Talk:Simulated optics experiment/Data analysis: Difference between revisions
Talk:Simulated optics experiment/Data analysis (view source)
Revision as of 12:54, 30 May 2023
, 1 year agono edit summary
(Created page with "I want to clarify that there is no quantum mechanics in the simulation, and there is no presumption that the light bursts are "photons". (I use scare quotes because the term comes with all kinds of presumptions that should be discarded here.) They could be "photons", or they could be a polarized light beam and a shutter. The simulation and the analysis both employ classical physics. Nevertheless we have finite bursts of fixed magnitude light at one end, and detection eve...") |
No edit summary |
||
Line 2:
It is good, no matter what, that we can use as an example of physics simulation something that actually provokes thought, rather than some something anodyne. An anodyne physics simulation is not one actually worth publishing, but this one I got from a published paper. --[[User:Chemoelectric|Chemoelectric]] ([[User talk:Chemoelectric|talk]]) 12:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Also, one might wish to examine the "Extra credit" problem. The "credit" is for animating an explanation of where the orthodox reasoning goes awry. "Bell’s Theorem", unless I am wrong, contains an error so great that in most any other field of science, and in all of engineering until recently, it would be laughed out of the room. --[[User:Chemoelectric|Chemoelectric]] ([[User talk:Chemoelectric|talk]]) 12:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
| |||