0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I try to base my understanding on actual sources and not on someone's self-imposed authority
Near fields doesn't affect the wavelenght nor frequency of EM waves. Where did you got such suprising and revolutional idea? I
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.
Sorry to dissapoint you, but you're not a Jedi master and you're not capable of forcing me to accept statements which I consider to be incorrect, just by telling me to do so.
Next time, instead of The Force, you should maybe try using some more dramatic measures, like magical incantantations or a voodoo doll. Try reciting: "By my will, I command you to respect my authoritaaa...!" at least 13 times, while jumping on one leg inside a burning pentagram - just don't forget to inform me, that you put a spell on me (or just send me a recording of the ritual)...
It does such magic by being constantly "suspended" around a source of EM radiation (antenna) and not propagating at all...
Near field is a local phenomenon and it doesn't use EM waves to propagate through space
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 28/08/2021 01:44:01I try to base my understanding on actual sources and not on someone's self-imposed authorityLOLThose "sources" are "someone's self-imposed authority".Someone thought they had enough authority to write an article, and you read it,.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 28/08/2021 01:44:01Sure - 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, 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.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 28/08/2021 01:44:01It 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.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-field_scanning_optical_microscope
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 28/08/2021 01:44:01Near 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...?
But... Does near-field have a wavelenght...?No it doesn't - it has a size/volume, which... depends on the dominant wavelength (λ)
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
Light from light - it's yet just another of those "amzing" claims of yours,
And where exactly is the part which says, that near-fields are using EM waves to propagate?
Is an antenna sending out the near-field into space?
You can't use a beam of photons at the wavelenght of 1024nm, to heat something to 10000°C, no matter how big is the photon density. Since 1024nm is the wavelenght characteristic to blacbody radiation at around 2500°C, to heat something beyond this temperature, you will need to use photons at shorter wavelenghts. By increasing the number of photons (intensity of radiation) at 1024nm in the beam, you will only decrease the time at which this beam will heat something to the temperature of 2500°C.- but not beyond that level
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 13/09/2021 23:32:23But... Does near-field have a wavelenght...?Yes.The formula you gave earlier includes it.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 13/09/2021 23:32:23But... Does near-field have a wavelenght...?No it doesn't - it has a size/volume, which... depends on the dominant wavelength (λ)It does not have a wavelength; it has a size based on the wavelength.
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 13/09/2021 23:32:23 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?Further than you will get by contradicting yourself.
I believe that in psychology such behavior has it's own name: it's called "projection"...
Anyone who knows a bit about physics knows well, that near-field doesn't have a wavelenght
Quote from: CrazyScientist on 13/09/2021 23:32:23 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?Further than you will get by contradicting yourself.You also need to lose this daft idea that it is me with whom you are disagreeing.I'm just putting forward the conventional laws of physics.So, for example, because I know about the energy conservation laws I can point out that your "focussing al the light..." idea is impossible.I can point out that it's one of the laws of optics.But you are so bizarrely conceited that you pretend that I'm wrong.Quote from: CrazyScientist on 13/09/2021 23:32:23So 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?There are two problems there. The first is obvious; they wouldn't fit unless most of them were further away so they would seem less bright..The second is that the, law says you can't use imaging optics to focus the light to be brighter than the source.You could take my word for that.Or you could google it, and find that it's true.Or you could think about the reason I gave for it being true.Let's try the third option, since it's probably the most interesting.Imagine that you are right (it's a stretch, but don't worry, you don't need to do it for long.).Imagine I put a black body at the focus of the bright image.It will absorb the light and heat up.And, since the light is brighter than the Sun, the object will become hotter than the Sun.So I can connect a heat engine between the object and the Sun and extract power from that temperature differenceBut I can do that even if I put the whole system in a closed mirror box with no energy source.All the heat lost by the Sun is return to it via the heat engine, so you can replace the Sun with a lump of hot iron and it will stay hot forever. And the heat engine will continue to produce power forever.And that is a breach of the conservation of energy.So we know that you are wrong.So, once againQuote from: Bored chemist on 28/08/2021 12:15:06It'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?
How many counter-examples would you like?We can start with a microwave oven emitting photons characteristic of a temperature well below that of liquid helium.But it's perfectly capable of cooking a potato.
And then we can consider these guyshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_(laser)who use a laser at about 1054 nm to heat materials to rather more than 2500C.The got it hot enough for fusion to take place.
And then , moving to longer wavelengths, there's this sort of thing.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_heating#/media/File:Induction_heating_of_bar.jpgwhere a piece of metal is heated red hot by photons that correspond to a temperature far below that of liquid helium.About 0.000007654 kelvin, if this is righthttps://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law
Here's a clip of you showing the wavelength (designated by λ) of near field EM radiation near field lambda.JPG (54.66 kB . 1547x522 - viewed 2909 times)And here you are saying that it doesn't have a wavelength.Quote from: CrazyScientist on 15/10/2021 18:13:44Anyone who knows a bit about physics knows well, that near-field doesn't have a wavelenght
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/10/2021 18:44:49Here's a clip of you showing the wavelength (designated by λ) of near field EM radiation near field lambda.JPG (54.66 kB . 1547x522 - viewed 2909 times)And here you are saying that it doesn't have a wavelength.Quote from: CrazyScientist on 15/10/2021 18:13:44Anyone who knows a bit about physics knows well, that near-field doesn't have a wavelenght Nope - I've saId that it has a size, that depends on the wavelenght of emitted radiation. Do you get it - emitted radiation has some wavelenght, that defines the size of near-field. C'mon - it's not that hard to comprehend
From the beginning of this thread, I was saying that it's impossible to increase the temperature of a body to infinity,
I can surround myself with billons of Suns, but their collective temperature won't be higher than that of a single Sun.
Then try using the same microwave owen to heat up a porcelain plate or a piece of glass, by increasing the intensity of microwave radiation. Good luck
Obviously you've missed the part about frequency multipliers:
So you say, that in the process of induction, matter is being heated by photons? Because I'm pretty sure, that it uses electric currents instead of EM radiation, to heat up things...
my own ideas regarding a physical mechanism seem to be (almost) in a full agreeement with mainstream physics