So the mystery of the double slit is now physics at the Planck scale? No.That's mixing up apples and oranges. For people seeking to come up with next physics at Planck scale, such as t'Hooft or Wolfram, it is quite relevant whether cellular automata or Planckian networks or some other distributed, local computational model could at least in principle replicate the empirical facts of existent physics.
It is in the stuff you have not answered to. You claimed there is no demonstration of non-classicality. This is not even true for your "genuine" non-classicallity as there is antibunching.There was no "erroneous statement" that anything you said pointed out. If I missed it you are welcome to provide a link to specific demonstration of such error you claim to have produced in the discussion.
The following cliams are wrong:
- Measuring gn requires non-local filtering. For once, it is not filtering to develop the photon number distribution into a series of moments. Just like a Fourier expansion or a Taylor expansion is not filtering. For gn you instead expand in the orders of the distribution: mean, relative variance, skewness, kurtosis and so on. You can restrict yourself in analysis to low order because the relative variance is enough demonstrate subpoissonian behaviour. Even the usage of a beam splitter and several detectors is not necessary. As shown in the link in my last post, antibunching can be and was demonstrated using a single detector. One could even use high photon-number resolving detectors.
- You claimed there are classical counterexamples for actually measured non-classical g2-values. This is not correct. There are examples for simultaneously proposed pairs of light fields and detectors (usually those with threshold) which would yield g2-values considered non-classical for other detectors. However, each kind of detector has its own limit of where unambiguous non-classicality starts. Showing that you can get g2 below 1 with an arbitrary detector is not a counterexample. What people would need to show is that the hypothetical detector used in modeling indeed is a good model of the real detector used. Once this is done, one can start thinking about counterexamples. Unfortunately all the detectors used for modeling in SED share the same achilles heel. They cannot explain well, how detectors fire and have a problem with the firing to random noise vs. not firing at ZPF issue. See e.g. the Carmichael paper I cited earlier.
Antibunching in subpoissonian light as seen in experiments is a demonstration of non-classicality and there still is no classical counterexample explaining the measurements.