Do Computer Icons Follow Classical or Quantum Physics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rade
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Computer Physics
Click For Summary
Computer icons do not follow the mathematics of classical or quantum physics; they are virtual objects defined by the operating system's user interface. The discussion emphasizes that icons exist in a digital realm, with definite positions and states determined by binary data rather than physical laws. Observing icons does not collapse a wave function as they are not real entities but abstract representations created by the computer. The conversation also touches on the distinction between macroscopic and quantum objects, asserting that classical mechanics adequately describes the behavior of icons. Ultimately, the behavior of computer icons is not governed by quantum mechanics, as they are too large and complex to be influenced by quantum phenomena.
  • #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

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
449
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 94 ·
4
Replies
94
Views
6K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K