Path: ...!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: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 09:17:26 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <ve2ma6$23l45$1@dont-email.me>
References: <86jzf4829c.fsf@linuxsc.com> <lm2vj6Frf3oU1@mid.individual.net>
 <vdi0t5$2u3af$1@dont-email.me> <vdkp1g$3ed1r$6@dont-email.me>
 <vdkt00$3in73$1@dont-email.me> <vdl4ok$3jhjh$6@dont-email.me>
 <vdlk9g$3kq50$4@dont-email.me> <vdmq7e$3re5q$2@dont-email.me>
 <vdobe8$5cna$1@dont-email.me> <vdpad7$agqd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vdqvmf$mv5f$1@dont-email.me> <vdru7f$resc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vds087$rp06$1@dont-email.me> <vdtprc$16lu8$3@dont-email.me>
 <95f39b635da10c847f08be71581e3165@www.novabbs.org>
 <T4GMO.5508$Aty4.829@fx03.iad>
 <c139608808c220d3b36717a131924999@www.novabbs.org>
 <ve09s1$1l0aq$2@dont-email.me>
 <4763cd8f0ba170ea2c0f35730a0aaf40@www.novabbs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2024 09:17:26 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ba038700c422d685be07d0a9f78a9fd8";
	logging-data="2217093"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+3ap7rmqNpOefuYxHFQ7fZWlRtoZLxn9A="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Jjff6PEqND+Wm4VvPMxtNkCs1k8=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <4763cd8f0ba170ea2c0f35730a0aaf40@www.novabbs.org>
Bytes: 4584

On 07/10/2024 19:14, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 9:32:49 +0000, David Brown wrote:
> 
>> On 07/10/2024 03:34, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
> 
>>>>>> Sabine Hossenfelder is quite a good commentator, and I've seen 
>>>>>> many of
>>>>>> her videos before.  Her points here are not new or contentious - 
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> is quite a support in scientific communities for her argument 
>>>>>> here.  We
>>>>>> have arguably reached a point in the science of cosmology and
>>>>>> fundamental physics where traditional scientific progress is
>>>>>> unavoidably
>>>>>> minimal.  Basically, we cannot build big enough experiments to 
>>>>>> provide
>>>>>> corroborating or falsifying evidence for current hypothetical models
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on the success of Webb--we can, we just don't have access to
>>>>> enough money to allow for building and shipping such a device up into
>>>>> space. Optics-check, structure-check, rocket-check, where to put it-
>>>>> check, telemetry and command-check.
>>>>
>>>> An article in this week's Aviation Week and Space Technology noted
>>>> that the starship will be able to boost a payload that masses
>>>> thirty times the Webb for less cost than the Webb launch.
>>>
>>> I was counting on Starship in the above.
>>> I was only complaining about the "can't" part.
>>> Every piece of engineering is go--as long as someone will pay for it.
>>
>> No, the engineering is not remotely close to "go" for these things (the
>> ridiculously large particle accelerators), even if there were an
>> unlimited supply of money.
> 
> We have all the technology we need to build a 2× Webb and to launch
> it into space, or we will by the time it can be built.
> 

Sure.  And given how much new and exciting results we've got from the 
current James Webb (and the Hubble before it), we can look forward to 
getting even more from the next generation of space telescopes that can 
perhaps help push cosmology further and answer big questions such as the 
nature of dark matter.

But it won't get us any closer to disproving or corroborating string 
theory, loop quantum gravity, gravitons, or any other current 
conjectures for a "theory of everything".  It won't even help providing 
justification for conjectures such as dark energy and inflation, though 
it might provide more data that fits the maths.  (That is, it might not 
disprove these conjectures, but it won't help explaining what they are 
or why they, allegedly, exist - it could be something else entirely that 
gives the same measurable results.)

For experimental evidence for or against current theories of everything, 
the engineering is as much an issue as the cost.  Money is not the only 
hinder to making a particle accelerator at the orbit of Jupiter (or 
Saturn, if that is what's needed).