[Bored chemist]

What you can see here, is literally a physical manifestation of phonons at different wavelenghts of sound.

And very pretty they are too.
It's considered polite to mention Ernst Chladni at this point, since he was the first to document the effect.

But the absurd claim you are making is that you can't "turn up the volume" on that system because it would mean getting "more waves" into the plate.
In reality, you can because what you change is the amplitude of the waves.

You may remember that I demonstrated the absurdity of your view by pointing out that the microwave oven in my kitchen has many orders of magnitude more waves in it than you said are "permitted".

You never even tried to address that; you just changed the subject.

it contradicts the idea of photons being time-finite energy packets,

I think you will find it only contradicts your understanding of theory, rather than the theory itself.

Remember- your rtheory says a microwave oven won't work.
It also says you can't cut ,metal with a laser.
It also said (some while back) that you can't listen to two FM radios and your theory also says that you can't do diathermy.

Basically, your idea is so obviously wrong that it's laughable that you even try to defend it.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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 3068 times)

And here you are saying that it doesn't have a wavelength.

Anyone 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

It is perfectly clear to anyone still reading this that the measurement in that image is a wavelength.

Of course it's a wavelenght, since it depicts an EM wave propagating in the near-field of an emitter

If the EM field doesn't have a wavelength then the wavelength can't define anything.
Your assertion that the size is defined by the wavelength (which does not exist)" is plainly nonsense.

1. One EM field can include EM waves at multiple wavelenghts - e.g. EM field inside a blackbody at a constant temperature
2. Near-field is not a synonym of EM field. EM fields won't include a near-field, if the source of radiation is placed far beyond the border of that field.

Near-field has a SIZE characteristic for an emitter, according to the type of radiation which it emits - radiation HAS a wavelenght, near-field has SIZE.  Saying that near-field has a wavelenght, is like saying that a gravitational field has wavelenght - it simply doesn't make sense...

And never mind wavelength being "hard to comprehend", you can't even spell it.

Well, sorry for not being a native english speaker. If my grammar and spelling bothers you so much, we can always switch to polish - I'm sure that your polish is perfectly flawless

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

What you can see here, is literally a physical manifestation of phonons at different wavelenghts of sound.

And very pretty they are too.
It's considered polite to mention Ernst Chladni at this point, since he was the first to document the effect.

But the absurd claim you are making is that you can't "turn up the volume" on that system because it would mean getting "more waves" into the plate.

Huh? Where exactly did I say such thing? You got it completely wrong. What I say, is that by increasing the volume of sound (amplitude of sound waves), you won't change the number of phonons/waves on the plate - instead you will make the grains of sand to "bounce" higher and more violently

In reality, you can because what you change is the amplitude of the waves.

True....

You may remember that I demonstrated the absurdity of your view by pointing out that the microwave oven in my kitchen has many orders of magnitude more waves in it than you said are "permitted".

Considering that before the emission of microwaves, the chamber of owen was an "empty vacuum" free of any radiation, then there's a VERY finite number of EM waves at microwave wavelenghts, that can fit in the cavity - mostly, the cavity has the lenght of around 3 to 6 times the wavelenght of emitted microwave radiation, so you won't fit more than 3 to 6 microwave photons in the LENGHT of that cavity......

What you can do, is to change the amplitude of those waves, but not their number - just like in case of sound waves on the resonant plate....

it contradicts the idea of photons being time-finite energy packets,

I think you will find it only contradicts your understanding of theory, rather than the theory itself.

Sure - you can think whatever you want to. It's not that I care about it anyway...

Remember- your rtheory says a microwave oven won't work.

Nope, it doesn't

It also says you can't cut ,metal with a laser.

Nope - never said that. Laser beams have wavelenghts that allows them to cut through metal.

But you won't be able to cut through metal using EM waves at radio frequencies or microwaves. Prove me wrong...

It also said (some while back) that you can't listen to two FM radios and your theory also says that you can't do diathermy.

Never said so... I've said that two FM antennas will cause interference, if they are placed close to each other.

[Bored chemist]

Huh? Where exactly did I say such thing? You got it completely wrong. What I say, is that by increasing the volume of sound (amplitude of sound waves), you won't change the number of phonons/waves on the plate

You are muddling up counting nodes / antinodes and counting waves.

so you won't fit more than 3 to 6 microwave photons in the LENGHT of that cavity

That is still wrong by many orders of magnitude.
Say it's 6 waves.
(and 2.4 GHz as domestic microwaves generally are)
And each photon carries 1.59×10^-24 joules.
So there's only 6 times that much microwave radiation in the cavity at one time.
And it crosses the cavity in about a nanosecond so you can "refresh" those 6 photons about 10^9 times a second.
So the power carried is
1.59×10^-15 watts.
But my oven actually transfers about 10^3 watts
So you are wrong by a factor of about  a billion billion.

Even allowing for the fact that there are other modes in the oven- vertical and "front to back", it stuill isn't going to work.

You are wrong by about a factor of a hundred thousand million million.

I pointed this out before and you didn't address it.

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Basically, your idea is so obviously wrong that it's laughable that you even try to defend it.

Basically my idea is, that photons are not indivisible "chunks of energy", as you can divide each one of them by Planck lenght and Planck const. - so the only really indivisible "chunk of energy" in physical space, is the Planck const. distributed in a 1D distance of 1 Planck lenght. Simply put, it's possible to calculate and measure, how many Planck lenghts and Planck constants "fit" in a photon at a given wavelenght.

Can you tell me, what makes this statement wrong? Can't you divide photons by those values? And if you can, won't it make photons 100% divisible?

[Bored chemist]

Nope - never said that. Laser beams have wavelenghts that allows them to cut through metal.

OK, lets check on that, one of the common industrial cutting lasers is the CO2 laser- it emits radiation at 10.6 microns
Let's see what temperature that corresponds to.
Here's a handy calculator
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law
And it tells me its the peak wavelength for an object at 273.4  K
Within a degree of the melting point of ice.

But you won't be able to cut through metal using EM waves at radio frequencies or microwaves. Prove me wrong...

Again?
OK
Strictly this isn't cutting, but once the metal is molten, you hardly need to "cut" it.

[Bored chemist]

Can you tell me, what makes this statement wrong?

What may make it wrong is that you deduce from it ideas which are demonstrable wrong, such as you can't get more than about 10^-15 watts in a microwave oven.
Of course, it could be your deduction rather then the premise which is wrong.
Why would I care which sort of wring you are?

[Bored chemist]

you can divide each one of them

Show me an experiment in which a photon is "divided".

[Bored chemist]

Never said so... I've said that two FM antennas will cause interference, if they are placed close to each other.

Yes, you made that error.
You said "that you can't overlap two EM fields at the same bandwidths in one volume of space"
And I pointed out that it is wrong.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82373.msg644926;topicseen#msg644926

Why are you still saying it, even though it is known to be wrong?

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Huh? Where exactly did I say such thing? You got it completely wrong. What I say, is that by increasing the volume of sound (amplitude of sound waves), you won't change the number of phonons/waves on the plate

You are muddling up counting nodes / antinodes and counting waves.

I don't. You can literally count the number of waveleghts, that "fit" in a given cavity. Besides the number of nodes/antinodes can be different than the number of waves that "fit" in the lenght of a cavity.

On the image above, number of waves (3) is different than the number of nodes/antinodes (6)

so you won't fit more than 3 to 6 microwave photons in the LENGHT of that cavity

That is still wrong by many orders of magnitude.
Say it's 6 waves.
(and 2.4 GHz as domestic microwaves generally are)
And each photon carries 1.59×10^-24 joules.
So there's only 6 times that much microwave radiation in the cavity at one time.
And it crosses the cavity in about a nanosecond so you can "refresh" those 6 photons about 10^9 times a second.
So the power carried is
1.59×10^-15 watts.
But my oven actually transfers about 10^3 watts
So you are wrong by a factor of about  a billion billion.

Even allowing for the fact that there are other modes in the oven- vertical and "front to back", it stuill isn't going to work.

You are wrong by about a factor of a hundred thousand million million.

I pointed this out before and you didn't address it.

[/quote]

And you still can't get the point, that in a standing wave, the amplitude of electric/magnetic oscillations is not a function ofphoton number inside a cavity. You can add to the owen as much microwave photons as you like, but due to their constructive interference, it won't change the number of photons in the standing wave, but it will change the amplitude of that wave

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Nope - never said that. Laser beams have wavelenghts that allows them to cut through metal.

OK, lets check on that, one of the common industrial cutting lasers is the CO2 laser- it emits radiation at 10.6 microns
Let's see what temperature that corresponds to.
Here's a handy calculator
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law
And it tells me its the peak wavelength for an object at 273.4  K
Within a degree of the melting point of ice.

Thanks! How nice of you, to give me the definitive answer regarding the limit of heat/energy transfer, characteristic for specific wavelenghts/temperatures... As for the CO2 laser, here's a nice lecture for you:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243310508_Theoretical_prediction_on_the_wavelength-temperature_shift_in_pulsed_TE_CO_2_lasers

But looking at your "vast" knowledge of the subject, I advice to begin from this short lecture:
https://learningweather.psu.edu/node/18

Read closely: Wein's Law and Kirchhoff's Law...

But you won't be able to cut through metal using EM waves at radio frequencies or microwaves. Prove me wrong...

Again?
OK
Strictly this isn't cutting, but once the metal is molten, you hardly need to "cut" it.

Induction heating is based on a COMPLETELY different mechanism, than heating with a laser (or different radiation). You won't never go beyond a certain temperature for a certain wavelenght - increase of intensity/amplitude won't change nothing. You can't cut through metal with microwaves - no matter how much you don't like this simple scientific fact. I know, that it might hurt you to admit a defeat, but it's still much better, than to make an ignorant out of yourself, by neglecting empirical science. And then, after you stop crying about a silly authoritative butthurt, read the lecture linked below - maybe you will learn some interesting facts about our Universe

http://www.mhtl.uwaterloo.ca/courses/ece309_mechatronics/lectures/pdffiles/summary_ch12.pdf
Chapter 12: Radiation Heat Transfer. Radiation differs from Conduction and Convection heat t transfer mechanisms

https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/notes/node134.html
I just love, how unknowingly I started this thread from the idea of perfectly reflective cavity, not knowing that it makes the foundation to 98% of theory of thermal radiation and it's transfer between bodies. For example, up until today I never heard of  Wein's Law and Kirchhoff's Law - but I used them in practical scenario just by pure intuition

Honestly, pretty much the only actual instance, where someone caught me making a serious mistake, was thanks to Colin2B - someone, who's opinion actually does somehow matter. That was actually the only sustantive input, I recieved in this thread   You see, it's not a good idea to speak up, when people smarter than you remain silent... And also, it's better to be silent and look like a fool, than to speak out and dispel all doubts

[Bored chemist]

You won't never go beyond a certain temperature for a certain wavelenght -

You keep saying that.
It keeps not being true.

You can burn through steel with a laser that's got a wavelength corresponding to a temperature of melting ice.
You can cook a potato with microwave radiation that corresponds to a temperature that's massively below the temperature of liquid helium.

[Bored chemist]

Induction heating is based on a COMPLETELY different mechanism, than heating with a laser (or different radiation).

No it isn't.
In both cases  EM radiation is transferred across an heats the object.

How nice of you, to give me the definitive answer regarding the limit of heat/energy transfer, characteristic for specific wavelenghts/temperatures

You are welcome.
Do you understand that it proves you are wrong?
You can actually use a CO2 laser for heating things above the melting point of ice.

[Bored chemist]

Chapter 12: Radiation Heat Transfer. Radiation differs from Conduction and Convection heat t transfer mechanisms

Yes, that's right.
Radiation in the form of light heats things in much the same way as radiation of RF  from an induction furnace.
It's different from conduction or convection (or advection, if you want the full set).

[Bored chemist]

You can't cut through metal with microwaves - no matter how much you don't like this simple scientific fact

You just posted a picture of a man doing it (well, radio waves... )

[Bored chemist]

[Bored chemist]

Honestly, pretty much the only actual instance, where someone caught me making a serious mistake,

Define serious...

You are wrong by about a factor of a hundred thousand million million

[Bored chemist]

. For example, up until today I never heard of  Wein's Law and Kirchhoff's Law - but I used them in practical scenario just by pure intuition

And you got them monumentally wrong.
You think you can melt steel with ice cubes.

[Bored chemist]

For example, up until today I never heard of  Wein's Law and Kirchhoff's Law

Liar or idiot?

Proof by repeated assertion isn't going to work here.
Particular not when you are doing the asserting, since it took you at least three goes to recognise Kirchhoff's law.

[ edited to add that I was mistaken; CrazyScientist still hasn't recognised it. Maybe he will learn this time]

[Bored chemist]

You see, it's not a good idea to speak up, when people smarter than you remain silent... And also, it's better to be silent and look like a fool, than to speak out and dispel all doubts

So why don't you shut up?