Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch 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: <2935676af968e40e7cad204d40cafdcf@www.novabbs.org> <2024Sep18.074007@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2024Sep18.220953@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <20240922114808.000001f9@yahoo.com> <20240922142617.00007d96@yahoo.com> <864j668rpt.fsf@linuxsc.com> 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= Bytes: 5116 Terje Mathisen writes: > Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Michael S writes: >> >>> On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 12:58:36 +0200 >>> David Brown wrote: >>> >>>> On 22/09/2024 10:48, Michael S wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 21 Sep 2024 20:30:40 +0200 >>>>> David Brown 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 certain limitations, and hopefully it will one day be superseded 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.