> here is an example > Absorption and Stimulated Emission by a Thin Slab Obeying the Lorentz > Oscillator Model
It's a quantitative formulation from classical first principles, sans Schrodinger.. whereas the wave equation approximates the time evolution of the wavefunction; you could describe a stimulated emission / absorption mode as playing the predictability of wavefunction's evolution by constantly resetting it at a fixed freq.. or you could probably describe the behaviour in terms of QED and Feynman diagrams too i expect, all complimentarily w/o conflict. You can describe orbital transition energies classically / relativistically, or Lenz's law in terms of relativistic self-interaction of a current loop invoking length contraction / time dilation, or in terms of time-conservation of ambient quantum momentum, charge and energy.. the whole point about zombie-cat-boxes being that they're an over-extrapolated conclusion from what is only a formal approximation; atoms and photons are obviously real, but is the wavefunction? So there's no real dichotomy.. all roads lead to Rome, we know the SM's incomplete and we're not seeing all the pieces yet, but the realism / objectivism debate is divided along more fundamental lines on the nature of causal determinism and the outstanding possibility (if not logical prerequisite) of non-local hidden variables.. which in turn segues into philosophical debate re. distinctions between 'indeterminability' as an inevitable consequence of conservation and finite nature of quantum information (ie. per Zeilinger et al), versus the nihilistic anarchy of objective indeterminism; you can guess which side of the fence i'm on (tho not a Bohm fanatic; pilot waves or some variation, perhaps.. but his later metaphysics stuff i don't subscribe to). The classic DSE using an electron gun and phosphor-plated screen has to remain the benchmark gold-standard for demonstrating the limits of classical physics though - ie. it cannot explain how particles / waves self-interact even when their transits are separated out in time. If not for this singular crazy (dumbfounding!) result, we wouldn't be in a situation where most physicists are ready to accept such an oxymoronic imposition as 'acausal determinants'.. but in for a penny, in for a pound eh..
