[Bored chemist]

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 - sorry

If 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 frames

I 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.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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?

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

If 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 frames

I 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...

[Bored chemist]

Huh? Each kind of EM radiation has a defined wavelenght...

Do you even know what the uncertainty principle is?

[Bored chemist]

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

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

Oh, really?

Yes really.
For a start...
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Residential-microwave-oven-spectrum-15_fig3_39432921

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

their momentum is growing

No
The process follows the momentum (and mass/ energy) conservation laws. It's only you who is seeking to say otherwise.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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...?

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.

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/

Higer frequency (shorter wavelenght) = Higher energy of EM radiation = smaller momentum

[Bored chemist]

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

OK, 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.

[Bored chemist]

Yes.... And each kind of EM radiation has a specific and measurable wavelenght... So...?

So... you say "yes", but you mean "no".

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

their momentum is growing

No
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...