« first day (530 days earlier)      last day (3099 days later) » 

vzn
vzn
3:11 AM
so what is your interest in his formulation?
have been very fascinated with krohn-rhodes for over a decade, dont really grasp it myself "yet"... think it might have some significant yet-to-be-seen application someday... have studied FSM transducers some & there is some tiein.
have noticed a trend where in some ways mathematics is becoming more algorithmic and algorithmics is becoming more mathematical.
eg recent zhang twin prime breakthru & other research into the primes.
are you interested in graph isomorphism?
 
 
7 hours later…
Thomas Klimpel
Thomas Klimpel
9:50 AM
My interest is quite trivial. Working on photolithography, I'm quite experienced using second order stochastic optics. The underlaying mathematics feels strangely similar to the density matrix formalism in quantum mechanics. So I was interested to learn how significant the differences between the two fields are from a more abstract point of view.
3
Q: How is the theory of partial coherent light related to quantum-mechanics?

Thomas KlimpelBackground Let me start this question by a long introduction, because I assume that only few readers will be familiar with the theory of partial coherent light and concepts like a mutual coherence function or a mutual intensity. The coherency matrix and Stokes parameters descriptions of partiall...

quantum-mechanics optics statistics coherence
1
Q: How to find optical toy models of entangled quantum mechanical systems?

Thomas KlimpelI recently read Arnold Neumaier's lectures on uncovering classical aspects of quantum mechanics: Classical and quantum field aspects of light Optical models for quantum mechanics I can't find the third lecture, probably it doesn't exist yet. I guess it will elaborate more on the thermal interpr...

quantum-mechanics resource-recommendations education
Arnold Neumaier was friendly, seemed to understand my questions, and tried to answer them at an appropriate level for me. "anna v" was also friendly, but I couldn't suppress the feeling that my questions were only vaguely understood on a quite superficial level, and even so the provided links were interesting for me, they were "unfocused".
When I posted the link in chat, I was basically just checking the reaction of the other people in physics chat. They just ignored me, which is also some sort of reaction. It may be even a wise reaction, because the feeling that we don't really understand each other may be reciprocal. I find it a bit strange, because when I meet physicists in real live, we normally understand each other instantly.
 
 
2 hours later…
Thomas Klimpel
Thomas Klimpel
12:24 PM
Quantum mechanics and second order stochastic optics are significantly different, because they have different symmetries. Especially, the boson symmetry is not reproduced. The fermion symmetry is not reproduced either, but this is no surprise, because optics is concerned with photons, and photons are definitively not fermions.
But the situation is at least better than in the de Broglie–Bohm pilot-wave theory, where the symmetry between particles and waves is explictly broken for the purpose to get a deterministic theory. Second order stochastic optics doesn't intentionally break symmetries, it just has slightly different symmetries than QM.
 
 
4 hours later…
vzn
vzn
4:25 PM
yes have long been interested in the strong resemblance of 2nd order optics & qm...
it is not really taught much in physics edu afaik. its more of a research topic.
it also goes under the general heading of "semiclassical" theories of light.
eg
Jaynes–Cummings model
The Jaynes–Cummings model (JCM) is a theoretical model in quantum optics. It describes the system of a two-level atom interacting with a quantized mode of an optical cavity, with or without the presence of light (in the form of a bath of electromagnetic radiation that can cause spontaneous emission and absorption). The JCM is of great interest in atomic physics, quantum optics, and solid-state quantum information circuits, both experimentally and theoretically. == History == This model was originally proposed in 1963 by Edwin Jaynes and Fred Cummings in order to study the relationship between the...
as for the se chat rooms, it is not easy to start/ continue conversations in many rooms.
also in science there is the increasing challenge of "mass specialization".
re semiclassical theories, its a sort of ongoing minority/ contrarian research faction/ program/ thread in physics. along with a small faction challenging the experimental results on Bell-type tests as having subtle "loopholes".
 
vzn
vzn
5:27 PM
....
re qm/ models, have you heard of dwave?
re "interest as quite trivial... photolithography" lol
physicsoverflow... wasnt that just opened this year? saw dialog about it in the physics chat room. is it working out?
interesting, see he is also working on protein folding problem. have been long interested in that. some on that re angle of collective wisdom in games §c
 
vzn
vzn
6:06 PM
re "optical models for qm" from his web site
> This lecture (the second of three) discusses work towards a new, classical view of quantum mechanics. It is based on an analysis of polarized light, of the meaning of quantum ensembles in a field theory, of classical simulations of quantum computing algorithms, and resulting optical models for the simulation of quantum mechanics.
In particular, it is shown that classical second-order stochastic optics is precisely the quantum mechanics of a single photon, with all its phenomenological bells and whistles.
so, the only thing standing between an entirely new foundation for qm and this theory is extending it to the multiphoton case... !
this paper also caught my eye
have been interested in the attempts to build low(er)-cost bell experiments. eg saw one years ago being used in an undergrad lab. also very interested in LHV vs qm "bell-like" tests that dont require complicate setups.
> (p6) In particular, this diminishes the role Bell inequality violations play for investigations of the foundations of quantum physics.
> From the new perspective gained by the present analysis, the traditional hidden variable assumptions therefore only amount to hidden particle assumptions, and the experiments demonstrating their violation are just another chapter in the old dispute between the particle or field nature of light (cf. Muthukrishnan et al. [20, p. 20]), conclusively resolved in favor of the field.
 

« first day (530 days earlier)      last day (3099 days later) »