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/06/2021 13:00:34
No. I'm trying to say, that photons are the most fundamental "units of physical reality" and it's impossible, to make them smaller...Well, they start off essentially infinite yet they go through small holes.
They don't have a meaningful size.
It's like trying to measure the diameter of sweet or the mass of Thursday
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/06/2021 13:04:53
How can it absorb radiation at lower intensity, than the one which it produces?The hot thing is in equilibrium with its reflection in the mirror.
I don't say that a red hot thing can't get hotter - it can, but only when the temperature of it's surrounding will be higher than it's own temperature...
Given how often you got SHOUTY about equilibrium, it seems that your actual understanding of it is rather poor.
Equilibrium isn't where a reaction stops. It's where the forward and backward reactions happen at the same rate.
Imagine a (fireproof) ant sitting on the red hot thing.
If he looks around all he sees is either the hot body under him, or the reflection of it in all other directions and, since it's a perfect mirror, the reflection looks identical.
He just sees "red hot" all around himself.
And so, he can't tell if he is in a 1000C oven or in a reflective shell.
If he was in a 1000C oven than it's clear that the body would stay at 1000C
And, as far as our ant can tell, he is in such an oven so the block does stay at 1000C
In practice this fact- the maintenance of temperature by reflective surroundings is used in pizza ovens and in this sort of thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverberatory_furnace
Reminder:
When the density/intensity of EM field in the cavity reaches a specific "capacity" of probability distribution at the frequency of emitted EM waves, source of radiation becomes unable of further emission, until some part of the radiation won't be absorbed back from the system by the source - and then this quanta of EM energy radiates once more into the cavity, only to be absorbed back by the source (and this process is being repeated in a loop, until some external factor won't disturb the energy equilibrium of the system)
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/06/2021 13:08:36
No. I'm trying to say, that photons are the most fundamental "units of physical reality" and it's impossible, to make them smaller...Well, they start off essentially infinite yet they go through small holes.
They don't have a meaningful size.
It's like trying to measure the diameter of sweet or the mass of Thursday
Still there's Planck lenght, which comes from the Planck constant - as far as we know, this is the microscale limit of reality...
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/06/2021 13:11:30
So what?
In the version with a laser and a valve, there's nothing in the sphere to emit anything.
So your "citation" can't be relevant.
Why make it again?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/06/2021 13:13:17
So what?No. I'm trying to say, that photons are the most fundamental "units of physical reality" and it's impossible, to make them smaller...Well, they start off essentially infinite yet they go through small holes.
They don't have a meaningful size.
It's like trying to measure the diameter of sweet or the mass of Thursday
Still there's Planck lenght, which comes from the Planck constant - as far as we know, this is the microscale limit of reality...
Nobody was trying to make photons smaller than any limit (apart from a rather arbitrary1mm which was chosen as a bit smaller than the radius of an earth mass BH)
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/06/2021 13:15:43
Thing is, that I never wanted you to believe in my claims - this is exactly wYou link to stuff that's mainstream, but irrelevant; and then you claim that people have done experiments which are, in fact, impossible.
You essentially tell me not to believe you.
Irrevelant you say... So you completely dismiss an entire branch of modern physics, because it is in disagreement with your old-school (and outdated) beliefs?
Cavity QED is in 100% experimentally proved - in the difference to so-called "Kugelblitz", which as for today remains a complete science-fiction...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/06/2021 13:18:51
So what?No. I'm trying to say, that photons are the most fundamental "units of physical reality" and it's impossible, to make them smaller...Well, they start off essentially infinite yet they go through small holes.
They don't have a meaningful size.
It's like trying to measure the diameter of sweet or the mass of Thursday
Still there's Planck lenght, which comes from the Planck constant - as far as we know, this is the microscale limit of reality...
Nobody was trying to make photons smaller than any limit (apart from a rather arbitrary1mm which was chosen as a bit smaller than the radius of an earth mass BH)
But you will have to go beyond that limit, if you want to compress a macroscale EM field, which is made of photons, into a "tiny dot" of space...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/06/2021 13:20:13
Yes; you are reminding me that you have a claim that something can't emit light.
So what?
In the version with a laser and a valve, there's nothing in the sphere to emit anything.
So your "citation" can't be relevant.
Why make it again?
Doesn't have to... You should read about such term as local density of states
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/06/2021 14:18:08
Irrevelant you say... So you completely dismiss an entire branch of modern physics, because it is in disagreement with your old-school (and outdated) beliefs?I'm hardly likely to dismiss the "old school" stuff for which I was one of the scholars doing the experimental work.
The trouble is that you don't actually talk about QED.
You talk nonsense like this
since lasers obviously don't turn into black holes...Nobody ever said they would, could or did.
Why do you do that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/06/2021 14:22:32
You should read about such term as local density of statesI think you should look at the behaviour of bosons.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/06/2021 14:25:00
But you will have to go beyond that limit, if you want to compress a macroscale EM field, which is made of photons, into a "tiny dot" of space...OK, what's the alternative to gravitational collapse?
Where does the photon keep its anti-gravity device?
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2314363771993855
Post by: alancalverd on 16/06/2021 22:38:41
Still there's Planck lenght, which comes from the Planck constant - as far as we know, this is the microscale limit of reality.Who "we"? Are you a politician? Or the Queen?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 19/06/2021 04:39:39
Still there's Planck lenght, which comes from the Planck constant - as far as we know, this is the microscale limit of reality.Who "we"? Are you a politician? Or the Queen?
I guess, that's me + some other people...
But I admit, that I've made a mistake in this statement - instead of "reality", it should be "measurement"
Post by: CrazyScientist on 19/06/2021 05:30:31
You should read about such term as local density of statesI think you should look at the behaviour of bosons.
Problem is, that the number of standing EM waves inside a cavity is limited to those with a proper wavelenght:
(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/lecture32-energyandmomentum-140114101524-phpapp02/95/lecture-32-energy-and-momentum-standing-waves-10-638.jpg)
But you will have to go beyond that limit, if you want to compress a macroscale EM field, which is made of photons, into a "tiny dot" of space...OK, what's the alternative to gravitational collapse?
Where does the photon keep its anti-gravity device?
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2314363771993855
Well, if we'll assume, that interactions between photons are simiar to interactions between photons and particles of matter, then we'll end up with 2 possible outcomes of photons collisions - absorbtion, which leads to their annihilation and reflection, which leads to their expulsion. In such case, it's probably the momentum transfer due to reflection of photons, which would be responsible for their "anti-gravitational" behavior. But maybe you know about some other ways, in which photons can interact gravitationally...?
However, it's experimentally proven, that interactions between extremely energetic photons can lead to creation of matter in form of partiicle-antiparticle pairs of electrons and positrons, which are annihilating each other shortly after their "birth" and turn back into photons. I'm not sure, if such interactions have anything to do wiith gravity...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 19/06/2021 09:14:47
This is, what is being proposed there
(https://secureservercdn.net/45.40.146.28/23f.c5e.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/animated-photon-creation-process.gif)
And this is my depiction of a photon:
(https://i.postimg.cc/zGBr0srx/haffele7.gif)
(https://secureservercdn.net/45.40.146.28/23f.c5e.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/animated-photon-creation-process.gif)
And this is my depiction of a photon:
(https://i.postimg.cc/zGBr0srx/haffele7.gif)
As you can see, frequency of a wave is here directly connected with the velocity of photon's vibrational (Y,Z oriented) motion. This simple fact becomes especially important in the case of photoelectric effect, where the frequency of EM waves is directly related to the kinetic energy of ejected electrons, instead of the amplitude/intensity of EM radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
(https://image.slideserve.com/747668/slide2-n.jpg)
If EM waves would behave like any other mechanical wave, it would be it's magnitude/amplitude, which would affect the kinetic energy of ejected electrons, while their nuumber would depend on the freqency of radiation - however what is being observed, is an exacty opposite corelation. Of course, it was Einstein, who explained such results, by describing EM radiation, as streams of particles (photons) produced by the source during emission, for what he received a Nobel Prize. Problem is, that this is exactly the mechanism, which makes photons a time-finite packets of energy and leads to the idea of black hole made of trapped EM radiation.
Thing is, that photoelectric effect can be also easily explained by photons described as X-stationary and time-infinite quanta of EM field. Most important, is here the fact, that in the difference to mechanical waves propagating in some physical medium, photons are quantum objects - what means, that EM radiation needs to be described in terms of probability distribution. In the case of a mechanical wave, energy is expressed as the magnitude (height) of that wave, while in the case of EM radiation, magnitude describes the probability of detection.
In shortcut, high intensity of an EM field (high magnitude of EM waves) means high probability of detecting photons at the frquency of emitted radiation - what can be understood, as high number (density) of photons in given volume of an EM field. If we combine this information with the idea, that vibrational velocity of photons depends on the frequency of EM waves, it will become quite obvious, that in the case of photoelectric effect, intensity of EM field will be related with the number of ejected electrons, while their kinetic energy will depend on the frequency of EM radiation...
For the end, I want to mention about the Superfluid Vacuum Theory, which is being quite commonly used, to describe the ground state of an "empty vacuum" and can be used as a pretty solid base for my model of X-stationary and time-infinite photons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/06/2021 11:19:17
Problem is, that the number of standing EM waves inside a cavityBut there is no requirement for the photons to form standing waves; they can just bounce about with random phases.
In fact, they must do so,because the energy/ time version of the uncertainty principle says that the energy - and therefore the wavelength has an uncertainty.
Because you are not sure what the wavelength is, you are not sure if it will allow a standing wave and, in the end, it won't.
So we can discount standing waves from the discussion.
However, it's experimentally proven, that interactions between extremely energetic photons can lead to creation of matter in form of partiicle-antiparticle pairs of electrons and positrons, which are annihilating each other shortly after their "birth" and turn back into photons. I'm not sure, if such interactions have anything to do with gravity...I presume that you know that this works both ways.
A particle - e.g. a proton- flicks between that state and also being a pair of virtual photons.
So any (un charged) black hole made from "conventional" matter is therefore also a part-time kugelblitz.
I've spent last couple days looking for some sources, that might have something in common with my idea of X-stationary photons with a constant nuber in some given volume of a photon field, but I wasn't too successful.Well, I could have saved you a lot of trouble.
A photon, by it's nature can not be stationary.
You seem to have made up the idea of an "X-stationary photon" without saying what it means.
But, if you only just invented it then clearly, your search won't find anything about it.
Google gives just one hit for it, and that is this page.
Nice Googlewhack, but making up words to do that is considered cheating.
As you can see, frequency of a wave is here directly connected with the velocity of photon's vibrational (Y,Z oriented) motionPlenty of real science shows that photons have angular momentum.
So this idea of "up and down" as they travel along is untenable.
It would get scrambled by the spin (yes, I know, electron and photon "spin" are not classical rotations, that's not the point. There's enough similarity to "screw" your idea.)
The other thing about the photoelectric effect is that the photon loses energy, so it's not a process which could be relevant to a perfectly mirrored ball.
It's laughable that you thought I might not be aware of, and have considered the PE effect.
Problem is, that this is exactly the mechanism, which makes photons a time-finite packets of energy and leads to the idea of black hole made of trapped EM radiation.That is only a problem in your head.
Everywhere else, it is recognised as a solution.
Maybe you should think about that rather than posting obvious stuff about hundred year old physics which you don't understand.
EM radiation needs to be described in terms of probability distribution.Welcome to QM.
The rest of science got here decades ago.
it will become quite obvious, that in the case of photoelectric effect, intensity of EM field will be related with the number of ejected electrons, while their kinetic energy will depend on the frequency of EM radiation...This was, indeed, obvious.
So much so that I wonder why you posted it.
But, as I pointed out, it's a "lossy" process, so it can not be relevant to a perfectly mirrored ball.
Now, to get back to the question.
Do you really think that the bat speeds up when it hits the ball?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 20/06/2021 05:58:16
Problem is, that the number of standing EM waves inside a cavityBut there is no requirement for the photons to form standing waves; they can just bounce about with random phases.
In fact, they must do so,because the energy/ time version of the uncertainty principle says that the energy - and therefore the wavelength has an uncertainty.
Because you are not sure what the wavelength is, you are not sure if it will allow a standing wave and, in the end, it won't.
So we can discount standing waves from the discussion.
Actually that's not true. If the wavelenght is bigger than the volume of cavity, then EM wave emitted by an outside source of radiation won't be able to enter the cavity, while a source inside that cavity won't be able to emit radiation:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Microcavity_dynamics.gif)
Besides that, in the case of reflective cavity, standing wave is the only one, which lead to the maximal amplification of intensity, while of out-of-phase reflection,will mostly lead to destructive or non-linear interference
(https://cdn.thinglink.me/api/image/460128730279313408/1240/10/scaletowidth)
(https://www.sfu.ca/~gotfrit/ZAP_Sept.3_99/c/phase_diagrams.gif)
(https://www.sfu.ca/~gotfrit/ZAP_Sept.3_99/c/phase_diagrams.gif)
So, if you'll still want to defend the idea of a "Kugelblitz" formation in a cavity, you have no other option, than sticking to a standing EM wave - sorry...
I also recommend you checking out this site, where the idea of a particle-like photon behavior is swiftly refuted:
http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2015/01/25/sometimes-particle-isnt-possible/
The example I’ve just described highlights a problem with the standard popular narrative of particle-wave duality. We’re told that particles sometimes act like particles and sometimes act like waves. But if this were true, a single particle would never split into two just because we dropped it between two mirrors. The truth of the matter is that everything is a wave. It’s just that sometimes, like in last week’s experiment, waves can be made to act like particles.
But this week’s experiment shows us that sometimes, waves can’t be made to act like particles–at least, not a single particle. And sometimes they refuse to behave like particles at all! What all of this means is that there are conditions where particles cannot exist. For example: We think that, about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe underwent a period of rapid inflation. During this expansion, for reasons that I promise to try to address in the future (see Mukhanov and Winitzky), the very notion of a particle broke down. In the inflationary period, the packets of waves that make up particles simply could not form.
TBC
Post by: CrazyScientist on 20/06/2021 08:11:58
I presume that you know that this works both ways.
A particle - e.g. a proton- flicks between that state and also being a pair of virtual photons.
So any (un charged) black hole made from "conventional" matter is therefore also a part-time kugelblitz.
Only you're missing here one key difference between protons and photons - as for today photons seem to be unable of pernamently becomming protons. Not to mention, that gravitational interactions between photons and the idea of Kugelblitz exist only as theoretical fantasies, without an experimental basis
Well, I could have saved you a lot of trouble.
A photon, by it's nature can not be stationary.
You seem to have made up the idea of an "X-stationary photon" without saying what it means.
But, if you only just invented it then clearly, your search won't find anything about it.
Google gives just one hit for it, and that is this page.
Nice Googlewhack, but making up words to do that is considered cheating.
Sorry, but until today I was missing the proper term, to describe my idea - I guess it should be non-propagating photons. By "X-stationary" I ment a particle-like quanta of photon field, which remains fixed in 2D X,Y space in all rest frames
(https://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/pluginfile.php/1276199/mod_oucontent/oucontent/65152/643eaa8e/54c3b1a7/s111_topic_8_pt1_f05.eps.gif)
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/ee3b05eaea3855b610e6364d93a72ac8/tumblr_inline_ocd2it4Tqs1tuek78_500.gifv)
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/ee3b05eaea3855b610e6364d93a72ac8/tumblr_inline_ocd2it4Tqs1tuek78_500.gifv)
As you can see, frequency of a wave is here directly connected with the velocity of photon's vibrational (Y,Z oriented) motionPlenty of real science shows that photons have angular momentum.
So this idea of "up and down" as they travel along is untenable.
It would get scrambled by the spin (yes, I know, electron and photon "spin" are not classical rotations, that's not the point. There's enough similarity to "screw" your idea.)
But such model of photon doesn't in any way contradict the idea of photon angular momentum - moreover, it allows it in all 3 diemensions of an EM wave
The other thing about the photoelectric effect is that the photon loses energy, so it's not a process which could be relevant to a perfectly mirrored ball.
It's laughable that you thought I might not be aware of, and have considered the PE effect.
Of course it does, but it doesn't change the constant number of photons in the cavity - In this model it's expressed as a decrease of vibrational velocity of those photons.
And I have now 2 questions for you:
1. If due to an interaction with matter, photon changes it's energy state and path of propagation, is it still the same photon, or one that was only emitted by the interacting matter?
2. Is the sunlight made of a singe family of "sunlight photons", or is it made of a bunch of different photons, characteristic for each frequency band of the sunlight?
TBC
Post by: CrazyScientist on 20/06/2021 08:47:14
Problem is, that this is exactly the mechanism, which makes photons a time-finite packets of energy and leads to the idea of black hole made of trapped EM radiation.That is only a problem in your head.
Everywhere else, it is recognised as a solution.
Maybe you should think about that rather than posting obvious stuff about hundred year old physics which you don't understand.
And maybe you should become just slightly interested in the progress of science after 1920 or so...
You still seem to think about photons, as about tiny and shiny marbles which are being "farted out" by matter and keep bouncing around like tiny tennis balls, until they won't get swallowed back by some particle of matter
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/8121/81210P/The-constancy-of-c-everywhere-requires-the-cosmic-space-to/10.1117/12.894121.short?SSO=1
The constancy of "c" everywhere requires the cosmic space to be a stationary and complex tension field
Atoms and molecules that emit light, do not impart the ultimate velocity "c" on the emitted photon wave packets. Their propensity for perpetually propagating at this highest velocity in every possible direction must be leveraging a sustaining complex cosmic tension field (C2TF; ether of past centuries), which constitutes the space itself and hence stationary. Then the null results of Michelson-Morley experiments, positive and the null results of Fresnel-drag experiments and the positive Bradley telescope aberration should be explained as a drag of the C2TF by the Earth. We support this previously rejected hypothesis through various self consistent arguments and experiments. We present a null result for longitudinal Fresnel drag, in contrast to Fizeau's positive result; since we did not introduce any relative velocity between the light source and the phase-delay introducing material in our interferometer. We also propose that C2TF has a built-in weak dissipative property towards electromagnetic waves, so its frequency decreases very slowly with the distance of propagation through the C2TF. This hypothesis would eliminate the need for an expanding universe. We recast Hubble constant to accommodate the required Doppler shifts. The observable manifest universe consists only of EM waves and material particles. For C2TF to provide the unifying substrate for a new filed theory, we need to hypothesize that all stable particles are localized complex 3D non-linear, resonant but harmonic undulations of the C2TF. The non-linear strengths of the localized resonant undulations also introduces spatially extended but distance dependent distortions around the site of the resonances. These distortions are effectively different kinds of potential gradients manifest on the substrate of the C2TF, giving rise to the various forces. We now recognize four of them. The origin of mass is purely the inertia of movement of these resonances along these different potential gradients they experience. We further assert that the notion of self-interference, either for EM waves, or for particles, proposed in support of the hypothesis of wave-particle duality, is logically inconsistent with our currently successful mathematics and hence we should abandon this unnecessary duality hypothesis within the formalism of current QM.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228844630_The_inexhaustible_source_of_insights_revealed_by_every_photon
The inexhaustible source of insights revealed by every photon
We present several quantum mechanical experiments involving photons that strain the notions of space, time and causality. One for these experiments gives rise to the "quantum liar paradox," where Nature seems to contradict herself within a single experiment. In the last section we propose an outline for a theory that aspires to integrate GR and QM. In this outline, i) "Becoming," the creation of every instant anew from nothingness, is real. ii) Force-carrying particles, such as photons, do not merely mediate the interaction by propagating in some pre-existing, empty spacetime; rather, they are the very progenitors of the spacetime segment within which the interaction takes place.
it will become quite obvious, that in the case of photoelectric effect, intensity of EM field will be related with the number of ejected electrons, while their kinetic energy will depend on the frequency of EM radiation...This was, indeed, obvious.
So much so that I wonder why you posted it.
But, as I pointed out, it's a "lossy" process, so it can not be relevant to a perfectly mirrored ball.
Now, to get back to the question.
Do you really think that the bat speeds up when it hits the ball?
Of course - it speeds up in rest frame of the ball... Why do you ask questions, which one can expect from a 10yo kid, who can't grasp the basic premise of relative motion and thinks about photons, as about tiny and shiny balls of light?
Hello! We live in the second decade of XXI century - there's an entire branch of physics, that is specialized to deal with my scenario - it's called cavity quantum electrodynamics and it has as much in common with General Relativity, as it has in common with baseball (not much)...
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 10:32:26
Of course - it speeds up in rest frame of the ball... Why do you ask questions, which one can expect from a 10yo kid, who can't grasp the basic premise of relative motion and thinks about photons, as about tiny and shiny balls of light?
I ask questions like that because you answer them in the manner of a 10 year old.
So, since you are pretending that putting sciencey words into an answer is helpful.
Do you still suffer from the delusion that it speeds up from the point of view of the batsman?
Because, while photons do strange things, they aren't that strange.
If you bounce them off something they push on that thing; they don't pull on it as you claimed.
And maybe you should become just slightly interested in the progress of science after 1920 or so...You don't understand the stuff from the 17th C
Only you're missing here one key difference between protons and photons - as for today photons seem to be unable of pernamently becomming protons.Where did the protons come from?
At the time of the BB there was a lot of energy and very little space.
Some of that energy "condensed" into the matter of the universe.
My contention is that the process proceeds via photons.
If yours differs then you need to explain the "missing link".
Actually that's not true. If the wavelenght is bigger than the volume of cavity, then EM wave emitted by an outside source of radiation won't be able to enter the cavity, while a source inside that cavity won't be able to emit radiation:Ture, but irrelevant.
The light in my microwave oven works fine.
But my point is that there's no requirement for that light to form standing waves in the oven.
In fact, because the uncertainty principle says that the wavelength is uncertain, it is impossible for it to be exactly the right size for the chamber.
So, if you'll still want to defend the idea of a "Kugelblitz" formation in a cavity, you have no other option, than sticking to a standing EM wave - sorryIf I got bored, I could calculate the mass of light in this room, but it isn't a resonant cavity.
You keep trying to sledgehammer in the idea that the length (or diameter) of the cavity must be an integer multiple of the wavelength.
Well, for a start that wavelength isn't defined, so you must be wrong, but the more important point is that nobody ever came up with a reason why it should be resonant.
Sorry, but until today I was missing the proper term, to describe my idea - I guess it should be non-propagating photons. By "X-stationary" I ment a particle-like quanta of photon field, which remains fixed in 2D X,Y space in all rest framesI see...
You mean something else which breaks the uncertainty principle.
(If it fits in the cavity precisely then we know its wavelength and can calculate its momentum precisely, but that would require an infinite imprecision in our knowledge of the position, yet we know where it is- it's in the cavity- which is a contradiction).
1. If due to an interaction with matter, photon changes it's energy state and path of propagation, is it still the same photon, or one that was only emitted by the interacting matter?A long time ago, I remember a lecturer pointing out that "you can't paint an electron purple".
His point was that the electrons in an atom are equivalent; it make no sense to try to consider what 1 of them does.
The same applies to photons. you can't tell if "it's the same photon" because you can't have a photon called George and a photon called Henry.
You can say the the photon has different properties- notably wavelength and direction.
Is the sunlight made of a singe family of "sunlight photons", or is it made of a bunch of different photons, characteristic for each frequency band of the sunlight?Neither sunlight, nor French monkeys are relevant to the discussion.
If you would like to clarify the point you tried to make then we might get somewhere.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 20/06/2021 11:45:37
Of course - it speeds up in rest frame of the ball... Why do you ask questions, which one can expect from a 10yo kid, who can't grasp the basic premise of relative motion and thinks about photons, as about tiny and shiny balls of light?
I ask questions like that because you answer them in the manner of a 10 year old.
So, since you are pretending that putting sciencey words into an answer is helpful.
Do you still suffer from the delusion that it speeds up from the point of view of the batsman?
Because, while photons do strange things, they aren't that strange.
If you bounce them off something they push on that thing; they don't pull on it as you claimed.
Huh? The only thing, which I claimed regarding your basebal analogy, was that it is completely invalid in the case of my scenario...
This is quantum physics - incoming ball can be deflected as multiple balls, pass directly through the batsman and hit someone, who stands behind him, or disappear and reappear multiple times before he will even hit it with the bat ...
Only you're missing here one key difference between protons and photons - as for today photons seem to be unable of pernamently becomming protons.Where did the protons come from?
At the time of the BB there was a lot of energy and very little space.
Some of that energy "condensed" into the matter of the universe.
My contention is that the process proceeds via photons.
If yours differs then you need to explain the "missing link".
What I do. is to describe the existing physical reality - there's NO ONE on this planet, who can know, what actually happened in the beginning of our Universe. For me your story is just as reliable, as Sumerian mythology (maybe even less)...
Actually that's not true. If the wavelenght is bigger than the volume of cavity, then EM wave emitted by an outside source of radiation won't be able to enter the cavity, while a source inside that cavity won't be able to emit radiation:Ture, but irrelevant.
The light in my microwave oven works fine.
But my point is that there's no requirement for that light to form standing waves in the oven.
In fact, because the uncertainty principle says that the wavelength is uncertain, it is impossible for it to be exactly the right size for the chamber.
Oh, really?
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kp33ZprO0Ck/maxresdefault.jpg)
So, if you'll still want to defend the idea of a "Kugelblitz" formation in a cavity, you have no other option, than sticking to a standing EM wave - sorryIf I got bored, I could calculate the mass of light in this room, but it isn't a resonant cavity.
Of course, that it IS a resonant cavity for multiple EM waves with the proper wavelenght (if you didn't paint your walls in the color of absolute black)...
You keep trying to sledgehammer in the idea that the length (or diameter) of the cavity must be an integer multiple of the wavelength.
Sure - only if you want to get the max intensity, avaliable for the given cavity...
Well, for a start that wavelength isn't defined, so you must be wrong, but the more important point is that nobody ever came up with a reason why it should be resonant.
Huh? Each kind of EM radiation has a defined wavelenght...
Sorry, but until today I was missing the proper term, to describe my idea - I guess it should be non-propagating photons. By "X-stationary" I ment a particle-like quanta of photon field, which remains fixed in 2D X,Y space in all rest framesI see...
You mean something else which breaks the uncertainty principle.
(If it fits in the cavity precisely then we know its wavelength and can calculate its momentum precisely, but that would require an infinite imprecision in our knowledge of the position, yet we know where it is- it's in the cavity- which is a contradiction).
Actually, since each photon remains fixed in 1D space, you can pinpoint it's EXACT location in space and describe the exact probability of detecting it at each particular frequency of EM radiation
1. If due to an interaction with matter, photon changes it's energy state and path of propagation, is it still the same photon, or one that was only emitted by the interacting matter?A long time ago, I remember a lecturer pointing out that "you can't paint an electron purple".
His point was that the electrons in an atom are equivalent; it make no sense to try to consider what 1 of them does.
The same applies to photons. you can't tell if "it's the same photon" because you can't have a photon called George and a photon called Henry.
You can say the the photon has different properties- notably wavelength and direction.
So let's shine a strong laser at some piece of metal and make it red hot - each single photon of the laser will then result in emission of (at least) 2 photons: one for visible light and one for thermal radiation. In result, density of photons and their momentum is growing, while energy level (frequency) of EM radiation gets lower - it doesn't make any sense...
Is the sunlight made of a singe family of "sunlight photons", or is it made of a bunch of different photons, characteristic for each frequency band of the sunlight?Neither sunlight, nor French monkeys are relevant to the discussion.
If you would like to clarify the point you tried to make then we might get somewhere.
Sunlight consits of EM waves at multiple different wavelenghts and with different properties - does sunlight propagate as one kind of particles or as a bunch of multiple different particles? It's a simple question...
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 12:16:02
Huh? Each kind of EM radiation has a defined wavelenght...Do you even know what the uncertainty principle is?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 12:19:11
This is quantum physics - incoming ball can be deflected as multiple balls, pass directly through the batsman and hit someone, who stands behind him, or disappear and reappear multiple times before he will even hit it with the bat ...Yes.
or it could bounce off the bat- which is what it will usually do if the bat is a perfect reflector.
The other outcomes wouldn't relate to the bat bouncing off the ball.
And that's the case in which we are interested.
Now answer the question, do you really think that the bat moves faster after it is hit than before?
Because that's what you said earlier
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 12:20:30
Of course, that it IS a resonant cavity for multiple EM waves with the proper wavelenght (if you didn't paint your walls in the color of absolute black)They are Lambertian white.
And you re still wrong.
When I buy a light bulb, nobody asks me what the dimensions of the room are.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 12:23:52
does sunlight propagate as one kind of particles or as a bunch of multiple different particles? It's a simple question...Yes, it's too simple.
There are lots of green things growing in my garden.
Are they all the same thing?
They are all "one kind of thing"- they are plants
They are "multiple different" things; some are grass and some are shrubs.
Stop asking badly worded questions.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 12:25:48
Oh, really?Yes really.
For a start...
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Residential-microwave-oven-spectrum-15_fig3_39432921
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 12:27:41
What I do. is to describe the existing physical reality - there's NO ONE on this planet, who can know, what actually happened in the beginning of our Universe. For me your story is just as reliable, as Sumerian mythology (maybe even less)...You failed to answer the question.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 12:29:21
their momentum is growingNo
The process follows the momentum (and mass/ energy) conservation laws. It's only you who is seeking to say otherwise.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 20/06/2021 13:11:24
Huh? Each kind of EM radiation has a defined wavelenght...Do you even know what the uncertainty principle is?
Yes.... And each kind of EM radiation has a specific and measurable wavelenght... So...?
QuoteWhat I do. is to describe the existing physical reality - there's NO ONE on this planet, who can know, what actually happened in the beginning of our Universe. For me your story is just as reliable, as Sumerian mythology (maybe even less)...You failed to answer the question.
So I did and I don't care - this thread is about the quantization of EM fields and not about some mythology about the genesis of Universe...
This is quantum physics - incoming ball can be deflected as multiple balls, pass directly through the batsman and hit someone, who stands behind him, or disappear and reappear multiple times before he will even hit it with the bat ...Yes.
or it could bounce off the bat- which is what it will usually do if the bat is a perfect reflector.
The other outcomes wouldn't relate to the bat bouncing off the ball.
And that's the case in which we are interested.
Now answer the question, do you really think that the bat moves faster after it is hit than before?
Because that's what you said earlier
Of course! Because of the momentum conservation, when the ball is being hit by the bat, their relative velocity can be higher, than before their collision - so in the rest frame of that ball, bat will be moving faster after the collision...
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/429708/when-you-hit-a-baseball-does-the-ball-ever-travel-faster-than-the-bat
https://baseballcoachinglab.com/how-to-increase-bat-speed/
And...? What's the point...?
Yes really.
For a start...
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Residential-microwave-oven-spectrum-15_fig3_39432921
Yes. Intensity of the EM field has it's peak at the frequencies of EM radiation, that can form a standing wave in the cavity. And...?
They are Lambertian white.
And you re still wrong.
When I buy a light bulb, nobody asks me what the dimensions of the room are.
Maybe because you don't care about having the best possible illumination in your room...
https://www.lumens.com/how-tos-and-advice/how-to-choose-the-right-size-ceiling-light.html
https://www.ballarddesigns.com/howtodecorate/2011/07/how-to-light-a-room/
Room length X Room width x 1.5 = Amount of wattage to light a room
No
The process follows the momentum (and mass/ energy) conservation laws. It's only you who is seeking to say otherwise
It's hard to believe, how often you're making statements, that are completely inconsistent even with the mainstream science...
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/29-4-photon-momentum/
(https://study.com/cimages/videopreview/videopreview-full/physics-101-energy-momerntum-photon-equation-calculations_138187.jpg)
Higer frequency (shorter wavelenght) = Higher energy of EM radiation = smaller momentum
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 13:15:43
Of course! Because of the momentum conservation, when the ball is being hit by the bat, their relative velocity can be higher, than before their collisionOK, it's becoming increasingly clear that you are just posting nonsense, and you are doing it deliberately.
I already said
from the point of view of the batsman?
Stop trolling, and answer the question.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 13:16:55
Yes.... And each kind of EM radiation has a specific and measurable wavelenght... So...?So... you say "yes", but you mean "no".
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 13:18:56
So I did and I don't care - this thread is about the quantization of EM fields and not about some mythology about the genesis of Universe...If you start talking about the creation of particles from... wherever then it's related to the early universe where particles were created.
That's the biggest "particle creation" event ever.
And you did raise the issue.
If you didn't want to discuss it, why did you raise it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 13:20:22
It's hard to believe, how often you're making statements, that are completely inconsistent even with the mainstream science..Saying that momentum and mass/ energy are conserved is neither inconsistent with what I have said before, nor with mainstream science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 13:25:24
Maybe because you don't care about having the best possible illumination in your room...Well, maybe, but maybe it's because they know that they don't need to match the emitted wavelengths to the dimensions of the room
Because only you believe that.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 20/06/2021 13:25:32
does sunlight propagate as one kind of particles or as a bunch of multiple different particles? It's a simple question...Yes, it's too simple.
There are lots of green things growing in my garden.
Are they all the same thing?
They are all "one kind of thing"- they are plants
They are "multiple different" things; some are grass and some are shrubs.
Stop asking badly worded questions.
So I guess it means, that sunlight propagates as a buch of different photons, that occupy the same volume of space. This means, that it should be possible to simultaneously detect multiple photons at different frequencies, that are overlaping each other in a single volume of space...
However it seems, that such situation is physically impossible...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 20/06/2021 13:30:19
Maybe because you don't care about having the best possible illumination in your room...Well, maybe, but maybe it's because they know that they don't need to match the emitted wavelengths to the dimensions of the room
Because only you believe that.
I guess, it's too hard for you to understand, that visible light has a very short wavelenght, so the size of cavity matters mostly at the microscopic level... And in cavity QED size of cavity and wavelenght of EM wave have primary importance.- you might don't like it, but it is an experimentally proven fact, even if you disagree with it...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 20/06/2021 13:32:16
Yes.... And each kind of EM radiation has a specific and measurable wavelenght... So...?So... you say "yes", but you mean "no".
I mean exactly, what I say...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 20/06/2021 13:34:35
So I did and I don't care - this thread is about the quantization of EM fields and not about some mythology about the genesis of Universe...If you start talking about the creation of particles from... wherever then it's related to the early universe where particles were created.
That's the biggest "particle creation" event ever.
And you did raise the issue.
If you didn't want to discuss it, why did you raise it?
Because creation of matter particles from radiation in the laboratory has nothing to do with the stable matter, that surrounds us
Post by: CrazyScientist on 20/06/2021 13:39:07
their momentum is growingNo
The process follows the momentum (and mass/ energy) conservation laws. It's only you who is seeking to say otherwise.
Saying that momentum and mass/ energy are conserved is neither inconsistent with what I have said before, nor with mainstream science.
There's an inversed corelation between the momentum and the frequency of an EM wave...
Explain, what for you defines the mass/energy of EM radiation...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 20/06/2021 13:42:55
Of course! Because of the momentum conservation, when the ball is being hit by the bat, their relative velocity can be higher, than before their collisionOK, it's becoming increasingly clear that you are just posting nonsense, and you are doing it deliberately.
I did - and in terms of physics of baseball, it's a 100% valid answer. What else do you want?
Quote
I already saidfrom the point of view of the batsman?
Stop trolling, and answer the question.
Then obviously the answer is no... And...?
I still have no idea, what any of this has to do with cavity QED...
Post by: Origin on 20/06/2021 14:17:34
So I guess it means, that sunlight propagates as a buch of different photons, that occupy the same volume of space. This means, that it should be possible to simultaneously detect multiple photons at different frequencies, that are overlaping each other in a single volume of space...Really, that seems impossible? If only there were some sort of simple device that could separate the multiple wavelengths into separate wavelengths to see if it is possible, but I guess there just is no such futuristic device.
However it seems, that such situation is hysically impossible..
(https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/941700382301242748/0B85D92FE3774A3BCFB2A3032134CE002DE90C74/?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Letterbox&imcolor=%23000000&letterbox=false)
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 14:44:40
So you do understand that there's an uncertainty relation for energy which means that (in any finite time) the wavelength is not perfectly defined so you can't say whether or not it exactly fits into a cavity?Yes.... And each kind of EM radiation has a specific and measurable wavelenght... So...?So... you say "yes", but you mean "no".
I mean exactly, what I say...
Yet you say that things can or can't happen depending on whether it fits or not.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 15:06:01
I still have no idea, what any of this has to do with cavityOnce again, we are back with the problem of your memory...
It's relevant to the idea of compressing a cavity with light in it until it becomes a blackhole.
You may, if prompted, remember this
If you compress a mirror box with light in then you do work against that photon pressure.
Where does that energy go?
I contend that it raises the frequencies of the photons in the box. What do you think happens to it?
Or are you really claiming that energy is not conserved?
And your absurd reply
Obviously into the atoms, that make the resonance cavity
To which I pointed out that , since the mirrors are perfectly reflective, you can't put energy into them that way.
And then you posted a diagram which you misunderstood and said this
Nope. it's exactly opposite - momentum transfer during reflection of an EM wave increases it's wavelenght
Then you got shouty about a mirror's movement being relativistic- as if that was somehow magical- until I pointed out that a snail's movement is relativistic, it's just that the relativistic corrections are rather small.
But you still didn't seem to grasp the fact that bouncing a photon off a mirror that's coming towards you will mean that the photon comes back at you with a higher energy, and the mirror gets slowed down a bit.
Fundamentally, you still have not answered the question.
What happens to the work done against photon pressure if you compress a box that has light in it?
Instead of answering, you cam up with this tosh
I guess, you slept during physics classes, when the Newton's laws of motion were discussed... If you wouldn't sleep, you would know, that to slow down an object, that moves at constant velocity, you need to use a force - so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy... It's basic physics - aren't you ashamed to not know such things?
Now, since you framed your bilge in terms of high school physics, then, regardless of any weirdness due to quantum effects, it should work in terms of high school physics.
But you say that if a ball exerts a force on a moving bat, the bat will gain energy (yet it slows down) and the ball will lose energy (though its speed increases).
Do you really believe that?
Please don't waste time on energy losses and coefficients of restitution- this is an ideal, perfect mirror.
There are no losses.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 15:15:15
So I guessIt may be better if you stopped guessing and learned some science.
This means, that it should be possible to simultaneously detect multiple photons at different frequencies, that are overlaping each other in a single volume of space...You have just told me that I can't tune a radio to one frequency if someone else has their radio tuned to another frequency.
However it seems, that such situation is physically impossible...
Do you want to think that through again?
Because creation of matter particles from radiation in the laboratory has nothing to do with the stable matter, that surrounds usObviously, electrons made in the lab are different- they have a little tag on them which says "made in England".
Or, possibly, you're talking nonsense again, and the two scenarios do have a lot of common ground.
Explain, what for you defines the mass/energy of EM radiationI don't understand why you keep saying thing like "for you".
It's not me. You can argue the point whether, in this case it's de Broglie's equation or Einstein's.
But it's not "me" that's defining anything.
You were the one trying to define new words- do you remember?
my idea of X-stationary photons
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 15:21:16
I guess, it's too hard for you to understand, that visible light has a very short wavelenght, so the size of cavity matters mostly at the microscopic level.Not only do I know that the wavelength is small, I know how to spell it.
Earlier on in lockdown, I got bored and I actually measured the wavelength of the green light from a frequency doubled Nd YAG laser using a plastic ruler from my local stationers shop.
Have you ever actually measured the wavelength?
I have also actually physically built a laser cavity, so I have some understanding of mode hopping and such.
Have you?
And the only actual size given for any cavity was a millimetre or so, which is vastly bigger than the wavelength of light.
You keep telling me it's terribly important that the waves fit in the cavity.
But you ignore the fact that my lightbulb proves you are wrong.
It's a broadband emitter.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 20/06/2021 23:24:49
So you do understand that there's an uncertainty relation for energy which means that (in any finite time) the wavelength is not perfectly defined so you can't say whether or not it exactly fits into a cavity?Yes.... And each kind of EM radiation has a specific and measurable wavelenght... So...?So... you say "yes", but you mean "no".
I mean exactly, what I say...
Yet you say that things can or can't happen depending on whether it fits or not.
But the wavelenght of EM radiation IS very well defined - we know for example the EXACT lenghts of EM waves for each color of visible spectrum - you even said, that you've measured one by yourself. Isn't that quite self-contradictory?
Besides you obviously have no idea, how much efforts are being put into the tuning of optical cavities, so the desired EM radiation can fit with it's wavelenght perfectly and create a standing wave...
https://www.osapublishing.org/oe/fulltext.cfm?uri=oe-26-26-34965&id=403390
What did you think - that the make the microcavities with the right volumes just by accident?
I still have no idea, what any of this has to do with cavityOnce again, we are back with the problem of your memory...
It's relevant to the idea of compressing a cavity with light in it until it becomes a blackhole.
You may, if prompted, remember thisIf you compress a mirror box with light in then you do work against that photon pressure.
Where does that energy go?
I contend that it raises the frequencies of the photons in the box. What do you think happens to it?
Or are you really claiming that energy is not conserved?
And your absurd replyObviously into the atoms, that make the resonance cavity
To which I pointed out that , since the mirrors are perfectly reflective, you can't put energy into them that way.
And then you posted a diagram which you misunderstood and said thisNope. it's exactly opposite - momentum transfer during reflection of an EM wave increases it's wavelenght
Then you got shouty about a mirror's movement being relativistic- as if that was somehow magical- until I pointed out that a snail's movement is relativistic, it's just that the relativistic corrections are rather small.
But you still didn't seem to grasp the fact that bouncing a photon off a mirror that's coming towards you will mean that the photon comes back at you with a higher energy, and the mirror gets slowed down a bit.
Fundamentally, you still have not answered the question.
What happens to the work done against photon pressure if you compress a box that has light in it?
Instead of answering, you cam up with this toshI guess, you slept during physics classes, when the Newton's laws of motion were discussed... If you wouldn't sleep, you would know, that to slow down an object, that moves at constant velocity, you need to use a force - so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy... It's basic physics - aren't you ashamed to not know such things?
Now, since you framed your bilge in terms of high school physics, then, regardless of any weirdness due to quantum effects, it should work in terms of high school physics.
But you say that if a ball exerts a force on a moving bat, the bat will gain energy (yet it slows down) and the ball will lose energy (though its speed increases).
Do you really believe that?
Please don't waste time on energy losses and coefficients of restitution- this is an ideal, perfect mirror.
There are no losses.
So you're still want to talk about this science-fiction, which is the "Kugelblitz"?
I guess, that you didn't even try to look what the present day science has to say about this fantasy... If you would, you would probably know, that there's an entire branch of physics dedicated to deal with such scenarios, as the one, which you've proposed (EM radiation reflected by a moving mirror) - it's called cavity optomechanics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavity_optomechanics
(https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/107/3/1005/F1.large.jpg)
There's quite a lot of information about this subject, but just so happens, that there isn't even a single source, where someone would mention ANYTHING about the possibility of creating a black hole made of radiation. Obviously modern-day scientists prefer sticking to experimentally proven reality, than to theoretical fantasies from the first half of XX century...
And it gets even better. It seems, that your idea of compressing an EM radiation, which is trapped in a cavity was already tested experimentally - and so happens, that the observed results were in 100% consistent with the model of cavity QED and not with the fairy tales about black holes made of light:
https://nige.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/casimir-force/
(https://nige.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/casimir-mechanism.jpg)
Post by: CrazyScientist on 20/06/2021 23:30:29
You have just told me that I can't tune a radio to one frequency if someone else has their radio tuned to another frequency.
Do you want to think that through again?
That's a completely invalid analogy. Instead try listening simultaneouly to 2 radio stations using one receiver with a single antenna... I might rethink my claims, when you'll manage to do it...
EDIT - you can use 2 receivers with one shared antenna, or even 2 antennas, which are wrapped around each other...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 20/06/2021 23:35:13
I don't understand why you keep saying thing like "for you".
It's not me. You can argue the point whether, in this case it's de Broglie's equation or Einstein's.
But it's not "me" that's defining anything.
You were the one trying to define new words- do you remember?
So, what then defines the energy/mass of EM radiation - momentum or frequency of EM waves? It's a simple question with only 2 options.- please, try better this time...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 21/06/2021 00:02:43
And the only actual size given for any cavity was a millimetre or so, which is vastly bigger than the wavelength of light.
Well, sorry to inform you, that time keeps going on and science is constantly progressing... Modern-day nanocavities are capable of trapping a single photon...
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/cc/d1cc01084k#!divAbstract
(https://pubs.rsc.org/en/Image/Get?imageInfo.ImageType=GA&imageInfo.ImageIdentifier.ManuscriptID=D1CC01084K&imageInfo.ImageIdentifier.Year=2021)
Quote
You keep telling me it's terribly important that the waves fit in the cavity.
But you ignore the fact that my lightbulb proves you are wrong.
It's a broadband emitter.
Tell this to people, who create modern day optical cavities
Quote
Obviously, electrons made in the lab are different- they have a little tag on them which says "made in England".
Or, possibly, you're talking nonsense again, and the two scenarios do have a lot of common ground.
Difference is, that electrons made in labs due to p-p scattering disappear out of existence couple nanoseconds after they were created...
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/06/2021 09:01:09
Well, sorry to inform you, that time keeps going on and science is constantly progressing... Modern-day nanocavities are capable of trapping a single photon...I know.
For what it's worth, you can trap a single photon in a big cavity too.
But, since we were actually planning to use a bigger chamber your assertion, while true, is irrelevant, isn't it?
That's a completely invalid analogy. Instead try listening simultaneouly to 2 radio stations using one receiver with a single antenna... I might rethink my claims, when you'll manage to do it...Using one receiver is moving the goalposts; I'm glad you dropped it.
EDIT - you can use 2 receivers with one shared antenna,.
Using one antenna is easy enough; my house has a combined TV/ FM antenna both signals come down the same wire.
In principle, I can do a bit better.
I can hook a long wire to the input of a modern oscilloscope and what I see is the sum of all the EM fields which the antenna picks up.
And then I can ask the 'scope to do an FFT on the signal and it will cheerfully "receive" and display all the radio stations etc in the area.
Would you like to buy me a new digital scope?
So, what then defines the energy/mass of EM radiation - momentum or frequency of EM waves? It's a simple question with only 2 options.- please, try better this time...It's a simple question, but meaningless.
I can calculate the energy of a photon from it's momentum, or from its frequency.
So either of them define it.
Did you not realise that?
But the wavelenght of EM radiation IS very well defined - we know for example the EXACT lenghts of EM waves for each color of visible spectrum - you even said, that you've measured one by yourself. Isn't that quite self-contradictory?Get back to us when you know what the uncertainty principle tells us about energy.
Until then, you don't have the knowledge to see why you must be wrong and there's no point carrying on the discussion.
Mind you, We won't expect much from the guy who can't face up to having said that the point of a bat is to make the ball go slower.
Are you going to address this before, or after, learning what the uncertainty principle says about wavelengths?
But you still didn't seem to grasp the fact that bouncing a photon off a mirror that's coming towards you will mean that the photon comes back at you with a higher energy, and the mirror gets slowed down a bit.
Fundamentally, you still have not answered the question.
What happens to the work done against photon pressure if you compress a box that has light in it?
Instead of answering, you cam up with this tosh
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 14/06/2021 17:11:04
I guess, you slept during physics classes, when the Newton's laws of motion were discussed... If you wouldn't sleep, you would know, that to slow down an object, that moves at constant velocity, you need to use a force - so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy... It's basic physics - aren't you ashamed to not know such things?
Now, since you framed your bilge in terms of high school physics, then, regardless of any weirdness due to quantum effects, it should work in terms of high school physics.
But you say that if a ball exerts a force on a moving bat, the bat will gain energy (yet it slows down) and the ball will lose energy (though its speed increases).
Do you really believe that?
Please don't waste time on energy losses and coefficients of restitution- this is an ideal, perfect mirror.
There are no losses.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 26/06/2021 19:59:50
Actually I didn't say anything about the size of cavity. In fact, what matters in this case, is the wavelenght of EM radiation. You can trap a single impulse of visible light in a cavity which is bigger, than the wavelenght of emitted radiation, but then it won't be amplified - as the highest amplitude of EM radiation (just like the sound) can be achieved only by the resonance of a standing wave.Well, sorry to inform you, that time keeps going on and science is constantly progressing... Modern-day nanocavities are capable of trapping a single photon...I know.
For what it's worth, you can trap a single photon in a big cavity too.
But, since we were actually planning to use a bigger chamber your assertion, while true, is irrelevant, isn't it?
On the other hand you can achieve exactly the same effect with a large cavity and EM radiation with bigger wavelenght. In the end, everything what matters IS the wavelenght and size of cavity...
Using one antenna is easy enough; my house has a combined TV/ FM antenna both signals come down the same wire.
Sure - only TV and FM use EM waves at different freuency bands...
FM radio uses frequency modulation, of course. The frequency band for FM radio is about 88 to 108 MHz. The information signal is music and voice which falls in the audio spectrum. The full audio spectrum ranges form 20 to 20,000 Hz, but FM radio limits the upper modulating frequency to 15 kHz.
TV channels utilize frequencies in the range of 54 to 88 MHz and 174 to 222 MHz.
EM waves interfere with other EM waves at similar wavelenghts. Take 2 FM receivers and try to stick their antennas together, while listening to 2 different stations and you'll get static noise due to EM waves interference...
In principle, I can do a bit better.
I can hook a long wire to the input of a modern oscilloscope and what I see is the sum of all the EM fields which the antenna picks up.
And then I can ask the 'scope to do an FFT on the signal and it will cheerfully "receive" and display all the radio stations etc in the area.
Would you like to buy me a new digital scope?
Of course. It's because all photons in an EM field are in superposition of all the avaliable wavelenghts - that's the potential aspect of the field. And then, when you try to receive one specific wavelenght in a given frequency band, photons placed around your antenna will collapse to that specific state - and this is the kinetic aspect of EM field.
What matters is, that photons will still remain in superposition at different frequency bands - so, each of them can make a FM wave and the visible light at the same time. That's exactly, what I described in the first post of this thread
So, what then defines the energy/mass of EM radiation - momentum or frequency of EM waves? It's a simple question with only 2 options.- please, try better this time...It's a simple question, but meaningless.
I can calculate the energy of a photon from it's momentum, or from its frequency.
So either of them define it.
Did you not realise that?
It IS important, since there's a reversed corelation between those 2 properties - increase of frequency means decrease of momentum. It's pretty logical, that if we treat both of them as the same "mass/energy" of EM radiation, then the idea of "Kugelblitz" becomes impossible even in the theory...
TBC
Post by: CrazyScientist on 26/06/2021 20:25:35
But the wavelenght of EM radiation IS very well defined - we know for example the EXACT lenghts of EM waves for each color of visible spectrum - you even said, that you've measured one by yourself. Isn't that quite self-contradictory?Get back to us when you know what the uncertainty principle tells us about energy.
Until then, you don't have the knowledge to see why you must be wrong and there's no point carrying on the discussion.
Mind you, We won't expect much from the guy who can't face up to having said that the point of a bat is to make the ball go slower.
Are you going to address this before, or after, learning what the uncertainty principle says about wavelengths?
(https://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/e32d73c5bf57f79ec064b9d3bdb1c2ac/image-45.jpg)
And...? We ARE capable to learn the exact wavelenght of measured radiation...
But you still didn't seem to grasp the fact that bouncing a photon off a mirror that's coming towards you will mean that the photon comes back at you with a higher energy, and the mirror gets slowed down a bit.
Sure - but only if you and/or the mirror are moving towards eachother at a relative velocity, which is high enough, to compensate the energy loss due to transfer of momentum (what means pretty damn fast)
Fundamentally, you still have not answered the question.
What happens to the work done against photon pressure if you compress a box that has light in it?
It depends on:
1. Energy level of the trapped radiation
2. Velocity of compression
You would have to use a velocity of compression, which is in a perfect harmony with the frequency of trapped EM radiation - otherwise EM waves will cancel each other out due to destructive interference. And if you do, then depending on the trapped energy and in a cavity, which can't get smaller from the wavelenght of a single photon,
it should be possible to turn the trapped radiation in a Bose-Einstein condensate, or maybe even into a particle of matter.
And what will happen, if the cavity gets smaller than the wavelenght of trapped EM radiation? Well I guess, the energy will mostly cancel eachother out or in some part escape by quantum tunneling (I need to research it a bit).
Instead of answering, you cam up with this tosh
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 14/06/2021 17:11:04
I guess, you slept during physics classes, when the Newton's laws of motion were discussed... If you wouldn't sleep, you would know, that to slow down an object, that moves at constant velocity, you need to use a force - so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy... It's basic physics - aren't you ashamed to not know such things?
It's because you insist to use the baseball analogy, which doesn't have anything to do with cavity QED, which SHOULD be used, to solve the presented scenario...
Now, since you framed your bilge in terms of high school physics, then, regardless of any weirdness due to quantum effects, it should work in terms of high school physics.
But you say that if a ball exerts a force on a moving bat, the bat will gain energy (yet it slows down) and the ball will lose energy (though its speed increases).
Do you really believe that?
Please don't waste time on energy losses and coefficients of restitution- this is an ideal, perfect mirror.
There are no losses.
Not only you still keep insisting to use this invalid analogy, but you also keep using a 3rd frame of some batsman guy, which can't be applied to interactions between the mirror (baseball bat) and the photon (ball). And what makes your baseball analogy completely wrong, is the fact, that photons suppose to move at a constant velocity of c, while in the rest frame of mirror, those photons are in fact causing acceleration opposite to the constant motion in your 3rd batsman frame...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 26/06/2021 20:52:58
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_happens_to_a_photon_if_sent_into_a_cavity_whose_dimensions_are_not_fit_for_the_photons_wavelength
Perfect:
Quote
This is a really good question. Simple as it is stated, it turns out hard to answer, but is worth trying to. It took me and my colleagues a 21 pages paper Phys. Rev. D 91, 016005 (2015) to address a simpler question.
The main issue is the radical change of boundary conditions the photon quantum undergoes when (instantly, or better in an insignificant amount of time) gets into the cavity.
Before entering into the cavity, the photon is an elementary excitation of the em field in the whole space. It is defined in this way in QFT (I think you are thinking of this case, as a wave packet is only a superposition of elementary excitations), and it is described by a Fock state a(k) |o>. Notice that the a(k) and a(k)^+ operators are defined as those who annihilate or create an elementary excitation of momentum k - IN ALL SPACE R^3 - at an instant of time.
That is, these operators remove or add a normal mode of the wave equation in Minkowski space. Those modes are specified by the equation and the boundary conditions. Only by considering both together, the allowed wave numbers emerge.
Beyond waves, in quantum physics -i.e. QFT - there are particles; photons in this case. To handle this, we need of a counting tool and the Fock treatment provides us with one, the number operator N(k) = a^+(k) a(k), which counts the number of elementary excitations of momentum k (wave number 1/k) present in the WHOLE SPACE R^3.
Coming back to your question; before entering into the cavity there is a photon of wave number 1/k as counted by N(k) (or of wave length λ according to your original wording).
The point is that photons inside the cavity are not created or annihilated by the same operators as before, but by operators b(k_n)^+, b(k_n) that add or remove one n-th normal mode of the cavity. Accordingly, photons inside the cavity will be counted by the operator b(k_n)^+b(k_n).
Finally, the same quantum state will have different expansions in terms of the R^3 normal modes than in terms of the cavity normal modes. In poor words, what was one free space photon outside may become a bunch of cavity photons inside.
Mathematically this is involved as both photon representations are unitarily inequivalent!
I hope this explanation will serve to add some light to your question. juan.leon@csic.es
I saw your interests in your Research Gate page
And here's the part, which is epecially important for me:
"The point is that photons inside the cavity are not created or annihilated by the same operators as before, but by operators b(k_n)^+, b(k_n) that add or remove one n-th normal mode of the cavity. Accordingly, photons inside the cavity will be counted by the operator b(k_n)^+b(k_n)."
Post by: CrazyScientist on 26/06/2021 21:15:15
https://www.eenewseurope.com/news/light-trap-turns-photons-massive-quasiparticles
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/06/2021 21:53:02
Actually I didn't say anything about the size of cavity.True, but I did.
I already made the point that the chamber size was arbitrary, and could be made "big enough"
Nobody was trying to make photons smaller than any limit (apart from a rather arbitrary1mm which was chosen as a bit smaller than the radius of an earth mass BH)
Sure - only TV and FM use EM waves at different freuency bands...Yes, that was my point.
You had said it was impossible to receive different frequencies, so I chose very different ones to make the point that you were wrong.
But my point about hooking a spectrum analyser to an antenna overrides it anyway.
Your "reply" And then, when you try to receive one specific wavelenght in a given frequency band, photons placed around your antenna will collapse to that specific state " makes no sense.
The spectrum analysis works.
So it's receiving many channels at once.
It would be obvious from time to time when the AM radio stations broadcast a minute's silence- all the peaks would drop to zero simultaneously.
You can see the intensity of the broadcast at each frequency. So they are resolved; they are no longer in a superposition.
It proves that it's possible.
It's also common practice for blocks of flats to have a single aerial feeding to all the flats.
You are trying to say that these don't exist.
https://www.screwfix.com/c/electrical-lighting/splitters/cat4740084
And that's silly.
It IS important,It is important that either the momentum or the frequency of a photon will define its energy.
Which is why I said it, and it's the reason why your question (about was it one or the other) is silly.
Now, let's see if you understand the uncertainty principle.
You seem to think it only relates to momentum and position.
You don't have the sense to realise you are missing the important thing, even when I spell it out to you.
Get back to us when you know what the uncertainty principle tells us about energy.
You didn't even bother to look at the wiki page, did you?
If you had looked properly, you would have found this
"An informal, heuristic meaning of the principle is the following: A state that only exists for a short time cannot have a definite energy. To have a definite energy, the frequency of the state must be defined accurately, and this requires the state to hang around for many cycles, the reciprocal of the required accuracy. For example, in spectroscopy, excited states have a finite lifetime. By the time–energy uncertainty principle, they do not have a definite energy, and, each time they decay, the energy they release is slightly different. The average energy of the outgoing photon has a peak at the theoretical energy of the state, but the distribution has a finite width called the natural linewidth. Fast-decaying states have a broad linewidth, while slow-decaying states have a narrow linewidth"
And that tells you that an observation made in a finite time will only give you an uncertain assessment of the energy.
So the energy is (like momentum or position) always uncertain.
And that means the wavelength is always uncertain.
Before telling me that science has moved on in the 21st C, perhaps you should learn the stuff that the grown ups already knew in the 20th.
It hardly matters once you realise that the position of the wall of the cavity is uncertain.
If the cavity doesn't actually have a well defined size then it can't forbid photons fro being the wrong size.
the energy loss due to transfer of momentumwhich is zero- because it's a perfect mirror.
So I don't have to do a lot to compensate for it.
However, in the latter stages of the compression when the thing is collapsing, on the way to become a BH, the mirrors are going to mover pretty fast anyway. So your bogus criterion gets mat by default.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 15:06:01So, are you still saying that the point of a cricket bat is to slow the ball down?
Instead of answering, you cam up with this tosh
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 14/06/2021 17:11:04
I guess, you slept during physics classes, when the Newton's laws of motion were discussed... If you wouldn't sleep, you would know, that to slow down an object, that moves at constant velocity, you need to use a force - so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy... It's basic physics - aren't you ashamed to not know such things?
It's because you insist to use the baseball analogy, which doesn't have anything to do with cavity QED, which SHOULD be used, to solve the presented scenario...
Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 15:06:01
Now, since you framed your bilge in terms of high school physics, then, regardless of any weirdness due to quantum effects, it should work in terms of high school physics.
But you say that if a ball exerts a force on a moving bat, the bat will gain energy (yet it slows down) and the ball will lose energy (though its speed increases).
Do you really believe that?
Please don't waste time on energy losses and coefficients of restitution- this is an ideal, perfect mirror.
There are no losses.
Not only you still keep insisting to use this invalid analogy, but you also keep using a 3rd frame of some batsman guy, which can't be applied to interactions between the mirror (baseball bat) and the photon (ball). And what makes your baseball analogy completely wrong, is the fact, that photons suppose to move at a constant velocity of c, while in the rest frame of mirror, those photons are in fact causing acceleration opposite to the constant motion in your 3rd batsman frame...
It's a simple yes or no.
You are the one who was going on about sleeping through school science; not me.
Why did you get that school science wrong?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/06/2021 21:58:20
And this:If you put enough mass in a small enough space, it collapses.
https://www.eenewseurope.com/news/light-trap-turns-photons-massive-quasiparticles
That's still true if it's in the form of massive quasiparticles.
You seem to be arguing against yourself.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 26/06/2021 22:08:42
So I guess it means, that sunlight propagates as a buch of different photons, that occupy the same volume of space. This means, that it should be possible to simultaneously detect multiple photons at different frequencies, that are overlaping each other in a single volume of space...Really, that seems impossible? If only there were some sort of simple device that could separate the multiple wavelengths into separate wavelengths to see if it is possible, but I guess there just is no such futuristic device.
However it seems, that such situation is hysically impossible..
(https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/941700382301242748/0B85D92FE3774A3BCFB2A3032134CE002DE90C74/?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Letterbox&imcolor=%23000000&letterbox=false)
Thanks! Yes, I've made a stupid mistake here. It supposed to be :
So I guess it means, that sunlight propagates as a buch of different photons, that occupy the same volume of space. This means, that it should be possible to simultaneously detect multiple photons at similar frequencies, that are overlaping each other in a single volume of space..
Post by: CrazyScientist on 26/06/2021 22:10:43
You had said it was impossible to receive different frequencies, so I chose very different ones to make the point that you were wrong.Yes. Sorry, I've made a mistake here. It should be "similar frequencies"
Post by: CrazyScientist on 26/06/2021 22:20:49
But my point about hooking a spectrum analyser to an antenna overrides it anyway.
Your "reply" And then, when you try to receive one specific wavelenght in a given frequency band, photons placed around your antenna will collapse to that specific state " makes no sense.
The spectrum analysis works.
So it's receiving many channels at once.
It would be obvious from time to time when the AM radio stations broadcast a minute's silence- all the peaks would drop to zero simultaneously.
You can see the intensity of the broadcast at each frequency. So they are resolved; they are no longer in a superposition.
It proves that it's possible.
But you can't simultaneously receive multiple AM/FM stations at similar wavelenghts using one antenna - can you?
Intensity of an EM field is described as probability of detecting a photon at a given frequency. If in a potential EM field EM waves at similar wavelenghts are overlapping each other, then in the kinetic form of that field,each particular photon can collapse to just one of those states
Post by: CrazyScientist on 26/06/2021 22:27:29
And this:If you put enough mass in a small enough space, it collapses.
https://www.eenewseurope.com/news/light-trap-turns-photons-massive-quasiparticles
That's still true if it's in the form of massive quasiparticles.
You seem to be arguing against yourself.
Where exactly it is mentioned in that article?
Besides "to collapse" mean different things in QM and in GR - collapse of a wavefunction have nothing to do with a gravitational collapse into a BH...
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/06/2021 22:33:36
Where exactly it is mentioned in that article?The title...
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/06/2021 22:38:19
But you can't simultaneously receive multiple AM/FM stations at similar wavelenghts using one antenna - can you?Yes, you can.
That's why you can buy antenna splitters.
It's why people in blocks of flats can choose different radio stations, and it's why a spectrum analyser can record the signals from two different radio stations at the same time.
Why do you think that it is helpful to keep repeating something which is false?
Besides "to collapse" mean different things in QM and in GR - collapse of a wavefunction have nothing to do with a gravitational collapse into a BH...I know. And when someone says that something with enough mass in a small space will collapse, the grown ups can work out which meaning is in use.
There are two sorts of people, those who can extrapolate from incomplete data...
This means, that it should be possible to simultaneously detect multiple photons at similar frequencies, that are overlaping each other in a single volume of space..The sky is blue.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/06/2021 22:40:07
Quote from: CrazyScientist on Today at 20:25:35
Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 15:06:01
Instead of answering, you cam up with this tosh
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 14/06/2021 17:11:04
I guess, you slept during physics classes, when the Newton's laws of motion were discussed... If you wouldn't sleep, you would know, that to slow down an object, that moves at constant velocity, you need to use a force - so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy... It's basic physics - aren't you ashamed to not know such things?
It's because you insist to use the baseball analogy, which doesn't have anything to do with cavity QED, which SHOULD be used, to solve the presented scenario...
Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/06/2021 15:06:01
Now, since you framed your bilge in terms of high school physics, then, regardless of any weirdness due to quantum effects, it should work in terms of high school physics.
But you say that if a ball exerts a force on a moving bat, the bat will gain energy (yet it slows down) and the ball will lose energy (though its speed increases).
Do you really believe that?
Please don't waste time on energy losses and coefficients of restitution- this is an ideal, perfect mirror.
There are no losses.
Not only you still keep insisting to use this invalid analogy, but you also keep using a 3rd frame of some batsman guy, which can't be applied to interactions between the mirror (baseball bat) and the photon (ball). And what makes your baseball analogy completely wrong, is the fact, that photons suppose to move at a constant velocity of c, while in the rest frame of mirror, those photons are in fact causing acceleration opposite to the constant motion in your 3rd batsman frame...
So, are you still saying that the point of a cricket bat is to slow the ball down?
It's a simple yes or no.
You are the one who was going on about sleeping through school science; not me.
Why did you get that school science wrong?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 27/06/2021 00:41:55
But my point about hooking a spectrum analyser to an antenna overrides it anyway.
Your "reply" And then, when you try to receive one specific wavelenght in a given frequency band, photons placed around your antenna will collapse to that specific state " makes no sense.
The spectrum analysis works.
So it's receiving many channels at once.
It would be obvious from time to time when the AM radio stations broadcast a minute's silence- all the peaks would drop to zero simultaneously.
You can see the intensity of the broadcast at each frequency. So they are resolved; they are no longer in a superposition.
It proves that it's possible.
It's also common practice for blocks of flats to have a single aerial feeding to all the flats.
You are trying to say that these don't exist.
https://www.screwfix.com/c/electrical-lighting/splitters/cat4740084
And that's silly.
Only here we need to include the rate at which the EM field is being measured and the structure of the antenna (EM wavess received in multiple points of that antenna).
Let's focus on an satellite dish or somekind of antenna that receives one kind of frequency band in a small localized area. In this case intensity of radiation at each wavlenght in a specific frequency band, can be described as the probability of detecting a photon at a specific wavelenght. EM field with a maximum intensity at a particular wavelenght in a given frequency band means, that each time, when a measurement is made, we are detecting a photon at this particular frequency and not at any other similar frequencies.
When there's a lightning strike near an antenna, it causes a pulse of radiation (EMP), which has much higher intensity than the EM waves received by this antenna. It means, that in the time when the EMP wave is passing through the volume of space occupied by the antenna, in the given bandwidth, photons will be detected, mostly (only) at the frequency of EMP wave and not at the frequency of a radio station, which we're listening to.
Now let's say that in a single volume of space, intensity of the potential EM field is shared 50-50 by 2 similar frequencies - let's say by EM waves at 100 and 117 KHz. Thanks to the uncertainty principle, we can now get two possible ways to describe this situation: Amplitude of the EM waves at each of those 2 frequencies becomes 50% smaller in comparisment to an EM field with maximum intensity at only a single wavelenght, so for each of those frequencies, photon is being detected half of the times, when we try to detect it at one of those frequencies..
In shortcut, for an potential EM field, which has maximum level of intensity at 100KHz, for each measurement, which is being made at the same frequency as the EM radiation (100KHz), we will detect a photon in each measurement. If for example 10% of the total intensity will then go to EM waves at 117KHz, then in a measurement at 100KHz, photon will be detected 90% of the time and in a measurement at 117KHz, photon will be detected 10% of the time
Of course in the real life, one volume of free space is being occupied by EM radiation with multiple different frequencies with different intensities - but only waves at similar lenghts can interfere with each other. This is why it's possible to detect a photon in 100% of all measurements at frequencies from different bands (for example at frequencies ƒKHz and ƒGHz)
Also things are different for radiation, which is trapped in a cavity
TBC
Post by: CrazyScientist on 27/06/2021 06:05:38
But you can't simultaneously receive multiple AM/FM stations at similar wavelenghts using one antenna - can you?Yes, you can.
That's why you can buy antenna splitters.
It's why people in blocks of flats can choose different radio stations, and it's why a spectrum analyser can record the signals from two different radio stations at the same time.
Phew! I went through a tone of info about TV antennas and receivers.
First of all, there are 2 types of splitters: diplexers and duplexers. Diplexer works for EM waves at different frequency bands, while duplexer in shortcut works as a switch between transmitter/receiver modes of a single antennas...
Generally, it's possible to watch different TV channels on couple receivers using a single antenna, as all the avaliable channels can be superimposed within one stream of data and then particular frequencies can be amplified from the noise of superposition and provided to different TV receivers by an external amplifier...
https://www.tablotv.com/blog/how-to-antenna-ota-signals-multiple-directions
https://www.quora.com/How-come-we-can-watch-multiple-TV-channels-with-a-only-a-single-satellite-dish
https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-connect-multiple-TVs-to-one-antenna
https://www.quora.com/Can-you-connect-multiple-TVs-to-one-digital-antenna
https://www.quora.com/How-can-multiple-TVs-connected-to-one-aerial-watch-different-channels
Still, if you place 2 similar antennas close to each other and make them to receive EM waves at similar frequency bands, there will be some kind of interference - constructive, if both antennas will receive exactly the same bandwidth and destructive or non-linear, when received frequencies will slightly differ
As for spectrum analyser - it seems, that to see the intensity off the local EM field at all particular wavelenghts, receiver has to sweep through each one of them individually and you can get the impression of real-time display due to the high frequency rate of masurements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_analyzer#Theory_of_operation
Apparently to know the exact intensity of EM field for each single wavelenght in a given band, you need to measure it individually and extract this information from the local superposition...
TBC
Post by: CrazyScientist on 27/06/2021 06:39:56
So, are you still saying that the point of a cricket bat is to slow the ball down?
It's a simple yes or no.
You are the one who was going on about sleeping through school science; not me.
No. The point of a cricket, is (probably) to get a better score, than the opposing team,
But if you ask about the frequency of EM waves reflected by a moving mirror, then
a) it will decrease in the rest frame of the mirror
b) it might iincrease in the rest frame of some other observer if he and the mirror are incoming towards each other fast enough or decrease in any other case of their relative motion
c) it won't change in the rest frames of reflected photons (?) - although according to mainstream science, there's even no rest fame for a photon...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 27/06/2021 07:18:14
Please don't waste time on energy losses and coefficients of restitution- this is an ideal, perfect mirror.
There are no losses.
"Perfect reflection of EM radiation" can be also understood as a total lack of energy absorbtion during the interactions betwen photons and particles of matter. There's no physical way for photons to interact with matter and always maintain a constant frequency - just as there's no physical way for matter to directly interact with photons and always maintain a constant energy level. Absorbtion leads to excitation of atoms (increases the energy level of electron orbitals,by moving it to a higher frequency band or by ejecting electrons), while reflection induces a kinetic pressure/push on interacting matter. And of course,kinetic pressure of EM waves during their reflection decreases together with the increasing frequency of that radiation - what kinda makes sense in maintaining a balance between those 2 alternative outcomes, but doesn't make sense for the gravitational collapse of photons into a "Kugelblitz"...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 27/06/2021 08:25:49
"An informal, heuristic meaning of the principle is the following: A state that only exists for a short time cannot have a definite energy. To have a definite energy, the frequency of the state must be defined accurately, and this requires the state to hang around for many cycles, the reciprocal of the required accuracy. For example, in spectroscopy, excited states have a finite lifetime. By the time–energy uncertainty principle, they do not have a definite energy, and, each time they decay, the energy they release is slightly different. The average energy of the outgoing photon has a peak at the theoretical energy of the state, but the distribution has a finite width called the natural linewidth. Fast-decaying states have a broad linewidth, while slow-decaying states have a narrow linewidth"
And that tells you that an observation made in a finite time will only give you an uncertain assessment of the energy.
So the energy is (like momentum or position) always uncertain.
And that means the wavelength is always uncertain.
Not for a standing wave inside a resonant cavity, where photons can remain at one frequency in a prolonged period of time:
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/06/2021 10:07:41
Not for a standing wave inside a resonant cavity, where photons can remain at one frequency in a prolonged period of time:OK so let's try and get back to the original problem.
If you have some photons in a cavity ( exerting some radiation pressure on the walls of the cavity) and you cormpress it, you do work against that pressure.
Where does that energy go?
My contention is that it increases the energy of the photons they bounce off the mirror with slightly reduced wavelengths.
And you say it does something which is impossible by definition.
No. The point of a cricket, is (probably) to get a better score, than the opposing team,The point of a cricket is to make more crickets.
But the point of a cricket bat is to increase the energy of the ball.
Generally, it's possible to watch different TV channels on couple receivers using a single antenna,Finally! the light dawns.
I said that all along.
You were the one who wrongly insisted otherwise.
Now, can you see if you can work on your understanding of the conservation of energy.
The moving mirror does work on the photons.
So it must increase their energy.
And them maybe we can get you to recognise that QM means that the size of the cavity is uncertain, and the wavelength of the photons is uncertain. so there's no way to say, precisely, if they are the same (or if one is a integer multiple of the other).
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/06/2021 10:11:33
Not for a standing wave inside a resonant cavity, where photons can remain at one frequency in a prolonged period of time:The size of the cavity is never certain.
The wavelength of the photons is never certain
The energy of the photons is never certain.
The momentum of the photons is never certain
The momentum of the cavity is never certain
Have you simply not understood what the uncertainty principle means?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/06/2021 10:29:48
Phew! I went through a tone of info about TV antennas and receivers.You should have just believed me.
I have two radios by my bed, They both work.
I listen to the same station on both of them, but I tune them to different frequencies.
They are FM radios so the frequency is about 100MHz.
I just checked. The centres of the radios are 28 cm apart.
That's less than lambda /10 so, for radio wave / antenna purposes they are "in the same place".
And they both work.
(and, in case you wondered, because they are on different frequencies, interference on one typically doesn't affect the other so, on average, I get a better signal to listen to.)
Post by: CrazyScientist on 28/06/2021 21:16:45
Not for a standing wave inside a resonant cavity, where photons can remain at one frequency in a prolonged period of time:OK so let's try and get back to the original problem.
If you have some photons in a cavity ( exerting some radiation pressure on the walls of the cavity) and you cormpress it, you do work against that pressure.
Where does that energy go?
My contention is that it increases the energy of the photons they bounce off the mirror with slightly reduced wavelengths.
And you say it does something which is impossible by definition.[/qutote]
First of all, to counter the pressure of EM radiation, you'd need to apply a FORCE in the opposite direction - and for a constant radiation pressure, you'd end up with a constant ACCELERATION of a movable mirror. Constant velocity of a mirror in relative motion can't cause a definitive increase of energy in the rest frame of that mirror.
And then you still need to accelerate the mirror at a precise rate, so the trapped EM waves won't cancel each other out. Anyway, in the end trapped EM wave will be cancelled out anyway, if you'll keep reducing the size of cavity and make it smaller than the wavelenght of trapped EM radiation...
(https://slideplayer.com/slide/13263246/79/images/7/Quantum+Particle+in+a+Box.jpg)
Are you saying, that things presented on that slide are impossible? This is exactly, why in this scenario it's sipmly impossible to use an analogy to baseball or cricket and end up with any kind of a valid result...
But on the other hand you CAN use the analogy of a buzzing speaker submerged in a sphere of water and get a pretty nice representation of the most possible outcome
Quote
Generally, it's possible to watch different TV channels on couple receivers using a single antenna,Finally! the light dawns.
I said that all along.
You were the one who wrongly insisted otherwise.
Yes, you can. However it doesn't mean, that two RF antennas in a close vicinity can't interfere with each other - they can and they often do...
Anyway I admit, that this is exactly the part, where I went too far with my claims. It doesn't mean, that I'm completely wrong here, but the subject is just far more complicated..
https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/153190/can-two-antennas-in-proximity-interfere-with-each-other-if-theyre-not-amplified
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_(radio)#Radiation_pattern
Quote
Now, can you see if you can work on your understanding of the conservation of energy.
The moving mirror does work on the photons.
So it must increase their energy.
What frame are you talking about here?
Quote
And them maybe we can get you to recognise that QM means that the size of the cavity is uncertain, and the wavelength of the photons is uncertain. so there's no way to say, precisely, if they are the same (or if one is a integer multiple of the other).
How can the size of cavity be uncertain, if it was designed to have a precise volume, to get the best possible amplification of trapped radiation?
Position and momentum of a photon remain uncertain, up until we won't measure one of those properties. You can measure a photon and learn it's exact position just as you can learn about the precise wavelenght in the measured EM wave - you just can't learn the exact values for those two properties at the same time...
TBC
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/06/2021 21:51:22
it's sipmly impossible to use an analogy to baseball or cricket and end up with any kind of a valid result...
You mean... like Newton's laws?
Well then, why did you post about them then?
I guess, you slept during physics classes, when the Newton's laws of motion were discussed... If you wouldn't sleep, you would know, that to slow down an object, that moves at constant velocity, you need to use a force - so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy... It's basic physics - aren't you ashamed to not know such things?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 28/06/2021 21:52:22
Phew! I went through a tone of info about TV antennas and receivers.You should have just believed me.
I have two radios by my bed, They both work.
I listen to the same station on both of them, but I tune them to different frequencies.
They are FM radios so the frequency is about 100MHz.
I just checked. The centres of the radios are 28 cm apart.
That's less than lambda /10 so, for radio wave / antenna purposes they are "in the same place".
And they both work.
(and, in case you wondered, because they are on different frequencies, interference on one typically doesn't affect the other so, on average, I get a better signal to listen to.)
I don't believe in anything, until I can't verify it at my best capabilities. Although I don't have a proper setup, to get the best possible results, I've used an old-school radio receiver and FM radio apps on 2 cell phones with headphones as their antennas, to see if they will interfere - and they did, but not always. For example in one specific location around the old-school radio receiver, headphones seemed to cut-off the radio waves for that old-school receiver - I guess this happened when the second antenna (headphones) was placed right "on the way" between the transmitter and receiver of RF waves at a given bandwidth.
Also there are different mechanics of interference for AM and FM waves - as I said, it would require a much deeper discussion...
https://www.diffen.com/difference/AM_vs_FM
TBC
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/06/2021 21:53:49
What frame are you talking about here?The laboratory frame.
I have a box on teh bench with photons bouncing round it it.
I compress the box.
In doing so, I do work on the mirrors and they do work on the photons.
Where does that energy go?
Here's a hint; it has to go somewhere, and it can't be absorbed by the mirrors.
Here's another hint.
It is the equivalent of heating a gas by compressing it.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 28/06/2021 21:55:23
it's sipmly impossible to use an analogy to baseball or cricket and end up with any kind of a valid result...
You mean... like Newton's laws?
Well then, why did you post about them then?I guess, you slept during physics classes, when the Newton's laws of motion were discussed... If you wouldn't sleep, you would know, that to slow down an object, that moves at constant velocity, you need to use a force - so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy... It's basic physics - aren't you ashamed to not know such things?
Because for some reason you keep going back to cricket and baseball, even if it doesn't make any practical sense
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/06/2021 21:56:50
Also there are different mechanics of interference for AM and FM wavesNot really.
Incidentally, it's quite commonplace for a radio to interfere with another radio close by.
But that's usually the local oscillator causing interference .
It will happen when the difference between the two signals is equal to the intermediate frequency in one or other of the receivers- typically about 10MHz or 440 KHz.
Don't mistake that for evidence that you might be right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_frequency
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/06/2021 21:57:19
I go back to it because you can't even get the simple stuff right.it's sipmly impossible to use an analogy to baseball or cricket and end up with any kind of a valid result...
You mean... like Newton's laws?
Well then, why did you post about them then?I guess, you slept during physics classes, when the Newton's laws of motion were discussed... If you wouldn't sleep, you would know, that to slow down an object, that moves at constant velocity, you need to use a force - so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy... It's basic physics - aren't you ashamed to not know such things?
Because for some reason you keep going back to cricket and baseball, even if it doesn't make any practical sense
You say things like this
"so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy"
if the mirror is heading towards the photons, and they hit it and bounce off then the mirror loses speed and it looses energy.
So it loses energy
And the photons gain energy.
This is not only "common sense", but demonstrated, even in the case of photons bouncing off a fast moving mirror.
Just keep reading this
"so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy"
until you realise it is nonsense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/06/2021 22:02:25
I obviously jumped into a pretty deep water with some of my statements, which I've unnecessarily made without a prior research - and now once again I've had to go through couple hundreds different sites, to adress all of this in a somehow proper way...Or, you could just believe me.
I have something like a 20 year head start on you when it comes to learning this stuff.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/06/2021 22:06:03
It doesn't mean, that I'm completely wrong here, but the subject is just far more complicated..Yes it does.
You said this
which is completely wrong.
But you can't simultaneously receive multiple AM/FM stations at similar wavelenghts using one antenna - can you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/06/2021 22:07:34
How can the size of cavity be uncertain,?Because of the uncertainty principle.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 28/06/2021 22:13:00
What frame are you talking about here?The laboratory frame.
I have a box on teh bench with photons bouncing round it it.
I compress the box.
In doing so, I do work on the mirrors and they do work on the photons.
Where does that energy go?
Here's a hint; it has to go somewhere, and it can't be absorbed by the mirrors.
And where goes the momentum of waves, which get cancelled out due to their destructive interference?
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23930/what-happens-to-the-energy-when-waves-perfectly-cancel-each-other
Yeah, good qustion... Somewhere? Nowhere? Even professional physicists aren't sure, what's going on in here...
Quote
Here's another hint.
It is the equivalent of heating a gas by compressing it.
Yeah - that's another of "those" question, where physicists dump on you couple megatons of information without giving any clear answers...
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136408/what-happens-to-the-temperature-when-an-ideal-gas-is-compressed
You need to read about the Joule-Thompson effect in Wikipedia. In an ideal gas there is no temperature change upon compression or expansion. The only gases that come close to being ideal at room temperature are Helium, Hydrogen and Neon. They actually slightly cool on compression and heat on expansion at room temperature. This can be reversed at very low temperatures. Most non-ideal gases such as nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide do heat on compression and cool on expansion. With carbon dioxide having the biggest temperature change for a given pressure change. This Joule-Thompson effect is due mostly to Van der Waal forces between the molecules.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 28/06/2021 22:17:44
Because of the uncertainty principle.
Cavity isn't made of photons - it's a fully defined physical object. You make a cavity at a specific size and you keep having it at this specific size
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/06/2021 22:19:29
And where goes the momentum of waves, which get cancelled out due to their destructive interference?It's quite an interesting question- bright schoolkids usually ask a related one.
When you show them interference fringes on a screen, the clever pupils ask where the energy from the dark stripes has gone to.
And the answer is that it goes into the bright stripes.
It's the same with the momentum.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/06/2021 22:22:07
Are you really stupid, or just acting?Because of the uncertainty principle.
Cavity isn't made of photons - it's a fully defined physical object. You make a cavity at a specific size and you keep having it at this specific size
Do you realise that the "physical object" is made of atoms, that those atoms are particles and that the position of particles is uncertain because of the uncertainty principle?
You have so much to learn; you could start with a bit of humility.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 28/06/2021 22:31:51
It doesn't mean, that I'm completely wrong here, but the subject is just far more complicated..Yes it does.
You said thiswhich is completely wrong.
But you can't simultaneously receive multiple AM/FM stations at similar wavelenghts using one antenna - can you?
Yeah - I was wrong. You can get multiple wavelenghts in a given band superimposed in a single wavefunction. But this isn't exactly what I was trying to imply. What I had in mind, is the fact, that you can't overlap two EM fields at the same bandwidths in one volume of space and the intensity of radiation at a specific wavelenght can't grow to infinity - radiation reaches it's maximal intensity at a given frequency, when all the measured photons will be at that frequency
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/06/2021 22:32:20
You need to read about the Joule-Thompson effect in Wikipedia.No, as usual, it's not me who needs to do some reading.
Eventually, you will realise that, like the FM radio and the bat and ball cases, you are not applying the right science.
The JT effect applies when a gas expands, but does no work.
Here's the right physics.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/compexp.html
As you see, it's all done with ideal gases.
https://www.tec-science.com/thermodynamics/thermodynamic-processes/why-does-pressure-and-temperature-increase-during-the-compression-of-a-gas/
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/06/2021 22:32:48
Yeah - I was wrong.Repeatedly, in spite of being told what is right.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/06/2021 22:36:27
that you can't overlap two EM fields at the same bandwidths in one volume of spaceFFS!
Yes you can.
You can shine two beams of light through each other.
You can send two radio signals "through" eachother.
They can overlap; and they do, notably on my bedside table where there are two radios.
Seriously; stop posting, you are just wasting time and embarrassing yourself.
Go off to the Kahn academy or something and learn some science.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 28/06/2021 22:44:04
Because of the uncertainty principle.
Cavity isn't made of photons - it's a fully defined physical object. You make a cavity at a specific size and you keep having it at this specific size
Are you really stupid, or just acting?
Do you realise that the "physical object" is made of atoms, that those atoms are particles and that the position of particles is uncertain because of the uncertainty principle?
You have so much to learn; you could start with a bit of humility.
So I can't measure the lenght of each single hair on my head? Can't I take one hair, precisely measeure it's lenght, freeze it almost to absolute 0 and store it in some almost-perfectly sealed container - so anyone who will measure lenght of that hair during next thousand years, will get the same value, as I did?
Can I then measure anything? How can we then know, if 10cm will be always equal to 100mm and not to any other lenght?
The answer is: YES - WE CAN MEASURE BOTH: THE SIZE OF CAVITY AND THE WAELENGHTS OF TRAPPED RADIATION
Uncertainty principle doesn't make you unable of a very precise measurement...
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/06/2021 22:47:09
Can I then measure anything?You can't- unless you are prepared to accept some uncertainty.
That's what the uncertainty principle tells you.
Seriously; stop posting, you are just wasting time and embarrassing yourself.
Go off to the Kahn academy or something and learn some science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/06/2021 22:54:30
Uncertainty principle doesn't make you unable of a very precise measurement.It doesn't need to in this case; it only needs to prevent you making a perfect measurement.
Strictly, what it does is tell you that a perfect measurement is meaningless.
It's not an issue of measuring things.
The diameter of the sphere does not exist to a greater precision than that permitted by the uncertainty principle.
From one side of the sphere's point of view, if the sphere behaved in the Newtonian way you seem to want it to (rather than the hundred year old QM way) the other side would be fixed in place- so its positional uncertainty would be zero, an it also would not be moving (the speed would be zero) - so the product of the uncertainties of the momentum and the position would be zero.
That's not allowed.
Considering how much time and space you have wasted telling me to look at new physics, you have a remarkably poor understanding of the stuff from a century ago.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 28/06/2021 23:14:06
that you can't overlap two EM fields at the same bandwidths in one volume of spaceFFS!
Yes you can.
You can shine two beams of light through each other.
You can send two radio signals "through" eachother.
They can overlap; and they do, notably on my bedside table where there are two radios.
Seriously; stop posting, you are just wasting time and embarrassing yourself.
Go off to the Kahn academy or something and learn some science.
But without a gain medium, crossed beams won't result in the amplification of light
Yes -
Quote
You can send two radio signals "through" eachother.
And this is where you should now apply the uncertainty principle - you can find a photon at 2 wavelenghts in one volume of space, but you can't know it's exact position at each of those wavelenghts.. And each precise measurement of wavelenght and/or location of a photon, will make the second measured property of that photon unknown/uncertain
If you take 2 one-directional sources of white light at slightly different intensities and make them shine at us, so that both beams will intersect eachother on the way, amplitudes of both beams won't add up and won't result in the increase of light intensity in the intersecting area - instead white light emitted by the stronger source will be just as bright as before, while the white light at lower intensity will appear dark or even black if the differency of intensities gets high enough...
In shortcut you simply can't keep adding more and more light into a cavity, so long as it won't turn into a BH. Intensity of EM radiation doesn't work like density of matter...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 28/06/2021 23:45:49
Uncertainty principle doesn't make you unable of a very precise measurement.It doesn't need to in this case; it only needs to prevent you making a perfect measurement.
Strictly, what it does is tell you that a perfect measurement is meaningless.
It's not an issue of measuring things.
The diameter of the sphere does not exist to a greater precision than that permitted by the uncertainty principle.
From one side of the sphere's point of view, if the sphere behaved in the Newtonian way you seem to want it to (rather than the hundred year old QM way) the other side would be fixed in place- so its positional uncertainty would be zero, an it also would not be moving (the speed would be zero) - so the product of the uncertainties of the momentum and the position would be zero.
That's not allowed.
Considering how much time and space you have wasted telling me to look at new physics, you have a remarkably poor understanding of the stuff from a century ago.
Sure, sure... I just have no idea how any of this suppose to invalidate my claims about limited number of frequencies, which can form a standing wave in a given cavity and become amplified... This is exactly what is being observed in real-life and what the cavity QED is based on. But for some reason you keep insisting, that in case of my scenario, there's no need to speak about standing waves in a resonant cavity and that it has generally nothing to do with resonance of waves, while having a lot with baseball, cricket and black holes of light...
Here's how much all of this have to do with baaseball or cricket:
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3f0d1506c58eaa6faa07df16156c42b7)
I'm sure that it would be quite easy to score a perfect hit on a ball that remains suspended in space - if that ball wouldn't be suspended at multiple locations at the same time...
It would be more like the ball would be standing on a stick in multiple positions on the field and there would be a specific propbability of hitting that ball with a baseball bat at each of those locations. I've heard that cricket has rather weird rules (I don't know them) - but this game would be for sure much more exotic...
TBC soon - it's time for me to sleep a bit...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 29/06/2021 00:06:03
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/06/2021 12:16:49
I just have no ideaYou are saying that only the wavelengths that "fit" in the cavity are allowed.
They "fit" if the cavity diameter is an exact multiple of the wavelength.
But nether the wavelength nor the diameter is "exact" in the first place,
so your criterion makes no sense.
crossed beams won't result in the amplification of lightNobody said it would.
But what you said was that they could not be there.
you can't overlap two EM fields at the same bandwidths in one volume of spaceand, in reality you can.
So you are still wrong, and getting wronger.
If you take 2 one-directional sources of white light at slightly different intensities and make them shine at us, so that both beams will intersect eachother on the way, amplitudes of both beams won't add up and won't result in the increase of light intensity in the intersecting area - instead white light emitted by the stronger source will be just as bright as before, while the white light at lower intensity will appear dark or even black if the differency of intensities gets high enough...This seems to be a pipe dream.
It's possible that there's a point in there somewhere, but it is buried so deep in rubbish that it's impossible to tell.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/06/2021 12:17:51
Just keep reading this
"so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy"
until you realise it is nonsense.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 01/07/2021 02:20:30
I just have no ideaYou are saying that only the wavelengths that "fit" in the cavity are allowed.
They "fit" if the cavity diameter is an exact multiple of the wavelength.
But nether the wavelength nor the diameter is "exact" in the first place,
so your criterion makes no sense.
Sure, there are limitations of our current technology, but still there's an equation, which allows you to calculate the EXACT number of wavelenghts, which will fit in the cavity.
Quote
crossed beams won't result in the amplification of lightNobody said it would.
But in order to create a "Kugelblitz" you need to have a constant amplification of the emitted light
Quote
But what you said was that they could not be there.you can't overlap two EM fields at the same bandwidths in one volume of spaceand, in reality you can.
So you are still wrong, and getting wronger.
2 EM fields with similar bandwidth can SHARE the probability distribution in one volume of space. If they would overlap each other, their amplitudes would be added. Thing is, that when 2 (or more) EM waves at similar wavelenghts pass through the same space, probability of detecting a photon at one of those wavelenghts is being shared between interfering waves, according to their intensities of that probability
Quote
If you take 2 one-directional sources of white light at slightly different intensities and make them shine at us, so that both beams will intersect eachother on the way, amplitudes of both beams won't add up and won't result in the increase of light intensity in the intersecting area - instead white light emitted by the stronger source will be just as bright as before, while the white light at lower intensity will appear dark or even black if the differency of intensities gets high enough...This seems to be a pipe dream.
It's possible that there's a point in there somewhere, but it is buried so deep in rubbish that it's impossible to tell.
But this is exactly, what happens. Just check out that movie or compare the brightness of your cell phone in a dark room and in the daylight. Screen will always appear to get darker in the sunlight...
Just keep reading this
"so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy"
until you realise it is nonsense.
But they ARE giving up their energy...
Thing is, that in the frame of laboratory, this loss can be compensated due to Doppler shift of reflected light - but only if the mirror is moving fast enough and in opposite direction to incoming photons
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/539983/energy-conservation-in-reflection-of-light-from-a-perfect-mirror
Post by: CrazyScientist on 01/07/2021 02:38:48
http://cpb.iphy.ac.cn/article/2018/1924/cpb_27_2_024204.html
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/07/2021 08:29:04
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/06/2021 12:17:51OK, so the bat slows down- which means it has less energy.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 28/06/2021 21:57:19
Just keep reading this
"so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy"
until you realise it is nonsense.
But they ARE giving up their energy...
And (according to you) the photons are losing energy- so they have less energy.
So there is less energy overall- in total.
Which is a breach of the conservation of energy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/07/2021 08:32:24
But in order to create a "Kugelblitz" you need to have a constant amplification of the emitted lightNot really.
The model I'm using says you simply keep adding light to a cavity from outside or you add light to the cavity and then make the cavity smaller.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/07/2021 08:34:45
Sure, there are limitations of our current technologyYou really refuse to understand this, don't you?
Strictly, what it does is tell you that a perfect measurement is meaningless.
It's not an issue of measuring things.
The diameter of the sphere does not exist to a greater precision than that permitted by the uncertainty principle.
Again, you have not got to grips with early 20th C science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/07/2021 08:38:50
Screen will always appear to get darker in the sunlight..."appear to".
Because the eye / brain system which perceives the brightness is a non linear detector.
That's nothing to do with physics.
You may have noticed that scientists doing measurements don't typically gauge things "by eye" because it's very unreliable.
Were you not aware of that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/07/2021 08:52:34
EM fields with similar bandwidth can SHARE the probability distribution in one volume of space. If they would overlap each other, their amplitudes would be added. Thing is, that when 2 (or more) EM waves at similar wavelenghts pass through the same space, probability of detecting a photon at one of those wavelenghts is being shared between interfering waves, according to their intensities of that probabilityIn empty space, at anything like normal intensities, the interaction between EM fields is very simple; they add.
So waves pass through one another without being perturbed.
If you have phase coherence between two sources of (at least very nearly) the same frequency, you will get interference patterns.
Those were documented centuries ago, and haven't changed since.
The interference patters don't stop photons existing, they move their probable location in space.
All of which misses the point.
Imagine that you magically do away with the uncertainty principle which you so steadfastly refuse to consider anyway.
I have a perfect mirror sphere with an internal diameter of 1 metre.
In spite of needing magic to do this, we assume it's exactly 1 metre.
I can set up a standing wave with a length of 1 metre.
And also 1/2 metres and 1/3 metres and so on.
There is, in principle, no reason why I can't keep adding photons with shorter and shorter wavelengths.
(as an aside, I can add one going left to right, and one going up and down for each frequency too and, as in a laser cavity, I can have many photons bouncing back and to along any axis).
And, as I go to higher and higher energies,the photons get more and more massive.
So the sum of the masses of all the photons tends to infinity, but the diameter of the sphere stays the same.
So, eventually, there's enough mass inside the 1M sphere to collapse into a BH.
So, even if you were not full of misunderstandings about the uncertainty principle, and the existence of signal splitters, you should still understand how, in principle, one can build a black hole from photons.
So why won't you grasp this idea?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 03/07/2021 22:20:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/06/2021 12:17:51OK, so the bat slows down- which means it has less energy.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 28/06/2021 21:57:19
Just keep reading this
"so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy"
until you realise it is nonsense.
But they ARE giving up their energy...
And (according to you) the photons are losing energy- so they have less energy.
So there is less energy overall- in total.
Which is a breach of the conservation of energy.
Photons will have less energy in the rest frame of mirror (bat). They CAN have more energy in the frame of a laboratory (batsman), if the mirror is moving fast enough, so that Doppler effect can compensate the energy which photons are loosing due to momentum transfer. And no one knows, what will be observed by photons, since according to mainstream science, rest frame of photons doesn't even exist...
Energy conservation would be violated, if photons wouldn't loose energy, when they are being reflected
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/539983/energy-conservation-in-reflection-of-light-from-a-perfect-mirror
"Differently phrased: One shouldn't interpret the term "perfectly reflecting" as preserving the energy of the light, as this is dependent on the frame. It just means that there is no absorption going on."
"There is no contradiction. You should interpret "perfectly reflecting mirror" to mean that every photon incident upon the mirror is reflected. It is indeed the case that this requires the reflected photons to have longer wavelength than the incident photons. You aren't given the reflected wavelength, but imposing energy-momentum conservation (two relations) allows you to solve for both the reflected wavelength and the value of N (two unknowns).
If you ask "what if we imagined a perfectly reflecting mirror" in the sense of a mirror that would always reflect each incident photon without changing its wavelength, then you are effectively asking "what if energy or momentum was not conserved?" Well, then you'd have to propose some new laws of physics that would make this possible, and would hopefully answer your question."
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/07/2021 22:26:01
, if the mirror is moving fast enoughAnd, if they are not, where does the energy go?
In the experimenter's frame of reference, both bat and ball suddenly slow down, but the energy has no place to go?
And, since absorbtion isn't allowed...
But... whatever.
I will just move the mirror quickly.
As I said, the point's moot.
I have a perfect mirror sphere with an internal diameter of 1 metre.
In spite of needing magic to do this, we assume it's exactly 1 metre.
I can set up a standing wave with a length of 1 metre.
And also 1/2 metres and 1/3 metres and so on.
There is, in principle, no reason why I can't keep adding photons with shorter and shorter wavelengths.
(as an aside, I can add one going left to right, and one going up and down for each frequency too and, as in a laser cavity, I can have many photons bouncing back and to along any axis).
And, as I go to higher and higher energies,the photons get more and more massive.
So the sum of the masses of all the photons tends to infinity, but the diameter of the sphere stays the same.
So, eventually, there's enough mass inside the 1M sphere to collapse into a BH.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 03/07/2021 22:27:29
But in order to create a "Kugelblitz" you need to have a constant amplification of the emitted lightNot really.
The model I'm using says you simply keep adding light to a cavity from outside or you add light to the cavity and then make the cavity smaller.
Only both actions will lead to different results - "adding light" is not the same, as "making the cavity smaller". First action leads to the increase of intensity, while second action might actually lead to a shorter wavelenght of trapped EM waves (if you properly synchronize the speed at which cavity is changing it's size with the frequency of trapped radiation)
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/07/2021 22:30:37
Only both actions will lead to different resultsSo you keep saying.
But you have yet to explain why the result isn't a BH in both cases.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 03/07/2021 22:48:38
, if the mirror is moving fast enoughAnd, if they are not, where does the energy go?
In the experimenter's frame of reference, both bat and ball suddenly slow down, but the energy has no place to go?
And, since absorbtion isn't allowed...
1. Photons DON'T change their velocity.
2. If the mirror doesn't move fast enough, then reflected photons will have higher frequency than those reflected from a stationary mirror, but it still will be lower, than before the reflection
3. Transfer of momentum doesn't require absorbtion of photons
Quote
But... whatever.
I will just move the mirror quickly.
Actually you need to apply a constant force to it, to counter the radiation pressure
I have a perfect mirror sphere with an internal diameter of 1 metre.
In spite of needing magic to do this, we assume it's exactly 1 metre.
I can set up a standing wave with a length of 1 metre.
And also 1/2 metres and 1/3 metres and so on.
There is, in principle, no reason why I can't keep adding photons with shorter and shorter wavelengths.
(as an aside, I can add one going left to right, and one going up and down for each frequency too and, as in a laser cavity, I can have many photons bouncing back and to along any axis).
And, as I go to higher and higher energies,the photons get more and more massive.
So the sum of the masses of all the photons tends to infinity, but the diameter of the sphere stays the same.
So, eventually, there's enough mass inside the 1M sphere to collapse into a BH.
Of course you can increase the frequncy of trapped radiation - I never claimed otherwise. BUT my scenario involves a source of constant radiation. In order to get a EM waves at a different frequencies, you'll need to use a different source, than the one, which emits waves at 1m wavelenght
OF COURSE you can always go in the opposite direction by having a constant source of radiation and increasing the size of cavity x2, x3, x4, x5 and so on...
Other thing is, that when you'll trap EM radiation with the wavelenghts of 1/2m and 1/3m in a cavity with 1m of diameter, you won't get a normal addition of their amplitudes. This is what you'll observe:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Js6aCqXsc-I/maxresdefault.jpg)
Post by: CrazyScientist on 03/07/2021 22:53:44
Only both actions will lead to different resultsSo you keep saying.
But you have yet to explain why the result isn't a BH in both cases.
Because in the case of EM radiation, intensity ≠ frequency.
If the creation of a Kugelblitz is somehow possible, then it can be achieved ONLY by the increase of frequency of trapped radiation and not it's intensity
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/07/2021 23:16:58
1. Photons DON'T change their velocity.Careless of me; it doesn't lose speed, but it does lose energy.
If the mirror doesn't move fast enough, then reflected photons will have higher frequency than those reflected from a stationary mirror, but it still will be lower, than before the reflectionSo, if the mirror has a high enough, mass the momentum transfer will be small.
And if it's moving fast then ...
Because in the case of EM radiation, intensity ≠ frequency.Nobody said they were.
But a given number of photons where the photon energy is higher (i.e. the wavelength is shorter) will have more mass
and
A larger intensity (strictly, a larger number of photons) at a given wavelength will have more mass.
And if I want a BH , all I need is lots of mass in a small space.
If the creation of a Kugelblitz is somehow possible, then it can be achieved ONLY by the increase of frequency of trapped radiation and not it's intensityThat seems to be proof by loud assertion, and your record on that (FM radio etc) isn't good.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/07/2021 23:20:21
Actually you need to apply a constant force to it, to counter the radiation pressureAs you point out, the intensity (w/m^2) will increase and so the pressure will increase.
The area falls.
Which effect wins is left as an exercise for the interested reader.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/07/2021 23:21:39
. This is what you'll observe:I won't observe anything- I won't be in there.
Nor will anything else.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/07/2021 23:45:14
If the mirror doesn't move fast enough, then reflected photons will have higher frequency than those reflected from a stationary mirror, but it still will be lower, than before the reflectionWe really need to sort out what a perfect mirror does.
There are two things I pointed out ages ago.
If the mirror has a large enough mass the transfer of momentum to it is small.
But there's the more interesting effect.
Imagine you have a sphere with some photons- all of the same wavelength, bouncing back and to across the middle of it, horizontally.
The photons are in a bunch.
So they all hit the left hand side of the sphere and they impart some momentum to it. They bounce off to the right, with slightly reduced energy
The sphere starts to move to the left.
The photons carry on to the right.
So the photons now hit the right hand side of the sphere, but it's moving towards them.
And, as a consequence, they bounce off with a slightly shorter wavelength than they had.
The symmetry is such that the photons are back as they were and the sphere is (in the lab frame) stationary again.
The sphere bounces back and to, very slightly and the photons bounce around inside it.
Now imagine that there was a photon bouncing up and down, slightly out of phase with the horizontal photon bunches.
It now hits the top of the sphere at a point when the sphere is moving slightly to the left or the right (depending on the phase).
And so it gets reflected slightly out of line with the vertical.And that , of course means that next time it hits the wall, it is even further from the flat bits of the mirror (the top + bottom) so it gets knocked even further away from vertical.
You can also consider a photon that's bouncing back and to "nearly horizontally".
As the photon hits the moving wall s of the mirror it will gain or lose energy.
And, of course, the original photons are not perfectly bunched. The early ones hit a mirror that is (initially) stationary and lose momentum to it.
The later ones hit a mirror which is moving (very slightly) away from them, so they lose slightly less momentum to it.
So, even if they start off bunched, their momenta get scrambled a bit with each reflection.
So there's a way by which the energy and momentum of all the photons in the sphere will get shared out.
My best guess is that (as I said ages ago) they photons will end up looking like a black body distribution.
However, there's another way to do it.
You can imagine a nearly massless mirror.
When a photon hits it, it will move and take some energy from the photon. But that means that, when another photon hits it on the other side, it will add energy to that photon.
Overall, the sum of the energies will be conserved The wavelengths of the photons will be "scrambled" and will settle down to a black-body distribution.
It's going to get horribly complicated but, here's the clever bit.
Imagine that I add a lot of photons randomly to the sphere.
They all get "scrambled" in this way into a BBR distribution.
As I keep adding more and more photons, I increase the total energy in the sphere.
So I increase the temperature of the distribution.
And that raises the (average) energy and thus shortens the average wavelength.
So, even if I add monochromatic photons, I do end up with my sequence of increasing energies - with increasing masses and , eventually, I get a black hole.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 04/07/2021 09:14:09
Screen will always appear to get darker in the sunlight..."appear to".
Because the eye / brain system which perceives the brightness is a non linear detector.
That's nothing to do with physics.
You may have noticed that scientists doing measurements don't typically gauge things "by eye" because it's very unreliable.
Were you not aware of that?
Yes. However the same principle can be applied in the case of digital camera. What matters in both cases, is the difference of intensity - and intensity of light is defined by the probability of detecting a photon at a given frequency. This means, that there's a specific limit of light intensity, as probability of detecting a photon can't get higher, than each time when a measurement is made.
If due to constructive interference of 2 EM waves with the same wavelenght, probability of detecting a photon at the given frequency will get amplified to a specific level, then the total number of photons detected in a given period of time, will be divided between those 2 waves, according to their intensities.
Quote
So, if the mirror has a high enough, mass the momentum transfer will be small.
And if it's moving fast then ...
Momentum transfer will be exactly the same, no matter what's the rest mass of the mirror - mirror with less mass will just accelerate faster than one with higher mass due to smaller inertia (resistance of rest mass to acceleration).
And if in the laboratory frame, mirror will move fast enough, then due to Doppler shift, reflected radiation will have higher frequency (shorter wavelenght) than before the reflection...
Quote
Nobody said they were.
But a given number of photons where the photon energy is higher (i.e. the wavelength is shorter) will have more mass
and
A larger intensity (strictly, a larger number of photons) at a given wavelength will have more mass.
And if I want a BH , all I need is lots of mass in a small space.
Intensity of EM radiation describes the probability/number of detected photons, but energy of those photons is defined by their frequency - in such case, it's possible that EM radiation at low frequency and high intensity, will have the same energy level as radiation at high frequency and low intensity. However for the same level of intensity, radiation with higher frequency, will always have higher energy.
Besides in the case of radiation trapped in a cavity, wavelenghts are limited to those, which can form a standing waves in the given volume of space. Those wavelenghts are associated with so called eigenstates, where the energy and number of photons can reach only a certain level for each of those states
(https://images.slideplayer.com/24/7522688/slides/slide_7.jpg)
Quote
That seems to be proof by loud assertion, and your record on that (FM radio etc) isn't good.
It's been proven experimentally, that matter creation due to p-p scattering is possible only with EM radiation at very high frequencies (gamma radiation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation
"The law of conservation of energy sets a minimum photon energy required for the creation of a pair of fermions: this threshold energy must be greater than the total rest energy of the fermions created. To create an electron-positron pair, the total energy of the photons, in the rest frame, must be at least 2mec2 = 2 × 0.511 MeV = 1.022 MeV (me is the mass of one electron and c is the speed of light in vacuum), an energy value that corresponds to soft gamma ray photons. The creation of a much more massive pair, like a proton and antiproton, requires photons with energy of more than 1.88 GeV (hard gamma ray photons)."
TBC
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 10:07:28
It's been proven experimentally, that matter creation due to p-p scattering is possible only with EM radiation at very high frequencies (gamma radiation)Nobody ever said otherwise, so that can't be relevant.
(Though you are, of course, technically wrong.
You can't experimentally prove that something is impossible.
maybe your experiment didn't use the right conditions)
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 10:15:25
If due to constructive interference of 2 EM waves with the same wavelenght, probability of detecting a photon at the given frequency will get amplified to a specific level, then the total number of photons detected in a given period of time, will be divided between those 2 waves, according to their intensities.You are just repeating what I said earlier.
t's quite an interesting question- bright schoolkids usually ask a related one.That's clearly pointless.
When you show them interference fringes on a screen, the clever pupils ask where the energy from the dark stripes has gone to.
And the answer is that it goes into the bright stripes.
Momentum transfer will be exactly the same, no matter what's the rest mass of the mirror - mirror with less mass will just accelerate faster than one with higher mass due to smaller inertia (resistance of rest mass to acceleration).That's just wrong.
Imagine bouncing a snooker ball off a bowling ball- it bounces back.
But if you try to bounce a snooker ball of another snooker ball the first ball stops and the second one moves off at the same speed as the ball that hit it was travelling.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 10:16:28
And if in the laboratory frame, mirror will move fast enough, then due to Doppler shift, reflected radiation will have higher frequency (shorter wavelenght) than before the reflection...And, finally, you work out what a bat is for.
That's what I have been saying all along.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 04/07/2021 10:23:12
Actually you need to apply a constant force to it, to counter the radiation pressureAs you point out, the intensity (w/m^2) will increase and so the pressure will increase.
The area falls.
Which effect wins is left as an exercise for the interested reader.
Thing is, that intensity of radiation trapped in a cavity can reach only a certain level and the radiation pressure will then become constant.
Quote
I won't observe anything- I won't be in there.
Nor will anything else.
So, the wavefunction will become similar to the one presented on that image
Quote
We really need to sort out what a perfect mirror does.
There are two things I pointed out ages ago.
If the mirror has a large enough mass the transfer of momentum to it is small.
Mass of the mirror doesn't change anything, except the rate of it's acceleration due to radiation pressure - momentum of that mirror will be the same for higher mass/lower velocity and for lower mass/higher velocity
Quote
Imagine you have a sphere with some photons- all of the same wavelength, bouncing back and to across the middle of it, horizontally.
The photons are in a bunch.
So they all hit the left hand side of the sphere and they impart some momentum to it. They bounce off to the right, with slightly reduced energy
The sphere starts to move to the left.
The photons carry on to the right.
So the photons now hit the right hand side of the sphere, but it's moving towards them.
And, as a consequence, they bounce off with a slightly shorter wavelength than they had.
The symmetry is such that the photons are back as they were and the sphere is (in the lab frame) stationary again.
The sphere bounces back and to, very slightly and the photons bounce around inside it.
For a constant motion, you would need to solve this scenario using the Doppler shift - e.g. photons reflected to the right by a mirror which moves to the left, will have lower frequency, than those reflected by a stationary mirror. Then their frequency will get higher after reflection from the second mirror, which also moves to the left - but in the end, their energy will still be decreasing in a realistic scenario or remain constant in an idealised version
I think however, that energy level of trapped radiation could be increased with a vibrational motion of the cavity at a proper frequency and velocity
Quote
Now imagine that there was a photon bouncing up and down, slightly out of phase with the horizontal photon bunches.
It now hits the top of the sphere at a point when the sphere is moving slightly to the left or the right (depending on the phase).
And so it gets reflected slightly out of line with the vertical.And that , of course means that next time it hits the wall, it is even further from the flat bits of the mirror (the top + bottom) so it gets knocked even further away from vertical.
Only here we'd have to include the aberration of light. Also different results will be observed for light propagating stright up in the laboratory frame (diagonally in the rest frame of moving cavity) and stright up in the rest frame of moving cavity (diagonally in the lab. frame).
Quote
You can also consider a photon that's bouncing back and to "nearly horizontally".
As the photon hits the moving wall s of the mirror it will gain or lose energy.
And, of course, the original photons are not perfectly bunched. The early ones hit a mirror that is (initially) stationary and lose momentum to it.
The later ones hit a mirror which is moving (very slightly) away from them, so they lose slightly less momentum to it.
So, even if they start off bunched, their momenta get scrambled a bit with each reflection.
So there's a way by which the energy and momentum of all the photons in the sphere will get shared out.
My best guess is that (as I said ages ago) they photons will end up looking like a black body distribution.
Woow! It's the first time, when I agree with your predictions :)
Quote
It's going to get horribly complicated but, here's the clever bit.
Imagine that I add a lot of photons randomly to the sphere.
They all get "scrambled" in this way into a BBR distribution.
As I keep adding more and more photons, I increase the total energy in the sphere.
So I increase the temperature of the distribution.
And that raises the (average) energy and thus shortens the average wavelength.
So, even if I add monochromatic photons, I do end up with my sequence of increasing energies - with increasing masses and , eventually, I get a black hole.
But to increase the temperature beyond some level, you would have to start increasing the frequency of emitted radiation - or maybe "shake" the cavity around at such rate and velocity, that the trapped EM waves would actually start to gain frequency. I'm not sure, but maybe you also would have so to keep gradually increasing the intensity of scavity vibration...
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 10:23:34
Those wavelenghts are associated with so called eigenstates, where the energy and number of photons can reach only a certain level for each of those statesAnother thing you keep misunderstanding.
The number of eigenstates for a particle in a box is finite.
But photons are bosons.
You can have as many of them as you like in one of those states.
(to a very good approximation- specifically, if you have too many, the box collapses into a BH)
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 10:25:02
But to increase the temperature beyond some level, you would have to start increasing the frequency of emitted radiationYes.
And here is the bit where you realised how to do that.
And if in the laboratory frame, mirror will move fast enough, then due to Doppler shift, reflected radiation will have higher frequency (shorter wavelenght) than before the reflection...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 04/07/2021 10:26:00
And if in the laboratory frame, mirror will move fast enough, then due to Doppler shift, reflected radiation will have higher frequency (shorter wavelenght) than before the reflection...And, finally, you work out what a bat is for.
That's what I have been saying all along.
thing is, that energy of photons is in this case relative and doesn't get higher in the rest frame of cavity (mirror)
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 10:26:45
Thing is, that intensity of radiation trapped in a cavity can reach only a certain level and the radiation pressure will then become constant.You keep saying this, but offering no valid reason.
Is your confusion caused by not realising that you can have many photons in the same eigenstate/ mode?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 10:28:26
As I have pointed out, I'm not in the cavity.And if in the laboratory frame, mirror will move fast enough, then due to Doppler shift, reflected radiation will have higher frequency (shorter wavelenght) than before the reflection...And, finally, you work out what a bat is for.
That's what I have been saying all along.
thing is, that energy of photons is in this case relative and doesn't get higher in the rest frame of cavity (mirror)
The energy of the photons if they are "lucky" can be raised arbitrarily high from my perspective.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 04/07/2021 10:35:24
But to increase the temperature beyond some level, you would have to start increasing the frequency of emitted radiationYes.
And here is the bit where you realised how to do that.And if in the laboratory frame, mirror will move fast enough, then due to Doppler shift, reflected radiation will have higher frequency (shorter wavelenght) than before the reflection...
Problem is, that Doppler shift is in 100% relative and symmerical, so an energy level, which is constant in the lab frame will appear to increase in the rest frame of moving cavity/mirror - just as constant energy level in the rest frame of moving cavity will appear to increase in the lab. frame...
Shortly, none of this can't produce any definitive effects. To create a Kugelblitz, frequency of trapped radiation would have to be increasing in both frames...
I have now couple things to do, but I'll be back soon enough...
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 11:42:40
To create a Kugelblitz, frequency of trapped radiation would have to be increasing in both frames...
I guess we are making progress, you were saying things like this
Personally, I consider both those options as completely wrong and physically impossible.
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
What is then actual science for you? Black holes made of pure light?
and it seems you now realise you were wrong and that they are possible.
If the creation of a Kugelblitz is somehow possible, then it can be achieved ONLY by the increase of frequency of trapped radiation and not it's intensity
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 11:46:21
Woow! It's the first time, when I agree with your predictionsAnd it's only taken you a month or so to notice since I originally posted it.
Great; unfortunately, you then decided to disagree with yourself.
My prediction was that you get BBR.
And that includes some photons with higher than average energies i.e. higher frequencies.
And then you say.
But to increase the temperature beyond some level, you would have to start increasing the frequency of emitted radiation
Well, once you have BBR, you already have those increased frequencies.
Problem solved. Black holes for everyone!
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/07/2021 19:49:10
Imagine bouncing a snooker ball off a bowling ball- it bounces back.Doh!
But if you try to bounce a snooker ball of another snooker ball the first ball stops and the second one moves off at the same speed as the ball that hit it was travelling.
I thought about it again.
The momentum transfer works the other way. To avoid it you need a low mass mirror.
Never mind; you were still wrong.
It does make a difference so this
Momentum transfer will be exactly the same, no matter what's the rest mass of the mirror
is wrong.
Could you just pretend that where I said something like " as long as the mirror is massive enough..." , I said"...light enough...".
Thanks
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/07/2021 04:34:10
To create a Kugelblitz, frequency of trapped radiation would have to be increasing in both frames...
I guess we are making progress, you were saying things like thisPersonally, I consider both those options as completely wrong and physically impossible.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 youWhat is then actual science for you? Black holes made of pure light?
and it seems you now realise you were wrong and that they are possible.If the creation of a Kugelblitz is somehow possible, then it can be achieved ONLY by the increase of frequency of trapped radiation and not it's intensity
That's because it IS impossible to create a black hole in the scenario from my 1st post, as it includes constant radiation and stationary cavity. It's you, who keep to add some additional variables, to achieve something, what is impossible in this scenario. I've simply proposed you something, what MIGHT (in my humble opinion) allow you to achieve your goal, by adding a secondary source of mechanical force to create a vibrational motion of the cavity...
And just as I wrote down my previous sentence, I started to wonder about the difference of a source that is stationary in relation to the shaking cavity and a source, which is shaking together with the rest...... Hmm, something to think about
Quote
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)...
And it's only now, that I've noticed my mistake - instead: 100% of energy reflected from the perfect mirror, it should be all incident photons are reflected from the perfect mirror. What matters for me is the NUBER of photons trapped in a cavity...
Woow! It's the first time, when I agree with your predictionsAnd it's only taken you a month or so to notice since I originally posted it.
Great; unfortunately, you then decided to disagree with yourself.
My prediction was that you get BBR.
Huh? You've only mentioned about it in your previous post FOR THE FIRST TIME in this entire discussion
Quote
My prediction was that you get BBR.
And that includes some photons with higher than average energies i.e. higher frequencies.
Oh really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation
Black-body radiation is the thermal electromagnetic radiation within or surrounding a body in thermodynamic equilibrium with its environment, emitted by a black body (an idealized opaque, non-reflective body). It has a specific spectrum of wavelengths, inversely related to intensity that depend only on the body's temperature, which is assumed for the sake of calculations and theory to be uniform and constant.
Hmm, if I remember correctly, from the beginning I was predicting, that in my scenario, the entire system will simply reach a constant equilibrium at a speific energy level, which in big part depends on the size of cavity...
Quote
And then you say.But to increase the temperature beyond some level, you would have to start increasing the frequency of emitted radiation
Well, once you have BBR, you already have those increased frequencies.
Problem solved. Black holes for everyone!
Huh? BBR represents a system in a termodynamic equilibrium - If you increase the fequency of trapped radiation, you will disturb the static state of this sytem, which will after some time reach equilibriun at a higher level of energy....
And if you want to make a BH out of this, you will have to "completely fill" the cavity with energy equal to I guess something like:
Planck mass * (volume of space / Planck lenght)
What makes a LOT of energy density...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/07/2021 05:14:49
Imagine bouncing a snooker ball off a bowling ball- it bounces back.Doh!
But if you try to bounce a snooker ball of another snooker ball the first ball stops and the second one moves off at the same speed as the ball that hit it was travelling.
I thought about it again.
The momentum transfer works the other way. To avoid it you need a low mass mirror.
Never mind; you were still wrong.
Then think about it again, only this time keep in mind, that in the difference to snooker balls, photons NEVER change their velocity
Quote
It does make a difference so thisMomentum transfer will be exactly the same, no matter what's the rest mass of the mirror
is wrong.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K8C_eoIpik4/VwMPFysaKaI/AAAAAAAACeA/3p5NfQXHuIg9J8ZAxf9mIsUI0Ip_LGh5g/s1600/Photon%2BMomentum.png)
Mass of reflective matter doesn't affect the momentum of a photon before the reflection - and in every case the total sum of energy (photon+mirror) will remain the same before and after reflection.
Quote
Could you just pretend that where I said something like " as long as the mirror is massive enough..." , I said"...light enough...".
Thanks
But in this case only light can be light enough - matter is never as light as light is.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 11/07/2021 05:30:55
Those wavelenghts are associated with so called eigenstates, where the energy and number of photons can reach only a certain level for each of those statesAnother thing you keep misunderstanding.
The number of eigenstates for a particle in a box is finite.
But photons are bosons.
You can have as many of them as you like in one of those states.
(to a very good approximation- specifically, if you have too many, the box collapses into a BH)
Nope - you have a FINITE number of photons for each avaliable eigenstate
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3f0d1506c58eaa6faa07df16156c42b7)
For each wavelenght, you can only increase the intensity of photons - not their number inside the cavity
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/07/2021 10:51:57
Huh? You've only mentioned about it in your previous post FOR THE FIRST TIME in this entire discussionLearn to read.
You can imagine a nearly massless mirror.
When a photon hits it, it will move and take some energy from the photon. But that means that, when another photon hits it on the other side, it will add energy to that photon.
Overall, the sum of the energies will be conserved The wavelengths of the photons will be "scrambled" and will settle down to a black-body distribution.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/07/2021 11:00:31
That's because it IS impossible to create a black hole in the scenario from my 1st post,Yes, you did say that.
And you said that it had been experimentally disproven.
And we are still waiting for you to either admit you were wrong, or show us the details of the experiment.
You also said a lot of tosh about radio receivers.
Do you understand why I might not take your word for things?
But in this case only light can be light enough - matter is never as light as light is.What the light actually "hits" is an electron.
It's perfectly possible to have photons with higher relativistic masses than an electron.
However for a more practical mass, it's like the relativistic snail - the effect is still there, it's just small.
So "light enough" doesn't mean impossibly light.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/07/2021 11:10:24
Nope - you have a FINITE number of photons for each avaliable eigenstateNo.
And, indeed, you illustrated it earlier.
You showed the light bouncing back and to in a laser cavity, and you lied about what I thought that would mean.
But what it does illustrate is many photons- all in synchrony bouncing back and to.
If you replace teh partially reflecting mirror by a completely reflecting one then, in principle you valve a cavity in which they bounce "forever".
In reality they won't, because of diffraction.
(Have you ever actually built a laser- from scratch? The insight it gives is quite useful.)
But here's the issue, as far as I can tell
You know that, in an atom, you can only get two electrons into a given orbital.
And you think that, by analogy- since the orbitals are eigenstates of the atom, you can only get a finite number of photons into an eigenstate.
But what you have missed is that photons are not like electrons- (I'm sure I have heard someone say something like that recently).
Photons are not fermions, they are bosons. (Gauge bosons, as it happens).
And so you can stack as many bosons as you like in one quantum state.
presumably you will now say that I should have mentioned this earlier.
Well, I did
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82373.msg643464#msg643464
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/07/2021 11:13:28
For each wavelenght, you can only increase the intensity of photons - not their number inside the cavityFor a given cavity and wavelength, the intensity is proportional to the number of photons. You can't change them independently.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 12/07/2021 04:36:28
Only in this case you again added yet another variable (opposite radiation pressure). Also you seem to ignore the fact, that "nearly massless" mirror will be probably also nearly completely transparent for photons or (and?) will suffer extreme fluctuations of mass/energy due to it's changing kinetic energy....Huh? You've only mentioned about it in your previous post FOR THE FIRST TIME in this entire discussionLearn to read.You can imagine a nearly massless mirror.
When a photon hits it, it will move and take some energy from the photon. But that means that, when another photon hits it on the other side, it will add energy to that photon.
Overall, the sum of the energies will be conserved The wavelengths of the photons will be "scrambled" and will settle down to a black-body distribution.
That's because it IS impossible to create a black hole in the scenario from my 1st post,Yes, you did say that.
And you said that it had been experimentally disproven.
Yes - the idea, that scenario presented in the 1st post of this thread might somehow lead to creation of a black hole of light, is experimentally disproven.
I mean, mirrors used in experimental cavity QED can reach "only" 99,9% of perfect reflectivity at best, but it still gives a pretty good idea about the most possible result of constant radiation trapped in a resonant cavity
Quote
And we are still waiting for you to either admit you were wrong, or show us the details of the experiment.
I absolutely might be wrong or uninformed, when I make my statements... I don't try to pretend to be a professional physicist - physics is for me just some weird kind of a hobby (passion maybe) and nothing more ... I mean, not even 2 months ago, when I began this thread, I've never heard about such things like cavity optomechanics, quantum electrodynamics or harmonic oscillation[/i] .. It just so happens, that recently professional scientists seem to find particular interest in the same things as I did...
Here's for example my scenario tested in practice:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340240163_Spontaneous_Decay_of_a_Dressed_Harmonic_Oscillator_Inside_a_Spherical_Cavity
We consider a complete study of the influence of the cavity size on the spontaneous decay of an atom excited state, roughly approximated by a harmonic oscillator. We confine the oscillator-field system in a spherical cavity of finite radius, perfectly reflective, and work in the formalism of dressed coordinates and states, which allows performing nonperturbative calculations for the probability of the oscillator to decay spontaneously from the first excited state to the ground state. In free space, we obtain known exact results and, for sufficiently small radii, we have developed a power expansion calculation on this parameter. Furthermore, for cavities of arbitrary size radius, we developed numerical computations and showed a complete agreement of this method with the exact one for free space and the power expansion results for small cavities, in this way showing the robustness of our numerical computations. We have found that, in general, the spontaneous decay of an excited state of the oscillator increases with the cavity size radius and vice versa. For sufficiently small cavities, the oscillator practically does not suffers spontaneous decay, whereas for large cavities, the spontaneous decay approaches the free-space value. On the other hand, for some particular values of the cavity radius, in which the cavity is in resonance with the natural frequency of the atom, the spontaneous decay transition probability is increased compared to the free-space case. Also, we showed how the probability of spontaneous decay goes from an oscillatory time behavior, for finite cavity radius, to almost exponential decay, for free space.
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/G-Flores-Hidalgo/publication/340240163/figure/fig1/AS:979007256399874@1610424927527/Color-online-The-atom-approximated-by-a-single-harmonic-oscillator-inside-a-perfect.png)
It seems that for some reason there's absolutely not a single mention about a black hole of light - instead, results seem to nicely prove my own predictions...
Here's also a nice paper:
https://authors.library.caltech.edu/106173/15/TR000576_06_chapter-6.pdf
In Chapter 5 we found that an atomic medium with an inverted population (N2 > N1) is capable of amplifying an electromagnetic wave if the latter's frequency falls within the transition lineshape. Consider next the case in which the laser medium is placed inside an optical resonator. As the electromagnetic wave bounces back and forth between the two reflectors, it passes through the laser medium and is amplified. Ifthe amplification exceeds the losses caused by imperfect reflection in the mirrors and scattering in the laser medium, the field energy stored in the resonator will increase with time. This causes the amplification constant to decrease as a result of gain saturation (see (5.6-10) and the discussion surrounding it.) The oscillation level will keep increasing until the saturated gain per pass just equals the losses. At this point the net gain per pass is unity and no further increase in the radiation intensity is possible—that is, steady-state oscillation obtains.
And now your turn - provide me a single source, which might suggest just in a tiny bit, that scenario in the form, which is presented in the 1st post of this thread, might somehow result in creation of a black hole - anything, what is supported by actual observation... I'll wait :)
Quote
You also said a lot of tosh about radio receivers.
Do you understand why I might not take your word for things?
And why should you? Since when science suppose to be based on faith?
I never trust in someone's claims, until I won't verify them by myself - and then I still keep having my doubts about them. Maybe instead having a complete trust in your own judgements, you should also try making someties a simple google research - you might be surprised by the results
Quote
But in this case only light can be light enough - matter is never as light as light is.What the light actually "hits" is an electron.
It's perfectly possible to have photons with higher relativistic masses than an electron.
However for a more practical mass, it's like the relativistic snail - the effect is still there, it's just small.
So "light enough" doesn't mean impossibly light.
Sure, I never denied the possibility of matter creation from photons (like in p-p scattering). But the thing is, that those are not "natural" states of a photon, which require sophisticated manipulation in order to sustain the effect for couple nano seconds. Normally photons don't have energies, that would exceed hard gamma radiation.
TBC
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/07/2021 08:52:20
Also you seem to ignore the fact, that "nearly massless" mirror will be probably also nearly completely transparent for photons or (and?) will suffer extreme fluctuations of mass/energy due to it's changing kinetic energy....Are you deliberately missing the point?
It is precisely because the mirror gets bounced about that it can doppler shift the photons up and down to give a BBR like distribution.
I didn't "add" radiation pressure- it happens.
When it does work against a mirror (or vice versa) , it changes the energy of the photons.
I mean, mirrors used in experimental cavity QED can reach "only" 99,9% of perfect reflectivity at best,That might be as good as the physicists get, but the chemists do better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavity_ring-down_spectroscopy
Where they use mirrors like this
https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=14069
with "R > 99.9969%".
Yes - the idea, that scenario presented in the 1st post of this thread might somehow lead to creation of a black hole of light, is experimentally disproven.So, you are saying that one experiment didn't make a BH.
Well... good. As far as I know, no human intervention has ever created one.
Did you feel that failure in one particular set of experimental circumstances precludes the success of a modified experiment?
And, I'd still like to see the experimental details.
I absolutely might be wrong or uninformed, when I make my statementsAnd in this case, you absolutely are wrong.
The experiment has not been done because it's' impossible.
It's a thought experiment.
Nobody actually made, for example, a perfectly reflecting cavity or a one-way valve for light.
And why should you? Since when science suppose to be based on faith?Then why did you point out that you said something- without any supporting evidence- such as the tosh about radio.
Saying "I said that..." doesn't influence its truth; providing evidence does.
And you provided none.
You keep asserting that you can only get a finite set of photons into a cavity; but you don't say why.
I , on the other hand, say you can get an arbitrarily large number; and I provide both practical (they do it in laser cavities) and theoretical (photons are bosons) justification for my view.
Sure, I never denied the possibility of matter creation from photons (like in p-p scattering). But the thing is, that those are not "natural" states of a photon, which require sophisticated manipulation in order to sustain the effect for couple nano seconds. Normally photons don't have energies, that would exceed hard gamma radiation.You still don't get the bit about the relativistic snail, do you?
Post by: puppypower on 12/07/2021 12:07:47
The mirror experiment tell us that photons have momentum, however, that momentum is not connected to its velocity at the speed of light, but is due to its finite parameters in time and space. It is creating an inertial velocity based affect while traveling at the speed of light.
The Doppler shift, due to relative velocity between references, can cause the photon wavelength and frequency to change, without altering the speed of the light. The relative velocity in inertial references does not add or subtract from its speed of light, but only impacts its space and time parameters. Photons appear to exist in both the speed of light reference and inertial reference at the same time, with each independent of the other. Photons appear to be bridge between a pure speed of light reference and all inertial references.
When a photon is Doppler Shifted; red shift, the measured energy of the photon goes down. Where does the lost energy go, since energy conservation does not allow one to create or destroy energy? The kinetic energy associated with the constant velocity between references does not increase. Does it go into an entropy increase; state of higher complexity?
If we use a relative velocity that causes a blue shift, the measured energy of the photons will increase. Where does this extra energy come from, if the velocity is constant and kinetic energy does not change? Does it come from a lowering of entropy, which will release energy? Is the Doppler shift of photons connected to the second law? Or is there another source to account for the photon energy balance?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 13/07/2021 03:44:05
Nope - you have a FINITE number of photons for each avaliable eigenstateNo.
And, indeed, you illustrated it earlier.
You showed the light bouncing back and to in a laser cavity, and you lied about what I thought that would mean.
What it means, that photons will keep coming into the cavity and "bounce" within it, until the density of probability (intensity) won't reach a certain energy level (which depends in big part on the size of cavity) at which the system will reach a thermodynamic equilibrium. This is how cavity QED works in case of lasers just like in case of my scenario... There are no black holes involved in this proecess...
Quote
But what it does illustrate is many photons- all in synchrony bouncing back and to.
If you replace teh partially reflecting mirror by a completely reflecting one then, in principle you valve a cavity in which they bounce "forever".
"Perfectly reflective mirror" means, that 100% of incident photons is being reflected from it - there's no physically possible way, to prevent the transfer of momentum.
Quote
In reality they won't, because of diffraction
Yes - and couple other causes
.
Quote
(Have you ever actually built a laser- from scratch? The insight it gives is quite useful.)
Actually I didn't - but somehow I just knew the right solution to my scenario (cavity QED) and figured out the importance of cavity size in respect to the wavelenght of trapped radiation - it was you, who insisted, that it has nothing to do with resonance...
Quote
But here's the issue, as far as I can tell
You know that, in an atom, you can only get two electrons into a given orbital.
And you think that, by analogy- since the orbitals are eigenstates of the atom, you can only get a finite number of photons into an eigenstate.
But what you have missed is that photons are not like electrons- (I'm sure I have heard someone say something like that recently).
Photons are not fermions, they are bosons. (Gauge bosons, as it happens).
And so you can stack as many bosons as you like in one quantum state.
presumably you will now say that I should have mentioned this earlier.
Well, I did
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82373.msg643464#msg643464
Don't worry, I've finished high school and I know about the main differences between bosons and fermions - like the rest mass or Pauli exclusion. And it's because of I consider the idea of pernamently turning bosons into fermions as physically impossible. It IS however possible to make photons behave JUST LIKE particles of matter using optical cavities (what a cocincidence) - what was done couple years ago by scientists from my home country :)
https://scienceinpoland.pap.pl/en/news/news%2C79418%2Cgroundbreaking-research-shows-photons-can-behave-electrons.html
For each wavelenght, you can only increase the intensity of photons - not their number inside the cavityFor a given cavity and wavelength, the intensity is proportional to the number of photons. You can't change them independently.
So at last you do actually admit, that size of cavity and the wavelenght of traped radiation DO define the intensity and the number of photons inside cavity? Thanks! That's what I was telling you from the beginning.
One thing tho - you CAN introduce an external beam of light at the same wavelenght, but with lower intensity in relation to the light trapped inside the cavity, what will result in that beam appearing darker...
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/07/2021 08:51:00
There are no black holes involved in this proecess...Nobody said there were.
Simple questions; you say that you can only get a fixed number of photons in there.
How many?
What actually stops you adding another?
"Perfectly reflective mirror" means, that 100% of incident photons is being reflected from it - there's no physically possible way, to prevent the transfer of momentum.Yes...
So what?
It's not as if that's new.
So at last you do actually admit, that size of cavity and the wavelenght of traped radiation DO define the intensity and the number of photons inside cavity?You seem to have hallucinated that.
I never said anything like it.
I said you can't change the intensity and the number of photons independent because they are essentially the same thing.
On the other hand you suffered from the misunderstanding that one can.
you can only increase the intensity of photons - not their number
the importance of cavity size in respect to the wavelenght of trapped radiation - it was you, who insisted, that it has nothing to do with resonanceThat's another instance of you saying things that aren't true, isn't it?
What I said was the number of photons that you can put in a cavity is unlimited.
You seem to think they can't fit into the cavity unless they fit "exactly" and, as I pointed out, that's simply not true.
Resonance does depend on wavelength and the size of the box.
But not everything is resonant.
As I have pointed out, if it was then, in order to light my room I would need to start by measuring it to the nearest nanometre or so and buying light sources that produced the "right" wavelength.
That's just silly.
appearingYes, but not "actually darker..." which is what matters in science.
And you are still missing the point that you can stack as many bosons in an eigenstate as you wish.
Post by: puppypower on 13/07/2021 21:44:28
Don't worry, I've finished high school and I know about the main differences between bosons and fermions - like the rest mass or Pauli exclusion. And it's because of I consider the idea of pernamently turning bosons into fermions as physically impossible. It IS however possible to make photons behave JUST LIKE particles of matter using optical cavities (what a cocincidence) - what was done couple years ago by scientists from my home country
https://scienceinpoland.pap.pl/en/news/news%2C79418%2Cgroundbreaking-research-shows-photons-can-behave-electrons.html
I have been saying for years, photons, although moving at the speed of light also display inertial properties, which are usually considered something done by matter moving less that the speed of light, such as electrons. This was inferred from plugging in the speed of light into the special relativity equations. Photons, if they were exclusively in a c-reference, should all appear the same in our earth reference. Instead they show inertial affects such as a variety of wavelengths that can be tweaked at inertial velocities; Doppler Shift. It is nice when science catches up.
Photons are not exclusively in just the speed of light reference. They are a bridge state that exists in both inertial and speed of light references at the same time. The hollow mirror experiments are a way to isolate the inertial aspects.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/07/2021 22:36:41
in a c-reference
our earth reference
speed of light reference
speed of light reference
and it's not helping.
Post by: puppypower on 13/07/2021 22:55:56
What will happen is we will see a wide variety of Doppler shifts, all with the same photon source. Some will see a red shift and some will see a blue shift. Depending on their velocity this can be high or low. Where is the photon energy going or coming from, since a red and blue shift will create photons with less or more energy, from the original source electrons?
We know this affect; Doppler Shift, is connected to velocity, but the change in energy cannot be connected to this kinetic energy, since the references do not slow down or speed up simply by looking at photons. The enormous number of red shifted photons, from billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, seen by the earth, does not alter the speed of the earth. So where is the added or subtracted energy going to or coming from?
The simplest answer is connected to the inertial side of the photon and to entropy changes. Entropy is a state variable, meaning for any given state of matter there is a fixed entropy value. If we approach the photon source, the blue shift is due to the observational state of reference and photon, lowering entropy and releasing energy into the photon. If we move away from the source the observational state reference and photon is increasing entropy, so the photon releases energy into the entropy increase; red shift.
In this thought experiment, source photons change differently as they become part of different observational state. Each instrument, on each moving reference, will gather different source photons. Two instruments separated by time and space cannot capture the same photon. Each photon forms a unique states with one observer who captures it.
Entropy is usually associated with matter, however, the inertial leg of the photon can game the system to create this extra entropic affect. The second law implies a net universal red shift since an increase in universal entropy will absorb energy, even from the photons.
What is interesting is if we assume dark energy is causing the expansion, then the addition of dark energy is also causing the red shift. So why is dark energy giving energy for an expansion that results in the photons losing energy? The inertial leg of photons should also be impacted by dark energy if it is real.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 13/07/2021 23:45:26
Also you seem to ignore the fact, that "nearly massless" mirror will be probably also nearly completely transparent for photons or (and?) will suffer extreme fluctuations of mass/energy due to it's changing kinetic energy....Are you deliberately missing the point?
It is precisely because the mirror gets bounced about that it can doppler shift the photons up and down to give a BBR like distribution.
Actually the more the mirror is being "bounced around" by incident photons, the smaller Doppler effect will be observed in a 3rd stationary frame.
Quote
I didn't "add" radiation pressure- it happens.
It happens only if there's some radiation affecting the cavity beond it's boundaries - and it is an additional variable
Quote
When it does work against a mirror (or vice versa) , it changes the energy of the photons.
Yes. Bravo good sir! And there's no physical way of preventing this process...
Quote
I mean, mirrors used in experimental cavity QED can reach "only" 99,9% of perfect reflectivity at best,That might be as good as the physicists get, but the chemists do better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavity_ring-down_spectroscopy
Where they use mirrors like this
https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=14069
with "R > 99.9969%".
Do you know, that you're digging your own grave here?
Quote
Yes - the idea, that scenario presented in the 1st post of this thread might somehow lead to creation of a black hole of light, is experimentally disproven.So, you are saying that one experiment didn't make a BH.
Well... good. As far as I know, no human intervention has ever created one.
I'm saying, that the experiment never supposed to result in creation of a BH - even in hypothetical perfect conditions.
Quote
Did you feel that failure in one particular set of experimental circumstances precludes the success of a modified experiment?
Only this experiment wasn't in any way a failure - actually it was a complete success. It never supposed to lead to creation of a BH and it didn't...
Quote
And, I'd still like to see the experimental details.
You have them given in the paper. But if you don't trust in the published results, then maybe speak with authors of that paper. I'm sure you'll find the missing black hole somewhere between the numbers ;D
Quote
I absolutely might be wrong or uninformed, when I make my statementsAnd in this case, you absolutely are wrong.
The experiment has not been done because it's' impossible.
It's a thought experiment.
Nobody actually made, for example, a perfectly reflecting cavity or a one-way valve for light.
Still you can calculate the most possible results for a perfectly reflecting cavity and compare them with results obtained from the practical experiment - just as it was done in that paper.
Quote
And why should you? Since when science suppose to be based on faith?Then why did you point out that you said something- without any supporting evidence- such as the tosh about radio.
Saying "I said that..." doesn't influence its truth; providing evidence does.
And you provided none.
Which part of it? The one about the interference between antennas? I did... But here's more if you insist:
https://www.seamagazine.com/importance-antenna-placement/
http://www.til.ca/content/pdfs/12RE466-Technisonic-FM-Radio-Guide.pdf
4. DO NOT mount antennas closer together than the required radius, if you MUST do this,
be certain they are NOT in adjacent or harmonically related bands. Radio performance will
almost certainly suffer in some way for mounting in this manner, and it should not be done
unless all other possible avenues have been completely exhausted
On the other hand it is in fact quite obvious - if you take 3 walkie-talkies and try to communicate using 2 of them, transmission will get much worse if you place a 3rd receiver on the way between them. By receiving a radio signal, you "destroy" the photons carrying the transmission - so they can't reach a receiver further behind you...
Quote
You keep asserting that you can only get a finite set of photons into a cavity; but you don't say why.
Wait - didn't you admit it here?
For a given cavity and wavelength, the intensity is proportional to the number of photons. You can't change them independently.
So the size of cavity and the wavelenght of trapped radiation are the factors, which define the intensity/number of photons inside the cavity...
And how it's possible? It's obviously due to resonance and constructive/destructive interference of EM waves
Quote
I , on the other hand, say you can get an arbitrarily large number; and I provide both practical (they do it in laser cavities) and theoretical (photons are bosons) justification for my view.
You, on the other hand didn't provide a single source, which would prove the idea of infinite number of photons inside a cavity with a fixed volume and for radiation with a specific wavelenght...
Quote
Sure, I never denied the possibility of matter creation from photons (like in p-p scattering). But the thing is, that those are not "natural" states of a photon, which require sophisticated manipulation in order to sustain the effect for couple nano seconds. Normally photons don't have energies, that would exceed hard gamma radiation.You still don't get the bit about the relativistic snail, do you?
Relativistically speaking, velocity of snail doesn't matter for photons nor for the snail - it only matters for a 3rd observer, who is looking in his own rest frame at photons reflected from a moving snail...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 14/07/2021 03:07:57
One paradoxical observation about photons, is that according to Special Relativity, at the speed of light time and space will appear contracted to a singularity state. Photons travel at the speed of light and have both distance and time parameters that we call wavelength and frequency, yet their outward expression in space and time is not homogeneous as predicted by SR. The large variety of wavelengths from radio waves to gamma defines a wide range of visual references, as though all photons are going less than the speed of light.
And this is one of the reasons, why I consider SR as probably the greatest mistake of theoretical physics. According to Einstein, photons don't experience the flow of time - yet it is possible to track down the timeline of each single photon since the moment of it's emission.
Quote
The mirror experiment tell us that photons have momentum, however, that momentum is not connected to its velocity at the speed of light, but is due to its finite parameters in time and space. It is creating an inertial velocity based affect while traveling at the speed of light.
This animation shows nicely the relation between momentum of a photon and the wavelenght of EM radiation. Transverse (up/down) velocity of a photon is higher for a shorter wavelenght - so in shortcut higher frequency = greater momentum of a photon
(https://i.postimg.cc/zGBr0srx/haffele7.gif)
Quote
The Doppler shift, due to relative velocity between references, can cause the photon wavelength and frequency to change, without altering the speed of the light
True...
Quote
The relative velocity in inertial references does not add or subtract from its speed of light, but only impacts its space and time parameters. Photons appear to exist in both the speed of light reference and inertial reference at the same time, with each independent of the other. Photons appear to be bridge between a pure speed of light reference and all inertial references.
If inertial frame of photons would be independent from each other, it would make the interfernce of EM waves impossible. Yet we all know, that EM interference DOES occur - espppecially for EM waves with similar wavelenghts.
I think, that there's much more easy solution for that problem - all what has to be done, is to describe the Universe as a HUGE caity with an unified EM field, trapped inside it and then treat photons as finite (but VERY LARGE) number of stationary "pixels" on the "screen" of physical space.
What science does, is to treat potential and kinetic aspects of a single EM field, as 2 separate and independent quantum fields with diffrent sets particles (photons and virtual photons). However what in fact makes the entire difference between a "normal" photon and a "virtual" one, is it's probability of detection at a given frequency band - it's still one and the same photon, which exists as a superposition of all it's possible states... That's all...
Quote
When a photon is Doppler Shifted; red shift, the measured energy of the photon goes down. Where does the lost energy go, since energy conservation does not allow one to create or destroy energy? The kinetic energy associated with the constant velocity between references does not increase. Does it go into an entropy increase; state of higher complexity?
Doppler's shift is a purely relativistic effect - it doesn't happen in the rest frame of a moving object and can't lead to any definitive change in the energy level of a moving system...
Quote
If we use a relative velocity that causes a blue shift, the measured energy of the photons will increase. Where does this extra energy come from, if the velocity is constant and kinetic energy does not change? Does it come from a lowering of entropy, which will release energy? Is the Doppler shift of photons connected to the second law? Or is there another source to account for the photon energy balance?
It comes from the relativistic energy of relative velocity. Energy level doesn't change in the rest frame of a moving object - it changes for all the frames, that are movinge in relation to that object (depending on direction and relative velocity). None of this is a definitive change in the energy of a moving system...
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/07/2021 09:05:18
Only this experiment wasn't in any way a failure - actually it was a complete success. It never supposed to lead to creation of a BH and it didn't...I see; you really were posting about something irrelevant.
Wait - didn't you admit it here?No.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 11/07/2021 11:13:28
For a given cavity and wavelength, the intensity is proportional to the number of photons. You can't change them independently.
So the size of cavity and the wavelenght of trapped radiation are the factors, which define the intensity/number of photons inside the cavity...
I already explained that you had hallucinated that I agreed with you.
I never said anything like it.
I said you can't change the intensity and the number of photons independent because they are essentially the same thing.
Perhaps you might try having a go at answering the points I raised.
Simple questions; you say that you can only get a fixed number of photons in there.
How many?
What actually stops you adding another?And you are still missing the point that you can stack as many bosons in an eigenstate as you wish.You say silly things like
You, on the other hand didn't provide a single source, which would prove the idea of infinite number of photons inside a cavity with a fixed volume and for radiation with a specific wavelenght...
Well, I have made it clear that, well before you got to"infinity" the photons would collapse into a BH.
So I'm not sating that there are an infinite number of photons, juts that the number you can get is arbitrarily large.
But you seem to think you can only get one photon.
And you think that's because of resonance, even though there's no requirement for resonance to happen.
So, why not address those points?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/07/2021 09:10:40
Relativistically speaking, velocity of snail doesn't matter for photons nor for the snail - it only matters for a 3rd observer, who is looking in his own rest frame at photons reflected from a moving snail...OK, so , since you don't understand the idea, I will spell it out for you.
If it was possible to make a mirror shell that had amass comparable with a photon, then the shell would obviously be "light enough" for the context I described.
But, even if the shell weighs many tons, the effect is still there- it is much smaller.
The wavelengths still get scrambled to form an approximation to BBR- which you agreed about.
(Though you tried to pretend that I hadn't said it- a particularly stupid pretence in a discussion thread where everything is written down and date-stamped).
The higher mass just means the effect takes longer.
Since nobody put a time limit on the experiment, that does not matter.
So, given time, an indefinitely heavy mirror is still "light enough".
Post by: CrazyScientist on 17/07/2021 07:52:20
Simple questions; you say that you can only get a fixed number of photons in there.
How many?
What actually stops you adding another?
It's the physical volume of EM waves.
In a cavity with 1m of diameter you can fit only one EM wave with 1m of wavelenght, which makes one photon in this type of radiation. If that EM wave is then reflected back and create a standing wave with 2x greater amplitude, it will still make just one photon with higher density of probability. To increase the number of photons, you would have to increase the diameter of cavity to 2m - so you could "fit" inside it 2 EM waves with 1m of wavelenght...
You seem to think, that the reflected photons will keep "stacking" on top of each other into infinity (or creation of a black hole), but you keep to ignore the fact, that energy of a photon is defined by it's frequency and not it's amplitude. You CAN'T burn a human skin with FM waves - no matter how intense the FM field will get.
Another thing which you seem to ignore, is the fact that intensity of radiation is defined by probability of detecting photons at a given frequency. Probability is NOT infinite, as it can't reach values below 0% and above 100%. If your claims would be true, then in standing waves probability of detecting a photon would have to reach values higher than 100% - and it just doesn't make sense....
Quote
"Perfectly reflective mirror" means, that 100% of incident photons is being reflected from it - there's no physically possible way, to prevent the transfer of momentum.Yes...
So what?
It's not as if that's new.
True - it isn't... Then why do you try using your own definition of a "perfect mirror", where transfer of momentum doesn't occur during reflection of photons?
Quote
So at last you do actually admit, that size of cavity and the wavelenght of traped radiation DO define the intensity and the number of photons inside cavity?You seem to have hallucinated that.
I never said anything like it.
I said you can't change the intensity and the number of photons independent because they are essentially the same thing.
On the other hand you suffered from the misunderstanding that one can.you can only increase the intensity of photons - not their number
This is what you said:the importance of cavity size in respect to the wavelenght of trapped radiation - it was you, who insisted, that it has nothing to do with resonanceThat's another instance of you saying things that aren't true, isn't it?
What I said was the number of photons that you can put in a cavity is unlimited.
This is exactly, what you said:
For a given cavity and wavelength, the intensity is proportional to the number of photons. You can't change them independently.
"For a given cavity and wavelength", means that all those variables depend on each other - at least this is, how I anderstand it...
Anyway, if the number of photons for each wavelenght of an EM radiation trapped inside a cavity can be infinite, explain me such things, like cut-off frequency in photoelectric effect. Electrons won't respond to photons, until EM radiation won't reach a certain frequency, independently of the intensity. Do you suggest, that at some critical point of radiation intensity, electrons and photons will start to interact gravitationally? And if so, do you have even a SINGLE experimentally validated proof of such possibility?
Quote
You seem to think they can't fit into the cavity unless they fit "exactly" and, as I pointed out, that's simply not true.
It would be nice if you would also point out to somekind of scientific data, to support your rather exotic claims about black holes creation by increasing the intensity of radiation...
Here's for example my data:
https://www.physik.hu-berlin.de/de/nano/lehre/copy_of_quantenoptik09/Chapter12
Page 170:
Figure 93: Observed intensities, linewidths, and frequency shifts as a function of the cavity detuning
(from bottom to top). The cavity length decreases from left to rigth
Quote
Resonance does depend on wavelength and the size of the box.
Woow! We can at last go somewhere from here
Quote
But not everything is resonant.
As I have pointed out, if it was then, in order to light my room I would need to start by measuring it to the nearest nanometre or so and buying light sources that produced the "right" wavelength.
That's just silly.
I didn't say, that in everyday life each EM wave is in a resonance. I'm saying, that if you want to amplify waves, you should make it through their resonance and that for each given wavelenght and volume of cavity, there's a specific limit of amplitude that can be reached for a constant source of sound/radiation.
Quote
appearingYes, but not "actually darker..." which is what matters in science.
What matters, in science is simple logic - if an external beam of light appears to be darker than light trapped in cavity, then it's rather obvious, that it's amplitude is smaller. If the amplitudes would add together, beam would appear brighter than light inside cavity - but to achieve such effect, you need to introduce light at higher intensity compared to light in cavity. It's simple...
You won't increase intensity of radiation due to interference of EM waves at the same wavelenghts. but different amplitudes - in a given volume of space density of probability is being shared by EM waves at similar wavelenghts
Quote
And you are still missing the point that you can stack as many bosons in an eigenstate as you wish.
And you are still missing the point that probability of detection can't go beyond 100%
Post by: CrazyScientist on 17/07/2021 09:41:56
Well, I have made it clear that, well before you got to"infinity" the photons would collapse into a BH
And I guess, that i just have to take your word for it, because science is for now unable to test any of this in practice?
Quote
So I'm not sating that there are an infinite number of photons, juts that the number you can get is arbitrarily large.
But you seem to think you can only get one photon
No. I think, that in order to get the total number of photons in cavity (according to the current definition of a photon), you need to add all the photons, which are given for each avaliable eigenstate (1 for n=1 or 3 for n=3). What matters is the relation between the wavelenght and volume of cavity.
Quote
And you think that's because of resonance, even though there's no requirement for resonance to happen.
So, why not address those points?
What is required, is amplification of EM waves and you can achieve one through resonance.
But maybe instead of resonance you should think about concentrating radiation in one point using a lense or concave mirror...
What if we take a HUUUGEEEE magnifying glass and concentrate 50% radiation of the Sun in one point of space - maybe this is how you should approach your unverified claims about gravitational interactions between photons.due to high intensity of radiation. Only don't forget that such mechanism suppose to work for all avaliable wavelenghts of EM radiation
OK, so , since you don't understand the idea, I will spell it out for you.
If it was possible to make a mirror shell that had amass comparable with a photon, then the shell would obviously be "light enough" for the context I described.
But, even if the shell weighs many tons, the effect is still there- it is much smaller.
The wavelengths still get scrambled to form an approximation to BBR- which you agreed about.
(Though you tried to pretend that I hadn't said it- a particularly stupid pretence in a discussion thread where everything is written down and date-stamped).
The higher mass just means the effect takes longer.
Since nobody put a time limit on the experiment, that does not matter.
So, given time, an indefinitely heavy mirror is still "light enough".
Let's then imagine a simple scenario, where a stationary mirror has almost the same mass/energy, as an incident photon. What do you think will be observed in the lab frame?
My answer is:
- incident photon will accelerate the mirror almost to c, while being reflected back in opposite direction at c with just a tiny fraction of it's previous frequency/momentum
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/07/2021 13:51:15
What if we take a HUUUGEEEE magnifying glass and concentrate 50% radiation of the Sun in one point of space -You can't; it's one of the laws of optics.
In a cavity with 1m of diameter you can fit only one EM wave with 1m of wavelenght, which makes one photon in this type of radiation.OK, so, by that "argument" you can only fit 1 photon of wavelength1 mm into a 1 mm space and so on.
So, if I have an object the size of a small bacterium for example- about 0.5 micron then you can get just 1 photon of visible light into it.
And yet, if I suitably stain one, and look at it via a good confocal microscope, I can see structures within it.
Let's go back to the bigger - 1 metre- box.
And, just for a bit of variety, let's imagine it's a mirrored cube.
I open the top and bottom of the box, and let the sunlight shine through it.
On earth that would mean that about 1KW of various wavelengths of radiation are passing through it.
But, mainly to make the arithmetic easy, lets imagine that the box is next to the Sun.
We can treat the sun as a black body at about 5700K
Well, our black body emits rather a lot of radiation
If this page is right
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/stefan-boltzmann-law
there's about 600 million watts of power travelling through our box.
And now imagine that I suddenly put the top + bottom back on the box and trap the light (Yes, I know it's impractical but that's not the point).
How many photons of about 1 metre wavelength do I trap?
Well, if this
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/radfrac.html
is right then about 0.6E-9 Watts has a wavelength within 1 micron of 1 metre.
And that's carried by photons with an energy of 2E-25 J
So that's 3E15 of them each second.
And they traverse the box in 1/C seconds.
So, there are, on average, about ten million of them in the box at any time.
And if I snap the lid shut, that's how many get caught in the box.
Of course, the Sun is a great source of light, but it's not very efficient as a 1 metre radio wave source.
It only emits nanowatts per square meter of radiation at 1 metre.
I can do rather better than that.
I'd need to tweak the frequency down a bit but the "key fob" transmitters used for opening garage doors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LPD433
And that would let me transmit 10 milliwatts. which is about a billion times more power than a square foot of the sun (at 1 metre)
So I can arrange, quite easily , for there to be about 10E12 photons in the box.
By my reckoning, that is more than 1.
Let's then imagine a simple scenario, where a stationary mirror has almost the same mass/energy, as an incident photon. What do you think will be observed in the lab frame?And very shortly afterwards, it will hit the other side of the spherical shell, and be kicked back to very nearly the same energy that it had in the first place.
My answer is:
- incident photon will accelerate the mirror almost to c, while being reflected back in opposite direction at c with just a tiny fraction of it's previous frequency/momentum
That's fine if we have just one photon.
In reality, we have many
So, in the mean time (between the two collisions of that one photoon), any other photons which hit the mirror hit a moving mirror. So their wavelengths will also get altered in a way that's chaotic.
This is the mechanism by which the light is scrambled into a black body spectrum.
And that's the mechanism by which high energy photons are made.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/07/2021 14:12:57
For visible light that's something like a millionth of the mass of an electron.
So a les insane guess at the mass for our reflector might be 1 gram.
And that's about 33 orders of magnitude higher.
So the change in photon energy , when it transfer's some to the mirror is about 10^33 times smaller.
But it isn't zero.
Ad, if the mirror weighs a tone, then that's 10^36 times smaller, but it still isn't zero.
So, like the relativistic snail, there is still an effect, it's just rate small.
So the scrambling of wavelengths to give a BBR distribution is slower. at least 10^36 times slower and, I suspect 10^72, times slower.
But it still happens.
And, since nobody set a time limit on the experiment, the timescale is not important.
(Of course, with a large number of photons to start with the process is faster and the plan for the experiment is to keep on adding photons)
The outcome happens eventually.
So, there's a mechanism for getting arbitrarily short wavelengths.
So you can get an arbitrarily large number of photons in the box. (even if we accept your wrong suggestion about only 1 photon per eigenstate and ignore the fact that a sphere has an infinite number of degenerate eigenstates - one for each diameter)
So you can get enough mass of photons for them to collapse into a black hole.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/07/2021 14:22:37
You CAN'T burn a human skin with FM waves - no matter how intense the FM field will get.Talking about "FM" is a bit meaningless. I presume you mean the wavelengths typically used to transmit FM radio- about 100 MHz.
You should have learned not to get your fingers burned by being wrong about radio waves.
Yes you can use 100 MHz waves to burn skin.
"Diathermy is produced by three techniques: ultrasound (ultrasonic diathermy), short-wave radio frequencies in the range 1–100 MHz (shortwave diathermy) "
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diathermy
You should stop pretending that you know things.
If your model predicts that it's impossible to get RF burns at 100 MHz, and , in reality, people do get RF burns at 100 MHz, it is clear that your model of the universe is wrong.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224188647_Radio_Frequency_Burns_in_the_Power_System_Workplace
Why do you keep trying to insist on it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/07/2021 14:25:00
What is required, is amplification of EM waves and you can achieve one through resonance.You do not need "amplification" if you just keep adding photons from an external source.
If I want more cattle in my field I can do that by letting them breed- which is sort of analogous to amplification- the number next year is proportional to the number this year- or I can just buy more cattle and put them in the field.
The rate at which increase the population of the field is dependent on my resources.
(and, of course, unlike cattle, photons take up no space- you can (no mater how strongly you shout otherwise) have an arbitrarily large number of them in a given space because they are bosons.)
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/07/2021 14:52:21
"For a given cavity and wavelength", means that all those variables depend on each other - at least this is, how I understand it...I see the problem lies with your reading comprehension.
What I said
"For a given cavity and wavelength, the intensity is proportional to the number of photons. You can't change them independently."
Is true.
It does not imply what you said it did.
"So at last you do actually admit, that size of cavity and the wavelenght of traped radiation DO define the intensity and the number of photons inside cavity?"
That is clearly not true.
Imagine the case where there is not a single photon in the box.
The intensity and the number of photons is zero.
Now add a single photon in the box.
The intensity and the number of photons have changed- but the box is the same size,
Now add a second photon.
Again the size of the cavity is unchanged and the wavelength is unchanged, but the intensity , and the number of photons have changed.
Do you see how the size and the wavelength do not define the intensity or the number of photons in the box?
Do you see how that falsifies your claim that "that size of cavity and the wavelenght of traped radiation DO define the intensity and the number of photons inside cavity"?
OK
If I double the number of photons in the box, I double the intensity.
So, they are proportional to one another . Adding a third photon will produce treble the intensity, and so on.
Which is why I am able to make the claim in the second clause of my statement
"the intensity is proportional to the number of photons. You can't change them independently"
But it is slightly more complicated than that.
If I use photons with half the wavelength then the intensity - measured in watts per square meter is doubled because each photon has twice the energy.
So, in order to make the statement "So, they are proportional to one another ."
I have to specify that it's true for a given wavelength.
And similarly, if I keep the number and wavelength (and thus the energy) of the photons the same, but change the size (i.e. the area) of the box, the intensity- in watts per metre squared changes in inverse proportion to the area.
So, again, i need to qualify the assertion "So, they are proportional to one another ." by specifying that the size of the box does not change.
Hence, my statement
"For a given cavity and wavelength, the intensity is proportional to the number of photons. You can't change them independently."
Do you now see that
My statement was true.
Your statement was false and (logically as well as linguistically) my statement does not imply your statement, nor is it compatible with it?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 04/08/2021 01:08:04
What if we take a HUUUGEEEE magnifying glass and concentrate 50% radiation of the Sun in one point of space -You can't; it's one of the laws of optics.
I didn't hear about any law of physics, according to which it is impossible to concentrate EM radiation with a lense or concave mirror - can you please tell me, what exactly is that law? From my own observations, it appears that a magnifying glass or a satellite dish DOES work pretty well by doing just that - concentrating EM waves, which are scattered in a volume of space in one point, to increase the intensity/amplitude of radiation.
If your claims about creating black holes by increasing the intensity of radiation are true, then you should be able to achieve it by concentrating enough EM radiation in one point of space using star-sized lenses or intergalactic concave mirrors. It's only a matter of scale - the bigger is the radius of a lense/mirror, the more EM waves will be concentrated in one point, resulting in higher intensity... What makes it theoretically impossible?
Quote
In a cavity with 1m of diameter you can fit only one EM wave with 1m of wavelenght, which makes one photon in this type of radiation.OK, so, by that "argument" you can only fit 1 photon of wavelength1 mm into a 1 mm space and so on.
So, if I have an object the size of a small bacterium for example- about 0.5 micron then you can get just 1 photon of visible light into it.
And yet, if I suitably stain one, and look at it via a good confocal microscope, I can see structures within it.
Since you claim to have a proper education in the field of optics,and quantum electrodynamics, you know probably about such thing, like diffraction of waves and how important for that mechanism is the size of obstacles in relation to wavelenghts - but just in case, this is how it works:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkaragyozov.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2Fdiffisland.gif&hash=72058d9e34b08699af9f1e3106b67220)
(https://slideplayer.com/slide/15485286/93/images/4/Diffraction+Diffraction+is+most+when+the+opening+or+obstacle+is+similar+in+size+to+the+wavelength+of+the+wave..jpg)
(https://slideplayer.com/slide/15485286/93/images/4/Diffraction+Diffraction+is+most+when+the+opening+or+obstacle+is+similar+in+size+to+the+wavelength+of+the+wave..jpg)
Generally speaking, nothing fancy... And you don't need to be a genius, to know how to apply this process in your scenario and guess, what will happen if we'll try to observe an object with the size of around 500nm (0,5 micron) under a microscope.
In shortcut, you will be able to see your bacteria in great details, if the background light will have blue color. However light with a green color will giive you much worse results and internal structures of that bacteria no longer will be visible as clarly as with the blue light. And with the red light, the entire bacteria will become barely visible (or even completely invisible if the wavelenght will get large enough in relation to the size of observed bacteria)... Shortly speaking, the shorter will be the wavelenght (higher frequency) of light used by your microscope, the better results you'll get...
Quote
Let's go back to the bigger - 1 metre- box.
And, just for a bit of variety, let's imagine it's a mirrored cube.
I open the top and bottom of the box, and let the sunlight shine through it.
On earth that would mean that about 1KW of various wavelengths of radiation are passing through it.
But, mainly to make the arithmetic easy, lets imagine that the box is next to the Sun.
We can treat the sun as a black body at about 5700K
Well, our black body emits rather a lot of radiation
If this page is right
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/stefan-boltzmann-law
there's about 600 million watts of power travelling through our box.
And now imagine that I suddenly put the top + bottom back on the box and trap the light (Yes, I know it's impractical but that's not the point).
How many photons of about 1 metre wavelength do I trap?
1.There's a significant difference for radiation emitted by a single point-source and for radiation emitted from some area/volume. If the EM waves are being emitted by a single point-source at a constant frequency, we'll get a radiation which is coherent and monochromatic. And in such case, it will be possible to know the exact number of photons at 1m wavelenght, which at a given moment are being trapped inside a cavity which is 1m long - and this number won't never be higher than 2...
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpd.chem.ucl.ac.uk%2Fpdnn%2Fpowintro%2Fwlength.gif&hash=17ade1ac5eace1de2d3f74ca370fe86d)
However things become much more complicated if the radiation is being emitted by a bigger volume/area of space. It wouldn't be a bigger issue, if we could simply make a point-source bigger, but it isn't howit works. In this situation radiation isn't in fact radiated by a single source, but by multiple point-like sources, which are distributed in a given volume of space. it means that here, in every given period of time, multiple EM waves are being emitted simultaneously - and each one of them can have different wavelenght, phase or magnitude. All of this can lead to (at least) 3 different types of EM radiation:
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/l6OQI.jpg)
And since you brought up radiation of the Sun, in this scenario we'll have to deal with a radiation, which is not only non-coherent but consists multiple EM waves at different wavelenghts and amplitudes - in shortcut the worst possible case for the subject discussed in this thread.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu%2Fhbase%2Fimgmod%2Fwien.gif&hash=af5b516a29f3404f672aad9980b54fb8)
So now in order to trap a specific type of radiation (at 1m wavelenght), you need to "filter it out" from the entire spectrum of radiation, which is produced by the Sun. In the end, all what you did here, is to make everything 10 times more complicated without any logical purpose
2. Your box has 3 dimensions and EM waves can be distributed in all 3 of them. If I understand your intentions correctly, then we should probably focus only on the LENGHT of cavity (orientation along the direction of wave propagation), while ignoring it's width and height. Let's simply reduce the volume of cavity to 1 dimension only - so maybe instead of a box (cube), let's use a 1m long tube and make EM waves at 1m of wavelenght enter this tube through a tiny pinhole or a narrow slit in it's "top" lid. This way we will be able to have control over the type of radiation and the number of photons at 1m wavelenght, which will be moving through the cavity in a given period of time.
3. It's possible that In the moment, when you shut the top+bottom (or rather the entry+exit) of the 1m long cavity tube, there might be more EM waves at 1m wavelenght inside it, than just one. However in order to keep (store) the trapped radiation of 1m wavelenght inside a 1m long tube, we have to trap the EM wave right in the moment when it's wavelenght fits precisely into the cavity ("ends" of that wave can't stick out from the tube). Only this way we'll be able to get a standing wave, which can be amplified through constructive interference with itself (own reflection). EM waves at 1m wavelnght, which be "sticking out" beyond the cavity boundaries, will be out-of-phase after their reflection, what will leadi to destructive interference.
Ok, maybe I just make a simple image, to show you what I mean... On top is a cavity containing a single standing wave of 1m wavelenght in resonance with a corresponding probability distribution of a single photon (green curve). Image below shows a cavity containing 2 out-of-phase and non-resonating waves with the corresponding probability distribution of photons... Of course I've made this image using Microsoft Paint, so don't expect it to be a precise representation of this scenario - it only represents the general idea...
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTKKvwbt/tuba.jpg)
Quote
Well, if this
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/radfrac.html
is right then about 0.6E-9 Watts has a wavelength within 1 micron of 1 metre.
And that's carried by photons with an energy of 2E-25 J
So that's 3E15 of them each second.
And they traverse the box in 1/C seconds.
So, there are, on average, about ten million of them in the box at any time.
I don't know, how did you calculate it - here's what I got:
(https://i.postimg.cc/PJXy9ksJ/chuj.jpg)
I've set the area to 100cm2 since your box has 1m3 so it can't contain radiation produced by the entire surface of Sun. And then according to this site:
https://www.sensorsone.com/em-waves-vac-wavelength-to-photon-energy-calculator/
A single photon of 1m wavelenght has the energy of: 1.98644586e-25J - so let it be 2e-25J just as you said
But Anyway, what I want to discuss here, is a situation, where 2 or more EM waves at the same wavelenghts occupy the same space and interfere with each other, while in a 3D box/cube multiple EM waves can be distributed in different locations of height and width of that box without causing any interference.
What matters is, how many EM waves at 1m of wavelenght can remain trapped in a cavity, which is 1m LONG
Quote
And if I snap the lid shut, that's how many get caught in the box.
Of course, the Sun is a great source of light, but it's not very efficient as a 1 metre radio wave source.
It only emits nanowatts per square meter of radiation at 1 metre...
I can do rather better than that.
I'd need to tweak the frequency down a bit but the "key fob" transmitters used for opening garage doors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LPD433
And that would let me transmit 10 milliwatts. which is about a billion times more power than a square foot of the sun (at 1 metre)
So I can arrange, quite easily , for there to be about 10E12 photons in the box.
By my reckoning, that is more than 1.
Yes - in a 3D box, where they can be located next to each other without causing any interrference.
Anyway, as for your scenario, solution can be found here:
Electromagnetic Waves in a Cubical Cavity http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/rayj.html#c1
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu%2Fhbase%2Fquantum%2Fimgqua%2Frj8.gif&hash=f93ce7e3aafcd03f9691bcf84c2bfbb7)
Or here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/phodens.html#c1
And to end the entire discussion about a possibility of infinite intensity gain for radiation trapped in a perfectly reflective cavity - here are the proper equations:
(https://www.ecse.rpi.edu/~schubert/Light-Emitting-Diodes-dot-org/chap14/F14-01%20Optical%20modes.jpg)
(https://d2vlcm61l7u1fs.cloudfront.net/media%2F975%2F9754a60e-862e-44ff-8d8a-6fe47c09b246%2FphpqzGSaA.png)
(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/partilaserbasicslorenser2009-123878485775-phpapp02/95/laser-basics-33-728.jpg)
(https://d2vlcm61l7u1fs.cloudfront.net/media%2F975%2F9754a60e-862e-44ff-8d8a-6fe47c09b246%2FphpqzGSaA.png)
(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/partilaserbasicslorenser2009-123878485775-phpapp02/95/laser-basics-33-728.jpg)
Quote
Let's then imagine a simple scenario, where a stationary mirror has almost the same mass/energy, as an incident photon. What do you think will be observed in the lab frame?And very shortly afterwards, it will hit the other side of the spherical shell, and be kicked back to very nearly the same energy that it had in the first place.
My answer is:
- incident photon will accelerate the mirror almost to c, while being reflected back in opposite direction at c with just a tiny fraction of it's previous frequency/momentum
That's fine if we have just one photon.
In reality, we have many
So, in the mean time (between the two collisions of that one photoon), any other photons which hit the mirror hit a moving mirror. So their wavelengths will also get altered in a way that's chaotic.
This is the mechanism by which the light is scrambled into a black body spectrum.
And that's the mechanism by which high energy photons are made.
Thing is, that your scenario can't lead to any definitive gain in the energy level of that system, even if the hypothetical perfect conditions are met - this would violate the law of energy conservation. Without resonance you can only get as much as 100% efficiency for any constant source of sound/radiation. You simply won't be able to increase the frequency of any trapped radiation without adding some 3rd external source of mechanical pressure. You can't get an infinite source of energy from any possible configuration of your scenario - get over it, because it sounds like somekind of scientific heresy :)
But on the other hand, If you think about it - isn't the law of energy conservation in some part violated by the effect of resonance? I mean you get the gain of amplitude/intensity of any sound/EM wave only by enclosing it in a proper volume of space and have more than 100% efficiency of the source...
Quote
And that's the mechanism by which high energy photons are made.
NOPE. This is a mechanism by which high energy photons are made:
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/182701-scientists-work-out-how-create-matter-from-light-finally-proving-einsteins-emc2
(https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/photon%E2%80%93photon-collider-640x323.jpg)
You NEED to have an additional source of energy, to increase the frequency of any EM radiation. If your claims would be true, you would be famous as someone who discovered the infiinite energy source...
Hmm... Now I really start to wish, for your unproven claims to be true... Maybe you should try doing somekind of practical experiments? I really hope that you're right... I mean, who wouldn't hope - any one would love to have free energy and you will become famous... Sadly in this particular and rare case, I prefer to trust the mainstream science, so I don't think that any hopes in your claims matter here at all...
TBC
Post by: CrazyScientist on 04/08/2021 02:22:11
You CAN'T burn a human skin with FM waves - no matter how intense the FM field will get.Talking about "FM" is a bit meaningless. I presume you mean the wavelengths typically used to transmit FM radio- about 100 MHz.
You should have learned not to get your fingers burned by being wrong about radio waves.
Yes you can use 100 MHz waves to burn skin.
"Diathermy is produced by three techniques: ultrasound (ultrasonic diathermy), short-wave radio frequencies in the range 1–100 MHz (shortwave diathermy) "
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diathermy
You should stop pretending that you know things.
If your model predicts that it's impossible to get RF burns at 100 MHz, and , in reality, people do get RF burns at 100 MHz, it is clear that your model of the universe is wrong.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224188647_Radio_Frequency_Burns_in_the_Power_System_Workplace
Why do you keep trying to insist on it?
Of course. it seems, that for some reason, you forgot to mention about this part: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_heating
Radio-frequency heating
The use of high-frequency electric fields for heating dielectric materials had been proposed in the 1930s. For example, U.S. Patent 2,147,689 (application by Bell Telephone Laboratories, dated 1937) states "This invention relates to heating systems for dielectric materials and the object of the invention is to heat such materials uniformly and substantially simultaneously throughout their mass. It has been proposed therefore to heat such materials simultaneously throughout their mass by means of the dielectric loss produced in them when they are subjected to a high voltage, high frequency field." This patent proposed radio frequency (RF) heating at 10 to 20 megahertz (wavelength 15 to 30 meters).[4] Such wavelengths were far longer than the cavity used, and thus made use of near-field effects and not electromagnetic waves. (Commercial microwave ovens use wavelengths only 1% as long.)
TBC
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/08/2021 13:33:03
I didn't hear about any law of physicsIt shows.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 06/08/2021 23:12:36
"For a given cavity and wavelength", means that all those variables depend on each other - at least this is, how I understand it...I see the problem lies with your reading comprehension.
What I said
"For a given cavity and wavelength, the intensity is proportional to the number of photons. You can't change them independently."
Is true.
It does not imply what you said it did.
"So at last you do actually admit, that size of cavity and the wavelenght of traped radiation DO define the intensity and the number of photons inside cavity?"
That is clearly not true.
Imagine the case where there is not a single photon in the box.
The intensity and the number of photons is zero.
Now add a single photon in the box.
The intensity and the number of photons have changed- but the box is the same size,
Now add a second photon.
Again the size of the cavity is unchanged and the wavelength is unchanged, but the intensity , and the number of photons have changed.
(https://media.wired.co.uk/photos/606db2c6e97d34ed515f0929/4:3/w_1704,h_1278,c_limit/lightparticle.jpg)
Number of photons in a standing EM wave is constant for each avaliable mode - and the number of modes depends on the wavelenght and/or volume of a cavity. Read this paper: http://physics.ucsc.edu/~drip/5D/photons/photons.pdf
Quote
Do you see how the size and the wavelength do not define the intensity or the number of photons in the box?
Do you see how that falsifies your claim that "that size of cavity and the wavelenght of traped radiation DO define the intensity and the number of photons inside cavity"?
No, I don't... This is how I see it: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/phodens.html#c1
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu%2Fhbase%2Fquantum%2Fimgqua%2Fendist.png&hash=3a6f581bdb6ec8de7fbd4fa09d1521d1)
In shortcut: you have a specified number of photons in a volume of space for specified frequencies of EM radiation (cavity modes)
Quote
OK
If I double the number of photons in the box, I double the intensity.
So, they are proportional to one another . Adding a third photon will produce treble the intensity, and so on.
Which is why I am able to make the claim in the second clause of my statement
"the intensity is proportional to the number of photons. You can't change them independently"
But it is slightly more complicated than that.
If I use photons with half the wavelength then the intensity - measured in watts per square meter is doubled because each photon has twice the energy.
So, in order to make the statement "So, they are proportional to one another ."
I have to specify that it's true for a given wavelength.
And similarly, if I keep the number and wavelength (and thus the energy) of the photons the same, but change the size (i.e. the area) of the box, the intensity- in watts per metre squared changes in inverse proportion to the area.
So, again, i need to qualify the assertion "So, they are proportional to one another ." by specifying that the size of the box does not change.
Hence, my statement
"For a given cavity and wavelength, the intensity is proportional to the number of photons. You can't change them independently."
Now that's strange - I mostly agree with this part. Maybe there's still a tiny chance as for your scientific reliability...
But then you ended with this:
Quote
Do you now see that
My statement was true.
Your statement was false and (logically as well as linguistically) my statement does not imply your statement, nor is it compatible with it?
Sadly, everything I see, is some guy, who claims to have authority in science, while making claims which are 100% false. I have an advice for you - before you assume, that your claims are always absolutely valid due to your self-proclaimed authority, try makng just a bit of basic research (just a bit)...
Because it just so happens that I'm a guy, who doesn't believe in your supreme authority and always makes just a bit of research, before admitting own wins/loses - and it's because of those traits of me, that I can say with 99,8% of certainty (you still have a bit of chance), that you know s**t about the subject, while trying to sound smart af...
Well, allow me to burst your small virtual bubble:of mental comfort:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47105/amplitude-of-an-electromagnetic-wave-containing-a-single-photon
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27851/producing-photons-with-same-frequency-different-amplitude-wave
This is EXACLY what I'm telling you from the very beginning - EM radiation, which is trapped in a (hypothetical) perfectly) reflective cavity, will ALWAYS reach a constant thermal equilibrium at a specific energy level, which is characteristic to each given wavelenght,(mode), For any given wavelenght of trapped rradiation, there is a specific "as much" in the photon number, that is defined by the volume of cavity.
Inside a 1D tube, which is 100cm long, you can succesfully trap as much as 1 photon of 100cm wavelenght and/or 2 photons at 100//2cm wavelenght + 3 photons at 100/3cm wavelenght + 4 photons at 100/4cm wavelenght and so on.
For every avaliable mode, each trapped photon has a specific energy equal E=hƒ and photons at greater than 100cm wavelenghts (with a tiiny degree of error allowed by probablity distribution) won't fit into 100cm cavity...
Thing is, that using resonance in a perfectly reflective cavity, you can fit twice as much photons for each avaliable mode and increase the energy of trapped radiation by 200% without changing the wavelenghts of photons - how is that possible? Well, it's because besides having the 3 spatially defined components (momemtum, electric and magnetic vectors), every EM wave is also defined by an "imaginary" component of probability, which is also localized in space and has a specified amplitude in the range from 0% to 100% without having any spatial orientation.
So now the question is - is it possible for photons at the same wavelenghts to have different amplitudes of their electric/magnetic components/vectors?
And the answer is: pretty much YES - as proved in this example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_heating
I didn't hear about any law of physicsIt shows.
Then maybe try to enlight me...
TBC
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/08/2021 00:32:10
I didn't hear about any law of physicsIt shows.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/08/2021 11:35:43
I didn't hear about any law of physics, according to which it is impossible to concentrate EM radiation with a lense or concave mirror - can you please tell me, what exactly is that law?I never heard of such a law either.
It seem that you made it up.
Why did you introduce it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/08/2021 15:30:16
near-field effects and not electromagnetic waves.Please explain how the near field propagates without using EM waves.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/08/2021 15:32:45
It's only a matter of scale - the bigger is the radius of a lense/mirror, the more EM waves will be concentrated in one point, resulting in higher intensity... What makes it theoretically impossible?Actual science, rather than your straw man version.
You may find this educational.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/145/
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/08/2021 15:34:43
In shortcutDo you mean "in short"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/08/2021 15:53:51
In shortcut, you will be able to see your bacteria in great details, if the background light will have blue color. However light with a green color will giive you much worse results and internal structures of that bacteria no longer will be visible as clarly as with the blue light. And with the red light, the entire bacteria will become barely visible (or even completely invisible if the wavelenght will get large enough in relation to the size of observed bacteria)... Shortly speaking, the shorter will be the wavelenght (higher frequency) of light used by your microscope, the better results you'll get...
In fact the resolution is less than the wavelength
"When optimally used, confocal microscopes may reach resolutions of 180 nm"
so, as seems to often be the case, you are flat out wrong.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4379090/
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/08/2021 16:05:18
Inside a 1D tube, which is 100cm long, you can succesfully trap as much as 1 photon of 100cm wavelenght and/or 2 photons at 100//2cm wavelenght + 3 photons at 100/3cm wavelenght + 4 photons at 100/4cm wavelenght and so on.
An interesting conjecture.
Consider my microwave oven.
It runs at 2.4GHz with a corresponding wavelength of about 12.5 cm
Each photon carries about 1.6E-24 Joules.
It is rated for 900 watts.
So it produces about 5.6 E 26 photons per second.
and it's about 15 inches wide
So the cavity is 3 wavelengths long.
According to you it can therefore contain 3 photons of microwave radiation at any given time.
But in reality, about 10^27 photons pass through it every second.
The transit time is about 1.25 nanoseconds for light to travel from one side to the other.
So, at any one time, there must be about 7E15 photons in it.
And yet, you say there can only be 3
Can you explain the disparity?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/08/2021 16:10:37
Only this way we'll be able to get a standing wave, which can be amplified through constructive interference with itselfWhy do you keep going on about amplification?
If you impose unwarranted additional conditions then you change what can be done.
But they aren't relevant or helpful.
I'm talking about a box, not a laser.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/08/2021 16:13:07
Sadly, everything I see, is some guy, who claims to have authority in science, while making claims which are 100% false.Look away from the mirror and tell me why your microwave oven doesn't take roughly the age of the universe to heat a baked potato.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/08/2021 16:16:54
Because it just so happens that I'm a guy, who doesn't believe in your supreme authorityNo, because you only believe in your own supreme authority- even when you have been shown to be foolishly wrong- for example, about diathermy and FM radio.
As a consequence you miss the fact that I'm not really claiming much authority at all.
I'm just pointing out what science actually say.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 07/08/2021 22:42:20
Inside a 1D tube, which is 100cm long, you can succesfully trap as much as 1 photon of 100cm wavelenght and/or 2 photons at 100//2cm wavelenght + 3 photons at 100/3cm wavelenght + 4 photons at 100/4cm wavelenght and so on.
An interesting conjecture.
Consider my microwave oven.
It runs at 2.4GHz with a corresponding wavelength of about 12.5 cm
Each photon carries about 1.6E-24 Joules.
It is rated for 900 watts.
So it produces about 5.6 E 26 photons per second.
and it's about 15 inches wide
So the cavity is 3 wavelengths long.
According to you it can therefore contain 3 photons of microwave radiation at any given time.
But in reality, about 10^27 photons pass through it every second.
The transit time is about 1.25 nanoseconds for light to travel from one side to the other.
So, at any one time, there must be about 7E15 photons in it.
And yet, you say there can only be 3
Can you explain the disparity?
It's because the photon number is a function of probability and not the amplitude of electric/magnetic componentds. In a resonance cavity of a microwave oven you can in one time fit 6 photons in the n-3 mode of microwave frequency - but only if the standing wave criteria is met (proper volume of cavity). Thing is, that those 6 photons merge into 3 photns of the same wavelenght, but with twice as big electric/magnetic amplitude due to constructive interference of EM waves.
Of course all of this doesn't involve photons at much shorter wavelenghts, like the visibe light - in the microwave owen cavity there can be a LOT of them...
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/08/2021 23:07:01
It's because the photon number is a function of probability and not the amplitude of electric/magnetic componentds.You seem to be trying to say that having more photons does not correspond to a higher amplitude of the EM radiation.
That's not plausible.
You say that you can't have more than n photons in a box if the length of the box is n times the wavelength.
But When I point out that, for a microwave oven cavity n is 3 but you have about 10^16 photons at any time, you post a reply that simply makes no sense.
Are you able to clarify it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/08/2021 23:12:47
Thing is, that those 6 photons merge into 3 photns of the same wavelenght, but with twice as big electric/magnetic amplitude due to constructive interference of EM waves.That's just not possible,
The energy of a photon is given by e=hf.
So, if you combined 2 photons into one, you have twice the energy and you would have half the wavelength.
This is the way in which most green "lasers" work.
They frequency double the IR emission at 1064 nm to produce 532 nm green light.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 08/08/2021 00:06:31
What I'm trying to say, is that increase/decrease of the amplitude doesn't affect the number of photons traaped in a cavity - and yes: it's very much possibleIt's because the photon number is a function of probability and not the amplitude of electric/magnetic componentds.You seem to be trying to say that having more photons does not correspond to a higher amplitude of the EM radiation.
That's not plausible.
Quote
[
You say that you can't have more than n photons in a box if the length of the box is n times the wavelength.
But When I point out that, for a microwave oven cavity n is 3 but you have about 10^16 photons at any time, you post a reply that simply makes no sense.
Are you able to clarify it?
It's because the owen is a 3D object - I'm speaking about 1 dimension only (momentun/propagation)
Thing is, that those 6 photons merge into 3 photns of the same wavelenght, but with twice as big electric/magnetic amplitude due to constructive interference of EM waves.That's just not possible,
The energy of a photon is given by e=hf.
So, if you combined 2 photons into one, you have twice the energy and you would have half the wavelength.
https://asktowolrd.com/physics/how-is-it-that-increase-in-amplitude-of-electromagnetic-radiation-results-in-increase-in-number-of-photons/
"Strictly speaking, the amplitude of the field (meaning the operators of the electric and magnetic fields, see here) and the photon number do not commute. Thus, the claims that increasing the amplitude increases the number of photons or vice versa are technically not correct."
Are you saying that your authority is superior, compared to those people?
Quote
This is the way in which most green "lasers" work.
They frequency double the IR emission at 1064 nm to produce 532 nm green light.
Ahh - so it workis in the n2 mode.
Now tell me, if that laser emits as well twice as many photons at 1064nm? No? Hmm, I wonder, what happened with them...? Didn't they turn into photons at 532nm, and increae the power output for that wavelenght?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/08/2021 09:45:03
It's because the owen is a 3D object - I'm speaking about 1 dimension only (momentun/propagation)OK, 3 dimensions raises the total of 6 photons, compared to the real value which is about 10^16
Feel free to "solve" this problem with your view on how the world works.
Just remember that I will apply whatever process you need, to the case of the mirrored sphere.
If you can explain an arbitrarily large number of microwave photons in my oven, then , by the same process, I can get an arbitrarily large number of photons into the mirror sphere.
And even if you can't explain it, I will simply point out that I can get a lot more than 1 or 2 photons in a cavity and you are wrong.
Are you saying that your authority is superior, compared to those people?I can't access that page, so I can't comment on them.
But I say that the conservation of energy has more authority than they do, and what you propose, breaks it.
Ahh - so it workis in the n2 mode.That's meaningless.
Now tell me, if that laser emits as well twice as many photons at 1064nm? No?I think it's probably more like 200 or 2000.
The process is rather inefficient.
I wonder, what happened with them...?This
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-harmonic_generation
increae the power output for that wavelenght?No. The power out at 532 nm is something like 100 times less than the power in at 1064nm.
Your silly idea would break the conservation laws.
Incidentally, if you were somehow right about 2 photons magically combining to make a "superphoton" of some sort, then it wouldn't matter.
The combination would- by the mass and energy conservation laws- have twice the mass of an ordinary photon.
And if I continued to add photons to it it would get more and more massive until it became a black hole.
Your idea- if it wasn't nonsense- would make the "kugelblitz".easier to make- no massive mirror ball needed. You seem to think the photons will somehow "stick" together.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/08/2021 02:51:27
I didn't hear about any law of physics, according to which it is impossible to concentrate EM radiation with a lense or concave mirror - can you please tell me, what exactly is that law?I never heard of such a law either.
It seem that you made it up.
Why did you introduce it?
But in this case It was you who said, that it's theoretically impossible, to create a black hole by concentrating EM waves in one point of space with a lense or concave mirror - but it's not that I disagree. In fact from the very beginning of this thread, I completely dismissed the idea of BH creation due to a high mean photon number in a given volume of space..It was you, who from the very beginning insisted some highly doubtful ideas about making a kugelblitz by trapping EM radiation...
near-field effects and not electromagnetic waves.Please explain how the near field propagates without using EM waves.
Like this:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQVVpgZNkz8oU7TZXRlydB-6h9EhvW5TUD9tT8yyGe-I-4mqXVzkiGGFak3Qs3QvTmhre4&usqp=CAU)
Personally I believe that electric, magnetic and gravitational fields emerge from a single mechanism - maybe it's space-time curvature or/and differentials of energy states...(?)
In shortcut, you will be able to see your bacteria in great details, if the background light will have blue color. However light with a green color will giive you much worse results and internal structures of that bacteria no longer will be visible as clarly as with the blue light. And with the red light, the entire bacteria will become barely visible (or even completely invisible if the wavelenght will get large enough in relation to the size of observed bacteria)... Shortly speaking, the shorter will be the wavelenght (higher frequency) of light used by your microscope, the better results you'll get...
In fact the resolution is less than the wavelength
"When optimally used, confocal microscopes may reach resolutions of 180 nm"
so, as seems to often be the case, you are flat out wrong.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4379090/
This is exactly, what you said: "So, if I have an object the size of a small bacterium for example- about 0.5 micron then you can get just 1 photon of visible light into it"
0.5 micron is 500nm - green & blue have shorter wavelenghts while reds have them longer - and since "In fact the resolution is less than the wavelength" is actually a true statement, I was once again absolutely right :)
Thing is, that those 6 photons merge into 3 photns of the same wavelenght, but with twice as big electric/magnetic amplitude due to constructive interference of EM waves.That's just not possible,
The energy of a photon is given by e=hf.
So, if you combined 2 photons into one, you have twice the energy and you would have half the wavelength.
Hello - didn't you hear about such thing, like constructive interference?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Stehende_Welle.gif)
In the n-3 mode of resonant cavity (microwave owen) due to constructive interference you get a standing wave with the same wavelenght and with twice as high amplitude of the EM oscillation - but yet in a standing wave you ALWAYS have a definitive number of given wavelnghts (photons) in the resonant cavity volume. In shortcut: in the n-3 cavity mode 6 "injected" photons merge into 3 photons with 2x higher amplitude
It's only a matter of scale - the bigger is the radius of a lense/mirror, the more EM waves will be concentrated in one point, resulting in higher intensity... What makes it theoretically impossible?Actual science, rather than your straw man version.
You may find this educational.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/145/
It's funny, how I many times I said all of this in this thread - you can't get a BH by increasing the intensity/amplitude of a EM wave... Maybe you didn't notice, but my proposition of making a BH by using a giant lense, was rather sarcastic - it's impossible to keep increasing the energy level of a system, without using some external force, to increase the frequency of trapped radiation - AMEN.
Are you saying that your authority is superior, compared to those people?I can't access that page, so I can't comment on them.
But I say that the conservation of energy has more authority than they do, and what you propose, breaks it.
Weird - I don't have any problems with the access... But if not, then what about this one:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/47105/amplitude-of-an-electromagnetic-wave-containing-a-single-photon?noredirect=1&lq=1
Equivalently, as @user1504 put it
The electric and magnetic field operators do not commute with the number operator which counts photons."
Still no access? Opening your mind a bit might help... :)
Quote
Incidentally, if you were somehow right about 2 photons magically combining to make a "superphoton" of some sort, then it wouldn't matter.
The combination would- by the mass and energy conservation laws- have twice the mass of an ordinary photon.
And if I continued to add photons to it it would get more and more massive until it became a black hole.
No it wouldn't - just just like yu wouldn't get a BH by using a giant satellite dish or a lense. It's exactly the same principle, based on increasing the intensity of radiation of a specified wavelenght due to constructive interference of EM waves
Quote
Your idea- if it wasn't nonsense- would make the "kugelblitz".easier to make- no massive mirror ball needed. You seem to think the photons will somehow "stick" together.
Just like that?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Stehende_Welle.gif)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Stehende_Welle.gif)
Because it's exactly how I think photons "stick" together in a standing wave... Is it really for you such an unimaginable idea?
Quote
It's because the owen is a 3D object - I'm speaking about 1 dimension only (momentun/propagation)OK, 3 dimensions raises the total of 6 photons, compared to the real value which is about 10^16
Feel free to "solve" this problem with your view on how the world works.
Just remember that I will apply whatever process you need, to the case of the mirrored sphere.
If you can explain an arbitrarily large number of microwave photons in my oven, then , by the same process, I can get an arbitrarily large number of photons into the mirror sphere.
And even if you can't explain it, I will simply point out that I can get a lot more than 1 or 2 photons in a cavity and you are wrong.
I really appreciate all your efforts to appear as someone with actual authority in the discussed field of science - I find them very adorable... But still, before you convince me as for your superior knowledge and understanding of cavity QED, maybe let us hear, what some other people have to say about the discussed subject - I really recommend you such doing sometimes such activity, instead arbitrarily trusting in your own superiority...
Imaginge, that I don't have to "solve" this problem with my view on how the world works - some people did it already for me. Here's the basic knowledge regarding EM radiation trapped in the microwave owen
https://www.academia.edu/4621788/physics_of_microwave_ovens
But I recommend this one:
https://www.kth.se/social/files/5cb029dd56be5b49476c1e27/Lecture%202%20Photon%20Statistics.pdf
This part is most important for this subject:
Fock state
The Fock or photon number state |𝑛̂𝑖
⟩ results directly from the quantization of the
electromagnetic field, since the Fock state is the eigenstate of the photon number operator
𝑛̂𝑖
:
The eigenvalue ni of the photon number operator describes the number of photons in a
specific mode i. The probability PFock(n) to find ni photons in one mode is either 1 for n = ni or
0 for n ≠ ni. This is a special characteristic of the Fock state: The photon number is fully
determined. Thus. the probability distribution of the photon number follows a δ-distribution.
The expected value of the photon number in a Fock state is equal to the number of photons
in the state:
For the Fock state the variance is therefore:
The Fock state fulfills the inequality ∆𝑛 < √𝑛, showing a variance smaller than the Glauber
state. Such sub-Poisson statistics cannot be described by classical electromagnetic theory;
thus such light is classified as non-classical light. The figure below shows the photon number
distribution for two Fock states. Light emitters with a Fock state n = 1 are called single photon
sources, since they can only emit one single photon at a time
But I REALLY recommend you to read it whole - it's actually quite short and even I am capable to comprehend it and see, how niecely it confirms most of my claims from this thread...
TBC
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2021 08:55:25
But in this case It was you who said, that it's theoretically impossible, to create a black hole by concentrating EM waves in one point of space with a lense or concave mirrorThat is impossible.
But I asked why you made up this nonsense.
I didn't hear about any law of physics, according to which it is impossible to concentrate EM radiation with a lense or concave mirror - can you please tell me, what exactly is that law?
Nobody had said you can't concentrate light with a lens or mirror, had they?.
Please explain where you got that silly idea from.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2021 08:56:18
TBCIt's probably better if you don't continue until we fix the problems with your current understanding.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2021 09:05:43
This part is most important for this subject:No it isn't.
This is.
"The Fock state fulfills the inequality ∆𝑛 < √𝑛, showing a variance smaller than the Glauber
state. Such sub-Poisson statistics cannot be described by classical electromagnetic theory;
thus such light is classified as non-classical light. The figure below shows the photon number
distribution for two Fock states. Light emitters with a Fock state n = 1 are called single photon
sources, since they can only emit one single photon at a time."
because it makes it clear that Fock states are "special".
There's no reason to say that that model applies to the photons in a box.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2021 09:07:51
Like this:So... with a wavelength and frequency.
But I asked you to show "how the near field propagates without using EM waves.".
So, I'm asking you again - though, perhaps you would like to simply accept that near and far field optics still use waves.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 28/08/2021 01:44:01
But in this case It was you who said, that it's theoretically impossible, to create a black hole by concentrating EM waves in one point of space with a lense or concave mirrorThat is impossible.
Cool - Then we both agree, that it's impossible to create a BH by concentrating a huge number of photons in the frequency range of visible light in a small volume of space
Quote
But I asked why you made up this nonsense.
It's because concetrating a large number of EM waves at a specific wavelenght in a small volume of space with a lense or concave mirror doesn't differ that much from trapping a large number of EM waves at a specific wavelenght inside an optical cavity. Both actions lead to the increase of radiation intensity (power/m3) - with optical cavities producing EM radiation, which is coherent and with lenses/concave mirrors producing one that is non-coherent. However this difference shouldn't matter, as it's possible to reach the same level of energy dnsity in coherent and non-coherent radiation fields
Since the beginning of our discussion, you're trying to imply, that inside a perfectly reflective optical cavity, uniform EM field can collapse gravitationally and become a BH if the intensity (photon density) in a given volume of space becomes high enough - energy density can reach the same level for coherent and non-coherent radiation, so theoretically you should be able to achieve the same result by concentrating a large number of photons in small volume using lenses and concave mirror. Keep also in mind that efficiency of optical lenses and concave mirrors increases with it's spatial volume. If you still have (use?) an old school lamp TV, then break it apart and use the thick 21'' slab of glass from it's screen to concentrate sunlight into a point on a sunny day - I can bet, that the "power output" in the dot of concentrated light, will be just as high (or even higher) as for most of modern high-powered lasers. Tell me please, why can't it be possible, to create a Kugelblitz by concentrating the light of a spiral galaxy with a lense of similar radius? Imagine, that light emitted by 250 billions of stars is being concentrated in a 1mm dot of sunlight. I'm sure that you can calculate the radiative power of that dot - and Im sure, that it will be A LOT. Enlighten me, why can't that dot of concentrated sunlight turn into a Kugelblitz at some level of photon density?
Quote
Nobody had said you can't concentrate light with a lens or mirror, had they?.
Please explain where you got that silly idea from.
Sure - just after you explain me, why can't we use a lense or concave mirror to increase the density of photons to a point, when a BH is created, while being able to achieve such result using an optical cavity.
Like this:So... with a wavelength and frequency.
Ooof!
By making this deifinitive-looking statement, you did actually a pretty bad "oopsie!", which once again disqualifies you as someone, who suppose to have some/any authoity in the discussion about EM fields&waves.
Near fields doesn't affect the wavelenght nor frequency of EM waves. Where did you got such suprising and revolutional idea? I know - it came probably from the self-imposed knoledge about always being right in everything what incudes actual knowledge of modern science. Don't tell me that it can actually work for actual scientists...?
I mean you don't need a Phd in physics, to paste "near field" in google search and check out first couple results, like this one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field#Near-field_characteristics
And now I have a small challenge for you: find anything about the near field propagating with wavelength and frequency of EM waves...Or even propagating at all...
Sure, you might find there such words like: "wavelength" and "frequency", but I want you to show me the part, in which it's being stated that near fields propagate using wavelengths and frequencies of EM waves as a carrier. This is your chance - let me feel your absolute authority by giving me one practical example that might finally give some evidence to the "(1)-Law of You Being Always Right ", which you're seem to constantly invoke, when it comes to showing me any "scientific evidence" to support your baseless claims.
No luck? I wonder why... Maybe it's because (1) is for you an arbitrary law, that is always valid in each possible case of scientific discussion - so you don't see any logical sense in fact-checking your own claims. What for? There's no need to confirm, that you are as always completely right or to verify once again, that all who disagree with you, are as always completely wrong about everything what might contradict the (1) Law.
Sure, it's a free world - you can freely believe in whatever BS you can possibly make up and be happy about it, but for someone, who doesn't apply the Law (1) in his everyday life, it doesn't look perfectly normal, when some guy from internet forum claims to have the authority, to disprove articles from Wikipedia with his own, completely made-up claims, that mostly don't make any scientific sense to people other than himself.
Quote
But I asked you to show "how the near field propagates without using EM waves.".
It does such magic by being constantly "suspended" around a source of EM radiation (antenna) and not propagating at all...
For some reason, you seem to propose here a model of near field and EM waves, where the cause-effect relation is directly opposite to the currently accepted model... Near field doesn't use the EM waves to propagate - It's the EM waves that CAN (but doesn't have to) propagate in the near field, which surrounds a source of EM radiation. EM fields around antennas don't propagate - they are always "hanging around" a source of radiation making a EM field, characteristic only to that source. You can't use EM waves to move a near field from point A to point B, but you need to move the antenna...
And if anything, it's the intensity/amplitude, that is being affected by the near-field in EM waves which propagate near the source of EM radiation:
(https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/3-s2.0-B9781845694203500019-f01-03-9781845694203.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcROF1q89TJ8yhpnlvzwsTIn2xpDSIhPmXpv8g&usqp=CAU)
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Denys-Natarov/publication/285752836/figure/fig1/AS:390265417289731@1470057934566/Near-field-amplitude-patterns-of-the-central-parts-of-the-stacked-two-period-grating-from.png)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcROF1q89TJ8yhpnlvzwsTIn2xpDSIhPmXpv8g&usqp=CAU)
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Denys-Natarov/publication/285752836/figure/fig1/AS:390265417289731@1470057934566/Near-field-amplitude-patterns-of-the-central-parts-of-the-stacked-two-period-grating-from.png)
Quote
So, I'm asking you again - though, perhaps you would like to simply accept that near and far field optics still use waves.
Sorry to dissapoint you, but you're not a Jedi master and you're not capable of forcing me to accept statements which I consider to be incorrect, just by telling me to do so.
Near field is a local phenomenon and it doesn't use EM waves to propagate through space - however near field can affect the amplitude of electric/magnetic oscillations in EM waves which are propagating near a source of radiation.
Next time, instead of The Force, you should maybe try using some more dramatic measures, like magical incantantations or a voodoo doll. Try reciting: "By my will, I command you to respect my authoritaaa...!" at least 13 times, while jumping on one leg inside a burning pentagram - just don't forget to inform me, that you put a spell on me (or just send me a recording of the ritual)...
This part is most important for this subject:No it isn't.
This is.
"The Fock state fulfills the inequality ??? < ???, showing a variance smaller than the Glauber
state. Such sub-Poisson statistics cannot be described by classical electromagnetic theory;
thus such light is classified as non-classical light. The figure below shows the photon number
distribution for two Fock states. Light emitters with a Fock state n = 1 are called single photon
sources, since they can only emit one single photon at a time."
because it makes it clear that Fock states are "special".
There's no reason to say that that model applies to the photons in a box.
Of course, that Fock state IS special - because photons trapped in a reflective cavity IS a special case of EM radiation. Most of actual physicists would say, that there's no such thing as "stationary photon" or a rest frame for EM wave - unless they're not up-to-date with the recent trends in modern physics or they're not speciallized in the field of cavity QED...
To get the Fock state, you need to satisfy couple special conditons - you need to have a source of radiation emitting EM waves at one specific wavelenght and a cavity with size compatible with that wavelenght. But exactly because of this, Fock state is the most "pure" state of trapped radiation and is being introduced in the first order in most of publications regarding quantum optics and cavity QED - like this one:
Quantum Optics in Cavities and the Classical Limit of Quantum Mechanics
https://www.iimas.unam.mx/barberis/davidovich_elaf_1998.pdf
Generally, one can't discuss the theory of optical microcavities without speaking about the Fock states and you will find this term in most of sources, when it comes to cavity QED.
TBCIt's probably better if you don't continue until we fix the problems with your current understanding.
I bet you would love me to stop exposing the fact, that your self-imposed authority isn't necessarily based on your knowledge of the discussed subject. Problem is, that I try to base my understanding on actual sources and not on someone's self-imposed authority - so maybe it's not my understanding, which in this case should be fixed.
Let's begin for example from your statement regarding number of photon photons in a cavity and the intensity of trapped radiation - as you seem to think that you can't change the field intensity without changing the photon number in the cavity. Let me show you, that this is not true and that those values are independent from each other - i.e. you can change the amplitude of electric/magnetic oscillations in a standing EM wave without changing the number of photons inside the cavity.
Here's a nice article: Filling a cavity with photons, and watching them leave https://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/39
And here's the important fragment:
Quote
Moreover, similarly to the cavity used by the CNRS group, excitations of the resonator are microwave photons. These essentially one-dimensional cavities have a small mode volume, resulting in a large electric field per photon.
So by adding more and more photons at a resonant frequency into the cavity, you don't change the number of photons in the standing EM wave, while increasing the amplitude of it's electric/magnetic oscillations, what results in the increase of radiation intensity.
And as for your claims regarding creation of BHs due to perfect reflectivity:
https://www.tcd.ie/Physics/people/Paul.Eastham/nanophotonics.pdf
Quote
...In fact, for lossless mirrors the reflectivity vanishes at the resonance condition δ = 2nπ. This is a surprising result: no matter how good the mirrors, they are effectively transparent at the resonance condition...
So, even if we trap a EM wave between perfect mirrors, there will be a certain "as much" for the increase of it's amplitude, at which the system will reach a thermal equilibrium.
You can't use a beam of photons at the wavelenght of 1024nm, to heat something to 10000°C, no matter how big is the photon density. Since 1024nm is the wavelenght characteristic to blacbody radiation at around 2500°C, to heat something beyond this temperature, you will need to use photons at shorter wavelenghts. By increasing the number of photons (intensity of radiation) at 1024nm in the beam, you will only decrease the time at which this beam will heat something to the temperature of 2500°C.- but not beyond that level
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2021 12:10:00
I try to base my understanding on actual sources and not on someone's self-imposed authorityLOL
Those "sources" are "someone's self-imposed authority".
Someone thought they had enough authority to write an article, and you read it,.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2021 12:11:57
Near fields doesn't affect the wavelenght nor frequency of EM waves. Where did you got such suprising and revolutional idea? II never did.
It's a straw man you made up.
If you think I said that, please quote the bit where I said it.
I'm not wasting much time arguing with you if you just make up false claims about what I said.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2021 12:15:06
Sure - just after you explain me, why can't we use a lense or concave mirror to increase the density of photons to a point, when a BH is created, while being able to achieve such result using an optical cavity.
It's one of the laws of optics, though it's essentially just a statement of the energy conservation law.
You can't use a mirror, lens, or combination of them to get an image which is brighter than the source.
Why were you not aware of this?
So, if the image was bright enough (i.e. had a high enough photon density) to turn into a BH, the source would already have done so.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2021 12:18:55
Sorry to dissapoint you, but you're not a Jedi master and you're not capable of forcing me to accept statements which I consider to be incorrect, just by telling me to do so.Do you understand the meaning of the word "so" in my text which you quoted i.e.
"So, I'm asking you again"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2021 12:25:11
Next time, instead of The Force, you should maybe try using some more dramatic measures, like magical incantantations or a voodoo doll. Try reciting: "By my will, I command you to respect my authoritaaa...!" at least 13 times, while jumping on one leg inside a burning pentagram - just don't forget to inform me, that you put a spell on me (or just send me a recording of the ritual)...Given that you ignore logical reasoning, perhaps I should try those options.
Or maybe I should just give up trying to convince you that reality is real.
It does such magic by being constantly "suspended" around a source of EM radiation (antenna) and not propagating at all...Near field photons do propagate. We use them to take pictures with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-field_scanning_optical_microscope
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2021 12:29:23
Near field is a local phenomenon and it doesn't use EM waves to propagate through spaceI asked how they did that, and you cut and pasted a bunch of stuff from some self appointed authority which talked about the wavelength of the light.
I pointed that out and you ignored it so, once again...
If it isn't using waves, how does it have a a wavelength?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 13/09/2021 23:32:23
I try to base my understanding on actual sources and not on someone's self-imposed authorityLOL
Those "sources" are "someone's self-imposed authority".
Someone thought they had enough authority to write an article, and you read it,.
You seem to miss couple important differenes between my sources and your claims...
1. those articles are mostly citing peer-reviewed research papers and/or practical experiments - so even if they are mostly written (or just copy/pasted) by some half-assed type-writers hired for couple bucks, you have there some links to the actual scientific publication
2. Peer reviewed articles are mostly written by people, who know eough about a given subject, to rightly impose their own authority over people without proper education - and in the difference to you, they can base that authority with actual knowledge.
However from my personal observations (I spoke with some certified physicists) I can tell, that the bigger knowledge a scientist has, the more humble and open-minded are his opinions - and sorry, but following such logic, your knowldge of cavity QED is very close to Asolute Zero :)
Or do you really try telling me, that you (an unknown guy from internet) has a better understanding of cavity QED, than a bunch of people with phd in photonics and/or quantum physics? If so, then here's a challenge for you: write down an article, where you'll use your revolutional "cricket-analogy", to explain all your "brilliant" ideas about creating BH by trapping light in a perfectly reflective cavity and then try to publish it in Nature or in some other respected scientific journal.
And only after you will give me a link to your publication, I might (but just MIGHT) start to think about your claims, as about something more, than just couple bad cases of fan-fiction from the Star Trek universe...
Sure - just after you explain me, why can't we use a lense or concave mirror to increase the density of photons to a point, when a BH is created, while being able to achieve such result using an optical cavity.
It's one of the laws of optics, though it's essentially just a statement of the energy conservation law.
You can't use a mirror, lens, or combination of them to get an image which is brighter than the source.
Why were you not aware of this?
So what about multiple sources? let's say that you have a region of space with 1mln Sun-like stars (to simplify, let's assume that all have the same color and brightness as our Sun) - if you then use a huge lense, to concentate their light in one tiny spot, wouldn't that spot be 1mln times brighter than the Sun?
Quote
So, if the image was bright enough (i.e. had a high enough photon density) to turn into a BH, the source would already have done so.
That's interesting... Can you please tell me. at what level of photon density, EM radiation becomes itself a source of radiation and photons start to create and emit new photons without being annihilated in that process? - because you know, in this case, light trapped in a cavity is the source of light that is being observed... Light from light - it's yet just another of those "amzing" claims of yours, which could probably revolutionize our understanding of physics, if they would have something in common with actual science...
On the other hand, things which you propose here, might have a real potential - imagine a source of light so powerful, that it can reach a level of brightness, where it turns the light itself into an amost perfect blackbody at a temperature close to Absolute Zero... I mean, it sounds like a nice story arc from somekind of a sci-fi TV series from late 90's. Maybe instead of chemistry, you should try to make a career in Hollyood?
It does such magic by being constantly "suspended" around a source of EM radiation (antenna) and not propagating at all...Near field photons do propagate. We use them to take pictures with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-field_scanning_optical_microscope
this: "(...)photons do propagate(...)" is true - but it is NOT, what you stated earlier about near-fields propagating using EM waves (if it makes any sense at all)
And where exactly is the part which says, that near-fields are using EM waves to propagate? I read it twice and couldn't find anything... Are you sure, that you don't mean that it's the EM waves, which are propagating IN the near field? Are you sure, that you remember it correctly from your years of college - it was quite some time ago. Maybe you should check your notes, if they weren't already stolen by that stupid german guy, who always keeps hiding things from you - what was his name again? Al... Altz... Wasn't it Alzheimer...?
Near field is a local phenomenon and it doesn't use EM waves to propagate through spaceI asked how they did that, and you cut and pasted a bunch of stuff from some self appointed authority which talked about the wavelength of the light.
I pointed that out and you ignored it so, once again...
If it isn't using waves, how does it have a a wavelength?
But... Does near-field have a wavelenght...?
No it doesn't - it has a size/volume, which (according to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field ) depends on the dominant wavelength (λ) emitted by the source and the size of the radiating element.
In order to have a wavelenght, one has to be a wave - is near-field a wave or is it a field? What propagates - waves or fields?
Accoding to dictionary, to propagate means:: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english/propagate
to send out or spread light or sound waves, movement, etc., or to be sent out or spread:
Is an antenna sending out the near-field into space? Does the near-field spread in time and space - NOPE... Near-fields don't propagate... They have specific and static volume and are always distributed in the area around a source of radiation - they do anything but propagate...
But if this is not enough for you - here's more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation#Near_and_far_fields
Otherwise, these fields do not "propagate" freely out into space, carrying their energy away without distance-limit, but rather oscillate, returning their energy to the transmitter if it is not received by a receiver.
And now can you see it? Tell me, where would I get, if I would blindly trust in your superior knowledge and understanding, just like you would like me to do? No one knows, from what kind of fantasy-land do you get those unconventional ideas, but it has to be placed in a glaxy far far away from any form of actual science...
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2021 08:42:30
But... Does near-field have a wavelenght...?
Yes.
The formula you gave earlier includes it.
Also
" The rapid drop in power contained in the near-field ensures that effects due to the near-field essentially vanish a few wavelengths away from the radiating part of the antenna."
From WIKI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
Or , as you put it,
But... Does near-field have a wavelenght...?It does not have a wavelength; it has a size based on the wavelength.
No it doesn't - it has a size/volume, which... depends on the dominant wavelength (λ)
I don't need to cite a peer-reviewed article to show that you are wrong when you do it yourself.
You contradict your own assertion while trying to prove it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2021 09:00:06
Tell me, where would I get, if I would blindly trust in your superior knowledge and understanding, just like you would like me to do?Further than you will get by contradicting yourself.
You also need to lose this daft idea that it is me with whom you are disagreeing.
I'm just putting forward the conventional laws of physics.
So, for example, because I know about the energy conservation laws I can point out that your "focussing al the light..." idea is impossible.
I can point out that it's one of the laws of optics.
But you are so bizarrely conceited that you pretend that I'm wrong.
So what about multiple sources? let's say that you have a region of space with 1mln Sun-like stars (to simplify, let's assume that all have the same color and brightness as our Sun) - if you then use a huge lense, to concentate their light in one tiny spot, wouldn't that spot be 1mln times brighter than the Sun?
There are two problems there. The first is obvious; they wouldn't fit unless most of them were further away so they would seem less bright..
The second is that the, law says you can't use imaging optics to focus the light to be brighter than the source.
You could take my word for that.
Or you could google it, and find that it's true.
Or you could think about the reason I gave for it being true.
Let's try the third option, since it's probably the most interesting.
Imagine that you are right (it's a stretch, but don't worry, you don't need to do it for long.).
Imagine I put a black body at the focus of the bright image.
It will absorb the light and heat up.
And, since the light is brighter than the Sun, the object will become hotter than the Sun.
So I can connect a heat engine between the object and the Sun and extract power from that temperature difference
But I can do that even if I put the whole system in a closed mirror box with no energy source.
All the heat lost by the Sun is return to it via the heat engine, so you can replace the Sun with a lump of hot iron and it will stay hot forever. And the heat engine will continue to produce power forever.
And that is a breach of the conservation of energy.
So we know that you are wrong.
So, once again
It's one of the laws of optics, though it's essentially just a statement of the energy conservation law.
You can't use a mirror, lens, or combination of them to get an image which is brighter than the source.
Why were you not aware of this?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2021 18:17:10
Or do you really try telling me, that you (an unknown guy from internet) has a better understanding of cavity QED, than a bunch of people with phd in photonics and/or quantum physics?No, but I am, for example, showing that you do not understand the implications of quite simple bits of science like the conservation of energy.
You seen not to realise this but the physicists of whom you speak are not posting here; but you are.
You don't have a PhD; you can't even spell it correctly.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2021 18:56:36
Can you please tell me. at what level of photon density, EM radiation becomes itself a source of radiation and photons start to create and emit new photons without being annihilated in that process?No, I can not tell you that.
It seems to be some nonsense you made up, but are bizarrely attributing to me.
How did you come to the conclusion that I had said that?
You seem to have misunderstood the fact that , because of the laws of physics (which you chose to ignore), an image can not be brighter than the source.
The lens doesn't change the wavelengths or whatever.
So, if the image was bright enough, i.e. had a high enough concentration of photons to collapse into a black hole then the source which the laws of physics tell you is brighter would have an even higher concentration of photons and would, therefore, have already collapsed into a BH before you built the lenses.
And yet you seem to have interpreted it as something I never said.
Was it a deliberate attempt at a strawman, was it an hallucination, or did you just not understand?
Light from light - it's yet just another of those "amzing" claims of yours,It's not a claim I ever made, is it?
And where exactly is the part which says, that near-fields are using EM waves to propagate?Is your hypothesis that they propagate by taking the bus?
How else does an EM field - such as the near field- propagate apart from by the use of EM waves?
Is an antenna sending out the near-field into space?That seems to be pretty pointless semantics.
Do I leave my house via the door or via the hallway?
The EM field that my radio receives (You remember radio receivers, don't you - you made a dog's breakfast of them earlier in the thread) is almost always going to be far field.
But it doesn't get there without starting off near the antenna.
And there's only one field.
So the far field radiation must start off as near field.
Incidentally, I missed this one earlier.
You can't use a beam of photons at the wavelenght of 1024nm, to heat something to 10000°C, no matter how big is the photon density. Since 1024nm is the wavelenght characteristic to blacbody radiation at around 2500°C, to heat something beyond this temperature, you will need to use photons at shorter wavelenghts. By increasing the number of photons (intensity of radiation) at 1024nm in the beam, you will only decrease the time at which this beam will heat something to the temperature of 2500°C.- but not beyond that level
How many counter-examples would you like?
We can start with a microwave oven emitting photons characteristic of a temperature well below that of liquid helium.
But it's perfectly capable of cooking a potato.
And then we can consider these guys
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_(laser)
who use a laser at about 1054 nm to heat materials to rather more than 2500C.
The got it hot enough for fusion to take place.
And then , moving to longer wavelengths, there's this sort of thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_heating#/media/File:Induction_heating_of_bar.jpg
where a piece of metal is heated red hot by photons that correspond to a temperature far below that of liquid helium.
About 0.000007654 kelvin, if this is right
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law
Post by: CrazyScientist on 15/10/2021 18:13:44
...But... Does near-field have a wavelenght...?
Yes.
The formula you gave earlier includes it.
Quote
But... Does near-field have a wavelenght...?
No it doesn't - it has a size/volume, which... depends on the dominant wavelength (λ)
It does not have a wavelength; it has a size based on the wavelength.
Ok... I guess that in such case, the most important question is: Which one is it: Is it Alzheimer or is it split personality disorder?
Because now I'm not sure, if you forgot your own statement from a minute ago or if you couldn't agree with the guy, who wrote the first half of your post...
Of course, there's no need for me to ask, which of your answers, is the proper one. Anyone who knows a bit about physics knows well, that near-field doesn't have a wavelenght - it has a size, that depends on the wavelenght of emitted radiation.
Tell me, where would I get, if I would blindly trust in your superior knowledge and understanding, just like you would like me to do?Further than you will get by contradicting yourself.
Yeah... Speaking about contradicting yourself - I believe that in psychology such behavior has it's own name: it's called "projection"...
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 18:34:45
The way you have clipped it out of context makes it look like me who is muddled, but in each of those contradictory passages, I was pointing out what you had said.
I believe that in psychology such behavior has it's own name: it's called "projection"...It is indeed.
Now get a mirror.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 18:44:49
[ Invalid Attachment ]
And here you are saying that it doesn't have a wavelength.
Anyone who knows a bit about physics knows well, that near-field doesn't have a wavelenght
Post by: CrazyScientist on 15/10/2021 18:51:20
Tell me, where would I get, if I would blindly trust in your superior knowledge and understanding, just like you would like me to do?Further than you will get by contradicting yourself.
You also need to lose this daft idea that it is me with whom you are disagreeing.
I'm just putting forward the conventional laws of physics.
So, for example, because I know about the energy conservation laws I can point out that your "focussing al the light..." idea is impossible.
I can point out that it's one of the laws of optics.
But you are so bizarrely conceited that you pretend that I'm wrong.So what about multiple sources? let's say that you have a region of space with 1mln Sun-like stars (to simplify, let's assume that all have the same color and brightness as our Sun) - if you then use a huge lense, to concentate their light in one tiny spot, wouldn't that spot be 1mln times brighter than the Sun?
There are two problems there. The first is obvious; they wouldn't fit unless most of them were further away so they would seem less bright..
The second is that the, law says you can't use imaging optics to focus the light to be brighter than the source.
You could take my word for that.
Or you could google it, and find that it's true.
Or you could think about the reason I gave for it being true.
Let's try the third option, since it's probably the most interesting.
Imagine that you are right (it's a stretch, but don't worry, you don't need to do it for long.).
Imagine I put a black body at the focus of the bright image.
It will absorb the light and heat up.
And, since the light is brighter than the Sun, the object will become hotter than the Sun.
So I can connect a heat engine between the object and the Sun and extract power from that temperature difference
But I can do that even if I put the whole system in a closed mirror box with no energy source.
All the heat lost by the Sun is return to it via the heat engine, so you can replace the Sun with a lump of hot iron and it will stay hot forever. And the heat engine will continue to produce power forever.
And that is a breach of the conservation of energy.
So we know that you are wrong.
So, once againIt's one of the laws of optics, though it's essentially just a statement of the energy conservation law.
You can't use a mirror, lens, or combination of them to get an image which is brighter than the source.
Why were you not aware of this?
You probably miss the point of my question - it was an irony. From the beginning of this thread, I was saying that it's impossible to increase the temperature of a body to infinity, by continously increasing the intensity of EM radiation at a constant wavelenght...
I can surround myself with billons of Suns, but their collective temperature won't be higher than that of a single Sun. Similarly, red light won't become green or blue, no matter how high it's intensity will be. And so, you can't create a BH by increasing the Intensity of radiation at a constant wavelenght
How many counter-examples would you like?
We can start with a microwave oven emitting photons characteristic of a temperature well below that of liquid helium.
But it's perfectly capable of cooking a potato.
Then try using the same microwave owen to heat up a porcelain plate or a piece of glass, by increasing the intensity of microwave radiation. Good luck
Quote
And then we can consider these guys
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_(laser)
who use a laser at about 1054 nm to heat materials to rather more than 2500C.
The got it hot enough for fusion to take place.
Obviously you've missed the part about frequency multipliers:
Frequency multipliers upconvert the light to green and blue (UV) just prior to entering the "target chamber". Nova is arranged so any remaining IR or green light is focused short of the center of the chamber.[11]
The Nova laser as a whole was capable of delivering approximately 100 kilojoules of infrared light at 1054 nm, or 40-45 kilojoules of frequency tripled light at 351 nm (the third harmonic of the Nd:Glass fundamental line at 1054 nm) in a pulse duration of about 2 to 4 nanoseconds and thus was capable of producing a UV pulse in the range of 16 trillion watts.[11]
Quote
And then , moving to longer wavelengths, there's this sort of thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_heating#/media/File:Induction_heating_of_bar.jpg
where a piece of metal is heated red hot by photons that correspond to a temperature far below that of liquid helium.
About 0.000007654 kelvin, if this is right
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law
So you say, that in the process of induction, matter is being heated by photons? Because I'm pretty sure, that it uses electric currents instead of EM radiation, to heat up things...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 15/10/2021 18:55:34
Here's a clip of you showing the wavelength (designated by λ) of near field EM radiation
And here you are saying that it doesn't have a wavelength.Anyone who knows a bit about physics knows well, that near-field doesn't have a wavelenght
Nope - I've saId that it has a size, that depends on the wavelenght of emitted radiation. Do you get it - emitted radiation has some wavelenght, that defines the size of near-field. C'mon - it's not that hard to comprehend
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 19:21:27
It is perfectly clear to anyone still reading this that the measurement in that image is a wavelength.Here's a clip of you showing the wavelength (designated by λ) of near field EM radiation
And here you are saying that it doesn't have a wavelength.Anyone who knows a bit about physics knows well, that near-field doesn't have a wavelenght
Nope - I've saId that it has a size, that depends on the wavelenght of emitted radiation. Do you get it - emitted radiation has some wavelenght, that defines the size of near-field. C'mon - it's not that hard to comprehend
If the EM field doesn't have a wavelength then the wavelength can't define anything.
Your assertion that the size is defined by the wavelength (which does not exist)" is plainly nonsense.
And never mind wavelength being "hard to comprehend", you can't even spell it.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 15/10/2021 19:29:00
While some might consider this thread as somehow controversial, it turns out, that it has to be one of those rare cases, where my own ideas regarding a physical mechanism seem to be (almost) in a full agreeement with mainstream physics. Although some people still seem to consider my claims regarding the impossibility of black holes made of pure light, as "controversional" or "revolutional", it turns out that they are in fact pretty much consistent with generally accepted models and that it's the idea of creating a kugelblitz from light trapped between perfect mirrors, that in this case turns out to be a pseudo-scientific fantasy without any base in physical reality.
But let's get to the point. Somewhere in the beginning of this thread, I've claimed that a buzzing speaker submerged in a sphere of water, is a pretty valid analogy of the scenario, which I described in the first post (light trapped in a perfectly reflective spherical cavity). However, since my interpretation of the scenario pretty much disproves the idea of a BH made of light trapped inside a perfectly reflective cavity, BoredChemist who is (obviously) a strong supporter of the idea of black holes that are made of pure light, he dismissed my analogy as completely wrong and proposed his own model of cavity QED, where In order to defend the concept of Kugelblitz, he compared photons trapped in a resonant cavity to hitting balls with a bat in a game of cricket.
Of course, I'm not in a position, to say who's right and who's wrong in the field of physics, but after a pretty decent research, I can say that anyone who knows anything about cavity QED, knows well that when it comes to resonant cavities, comparisment between light and sound makes a lot of sense - so much sense, that in order to describe the sound in terms of quantum mechanics, scientists invented the term "phonon", which describes the "quantum particle" of a sound. This analogy goes even deeper, as in recent years coupling between phonons and photons was experimentally proven
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.nanolett.9b03120
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/237011462.pdf
Taking all of this into consideration, I can now show you a movie, which represents EM radiation trapped in a box, using vibrations of sound at different frequencies which affect the distribution of sand grains on a flat surface:
What you can see here, is literally a physical manifestation of phonons at different wavelenghts of sound. Of course, in case of photons, patterns of probability distribution might take different forms, as this analogy isn't perfect - nothing is perfect in this world. What matters in general, is that sound and light in a resonant cavity behaves in a manner similar to the one visible on the movie above and you will be able to literally count the number of waves that "fit" in the given volume for each avaliable frequency. There is however one important issue with all of this, as it contradicts the idea of photons being time-finite energy packets, that move through space at c. In cavity QED, photon number is understoodd as a function of finite probabilty of detection and the distribution of that probability doesn't obey the classical physics of particles. Image below represents the distribution of photons wihthin a finite volume of a cavity using so called Wigner Function:
(https://www.osapublishing.org/getImage.cfm?img=QC5sYXJnZSxvZS0yNy0zLTMxMTMtZzAwNA)
(https://callisto.ggsrv.com/imgsrv/FastFetch/UBER1/ZI-0359-2008-SEP25-IDSI-74-1)
(https://callisto.ggsrv.com/imgsrv/FastFetch/UBER1/ZI-0359-2008-SEP25-IDSI-74-1)
Of course, all what I stated up until now, is already fully consistent with the generally approved science, so now let's move to those of my ideas which are (still) disputable. Here's the general premise of my scheming: I want to extend the probabilistic description of space-time beyond Planck scales and apply the primary laws QFT (Quantum Field Theory) to the physics of macro-scale objects and I figured out, that I should begin with a finite volume of space inside a reflective cavity at the temperature of Absolute 0 and then try to mess with energy level of that system by heating it up and/or accelerating it, bouncing it around and changing the volume of cavity.
Having in mind all the similarities between light and sound, it should be ok for me to compare the Absolute 0 to Absolute Silence and then use a continuous sound at a constat wavelenght (pitch) as analogy to a constant temperture. However this is where this entire chain of deduction hits a solid obstacle just in front of a complete analogy between sound and light - I'm talking about energy that is carried by all kind of waves and is able to induce a measurable and definitive change of energy state in the physical environment...
If you didn't sleep on physic classes in primary school, you know probably that no one can hear your screams in the "empty" void of space. Energy carried by the sound cdan be translated to mechanical force by utilizing the differentials of pressure/density in it's local medium. On the surface of Earth, sound is nothing but changing pressure of air or water (submerged), but it can be as well expressed as a distribution of sand grains on the surface of resonating plate in the movie above. To put it simply: in case of sound propagation, phonons aren't indivisible packets (bits) of energy expressed as chages of pressure in the medium - it's the indivisible particles of the medium, that make the primary and indivisible units of sound. In case of the resonating plate, supposedly indivisible energy packets are clearly made of much smaller grains of sand - and the same goes to any particle of gas, liquid or solid matter, that work as a local medium in the propagation of soud. Inside a resonant cavity, where sound creates a standing wave with "stationary" phonons, enegy of waves is expressed as the kinetic energy of transverse (up/down) motion of particles in the medium - but without this medium, energy of sound will turn into silence. Did anyone ever wondered, what happens with the energy of someone's screams in the vast void of space? Is it possible that in a vacuum, energy of emitted sounds turns into "virtual phonons" of non-hearable sounds among the cacophony of silent space? Just wondering...
Ok, so far so good, but that's the end of a smooth road and now it might get rocky... As most of you should know, in the difference to sound, waves of light (as all kinds of EM radiation do) can transfer energy through the empty void of vacuum in space without using any particles of matter as a physical medium. In fact, the lower is the density of matter in space, the better medium it makes for the propagation of EM waves, reaching the maximum efficiency of energy transfer in a (hypothetical) perfect vacuum. So, following the sound-light analogy, in the standig waves of sound in a resonant cavity, every phonon (particle of sound) consist of a finite and measurable number of molecules/grains of the medium, that make the actual indivisble chunks of energy in propagation of sound. Sadly, when it comes to energy transfer in the propagation of EM waves, nothing that we know of, can be described as a "molecule of vacuum" and no one takes the elusive idea of "aether" seriously. This is exactly why according to modern day theoretical science, it's photons that make the primary and indivisible units of physical reality as we know. Vaccuum is not made of grains or molecules and it's not a liquid - and this is where the entire analogy of light and sound meets it's final demise... But does it really...?
Are the photons actually indivisible? Is there nothing smaller than a photon? What kind of stupid question is that? What kind of photons are we talking about? Those inside a cavity of a microwave oven, which have typically around 10cm to 20cm of wavelenght or those which make gravitational waves, that extend for thousands km in lenght? Photons just like phonons vary between eachother and their wavelenghts can be divided by other wavelenghts. It's possible to know, how many x-ray photons fit into a single microwave photon - but it will lead us nowhere. What we need to do instead, is to define vacuum as a medium, that in a finite volume of physical space consists a finite number of identical "molecules" - and we can do it by describing a perfectly empty space as a liquid at Absolute 0, where things turn into the 5'th state of matter, called Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC).
At Absolute 0 empty space-time becomes absolutely "flat", as perfectly nothing is being distributed in a volume of space. But of course, Absolute 0 is one of those pesky non-measurable abstracts, just like all things we call "perfect" and/or "absolute" or like the concept of infinity or a dimensionless point and corners in a sphere - you shouldn't think too much about those things, if you want to maintain your "scientific sanity" intact. Anyway at any temperature other than the metaphysical 0, empty space is no longer a static & flat & empty volume of space, but something with couple specific and physically measurable values, like frequency, wavelenght or photon number, that are specific for each given set of conditions
But you know what? This is all getting boring, so maybe let's spice up things a bit, by making a completely new analogy (3rd one) for the standing waves inside a resonant cavity. Better brace yourselves, as I will now go fully digital and point out some of the uncanny similiarities between the photons of visible light and the pixels in a LCD screen. Let's start by comparing completely "frozen" molecules of a medium at Absolute 0 to the pixels on a digital screen when the power is turned off. And it only gets better - but before I'll speak about things like the brightness of pixels and intensity of RGB light, I need to find the primary values, describing every pixel on a screen, even if it's turned off - that means the spatial volume and energy capacity, as in the difference to other values that describe the quality of display in a digital device, those 2 values are in fact definitive constants, which are universal for all the pixels of a screen.
Let's look back at waves of sound propagating in a 100% purified water and learn about the most important properties of a H2O molecule, that will allow me to treat it as just another kind of a pixel on a screen. The properties, which I'm looking for are: volume (size/area), rest mass (energy capacity) and the current state of energy (temperature). Those are physically real numbers that can be calculated and actually measured in experiments. In perfect conditions, first 2 values will remain constant and universal for all H2O molecules, with the 3'rd value being a variable, characteristic for each molecule at a specific temperature.
So now let's try to apply this knowledge to the EM radiation. If for sound it's the particles of medium, that make the "pixels" of a resonant cavity, what are the pixels on the screen of a perfect vacuum, for the propagation of light waves in my three-some analogy? Is there an actually indivisible limit to physical space-time? Is there some universal basic unit of reality itself - a single bit in the quantum cubit? A definitive yes/no solution to the possibility of physical existence? Well yeah, there is just such a thing - it's called Planck constant and here's it's value:
(https://neetlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/The-value-of-Plancks-constant-is-Physics-Question-.jpg)
Thing is, that energy in space, can be divided into smaller and smaller bits, up until a point, where it just won't get any smaller and it can only exist as it is or not exist at all. In shortcut, probability of physical existence becomes a 100% binary case of yes and no, when it comes to transfer of energy - but maybe information is here a much better term. Why do I think so? Learn, the basics of how a computer processor works - Planck constant is here the electric charge, that passes through the binary gate of 0 and 1, when the virtual code is being translated into a definitive change of energy level as your PC converts live $$$ into images of things, that don't actually exist in our boring everyday world. Virtual reality exist physically as energy of electric impulses, that translate abstract ideas written as a code, into a simple 1-yes (gets one bit of energy) 0-no (doesn't get a bit of energy).
So now that we have a physically measurable bit of the reality, which we can freely describe in terms of forces working on a mass, we should be able to fit it in the physical space by measuring it with the Universal Cosmic Ruler, known as speed of light c and calculate the precise distance and duration, that defines the primary units of time and space in the process of perception. And by doing it, we'll get the main and primary constants of physical reality - there are couple of them, but here I will focus mainly on two of them: Planck lenght and Planck time
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leong-Ying/publication/273931573/figure/tbl1/AS:651142077886490@1532255777706/Planck-base-and-derived-units.png)
Some of you will now probably say: "Hey! Wait a second! What the hell... We know about the Planck units for over 100 years! There's nothing new or revolutional about any of this! It's all been known to physicists for so long. You just found a nice way of making QFT understandable to commoners..." Yeah, I know right? I mean you don't need any other units, to describe reality in all avaliable spatial and temporal dimensions - and from that point the rest, is like inserting a cube block into a square hole...
I think the main issue here might be the fact that for some reason, physicists are trying to operate on the code of Matrix with a Commodore 64 and data stored on analog tapes - it's like trying to overclock the cores of a computer processor, using VR googles and tools from the early alpha of "very accurate screwdriver simulator 6.616a". I mean, what kind of a reverse-genius of physics was unsmart enough to claim, that photons are indivisible "chunks" of energy, while operating on units of space, that are based on the spatial geometry of Earth and units of time, based on astronomical cycles. I won't even speak here about the basis to units of mass or temperature in the metric system... I mean sure, those units are perfectly fine, if we want to discuss the weather during last week of summer or speak about seasonal migrations of refugees from the eastern provinces of transneptunian belt, to the downtown Oort Cloud, but they don't work too well to decribe the reality at it's fundamentalne scale. Can someone explain to me, why can't we divide the physical space-time beyond the level of photons, if I can give you at least 2 ways of slicing and dicing a photon into even smaller bits of information? What are those ways you ask? Well, the 2 most obvious ones: to divide each photon by the distance and duration of Planck lenght and time. That's it... Woow! amazing!
After applying this "innovative" idea into life, it will be possible to say, how many Planck lenghts fit into a photon at a given wavelenght, to end once and for all the use of meters, which weren't invented to deal with spatial distance of Planck lenght... Now, my next step is of course to ged rid of seconds and start describing frequencies of photons using the Planck primary unit of time. Why does it matter? Well it's because you can't understand a 1 bit of data, if you're using GigaBytes as your primary units. There's one simple statement about the reality at the very bottom of quantum physics - it's a confirmed scientific fact, that physical existence can be quantized using couple constant, finite and physically measurable values that define the time and space themselves in all of their dimensions...
To give you a small outlook at the difference - try to calculate, how much energy will be transferred to matter if it will receive 1 bit of energy equal to Planck constant in each single Planck time for a full 1 second - spoilers: it's a pretty big number...
T.B.C.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 19:35:06
From the beginning of this thread, I was saying that it's impossible to increase the temperature of a body to infinity,Really?
Why didn't you say so?
I can surround myself with billons of Suns, but their collective temperature won't be higher than that of a single Sun.Nobody said it would.
Then try using the same microwave owen to heat up a porcelain plate or a piece of glass, by increasing the intensity of microwave radiation. Good luckSure, not a problem.
I'm a chemist. I can make glass and ceramics which absorb microwaves.
But why not just stick with the fact that microwaving a potato shows that you are wrong.
You very plainly can heat things to a much higher temperature that the wavelength would suggest.
You can melt through metal with long wave IR as well
There really are lots of examples which prove that you are wrong.
Obviously you've missed the part about frequency multipliers:No.
I was just referring to the original design before they installed the triplers.
Not that it matters much; you are still heating things to much higher temperatures that would be associated with a few hundred nm.
Did you think you had a point?
So you say, that in the process of induction, matter is being heated by photons? Because I'm pretty sure, that it uses electric currents instead of EM radiation, to heat up things...Do you realise that the workpiece is not in contact with the coils?
So the only way that a current could flow in the workpiece is as a result of an EM field... and the force carrier for an EM field is a photon.
So yes, the energy is carried from the RF generator to the heated metal by photons. What else could it be?
Were you working on a theory which relied on unicorns?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 19:36:31
my own ideas regarding a physical mechanism seem to be (almost) in a full agreeement with mainstream physicsNope.
All I have done is put forward mainstream physics, and all you have done is argue about it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 19:46:41
What you can see here, is literally a physical manifestation of phonons at different wavelenghts of sound.And very pretty they are too.
It's considered polite to mention Ernst Chladni at this point, since he was the first to document the effect.
But the absurd claim you are making is that you can't "turn up the volume" on that system because it would mean getting "more waves" into the plate.
In reality, you can because what you change is the amplitude of the waves.
You may remember that I demonstrated the absurdity of your view by pointing out that the microwave oven in my kitchen has many orders of magnitude more waves in it than you said are "permitted".
You never even tried to address that; you just changed the subject.
it contradicts the idea of photons being time-finite energy packets,I think you will find it only contradicts your understanding of theory, rather than the theory itself.
Remember- your rtheory says a microwave oven won't work.
It also says you can't cut ,metal with a laser.
It also said (some while back) that you can't listen to two FM radios and your theory also says that you can't do diathermy.
Basically, your idea is so obviously wrong that it's laughable that you even try to defend it.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 15/10/2021 19:49:00
It is perfectly clear to anyone still reading this that the measurement in that image is a wavelength.Here's a clip of you showing the wavelength (designated by λ) of near field EM radiation
And here you are saying that it doesn't have a wavelength.Anyone who knows a bit about physics knows well, that near-field doesn't have a wavelenght
Nope - I've saId that it has a size, that depends on the wavelenght of emitted radiation. Do you get it - emitted radiation has some wavelenght, that defines the size of near-field. C'mon - it's not that hard to comprehend
Of course it's a wavelenght, since it depicts an EM wave propagating in the near-field of an emitter
Quote
If the EM field doesn't have a wavelength then the wavelength can't define anything.
Your assertion that the size is defined by the wavelength (which does not exist)" is plainly nonsense.
1. One EM field can include EM waves at multiple wavelenghts - e.g. EM field inside a blackbody at a constant temperature
2. Near-field is not a synonym of EM field. EM fields won't include a near-field, if the source of radiation is placed far beyond the border of that field.
Near-field has a SIZE characteristic for an emitter, according to the type of radiation which it emits - radiation HAS a wavelenght, near-field has SIZE. Saying that near-field has a wavelenght, is like saying that a gravitational field has wavelenght - it simply doesn't make sense...
Quote
And never mind wavelength being "hard to comprehend", you can't even spell it.
Well, sorry for not being a native english speaker. If my grammar and spelling bothers you so much, we can always switch to polish - I'm sure that your polish is perfectly flawless :)
Post by: CrazyScientist on 15/10/2021 20:10:37
What you can see here, is literally a physical manifestation of phonons at different wavelenghts of sound.And very pretty they are too.
It's considered polite to mention Ernst Chladni at this point, since he was the first to document the effect.
But the absurd claim you are making is that you can't "turn up the volume" on that system because it would mean getting "more waves" into the plate.
Huh? Where exactly did I say such thing? You got it completely wrong. What I say, is that by increasing the volume of sound (amplitude of sound waves), you won't change the number of phonons/waves on the plate - instead you will make the grains of sand to "bounce" higher and more violently
Quote
In reality, you can because what you change is the amplitude of the waves.
True....
Quote
You may remember that I demonstrated the absurdity of your view by pointing out that the microwave oven in my kitchen has many orders of magnitude more waves in it than you said are "permitted".
Considering that before the emission of microwaves, the chamber of owen was an "empty vacuum" free of any radiation, then there's a VERY finite number of EM waves at microwave wavelenghts, that can fit in the cavity - mostly, the cavity has the lenght of around 3 to 6 times the wavelenght of emitted microwave radiation, so you won't fit more than 3 to 6 microwave photons in the LENGHT of that cavity......
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kp33ZprO0Ck/maxresdefault.jpg)
What you can do, is to change the amplitude of those waves, but not their number - just like in case of sound waves on the resonant plate....
Quote
Sure - you can think whatever you want to. It's not that I care about it anyway...it contradicts the idea of photons being time-finite energy packets,I think you will find it only contradicts your understanding of theory, rather than the theory itself.
Quote
Remember- your rtheory says a microwave oven won't work.Nope, it doesn't
Quote
It also says you can't cut ,metal with a laser.Nope - never said that. Laser beams have wavelenghts that allows them to cut through metal.
But you won't be able to cut through metal using EM waves at radio frequencies or microwaves. Prove me wrong...
Quote
It also said (some while back) that you can't listen to two FM radios and your theory also says that you can't do diathermy.Never said so... I've said that two FM antennas will cause interference, if they are placed close to each other.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 20:30:17
Huh? Where exactly did I say such thing? You got it completely wrong. What I say, is that by increasing the volume of sound (amplitude of sound waves), you won't change the number of phonons/waves on the plateYou are muddling up counting nodes / antinodes and counting waves.
so you won't fit more than 3 to 6 microwave photons in the LENGHT of that cavityThat is still wrong by many orders of magnitude.
Say it's 6 waves.
(and 2.4 GHz as domestic microwaves generally are)
And each photon carries 1.59×10^-24 joules.
So there's only 6 times that much microwave radiation in the cavity at one time.
And it crosses the cavity in about a nanosecond so you can "refresh" those 6 photons about 10^9 times a second.
So the power carried is
1.59×10^-15 watts.
But my oven actually transfers about 10^3 watts
So you are wrong by a factor of about a billion billion.
Even allowing for the fact that there are other modes in the oven- vertical and "front to back", it stuill isn't going to work.
You are wrong by about a factor of a hundred thousand million million.
I pointed this out before and you didn't address it.
Post by: CrazyScientist on 15/10/2021 20:37:42
Basically, your idea is so obviously wrong that it's laughable that you even try to defend it.
Basically my idea is, that photons are not indivisible "chunks of energy", as you can divide each one of them by Planck lenght and Planck const. - so the only really indivisible "chunk of energy" in physical space, is the Planck const. distributed in a 1D distance of 1 Planck lenght. Simply put, it's possible to calculate and measure, how many Planck lenghts and Planck constants "fit" in a photon at a given wavelenght.
Can you tell me, what makes this statement wrong? Can't you divide photons by those values? And if you can, won't it make photons 100% divisible?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 20:45:06
Nope - never said that. Laser beams have wavelenghts that allows them to cut through metal.OK, lets check on that, one of the common industrial cutting lasers is the CO2 laser- it emits radiation at 10.6 microns
Let's see what temperature that corresponds to.
Here's a handy calculator
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law
And it tells me its the peak wavelength for an object at 273.4 K
Within a degree of the melting point of ice.
But you won't be able to cut through metal using EM waves at radio frequencies or microwaves. Prove me wrong...Again?
OK
Strictly this isn't cutting, but once the metal is molten, you hardly need to "cut" it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 20:47:12
Can you tell me, what makes this statement wrong?What may make it wrong is that you deduce from it ideas which are demonstrable wrong, such as you can't get more than about 10^-15 watts in a microwave oven.
Of course, it could be your deduction rather then the premise which is wrong.
Why would I care which sort of wring you are?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 20:49:32
you can divide each one of themShow me an experiment in which a photon is "divided".
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 20:51:57
Never said so... I've said that two FM antennas will cause interference, if they are placed close to each other.Yes, you made that error.
You said "that you can't overlap two EM fields at the same bandwidths in one volume of space"
And I pointed out that it is wrong.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82373.msg644926;topicseen#msg644926
Why are you still saying it, even though it is known to be wrong?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 15/10/2021 20:52:41
Huh? Where exactly did I say such thing? You got it completely wrong. What I say, is that by increasing the volume of sound (amplitude of sound waves), you won't change the number of phonons/waves on the plateYou are muddling up counting nodes / antinodes and counting waves.
I don't. You can literally count the number of waveleghts, that "fit" in a given cavity. Besides the number of nodes/antinodes can be different than the number of waves that "fit" in the lenght of a cavity.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthescienceexperts.weebly.com%2Fuploads%2F1%2F5%2F0%2F6%2F15069092%2F8910637.png%3F355&hash=abfd8c7b993c1d4f92b820ee2bc22341)
On the image above, number of waves (3) is different than the number of nodes/antinodes (6)
so you won't fit more than 3 to 6 microwave photons in the LENGHT of that cavityThat is still wrong by many orders of magnitude.
Say it's 6 waves.
(and 2.4 GHz as domestic microwaves generally are)
And each photon carries 1.59×10^-24 joules.
So there's only 6 times that much microwave radiation in the cavity at one time.
And it crosses the cavity in about a nanosecond so you can "refresh" those 6 photons about 10^9 times a second.
So the power carried is
1.59×10^-15 watts.
But my oven actually transfers about 10^3 watts
So you are wrong by a factor of about a billion billion.
Even allowing for the fact that there are other modes in the oven- vertical and "front to back", it stuill isn't going to work.
You are wrong by about a factor of a hundred thousand million million.
I pointed this out before and you didn't address it.
[/quote]
And you still can't get the point, that in a standing wave, the amplitude of electric/magnetic oscillations is not a function ofphoton number inside a cavity. You can add to the owen as much microwave photons as you like, but due to their constructive interference, it won't change the number of photons in the standing wave, but it will change the amplitude of that wave
Post by: CrazyScientist on 15/10/2021 23:06:49
Nope - never said that. Laser beams have wavelenghts that allows them to cut through metal.OK, lets check on that, one of the common industrial cutting lasers is the CO2 laser- it emits radiation at 10.6 microns
Let's see what temperature that corresponds to.
Here's a handy calculator
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law
And it tells me its the peak wavelength for an object at 273.4 K
Within a degree of the melting point of ice.
Thanks! How nice of you, to give me the definitive answer regarding the limit of heat/energy transfer, characteristic for specific wavelenghts/temperatures... As for the CO2 laser, here's a nice lecture for you:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243310508_Theoretical_prediction_on_the_wavelength-temperature_shift_in_pulsed_TE_CO_2_lasers
But looking at your "vast" knowledge of the subject, I advice to begin from this short lecture:
https://learningweather.psu.edu/node/18
Read closely: Wein's Law and Kirchhoff's Law...
Quote
But you won't be able to cut through metal using EM waves at radio frequencies or microwaves. Prove me wrong...Again?
OK
Strictly this isn't cutting, but once the metal is molten, you hardly need to "cut" it.
Induction heating is based on a COMPLETELY different mechanism, than heating with a laser (or different radiation). You won't never go beyond a certain temperature for a certain wavelenght - increase of intensity/amplitude won't change nothing. You can't cut through metal with microwaves - no matter how much you don't like this simple scientific fact. I know, that it might hurt you to admit a defeat, but it's still much better, than to make an ignorant out of yourself, by neglecting empirical science. And then, after you stop crying about a silly authoritative butthurt, read the lecture linked below - maybe you will learn some interesting facts about our Universe :)
http://www.mhtl.uwaterloo.ca/courses/ece309_mechatronics/lectures/pdffiles/summary_ch12.pdf
Chapter 12: Radiation Heat Transfer. Radiation differs from Conduction and Convection heat t transfer mechanisms
https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/notes/node134.html
I just love, how unknowingly I started this thread from the idea of perfectly reflective cavity, not knowing that it makes the foundation to 98% of theory of thermal radiation and it's transfer between bodies. For example, up until today I never heard of Wein's Law and Kirchhoff's Law - but I used them in practical scenario just by pure intuition :D
Honestly, pretty much the only actual instance, where someone caught me making a serious mistake, was thanks to Colin2B - someone, who's opinion actually does somehow matter. That was actually the only sustantive input, I recieved in this thread :) You see, it's not a good idea to speak up, when people smarter than you remain silent... And also, it's better to be silent and look like a fool, than to speak out and dispel all doubts :)
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 23:10:57
You won't never go beyond a certain temperature for a certain wavelenght -You keep saying that.
It keeps not being true.
You can burn through steel with a laser that's got a wavelength corresponding to a temperature of melting ice.
You can cook a potato with microwave radiation that corresponds to a temperature that's massively below the temperature of liquid helium.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 23:13:38
Induction heating is based on a COMPLETELY different mechanism, than heating with a laser (or different radiation).No it isn't.
In both cases EM radiation is transferred across an heats the object.
How nice of you, to give me the definitive answer regarding the limit of heat/energy transfer, characteristic for specific wavelenghts/temperaturesYou are welcome.
Do you understand that it proves you are wrong?
You can actually use a CO2 laser for heating things above the melting point of ice.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 23:15:43
Chapter 12: Radiation Heat Transfer. Radiation differs from Conduction and Convection heat t transfer mechanismsYes, that's right.
Radiation in the form of light heats things in much the same way as radiation of RF from an induction furnace.
It's different from conduction or convection (or advection, if you want the full set).
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 23:16:43
You can't cut through metal with microwaves - no matter how much you don't like this simple scientific factYou just posted a picture of a man doing it (well, radio waves... )
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 23:18:16
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 23:22:58
Honestly, pretty much the only actual instance, where someone caught me making a serious mistake,Define serious...
You are wrong by about a factor of a hundred thousand million million
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 23:24:02
. For example, up until today I never heard of Wein's Law and Kirchhoff's Law - but I used them in practical scenario just by pure intuitionAnd you got them monumentally wrong.
You think you can melt steel with ice cubes.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 23:29:21
For example, up until today I never heard of Wein's Law and Kirchhoff's LawLiar or idiot?
Proof by repeated assertion isn't going to work here.
Particular not when you are doing the asserting, since it took you at least three goes to recognise Kirchhoff's law.
[ edited to add that I was mistaken; CrazyScientist still hasn't recognised it. Maybe he will learn this time]
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 23:30:29
You see, it's not a good idea to speak up, when people smarter than you remain silent... And also, it's better to be silent and look like a fool, than to speak out and dispel all doubtsSo why don't you shut up?
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/10/2021 01:13:06
You keep saying that.
It keeps not being true.
You can burn through steel with a laser that's got a wavelength corresponding to a temperature of melting ice.
You can cook a potato with microwave radiation that corresponds to a temperature that's massively below the temperature of liquid helium.
And yet you can't cut through steel with radiation below microwave wavelenghts. Please, show me just A SINGLE source, where someone with authentic certificate of proper education/knowledge/authority (it can be a diploma, a title or even a list of published scientific papers) in the field of QED, quantum optics/photonics or just in quantum physics in general, who is claiming otherwise...
I know, that I'm expecting far too much from you... I'm supposed, to trust in your superior authority without a single question I guess, that demanding some scientific evidence, is in such case, the worst kind of all possible thought-crimes ever...
Did you even try checking out the links, that I provided for you in my previous post? Yeah, I know: you consider it a waste of your precious time, since you shall always know the science better, than some random others - in case of such an interesting specimen, like yourself, one should expect no less... "Quality over quantity", they say - but what, if I can't get none of those...? I know, that at this moment it's like kicking a barking chihuahua or a york, but what else should I do, if it keeps being agressive towards me, if not to give it yet another spanking...?
So, regarding the steel being cut by CO2 laser: here's a link for you (I'm pasting it for the second time in a row)...
https://learningweather.psu.edu/node/18
Wein's Law
At this point I know what you are thinking... there must be a "catch". In fact there is. While all matter emits radiation at all wavelengths, it does not do so equally. This is where the next radiation law comes in. Wein's Law states that the wavelength of peak emission is inversely proportional to the temperature of the emitting object. Put another way, the hotter the object, the shorter the wavelength of max emission. You have probably have observed this law in action all the time without even realizing it. Want to know what I mean? Check out this steel bar. Which end might you pick up? Certainly not the right end... it looks hot. Why does it "look hot"? Well, the wavelength of peak emission for the right side of the bar is obviously shorter than the left side's peak emission wavelength. You see this shift in the peak emission wavelength as a color changes from red to orange to yellow as the metal's temperature increases.
Note: I should point out that even though the steel bar is a yellow-white color at the end, the peak emission is still in the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum. However, the peak is so close to the visible part of the spectrum, that there is a significant amount of visible light also being emitted from the steel. Judging by the look of this photograph, the steel has a temperature of roughly 1500 kelvins, resulting in a max emission wavelength of 2 microns (remember visible light is 0.4-0.7 microns). Here is a chart showing how I estimated the steel temperature. To the left of the visibly red metal, the bar is still likely several hundred degrees Celsius. However, in this section of the bar, the peak emission wavelength is far into the IR portion of the spectrum -- so much so that no visible light emission is discernible with the human eye.
And regarding the potato in a microwave - do the same with a granite rock or somehing made of glass, porcelain, or even of some syntetic plastic material. I'll send you 100$, if you record, that you are able to melt plastic toys into a puddle of liquid goo, inside a microwave owen.(or shouf I say: by using microwave radiation only - so you won't lock a toy iside an owen and burn it up using gasoline, a flamethrower or a laser beam casted through the glass of the owen's door)...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/10/2021 02:50:30
- one about the extension to our model of gravity - what if Gravity + MHD = gravitomagnetohydrodynamics (GMHD)? Can we use the surface tension of liquids and the "cheerio's effect" as a way to visualise space-time curvature due to rest mass and use such model, to describe a paperclip floating on water surface, as well as to describe gravitational lensing of massive celestial bodies? Can we base an anti-gravitational propulsion system on the process of plasma expulsion from the center of a gravitational field and explain all of this by pouring water (or some other liquid) on a water-proof rubber surface, to visualise the potential (exterior) and the kintetic (interior) aspects in the gravitational field of a massive body.
- one about 5D space-time fractal geometry - is there a dependence between frequency rate and the "level" of spatial scale dimension? Spoilers: of course there is - and it's as obvious and simplistic, as it can possibly be, for a working theoretical model of real-life physics. In less than 20 words (approved by Saitama-sensei): "the smaller you are, the shorter you'll live, compared to a bigger copy of yourself...
- one about Fractal Conciousness of Universe - does science prove, we live in a physical manifestation of a Self-Concious Mind? Spoilers: obviously it does (mostly)...? What if Conciousness (self-awareness) is the most objective form of physical existence? Might the Tetragrammaton of IHVH ("I am That I Am") describe the actual Name (Idea/Formula/Essence/meaning) of the actual intra- and extra-physical God, as the Absolute Conciousness of Universe? How else we could think about a universe-sized fractal structure of a neural network, programmed with a simple algorithm of growth / evolution of understanding / gain of self-knowledge through division/mutiplication of Self-Conciousness, if not as about a Transcendental Mind and Will of a physically obsevable/measurable God?
- one about the idea of extending QFT beyond Planck atomic and molecular scales and applying the laws of quantum mechanics to physics of macroscale objects, by describing the timeline of observed events, as a distribution of probability, instead of Einstein's hyperdeterministic "arrow of linear time dimension" and placing it in the framework of my 5D spatial/temporal fractal geometry - shortly density of probability is growing with the "level" of scale (size of frame and complexity of physical objects).
-,one about gravitational fields in relative motion and the actual equivalence of mass, energy and momentum - the only instance, where I deal with actual formulas of mathematically valid calculations :O - but it's ok, since I'm trying there to "upgrade" the Einstein's most famous E=mc²
- one about the influence of fluctuations in orientation interplanetary magnetic field on weather patterns on Earth - actually hardly to call it "disputable", with my collection of peer-reviewed sources and empirical data, regarding the subject of MHD modelling of Earth's climate :) I began learning physics, from things like flux transfer events (FTE) and magnetic reconnection due to shifts of Bx / By components in the IMF
- one about the collective knowledge (understanding of physical environment) in the DNA of different animal species - real-life proof of this being the case, thus supporting the idea of Inteligent Evolution of Conciousness (or self-learning algorithm of the Universal Neural Network)...
- one with a simple thought experiment, that pretty much invalidates the usage Shell Theorem, in descriptions of gravitational fields of massive macroscale bodies - test object inside an empty spherical shell is being affected by a total of 0 net force, only in the exact center of geometry/mass, where gravitational attraction is equal in all direction, while beyond the central point, this test object will be accelerated towards the part of shell of a non-0 rest mass, that is placed at the closest distance to the current location of test object. Difference isn't that big in case of dense bodies (rocky planets, stars), but matters a lot for gravitational fields of bodies with small density of mass (like galaxies, nebulas or plasma bubbles and filaments of the cosmic web)...
- of course, there was also one about using the mechanism of Gailiean relativity, to explain the constant c in relative motion and look at possible consequences of such action - but sadly, this thread seems to be already closed for further discussion/research on this forum... :(
Funny, how "smart" and " scientific" it all might sound, when in reality, except a single case, I didn't have to make a single mathematical calculation and/or to make anykind of somehow serious practical experiments (although I have one in mind for the future, in case of the gravitational expulsion of plasma) to prove my points... In the difference to 99% of theoretical physicsts, who love to deal with sophiosticated problems of the observable existence, I just want to have my physics as basic, plain and simple as it can possibly be - and since chance of me making a theoretical mistake gets smaller with the decrease in the complexity of a theory, my concepts seem to be functional in the most extreme conditions, you might think
of...
Post by: CrazyScientist on 16/10/2021 06:44:13
Can you tell me, what makes this statement wrong?What may make it wrong is that you deduce from it ideas which are demonstrable wrong, such as you can't get more than about 10^-15 watts in a microwave oven.
Of course, it could be your deduction rather then the premise which is wrong.
And where exactly in our discussion did I state so? I've stated that the power output (amplitudes of EM oscillations) doesn't change the number of photons in a standing wave trapped in a cavity. As for the upper limit of the amplitude of those oscillations, I would suggest the physical volume of cavity in the transverse orientation of trapped wave (up/downm or left/right perpendicularly to thedirection of propagation). At some point microwaves would give enough energy to the receivig particles of matter (mainly H2O molecules), to splat your dinner on the side walls of cavity, as it would boil it couple microseconds after the initial emission of first microwave photon.
But you still wouldn't be able to use it, to cut through metal...
Never said so... I've said that two FM antennas will cause interference, if they are placed close to each other.Yes, you made that error.
You said "that you can't overlap two EM fields at the same bandwidths in one volume of space"
And I pointed out that it is wrong.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82373.msg644926;topicseen#msg644926
Why are you still saying it, even though it is known to be wrong?
Because they can't overlap, since they interfere with each other. Due to EM interferrence, 2+ EM fields at similar wavelenghs merge into one field with characteristics of both fields, but not being specific to any of them.
Shouldn't you know about things, like the EM onterference?
. For example, up until today I never heard of Wein's Law and Kirchhoff's Law - but I used them in practical scenario just by pure intuitionAnd you got them monumentally wrong.
You think you can melt steel with ice cubes.
Stop telling me, what I do or don't think about different things - you're not somekind of a space-wizard, to see into my mind. Where did I say so? Maybe you should stop making claims based on your own introspective deduction, and start to base them on actual quotes.
Define serious...
Important enough, to somehow make matter to me.
So why don't you shut up?
Because I have a strong sense of inter-personal empathy and it gives me a twisted satisfaction, to feel your frustration and desperation of intellectual domination over me. :)
Induction heating is based on a COMPLETELY different mechanism, than heating with a laser (or different radiation).No it isn't.
In both cases EM radiation is transferred across an heats the object.
***
Chapter 12: Radiation Heat Transfer. Radiation differs from Conduction and Convection heat t transfer mechanismsYes, that's right.
Radiation in the form of light heats things in much the same way as radiation of RF from an induction furnace.
It's different from conduction or convection (or advection, if you want the full set).
I'm pretty sure, that when somewhere it's being stated that something differs, it does not tranlate to things happening: in much the same way. Sorry, but your space-wizardry doesn't work on me... You won't change the science, by repeating un-scientific satements.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/10/2021 11:05:46
I'm pretty sure, that when somewhere it's being stated that something differs, it does not tranlate to things happening: in much the same way.
I'm pretty sure, that when somewhere it's being incorrectly stated that something differs, it does
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/10/2021 11:27:48
Stop telling me, what I do or don't think about different things - you're not somekind of a space-wizard, to see into my mind. Where did I say so?Here
Laser beams have wavelenghts that allows them to cut through metal.In the context where I had just pointed out that your assertion
You won't never go beyond a certain temperature for a certain wavelenght
The "certain temperature" corresponding to the 10.6µM radiation from a CO2 laser is very close to that of melting ice.
So, if you were right (spoiler alert; you aren't) the hottest you could get something with a CO2 laser would be about that temperature- the temperature of melting ice.
In fact you can cut steel with a CO2 laser.
So, according to your idea you can cut steel by heating it to a temperature that can't be greater than 273.4K
And you can pretty much do that with an ice cube.
Because I have a strong sense of inter-personal empathy and it gives me a twisted satisfaction, to feel your frustration and desperation of intellectual domination over me.My frustration is a result of you continuing to ignore reality and post gibberish.
Because they can't overlap, since they interfere with each other.And yet they do overlap, because they are in the same place. (within rather les than 1 wavelength).
And where exactly in our discussion did I state so?Here
you won't fit more than 3 to 6 microwave photons in the LENGHT of that cavity
And I explained why that was about 17 order of magnitude wrong here
That is still wrong by many orders of magnitude.
Say it's 6 waves.
(and 2.4 GHz as domestic microwaves generally are)
And each photon carries 1.59×10^-24 joules.
So there's only 6 times that much microwave radiation in the cavity at one time.
And it crosses the cavity in about a nanosecond so you can "refresh" those 6 photons about 10^9 times a second.
So the power carried is
1.59×10^-15 watts.
But my oven actually transfers about 10^3 watts
So you are wrong by a factor of about a billion billion.
Even allowing for the fact that there are other modes in the oven- vertical and "front to back", it stuill isn't going to work.
You are wrong by about a factor of a hundred thousand million million.
I pointed this out before and you didn't address it.
Though I had already pointed it out here (where you ignored it).
Inside a 1D tube, which is 100cm long, you can succesfully trap as much as 1 photon of 100cm wavelenght and/or 2 photons at 100//2cm wavelenght + 3 photons at 100/3cm wavelenght + 4 photons at 100/4cm wavelenght and so on.
An interesting conjecture.
Consider my microwave oven.
It runs at 2.4GHz with a corresponding wavelength of about 12.5 cm
Each photon carries about 1.6E-24 Joules.
It is rated for 900 watts.
So it produces about 5.6 E 26 photons per second.
and it's about 15 inches wide
So the cavity is 3 wavelengths long.
According to you it can therefore contain 3 photons of microwave radiation at any given time.
But in reality, about 10^27 photons pass through it every second.
The transit time is about 1.25 nanoseconds for light to travel from one side to the other.
So, at any one time, there must be about 7E15 photons in it.
And yet, you say there can only be 3
Can you explain the disparity?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/10/2021 11:36:09
And yet you can't cut through steel with radiation below microwave wavelenghts. Please, show me just A SINGLE source, where someone with authentic certificate of proper education/knowledge/authority (it can be a diploma, a title or even a list of published scientific papers) in the field of QED, quantum optics/photonics or just in quantum physics in general, who is claiming otherwise...OK, I presume you consider yourself to be a competent source.
Here's a clip from your post of a video of someone cutting metal with radiation with a lower photon energy than microwaves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTIWcK14tQE
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/10/2021 11:46:37
And regarding the potato in a microwave - do the same with a granite rock or somehing made of glass, porcelain, or even of some syntetic plastic material. I'll send you 100$,
send the $100 to a charity of your choice.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/10/2021 12:39:04
https://www.gyrotrontech.com/microwave-technology-articles/microwave-melting-glass/
And for what it's worth, the process of microwave heating to melt metals is also a commercial proposition.
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4701/6/7/143/htm
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/10/2021 14:44:29
Did they send a receipt?And regarding the potato in a microwave - do the same with a granite rock or somehing made of glass, porcelain, or even of some syntetic plastic material. I'll send you 100$,
send the $100 to a charity of your choice.