[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Now, would you like to address the point about the BH?

Sure. It's an experimeantally disproved pseudo-scientific fantasy, which is completely inconsistent with the actual physical reallity... Yeah, that motly summarizes the idea, that EM radiation trapped in a cavity can somehow create a black hole

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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_radiation
It can be derived from the law of conservation of energy.
If you have a thing which emits then it will absorb.

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.

When the density/intensity of EM field in the cavity reaches a specific "capacity" of probability distribution at the frequency of emitted EM waves, source of radiation becomes unable of further emission, until some part of the radiation won't be absorbed back from the system by the source - and then this quanta of EM energy radiates once more into the cavity, only to be absorbed back by the source (and this process is being repeated in a loop, until some external factor won't disturb the energy equilibrium of the system)

[Bored chemist]

It's an experimeantally disproved

Who did the experiment?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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.

Bravo good sir!

And in science situation, in which intensity of a field is reaching a specific level, which prevents any further growth of energy, is called "equilibrium"

[Bored chemist]

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.

If I link to that wiki page a third time, will you read it a few more times?

Then maybe you will understand that the probability of emission is dependent on the same criteria as the probability of absorption.
so, if you have anything that's an emitter, it is just as good an absorber.

[Bored chemist]

which prevents any further growth of energy, is called "equilibrium"

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.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

It's an experimeantally disproved

Who did the experiment?

For example those guys:
Q. A. Turchette, N. Ph. Georgiades, C. J. Hood, and H. J. Kimble

Do you know any of them?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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

Tell this to people, who proved experimentally, that you're wrong...

Squeezed excitation in cavity QED: Experiment and theory

"One of the canonical questions in quantum optics is the nature of the radiative properties of an atom when
the normal vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic reservoir are replaced by the asymmetric, reduced
fluctuations of a squeezed vacuum. While the basic radiative linewidth-narrowing effect has been known for
over a decade @C. W. Gardiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1917 ~1986!#, experimental realizations with operationally
definable definitive manifestations of the quantum nature of the squeezed reservoir have been largely lacking
from subsequent investigations. This paper presents measurements on an experimentally realized atom–
squeezed-light system, in which the squeezed-light output of a subthreshold optical parametric oscillator
illuminates an atom strongly coupled to a high-finesse optical resonator. Transmission of a weak probe field
incident on the atom-cavity system is investigated both theoretically and experimentally. Alteration of the
transmitted probe spectrum has been observed, as has a transmission modulation that depends on the phase of
the squeezed field relative to a saturating coherent field ~displaced squeezing!. In certain parameter regimes,
properties unique to the quantum nature of the squeezed light have been identified in the theoretical treatment,
but complications in the experiment prevent their unequivocal measure. It is found that the observed effects of
the squeezed light are dramatically reduced relative to the predictions of an idealized theory. This is quantitatively
attributed to the effects of atomic beam fluctuations and a simple modeling of the atomic beam as an
additional loss mechanism in the theory leads to reasonable agreement with the data.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Thanks 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!

P.S. - Shall Refrain from further Disturbing & Distracting You.
✌️
The Woods are too Dark & too Deep, but We All have our Promises to Keep!
🖖
Tc!
😇

[/quote]

Thanks! I don't consider this distracting at all. In fact I would gladly submerge in a philosophical discussiosn about the meta-physics of existence, with someone who has a different outlook on the subject.

Sadly, I think that there's one, significant problem, which puts rather serious limits in the intellectual capacity of many people, who consider themselves scientists - it's a simple algorythm imprinted directly into their mental structure of thought process, that upon receiving the key-word: "God", executes a short chain of logical associations:

God ---> relligion ---> church ---> temple ---> buch of weird people, who are known to take part in some form of ceremonial magic, where they make weird mystical enchantements to some white, round and completely tasteless waffles and believe, that by eating it, they actually consume the living flesh of a guy, who lived some 2000 years ago, and who they consider as a true incarnation of God...

This creates a simple mental mechanism, which prevents most of scientists from asking themselves a simple theoretical question: "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?"

Ok, I'll be back later. C'ya!

[Bored chemist]

"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.

The rest of us see that nobody has actually done the relevant experiment.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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)...

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... And by "experimental", I mean things supported by a direct observation/measurement and not things, which were theoretically deduced by some guy more than century ago... Good luck with that!

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?

[Bored chemist]

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)...

No.
You said that the experiment had been done.
You said

Tell this to people, who proved experimentally, that you're wrong...

So show me the write up of that experiment.

[Bored chemist]

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.

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.


Instead, you said something stupid.

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.

Which might be sort-of true but we simply don't have laser beams anything like that powerful.
So the effect would be immeasurably small.
So it's a stupid thing to say.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

"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.

The rest of us see that nobody has actually done the relevant experiment.

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...

[Bored chemist]

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?

If you are right, then that's a breach of the conservation of energy.
There are two issues with that idea.
First, I wouldn't have heard it from some guy on the internet; it would be headline news.
Second it's impossible because of this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

[Bored chemist]

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...

To be fair, I was mainly just taking the piss out of your inability to understand what  " proved experimentally, that you're wrong..." means.
It doesn't mean citing some random experiment with some of the same words in it.
The religious bit is irrelevant.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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.

I understand the theoretical premise of your model - I just consider it, as invalid, so I demand some actual results of ANY practical experiments, that can prove the idea that:

a) decrease of the volume of an optical cavity leads to the increase of intensity/magnitude of an EM radiation trapped inside that cavity

b) photons really do interact with each other gravitationally

I don't want to hear your explanations - I want to see some actual measurable results... Anything observable - I'm not so demanding, as you are...

[Bored chemist]

Anything observable - I'm not so demanding, as you are...

Says the man who demands an experimental observation of a purely hypothetical  perfect mirror.

a) decrease of the volume of an optical cavity leads to the increase of intensity/magnitude of an EM radiation trapped inside that cavity

Do 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.

Just the abstract would do...

You said it was experimentally refuted so where are teh experimental details?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Anything observable - I'm not so demanding, as you are...

Says the man who demands an experimental observation of a purely hypothetical  perfect mirror.

a) decrease of the volume of an optical cavity leads to the increase of intensity/magnitude of an EM radiation trapped inside that cavity

Do 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?

Obviously into the atoms, that make the resonance cavity

I contend that it raises the frequencies of the photons in the box.

Nope. it's exactly opposite - momentum transfer during reflection of an EM wave increases it's wavelenght

What do you think happens to it?

it reaches an equilibrium with rest of the system, when EM field inside the cavity reaches it's maximum capacity of probability density at the frequencies emitted by source - and no more radiation can "fit" in the probability wavefunction of the photon field.

Or are you really claiming that energy is not conserved?

Well, since no more radiation is being emitted by the source into the system, that remains in the state of energy equilibrium, then no more energy is being "consumed" by that source and energy is being fully 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

And what exactly does it have to do with EM radiation trapped inside a cavity with decreasing volume?
Are you aware, that the mechanism presented in that paper is based mostly on Doppler's effect on light and not on the assumption, that intensity/density of EM radiation will grow inside a cavity with decreasing volume

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.

Of course you are fully aware, that the the mass of the trapping box has billions times greater relativistic mass, than all the photons trapped in that box - so even your expactactions are fundamentally flawed

Second of all, why are you are demanding from me an experimental counter-evidence of your own hypothesis? You used the scenario with shrinking cavity, to support another of your claims about the constant increase of energy in a system, where a constant source of EM radiation is placed inside a cavity with a constant volume - and now you demand from me to prove things, that are impossible to verfify by any possible means... This isn't how it works...

You said it was experimentally refuted so where are teh experimental details?

Here:
for example your claim is that:

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.

and:

If you keep putting energy in, you can't prevent further growth in energy.

But when we look some sources, where this subject is discussed, like the link below:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cavity-quantum-electrodynamics/

We will learn that:
"If the antenna is inside a reflecting cavity, however, its behavior changes—as anyone knows who has tried to listen to a radio broadcast while driving through a tunnel. As the car and its receiving antenna pass underground, they enter a region where the long wavelengths of the radio waves are cut off. The incident waves interfere destructively with those that bounce off the steel-reinforced concrete walls of the tunnel. In fact, the radio waves cannot propagate unless the tunnel walls are separated by more than half a wavelength. This is the minimal width that permits a standing wave with at least one crest, or field maximum, to build up—just as the vibration of a violin string reaches a maximum at the middle of the string and vanishes at the ends. What is true for reception also holds for emission: a confined antenna cannot broadcast at long wavelengths.

An excited atom in a small cavity is precisely such as antenna, albeit a microscopic one. If the cavity is small enough, the atom will be unable to radiate because the wavelength of the oscillating field it would "like" to produce cannot fit within the boundaries. As long as the atom cannot emit a photon, it must remain in the same energy level; the excited state acquires an infinite lifetime.

In 1985 research groups at the University of Washington and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology demonstrated suppressed emission. The group in Seattle inhibited the radiation of a single electron inside an electromagnetic trap, whereas the M.I.T. group studied excited atoms confined between two metallic plates about a quarter of a millimeter apart. The atoms remained in the same state without radiating as long as they were between the plates.

Millimeter-scale structures are much too wide to alter the behavior of conventionally excited atoms emitting micron or submicron radiation; consequently, the M.I.T. experimenters had to work with atoms in special states known as Rydberg states. An atom in a Rydberg state has almost enough energy to lose an electron completely. Because this outermost electron is bound only weakly, it can assume any of a great number of closely spaced energy levels, and the photons it emits while jumping form one to another have wavelengths ranging from a fraction of a millimeter to a few centimeters. Rydberg atoms are prepared by irradiating ground-state atoms with laser light of appropriate wavelengths and are widely used in cavity QED experiments.

The suppression of spontaneous emission at an optical frequency requires much smaller cavities. In 1986 one of us (Haroche), along with other physicists at Yale University, made a micron-wide structure by stacking two optically flat mirrors separated by extremely thin metallic spacers. The workers sent atoms through this passage, thereby preventing them from radiating for as long as 13 times the normal excited-state lifetime. Researchers at the University of Rome used similar micron-wide gaps to inhibit emission by excited dye molecules."

And both of your statements turn out to be completely wrong......