[Bored chemist]

Thing is, that I never wanted you to believe in my claims - this is exactly w

You link to stuff that's mainstream, but irrelevant; and then you claim that people have done experiments which are, in fact, impossible.
You essentially tell me not to believe you.

[Bored chemist]

No. I'm trying to say, that photons are the most fundamental "units of physical reality" and it's impossible, to make them smaller...

Well, they start off essentially infinite yet they go through small holes.
They don't have a meaningful size.
It's like trying to measure the diameter of sweet or the mass of Thursday

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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

Reminder:

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)

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

No. I'm trying to say, that photons are the most fundamental "units of physical reality" and it's impossible, to make them smaller...

Well, they start off essentially infinite yet they go through small holes.
They don't have a meaningful size.
It's like trying to measure the diameter of sweet or the mass of Thursday

Still there's Planck lenght, which comes from the Planck constant - as far as we know, this is the microscale limit of reality...

[Bored chemist]

Yes; you are reminding me that you have a claim that something can't emit light.
So what?
In the version with a laser and a valve, there's nothing in the sphere to emit anything.
So your "citation" can't be relevant.
Why make it again?

[Bored chemist]

No. I'm trying to say, that photons are the most fundamental "units of physical reality" and it's impossible, to make them smaller...

Well, they start off essentially infinite yet they go through small holes.
They don't have a meaningful size.
It's like trying to measure the diameter of sweet or the mass of Thursday

Still there's Planck lenght, which comes from the Planck constant - as far as we know, this is the microscale limit of reality...

So what?
Nobody was trying to make photons smaller than any limit  (apart from a rather arbitrary1mm which was chosen as a bit smaller than the radius of an earth mass BH)

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Thing is, that I never wanted you to believe in my claims - this is exactly w

You link to stuff that's mainstream, but irrelevant; and then you claim that people have done experiments which are, in fact, impossible.
You essentially tell me not to believe you.

Irrevelant you say... So you completely dismiss an entire branch of modern physics, because it is in disagreement with your old-school (and outdated) beliefs?

Cavity QED is in 100% experimentally proved - in the difference to so-called "Kugelblitz", which as for today remains a complete science-fiction...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

No. I'm trying to say, that photons are the most fundamental "units of physical reality" and it's impossible, to make them smaller...

Well, they start off essentially infinite yet they go through small holes.
They don't have a meaningful size.
It's like trying to measure the diameter of sweet or the mass of Thursday

Still there's Planck lenght, which comes from the Planck constant - as far as we know, this is the microscale limit of reality...

So what?
Nobody was trying to make photons smaller than any limit  (apart from a rather arbitrary1mm which was chosen as a bit smaller than the radius of an earth mass BH)

But you will have to go beyond that limit, if you want to compress a macroscale EM field, which is made of photons, into a "tiny dot" of space...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Yes; you are reminding me that you have a claim that something can't emit light.
So what?
In the version with a laser and a valve, there's nothing in the sphere to emit anything.
So your "citation" can't be relevant.
Why make it again?

Doesn't have to... You should read about such term as local density of states

[Bored chemist]

Irrevelant you say... So you completely dismiss an entire branch of modern physics, because it is in disagreement with your old-school (and outdated) beliefs?

I'm hardly likely to dismiss the "old school" stuff for which I was one of the scholars doing the experimental work.

The trouble is that you don't actually talk about QED.
You talk nonsense like this

since lasers obviously don't turn into black holes...

Nobody ever said they would, could or did.

Why do you do that?

[Bored chemist]

You should read about such term as local density of states

I think you should look at the behaviour of bosons.

[Bored chemist]

But you will have to go beyond that limit, if you want to compress a macroscale EM field, which is made of photons, into a "tiny dot" of space...

OK, what's the alternative to gravitational collapse?
Where does the photon keep its anti-gravity device?

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2314363771993855

[alancalverd]

Still there's Planck lenght, which comes from the Planck constant - as far as we know, this is the microscale limit of reality.

Who "we"? Are you a politician? Or the Queen?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Still there's Planck lenght, which comes from the Planck constant - as far as we know, this is the microscale limit of reality.

Who "we"? Are you a politician? Or the Queen?

I guess, that's me + some other people...
But I admit, that I've made a mistake in this statement - instead of "reality", it should be "measurement"

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

You should read about such term as local density of states

I think you should look at the behaviour of bosons.

Problem is, that the number of standing EM waves inside a cavity is limited to those with a proper wavelenght:

But you will have to go beyond that limit, if you want to compress a macroscale EM field, which is made of photons, into a "tiny dot" of space...

OK, what's the alternative to gravitational collapse?
Where does the photon keep its anti-gravity device?

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2314363771993855

Well, if we'll assume, that interactions between photons are simiar to interactions between photons and particles of matter, then we'll end up with 2 possible outcomes of photons collisions - absorbtion, which leads to their annihilation and reflection, which leads to their expulsion. In such case, it's probably the momentum transfer due to reflection of photons, which would be responsible for their "anti-gravitational" behavior. But maybe you know about some other ways, in which photons can interact gravitationally...?

However, it's experimentally proven, that interactions between extremely energetic photons can lead to creation of matter in form of partiicle-antiparticle pairs of electrons and positrons, which are annihilating each other shortly after their "birth" and turn back into photons. I'm not sure, if such interactions have anything to do wiith gravity...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I've spent last couple days looking for some sources, that might have something in common with my idea of X-stationary photons with a constant nuber in some given volume of a photon field, but I wasn't too successful. Generally I found only one site, where somewhat similar concept of hotons is being proposed: https://energywavetheory.com/photons/

This is, what is being proposed there


And this is my depiction of a photon:

As you can see, frequency of a wave is here directly connected with the velocity of photon's vibrational (Y,Z oriented) motion. This simple fact becomes especially important in the case of photoelectric effect, where the frequency of EM waves is directly related to the kinetic energy of ejected electrons, instead of the amplitude/intensity of EM radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect

If EM waves would behave like any other mechanical wave, it would be it's magnitude/amplitude, which would affect the kinetic energy of ejected electrons, while their nuumber would depend on the freqency of radiation - however what is being observed, is an exacty opposite corelation. Of course, it was Einstein, who explained such results, by describing EM radiation, as streams of particles (photons) produced by the source during emission, for what he received a Nobel Prize. Problem is, that this is exactly the mechanism, which makes photons a time-finite packets of energy and leads to the idea of black hole made of trapped EM radiation.

Thing is, that photoelectric effect can be also easily explained by photons described as X-stationary and time-infinite quanta of EM field. Most important, is here the fact, that in the difference to mechanical waves propagating in some physical medium, photons are quantum objects - what means, that EM radiation needs to be described in terms of probability distribution. In the case of a mechanical wave, energy is expressed as the magnitude (height) of that wave, while in the case of EM radiation, magnitude describes the probability of detection.

In shortcut, high intensity of an EM field (high magnitude of EM waves) means high probability of detecting photons at the frquency of emitted radiation - what can be understood, as high number (density) of photons in given volume of an EM field. If we combine this information with the idea, that vibrational velocity of photons depends on the frequency of EM waves, it will become quite obvious, that in the case of photoelectric effect, intensity of EM field will be related with the number of ejected electrons, while their kinetic energy will depend on the frequency of EM radiation...

For the end, I want to mention about the Superfluid Vacuum Theory, which is being quite commonly used, to describe the ground state of an "empty vacuum" and can be used as a pretty solid base for my model of X-stationary and time-infinite photons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory

[Bored chemist]

Problem is, that the number of standing EM waves inside a cavity

But there is no requirement for the photons to form standing waves; they can just bounce about with random phases.

In fact, they must do so,because the  energy/ time version of the uncertainty principle says that the energy - and therefore the wavelength has an uncertainty.
Because you are not sure what the wavelength is, you are not sure if it will allow a standing wave and, in the end, it won't.

So we can discount standing waves from the discussion.

However, it's experimentally proven, that interactions between extremely energetic photons can lead to creation of matter in form of partiicle-antiparticle pairs of electrons and positrons, which are annihilating each other shortly after their "birth" and turn back into photons. I'm not sure, if such interactions have anything to do with gravity...

I presume that you know that this works both ways.
A particle - e.g. a proton- flicks between that state and also being a pair of virtual photons.
So any (un charged) black hole  made from "conventional" matter is therefore also a part-time kugelblitz.

I've spent last couple days looking for some sources, that might have something in common with my idea of X-stationary photons with a constant nuber in some given volume of a photon field, but I wasn't too successful.

Well, I could have saved you a lot of trouble.
A photon, by it's nature can not be stationary.
You seem to have made up the idea of an "X-stationary photon" without saying what it means.
But, if you only just invented it then clearly, your search won't find anything about it.
Google gives just one hit for it, and that is this page.
Nice Googlewhack, but making up words to do that is considered cheating.

As you can see, frequency of a wave is here directly connected with the velocity of photon's vibrational (Y,Z oriented) motion

Plenty of real science shows that photons have angular momentum.
So this idea of "up and down" as they travel along is untenable.
It would get scrambled by the spin (yes, I know, electron and photon "spin" are not classical rotations, that's not the point. There's enough similarity to "screw" your idea.)

The other thing about the photoelectric effect is that the  photon loses energy, so it's not a process which could be relevant to a perfectly mirrored ball.

It's laughable that you thought I might not be aware of, and have considered the PE effect.

Problem is, that this is exactly the mechanism, which makes photons a time-finite packets of energy and leads to the idea of black hole made of trapped EM radiation.

That is only a problem in your head.
Everywhere else, it is recognised as a solution.

Maybe you should think about that rather than posting obvious stuff about hundred year old physics which you don't understand.

EM radiation needs to be described in terms of probability distribution.

Welcome to QM.
The rest of science got here decades ago.

it will become quite obvious, that in the case of photoelectric effect, intensity of EM field will be related with the number of ejected electrons, while their kinetic energy will depend on the frequency of EM radiation...

This was, indeed, obvious.
So much so that I wonder why you posted it.
But, as I pointed out, it's a "lossy" process, so it can not be relevant to a perfectly mirrored ball.

Now, to get back to the question.

Do you really think that the bat speeds up when it hits the ball?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Problem is, that the number of standing EM waves inside a cavity

But there is no requirement for the photons to form standing waves; they can just bounce about with random phases.

In fact, they must do so,because the  energy/ time version of the uncertainty principle says that the energy - and therefore the wavelength has an uncertainty.
Because you are not sure what the wavelength is, you are not sure if it will allow a standing wave and, in the end, it won't.

So we can discount standing waves from the discussion.

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:

Besides that, in the case of reflective cavity, standing wave is the only one, which lead to the maximal amplification of intensity, while of out-of-phase reflection,will mostly lead to destructive or non-linear interference

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...

I also recommend you checking out this site, where the idea of a particle-like photon behavior is swiftly refuted:
http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2015/01/25/sometimes-particle-isnt-possible/

The example I’ve just described highlights a problem with the standard popular narrative of particle-wave duality. We’re told that particles sometimes act like particles and sometimes act like waves. But if this were true, a single particle would never split into two just because we dropped it between two mirrors. The truth of the matter is that everything is a wave. It’s just that sometimes, like in last week’s experiment, waves can be made to act like particles.

But this week’s experiment shows us that sometimes, waves can’t be made to act like particles–at least, not a single particle. And sometimes they refuse to behave like particles at all! What all of this means is that there are conditions where particles cannot exist. For example: We think that, about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe underwent a period of rapid inflation. During this expansion, for reasons that I promise to try to address in the future (see Mukhanov and Winitzky), the very notion of a particle broke down. In the inflationary period, the packets of waves that make up particles simply could not form.

TBC

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

I presume that you know that this works both ways.
A particle - e.g. a proton- flicks between that state and also being a pair of virtual photons.
So any (un charged) black hole  made from "conventional" matter is therefore also a part-time kugelblitz.

Only you're missing here one key difference between protons and photons - as for today photons seem to be unable of pernamently becomming protons. Not to mention, that gravitational interactions between photons and the idea of Kugelblitz exist only as theoretical fantasies, without an experimental basis

Well, I could have saved you a lot of trouble.
A photon, by it's nature can not be stationary.
You seem to have made up the idea of an "X-stationary photon" without saying what it means.
But, if you only just invented it then clearly, your search won't find anything about it.
Google gives just one hit for it, and that is this page.
Nice Googlewhack, but making up words to do that is considered cheating.

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

As you can see, frequency of a wave is here directly connected with the velocity of photon's vibrational (Y,Z oriented) motion

Plenty of real science shows that photons have angular momentum.
So this idea of "up and down" as they travel along is untenable.
It would get scrambled by the spin (yes, I know, electron and photon "spin" are not classical rotations, that's not the point. There's enough similarity to "screw" your idea.)

But such model of photon doesn't in any way contradict the idea of photon angular momentum - moreover, it allows it in all 3 diemensions of an EM wave

The other thing about the photoelectric effect is that the  photon loses energy, so it's not a process which could be relevant to a perfectly mirrored ball.

It's laughable that you thought I might not be aware of, and have considered the PE effect.

Of course it does, but it doesn't change the constant number of photons in the cavity - In this model it's expressed as a decrease of vibrational velocity of those photons.

And I have now 2 questions for you:

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?

2. 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?

TBC

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Problem is, that this is exactly the mechanism, which makes photons a time-finite packets of energy and leads to the idea of black hole made of trapped EM radiation.

That is only a problem in your head.
Everywhere else, it is recognised as a solution.

Maybe you should think about that rather than posting obvious stuff about hundred year old physics which you don't understand.

And maybe you should become just slightly interested in the progress of science after 1920 or so...
You still seem to think about photons, as about tiny and shiny marbles which are being "farted out" by matter and keep bouncing around like tiny tennis balls, until they won't get swallowed back by some particle of matter

https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/8121/81210P/The-constancy-of-c-everywhere-requires-the-cosmic-space-to/10.1117/12.894121.short?SSO=1
The constancy of "c" everywhere requires the cosmic space to be a stationary and complex tension field

Atoms and molecules that emit light, do not impart the ultimate velocity "c" on the emitted photon wave packets. Their propensity for perpetually propagating at this highest velocity in every possible direction must be leveraging a sustaining complex cosmic tension field (C2TF; ether of past centuries), which constitutes the space itself and hence stationary. Then the null results of Michelson-Morley experiments, positive and the null results of Fresnel-drag experiments and the positive Bradley telescope aberration should be explained as a drag of the C2TF by the Earth. We support this previously rejected hypothesis through various self consistent arguments and experiments. We present a null result for longitudinal Fresnel drag, in contrast to Fizeau's positive result; since we did not introduce any relative velocity between the light source and the phase-delay introducing material in our interferometer. We also propose that C2TF has a built-in weak dissipative property towards electromagnetic waves, so its frequency decreases very slowly with the distance of propagation through the C2TF. This hypothesis would eliminate the need for an expanding universe. We recast Hubble constant to accommodate the required Doppler shifts. The observable manifest universe consists only of EM waves and material particles. For C2TF to provide the unifying substrate for a new filed theory, we need to hypothesize that all stable particles are localized complex 3D non-linear, resonant but harmonic undulations of the C2TF. The non-linear strengths of the localized resonant undulations also introduces spatially extended but distance dependent distortions around the site of the resonances. These distortions are effectively different kinds of potential gradients manifest on the substrate of the C2TF, giving rise to the various forces. We now recognize four of them. The origin of mass is purely the inertia of movement of these resonances along these different potential gradients they experience. We further assert that the notion of self-interference, either for EM waves, or for particles, proposed in support of the hypothesis of wave-particle duality, is logically inconsistent with our currently successful mathematics and hence we should abandon this unnecessary duality hypothesis within the formalism of current QM.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228844630_The_inexhaustible_source_of_insights_revealed_by_every_photon
The inexhaustible source of insights revealed by every photon

We present several quantum mechanical experiments involving photons that strain the notions of space, time and causality. One for these experiments gives rise to the "quantum liar paradox," where Nature seems to contradict herself within a single experiment. In the last section we propose an outline for a theory that aspires to integrate GR and QM. In this outline, i) "Becoming," the creation of every instant anew from nothingness, is real. ii) Force-carrying particles, such as photons, do not merely mediate the interaction by propagating in some pre-existing, empty spacetime; rather, they are the very progenitors of the spacetime segment within which the interaction takes place.

it will become quite obvious, that in the case of photoelectric effect, intensity of EM field will be related with the number of ejected electrons, while their kinetic energy will depend on the frequency of EM radiation...

This was, indeed, obvious.
So much so that I wonder why you posted it.
But, as I pointed out, it's a "lossy" process, so it can not be relevant to a perfectly mirrored ball.

Now, to get back to the question.

Do you really think that the bat speeds up when it hits the ball?

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?

Hello! We live in the second decade of XXI century - there's an entire branch of physics, that is specialized to deal with my scenario - it's called cavity quantum electrodynamics and it has as much in common with General Relativity, as it has  in common with baseball (not much)...