Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.in-chemnitz.de!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2024 12:58:36 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <vcot8t$26bt5$1@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2024 12:58:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="92d2f9b37acfcaeb5a5d0a5a62bab213";
	logging-data="2305957"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Lir5py1xkLfZNtfweaAVUI9m5VQKP1pQ="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:O3HhNtdF61n4+Ih4CdojUNCG8Ss=
In-Reply-To: <20240922114808.000001f9@yahoo.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3510

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 and hopefully it will one day be superseded by a new theory that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.


>> There are a number of ideas and hypotheses (still far from being
>> classifiable as scientific theories) that show promise and have not
>> yet been demonstrated to be wrong, but that's as far as we have got.
>> Weinstein's "Geometric Unity" is not such a hypotheses - the little
>> that has been published has been shown to be either wrong, or "not
>> even wrong".
>>
>