Talk:Simulated optics experiment/Data analysis

From Rosetta Code
Revision as of 12:50, 30 May 2023 by Chemoelectric (talk | contribs) (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...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 events at the other, which is supposed to be (or so I thought) all that quantum mechanics cares about. To quote Niels Bohr: "Physics is not about how the world is, it is about what we can say about the world." And QM, though merely trying to give the correct answer, without presuming how that answer came about, does come to the correct answer, if our simulation is to be believed.

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. --Chemoelectric (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)