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?
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.
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...