Do Computer Icons Follow Classical or Quantum Physics?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Rade
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Computer Physics
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
33 replies · 11K views
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
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:
 
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 ?
 
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?