Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2024 10:43:15 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <86v7ym6zbg.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <memo.20240913205156.19028s@jgd.cix.co.uk> <vcd3ds$3o6ae$2@dont-email.me> <2935676af968e40e7cad204d40cafdcf@www.novabbs.org> <2024Sep18.074007@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vcds4i$3vato$1@dont-email.me> <2024Sep18.220953@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vcfopr$8glq$3@dont-email.me> <ll232oFs6asU1@mid.individual.net> <vcgo74$gkr1$3@dont-email.me> <ll2n1hFu4lmU1@mid.individual.net> <vchu2q$mfu5$1@dont-email.me> <vcm0eh$1hf82$9@dont-email.me> <vcn0e5$1mb84$1@dont-email.me> <vcn3ch$1mp6e$1@dont-email.me> <20240922114808.000001f9@yahoo.com> <vcot8t$26bt5$1@dont-email.me> <20240922142617.00007d96@yahoo.com> <864j668rpt.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vcs7hj$2prkh$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2024 19:43:15 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="40d4d7003de17e58b0545a97e9ee45d8";
	logging-data="2949396"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/s1eNwtU1U8qm0S9pjFy5ziswE2pOkQuo="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GfSt2fhDFmFtaRV9zaZABBdSJBQ=
	sha1:cbpKs7Qou+PiKAoN5hCpILPKT2o=

Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> writes:

> Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 12:58:36 +0200
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22/09/2024 10:48, Michael S wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 20:30:40 +0200
>>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Actual physicists know that quantum mechanics is not complete - it
>>>>>> is not a "theory of everything", and does not explain everything.
>>>>>> It is, like Newtonian gravity and general relativity, a
>>>>>> simplification that gives an accurate model of reality within
>>>>>> certain limitations, and hopefully it will one day be superseded
>>>>>> by a new theory that models reality more accurately and over a
>>>>>> wider range of circumstances.  That is how science works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As things stand today, no such better theory has been developed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, such theory (QED) was proposed by Paul Dirac back in
>>>>> 1920s and further developed by many others bright minds.
>>>>> The trouble with it (according to my not too educated
>>>>> understanding) is that unlike Schrodinger equation, approximate
>>>>> solutions for QED equations can't be calculated numerically by
>>>>> means of Green's function.  Because of that QED is rarely used
>>>>> outside of field of high-energy particles and such.
>>>>>
>>>>> But then, I am almost 40 years out of date.  Things could have
>>>>> changed.
>>>>
>>>> I don't claim to be an expert on this field in any way, and could
>>>> easily be muddled on the details.
>>>>
>>>> I thought QED only covered special relativity, not general relativity
>>>> - i.e., it describes particles travelling near the speed of light,
>>>> but does not handle gravity or the curvature of space-time.
>>>
>>> That sounds correct, at least for Dirac's form of QED.  May be it was
>>> amended later.
>>
>> No one does this because the gravitational effects are way beyond
>> negligible.  It would be like, when doing an experiment on a
>> sunny day, wanting to take into account the effects of a star ten
>> quadrillion light years away.  To say the effects are down in the
>> noise is a vast understatement.  (The distance of ten quadrillion
>> light years reflects the relative strength of gravity compared to
>> the electromagnetic force.)
>>
>>> But that was not my point.
>>> My point was that the QED is well known to be better approximation of
>>> reality than Heisenberg's Matrix Mechanic or Schrodinger's equivalent
>>> of it.  Despite that in practice a "worse" approximation is used far
>>> more often.
>>
>> I would say simpler approximation, and simpler approximations are
>> usually used then they suffice.  If for example we want to
>> calculate how much speed is needed to pass a moving car, we don't
>> need to take into account how distances change due to special
>> relativity.  When we want to set a timer to cook something on the
>> stove, we don't worry about whether we are at sea level or up in
>> the mountains, even though we know that the difference in gravity
>> changes how fast the timer will run (and even can be measured).
>
> No, no, no!
>
> The change in pressure directly impacts the cooking temperature, and
> therefore also the time needed.

I concede your point.  My point was only about how the change
in gravity affects the speed at which the timer runs.