[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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.

And yet you can't cut through steel with radiation below microwave wavelenghts. Please, show me just A SINGLE source, where someone with authentic certificate of proper education/knowledge/authority  (it can be a diploma, a title or even a list of published scientific papers) in the field of QED, quantum optics/photonics or just in quantum physics in general, who is claiming otherwise...

I know, that I'm expecting far too much from you... I'm supposed, to trust in your superior authority without a single question I guess, that demanding some scientific evidence, is in such case, the worst kind of all possible thought-crimes ever...

Did you even try checking out the links, that I provided for you in my previous post? Yeah, I know: you consider it a waste of your precious time, since you shall always know the science better, than some random others -  in case of such an interesting specimen, like yourself, one should expect no less... "Quality over quantity", they say - but what, if I can't get none of those...? I know, that at this moment it's like kicking a barking chihuahua or a york, but what else should I do, if it keeps being agressive towards me, if not to give it yet another spanking...?

So, regarding the steel being cut by CO2 laser: here's a link for you (I'm pasting it for the second time in a row)...

https://learningweather.psu.edu/node/18

Wein's Law
At this point I know what you are thinking... there must be a "catch".  In fact there is.  While all matter emits radiation at all wavelengths, it does not do so equally.  This is where the next radiation law comes in.  Wein's Law states that the wavelength of peak emission is inversely proportional to the temperature of the emitting object.  Put another way, the hotter the object, the shorter the wavelength of max emission.  You have probably have observed this law in action all the time without even realizing it.  Want to know what I mean?  Check out this steel bar.  Which end might you pick up?  Certainly not the right end... it looks hot.  Why does it "look hot"?  Well, the wavelength of peak emission for the right side of the bar is obviously shorter than the left side's peak emission wavelength.  You see this shift in the peak emission wavelength as a color changes from red to orange to yellow as the metal's temperature increases.

Note: I should point out that even though the steel bar is a yellow-white color at the end, the peak emission is still in the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum.  However, the peak is so close to the visible part of the spectrum, that there is a significant amount of visible light also being emitted from the steel.  Judging by the look of this photograph, the steel has a temperature of roughly 1500 kelvins, resulting in a max emission wavelength of 2 microns (remember visible light is 0.4-0.7 microns).  Here is a chart showing how I estimated the steel temperature.  To the left of the visibly red metal, the bar is still likely several hundred degrees Celsius.  However, in this section of the bar, the peak emission wavelength is far into the IR portion of the spectrum -- so much so that no visible light emission is discernible with the human eye.

And regarding the potato in a microwave - do the same with a granite rock or somehing made of glass, porcelain, or even of some syntetic plastic material. I'll send you 100$, if you record, that you are able to melt plastic toys into a puddle of liquid goo, inside a microwave owen.(or shouf I say: by using microwave radiation only - so you won't lock a toy iside an owen and burn it up using gasoline, a flamethrower or a laser beam casted through the glass of the owen's door)...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

Something in my uncertified scientific guts tells me, that it's the right time for me, to make a brand new thread... Up until now, you probably had no clue, that this particular thread regarding the quite sophisticated subject of cavity QED (mostly),. was for me just a way of polishing and giving a final touch to couple more significant and general ideas regarding the physics of Universe. And right now, I'll give you the opportunity to choose, which one of the options, that I listed below, would you like to be for me, the next subject, I shall try to discuss here, (on this forum)?

- one about the extension to our model of gravity -  what if Gravity + MHD = gravitomagnetohydrodynamics (GMHD)? Can we use the surface tension of liquids and the "cheerio's effect" as a way to visualise space-time curvature due to rest mass and use such model, to describe a paperclip floating on water surface, as well as to describe gravitational lensing of massive celestial bodies? Can we base an anti-gravitational propulsion system on the process of plasma expulsion from the center of a gravitational field and explain all of this by pouring water (or some other liquid) on a water-proof rubber surface, to visualise the potential (exterior) and the kintetic (interior) aspects in the gravitational field of a massive body.

- one about 5D space-time fractal geometry - is there a dependence between frequency rate and the "level" of spatial scale dimension? Spoilers: of course there is - and it's as obvious and simplistic, as it can possibly be, for a working theoretical model of real-life physics. In less than 20 words (approved by Saitama-sensei): "the smaller you are, the shorter you'll live, compared to a bigger copy of yourself...

- one about Fractal Conciousness of Universe - does science prove, we live in a physical manifestation of a Self-Concious Mind? Spoilers: obviously it does (mostly)...? What if Conciousness (self-awareness) is the most objective form of physical existence? Might the Tetragrammaton of IHVH ("I am That I Am") describe the actual Name (Idea/Formula/Essence/meaning) of the actual intra- and extra-physical God, as the Absolute Conciousness of Universe? How else we could think about a universe-sized fractal structure of a neural network, programmed with a simple algorithm of growth / evolution of understanding / gain of self-knowledge through division/mutiplication of Self-Conciousness, if not as about a Transcendental Mind and Will of a physically obsevable/measurable God?

- one about the idea of extending QFT beyond Planck atomic and molecular scales and applying the laws of quantum mechanics  to physics of macroscale objects, by describing the timeline of observed events, as a distribution of probability, instead of Einstein's hyperdeterministic "arrow of linear time dimension" and placing it in the framework of my 5D spatial/temporal fractal geometry - shortly density of probability is growing with the "level" of scale (size of frame and complexity of physical objects).

-,one about gravitational fields in relative motion and the actual equivalence of mass, energy and momentum - the only instance, where I deal with actual formulas of mathematically valid calculations :O - but it's ok, since I'm trying there to "upgrade" the Einstein's most famous E=mc²

- one about the influence of fluctuations in orientation interplanetary magnetic field on weather patterns on Earth - actually hardly to call it "disputable", with my collection of peer-reviewed sources and empirical data, regarding the subject of MHD modelling of Earth's climate I began learning physics, from things like flux transfer events (FTE) and magnetic reconnection due to shifts of Bx / By components in the IMF

- one about the collective knowledge (understanding of physical environment) in the DNA of different animal species - real-life proof of this being the case, thus supporting the idea of Inteligent Evolution of Conciousness (or self-learning algorithm of the Universal Neural Network)...

- one with a simple thought experiment, that pretty much invalidates the usage Shell Theorem, in descriptions of gravitational fields of massive macroscale bodies - test object inside an empty spherical shell is being affected by a total of 0 net force, only in the exact center of geometry/mass, where gravitational attraction is equal in all direction, while beyond the central point, this test object will be accelerated towards the part of shell of a non-0 rest mass, that is placed at the closest distance to the current location of test object. Difference isn't that big in case of dense bodies (rocky planets, stars), but matters a lot for gravitational fields of bodies with small density of mass (like galaxies, nebulas or plasma bubbles and filaments of the cosmic web)...

- of course, there was also one about using the mechanism of Gailiean relativity, to explain the constant c in relative motion and look at possible consequences of such action - but sadly, this thread seems to be already closed for further discussion/research on this forum...

Funny, how "smart" and " scientific" it all might sound, when in reality, except a single case, I didn't have to make a single mathematical calculation and/or to make anykind of somehow serious practical experiments (although I have one in mind for the future, in case of the gravitational expulsion of plasma) to prove my points... In the difference to 99% of theoretical physicsts, who love to deal with sophiosticated problems of the observable existence, I just want to have my physics as basic, plain and simple as it can possibly be - and since chance of me making a theoretical mistake gets smaller with the decrease in the complexity of a theory,  my concepts seem to be functional in the most extreme conditions, you might think
of...

[CrazyScientist (OP)]

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.

And where exactly in our discussion did I state so? I've stated that the power output (amplitudes of EM oscillations) doesn't change the number of photons in a standing wave trapped in a cavity. As for the upper limit of the amplitude of those oscillations, I would suggest the physical volume of cavity in the transverse orientation of trapped wave (up/downm or left/right perpendicularly to thedirection of propagation). At some point microwaves would give enough energy to the receivig particles of matter (mainly H2O molecules), to splat your dinner on the side walls of cavity, as it would boil it couple microseconds after the initial emission of first microwave photon.

But you still wouldn't be able to use it, to cut through metal...

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?

Because they can't overlap, since they interfere with each other. Due to EM interferrence, 2+ EM fields at similar wavelenghs merge into one field with characteristics of both fields, but not being specific to any of them.

Shouldn't you know about things, like the EM onterference?

. 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.

Stop telling me, what I do or don't think about different things - you're not somekind of a space-wizard, to see into my mind. Where did I say so? Maybe you should stop making claims based on your own introspective deduction, and start to base them on actual quotes.

Define serious...

Important enough, to somehow make matter to me.

So why don't you shut up?

Because I have a strong sense of inter-personal empathy and it gives me a twisted satisfaction, to feel your frustration and desperation of intellectual domination over me.

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.

***

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).

I'm pretty sure, that when somewhere it's being stated that something differs, it does not tranlate to things happening: in much the same way. Sorry, but your space-wizardry doesn't work on me... You won't change the science, by repeating un-scientific satements.

[Bored chemist]

I'm pretty sure, that when somewhere it's being stated that something differs, it does not tranlate to things happening: in much the same way.

I'm pretty sure, that when somewhere it's being incorrectly stated that something differs, it does not translate to things happening: in much the same way

[Bored chemist]

Stop telling me, what I do or don't think about different things - you're not somekind of a space-wizard, to see into my mind. Where did I say so?

Here

Laser beams have wavelenghts that allows them to cut through metal.

In the context where I had just pointed out that your assertion

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

The "certain temperature" corresponding to the 10.6µM radiation from a CO2 laser is very close to that of melting ice.
So, if you were right (spoiler alert; you aren't) the hottest you could get something with a CO2 laser would be about that temperature- the temperature of melting ice.

In fact you can cut steel with a CO2 laser.
So, according to your idea you can cut steel by heating it to a temperature that can't be greater than 273.4K
And you can pretty much do that with an ice cube.

Because I have a strong sense of inter-personal empathy and it gives me a twisted satisfaction, to feel your frustration and desperation of intellectual domination over me.

My frustration is a result of you continuing to ignore reality and post gibberish.

Because they can't overlap, since they interfere with each other.

And yet they do overlap, because they are in the same place. (within rather les than 1 wavelength).

And where exactly in our discussion did I state so?

Here

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

And I explained why that was about 17 order of magnitude wrong  here

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.

Though I had already pointed it out here (where you ignored it).

Inside a 1D tube, which is 100cm long, you can succesfully trap as much as 1 photon of 100cm wavelenght and/or 2 photons at 100//2cm wavelenght + 3 photons at 100/3cm wavelenght + 4 photons at 100/4cm wavelenght and so on.

An interesting conjecture.
Consider my microwave oven.
It runs at 2.4GHz with a corresponding wavelength of about 12.5 cm

Each photon carries about 1.6E-24 Joules.
It is rated for 900 watts.
So it produces about 5.6 E 26 photons per second.
and it's about 15 inches wide
So the cavity is 3 wavelengths long.

According to you it can therefore contain 3 photons of microwave radiation at any given time.

But in reality, about 10^27 photons pass through it every second.
The transit time is about 1.25 nanoseconds for light to travel from one side to the other.

So, at any one time, there must be about 7E15 photons in it.
And yet, you say there can only be 3

Can you explain the disparity?

[Bored chemist]

And yet you can't cut through steel with radiation below microwave wavelenghts. Please, show me just A SINGLE source, where someone with authentic certificate of proper education/knowledge/authority  (it can be a diploma, a title or even a list of published scientific papers) in the field of QED, quantum optics/photonics or just in quantum physics in general, who is claiming otherwise...

OK, I presume you consider yourself to be a competent source.

Here's a clip from your post of a video of someone cutting metal with radiation with a lower photon energy than microwaves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTIWcK14tQE

[Bored chemist]

And regarding the potato in a microwave - do the same with a granite rock or somehing made of glass, porcelain, or even of some syntetic plastic material. I'll send you 100$,

send the $100 to a charity of your choice.

[Bored chemist]

If you are looking for a more formal record of reality, here's a link to the people who do it commercially.
https://www.gyrotrontech.com/microwave-technology-articles/microwave-melting-glass/
And for what it's worth, the process of microwave heating to melt metals is also a commercial proposition.
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4701/6/7/143/htm

[Bored chemist]

And regarding the potato in a microwave - do the same with a granite rock or somehing made of glass, porcelain, or even of some syntetic plastic material. I'll send you 100$,

send the $100 to a charity of your choice.

Did they send a receipt?