0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Now, would you like to address the point about the BH?
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_radiationIt can be derived from the law of conservation of energy.If you have a thing which emits then it will absorb.
It's an experimeantally disproved
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.
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.
which prevents any further growth of energy, is called "equilibrium"
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 12/06/2021 18:54:31It's an experimeantally disproved Who did the experiment?
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
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 11/06/2021 18:10:52Thanks 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!
"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?"
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)...
Tell this to people, who proved experimentally, that you're wrong...
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.
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.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 12/06/2021 20:07:09 "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.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b_gltKtERYThe rest of us see that nobody has actually done the relevant experiment.
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?
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...
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.
Anything observable - I'm not so demanding, as you are...
a) decrease of the volume of an optical cavity leads to the increase of intensity/magnitude of an EM radiation trapped inside that cavity
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 12/06/2021 22:32:52Anything observable - I'm not so demanding, as you are...Says the man who demands an experimental observation of a purely hypothetical perfect mirror.Quote from: CrazyScientist on 12/06/2021 22:32:52a) 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.
You said it was experimentally refuted so where are teh experimental details?
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.
If you keep putting energy in, you can't prevent further growth in energy.