[Bored chemist]

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.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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?"...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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...

[Bored chemist]

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

I don't need to tell you a second time that I was studying it over 30 years ago.

[Bored chemist]

- 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.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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...

[Bored chemist]

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.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

- 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...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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

I don't need to tell you a second time that I was studying it over 30 years ago.

Oh, then probably your memory isn't as good as 30 years ago... Well, you can't be young forever, can you?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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

I don't need to tell you a second time that I was studying it over 30 years ago.

Oh, then probably your memory isn't as good as 30 years ago... Well, you can't be young forever, can you?

My memory may be flaky as hell for things 30 years ago - though I still have the book- I guess I'm getting old

What's your excuse for not remembering it from a few days ago?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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...

[Bored chemist]

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...

The hot thing is in equilibrium with its reflection in the mirror.
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

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Bored chemist]

May I ask, why do you speak to yourself?

I don't.

Why do you ask irrational questions?