[Bored chemist]

I try to base my understanding on actual sources and not on someone's self-imposed authority

LOL
Those "sources" are "someone's self-imposed authority".
Someone thought they had enough authority to write an article, and you read it,.

[Bored chemist]

Near fields doesn't affect the wavelenght nor frequency of EM waves. Where did you got such suprising and revolutional idea? I

I 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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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"?

[Bored chemist]

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

[Bored chemist]

Near field is a local phenomenon and it doesn't use EM waves to propagate through space

I 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?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I try to base my understanding on actual sources and not on someone's self-imposed authority

LOL
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?

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 space

I 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...

[Bored chemist]

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...?

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.

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Note: both citations come from one post:

But... Does near-field have a wavelenght...?

Yes.
The formula you gave earlier includes it.

...

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"...

[Bored chemist]

you do realise you just pointed out that you have said that the near field does have a wavelength, and that it doesn't have a wavelength.
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.

[Bored chemist]

Here's a clip of you showing the wavelength (designated by λ) of  near field EM radiation

near field lambda.JPG (54.66 kB . 1547x522 - viewed 1547 times)

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

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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?

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

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]

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...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Here's a clip of you showing the wavelength (designated by λ) of  near field EM radiation

near field lambda.JPG (54.66 kB . 1547x522 - viewed 1547 times)

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

[Bored chemist]

Here's a clip of you showing the wavelength (designated by λ) of  near field EM radiation

near field lambda.JPG (54.66 kB . 1547x522 - viewed 1547 times)

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

It is perfectly clear to anyone still reading this that the measurement in that image is a wavelength.
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.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Ok, I think that it's time to explain at last, what it is exactly, that I'm actually proposing in this thread and how might it change our general understanding of photons and EM radiation in terms of quantum fields.

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:

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:

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

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. 

[Bored chemist]

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 luck

Sure, 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?

[Bored chemist]

my own ideas regarding a physical mechanism seem to be (almost) in a full agreeement with mainstream physics

Nope.
All I have done is put forward mainstream physics, and all you have done is argue about it.