Do Computer Icons Follow Classical or Quantum Physics?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Rade
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Computer Physics
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around whether computer icons on a desktop can be described using the mathematics of classical physics or quantum physics. Participants explore the nature of these icons, their existence in a virtual environment, and the implications of observer-dependent reality.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that computer icons are governed by the rules of the operating system's user interface, which do not align with classical or quantum physics.
  • Others suggest that icons, being macroscopic, can be described by classical physics, as they are too large to exhibit quantum behavior.
  • A participant questions whether the position and momentum of icons could be explained by quantum mechanics, suggesting that observing an icon might collapse a wave function.
  • Some participants emphasize that icons are not real objects but abstract representations created by the computer, which do not possess wave functions like physical entities.
  • Decoherence is mentioned as a factor that prevents macroscopic objects, including icons, from being in quantum superposition due to interactions with their environment.
  • There is a discussion about the analogy between icons and physical objects, with some questioning whether quarks could be considered similar to icons in terms of their existence as abstract entities.
  • Participants express uncertainty about the boundary between classical and quantum mechanics, noting that both theories work within their respective regimes of validity.
  • Some argue that the behavior of icons is not explained by quantum theory, while others suggest that the underlying physical states of the computer's hardware may still relate to quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether computer icons can be described by classical or quantum physics. Multiple competing views are presented, with ongoing debate about the nature of icons and their relationship to physical reality.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of clarity on how virtual objects like icons relate to physical theories, as well as the unresolved nature of the boundary between classical and quantum physics.

  • #31
The book has physical properties that can be measured regardless of whether or not you are bouncing photons off of it. The spot on the wall does not. A simple question can demonstrate how simply wrong you are: Where is the spot? With your definition (a set of photons), the spot is a constantly flowing set of photons... but it isn't the spot on the wall.

Again, the photons are physical objects, the spot is not. Grouping the photons together does not change that. And no one mentioned it, but what you said about gravity affecting the spot is wrong too. Gravity affects the photons, but it does not affect the spot like it does a physical object.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
russ_watters said:
Gravity affects the photons, but it does not affect the spot like it does a physical object.

Thanks for that, Russ. For some reason, I froze up trying to point that out. :redface:
 
  • #33
chroot said:
There is no "exact" boundary. Quantum mechanics becomes indistinguishable from classical mechanics in the limit of a large ensemble. The larger your ensemble is, the more accurate the agreement between the two theories.
Thank you. But, as in the concept of the "limit" of the calculus, which can be viewed as a boundary never to be reached, would not the "limit of a large ensemble" then correspond to the "exact boundary" condition between classical and QM ?
 
  • #34
russ_watters said:
The book has physical properties that can be measured regardless of whether or not you are bouncing photons off of it. The spot on the wall does not. A simple question can demonstrate how simply wrong you are: Where is the spot? With your definition (a set of photons), the spot is a constantly flowing set of photons... but it isn't the spot on the wall.

Again, the photons are physical objects, the spot is not. Grouping the photons together does not change that. And no one mentioned it, but what you said about gravity affecting the spot is wrong too. Gravity affects the photons, but it does not affect the spot like it does a physical object.
Forgive me if I keep asking about this subject. Actually I have never seriously thought that a spot is a real object, but I found it interesting to talk about it.

About where is the spot, I could ask the same about a photon. Where is a photon?
 

Similar threads

Graduate Equations of State in Modern Classical Physics (Thorne/Blandford)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Custom icon for specific file type in Nautilus on Ubuntu 22.04
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Undergrad Schrödinger equation and classical wave equation
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
High School Frequency of an EM wave in Classical and Quantum Physics
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Admissions PhD in CSME/Computational Physics/Biophysics from maths background
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
High School Does Spacetime Have Physical Existence?
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
Admissions Statement of purpose critique request (high-energy theory PhD)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Intro Physics What is the best conceptual high school physics book?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Any tips for doing a PhD in theoretical physics?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
Studying Should I pursue a masters degree after 4.5 years working in IT?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K