Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch > #108617 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-09-13 20:51 +0100 |
| Last post | 2024-09-18 17:00 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 427 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch
Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-13 20:51 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-13 23:18 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-14 07:29 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-15 00:06 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-14 22:49 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-15 11:22 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-16 23:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-17 10:57 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-17 19:58 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-18 00:50 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-15 00:42 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-15 03:51 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-17 23:30 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-17 23:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 00:44 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-18 00:57 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 01:27 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-18 13:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-18 14:37 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-18 15:50 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-18 19:00 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-18 19:01 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-18 18:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 08:52 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 08:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 23:51 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-09-20 11:21 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-20 21:32 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 14:54 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 22:11 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-21 01:12 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 18:43 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-21 16:23 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-21 01:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 19:28 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 19:32 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2024-09-21 14:15 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:26 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2024-09-21 14:16 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-21 16:39 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 13:24 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 02:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 21:12 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-21 13:54 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 13:26 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-21 20:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-21 18:49 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 20:58 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-22 07:44 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 12:07 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 15:37 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 12:55 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 21:39 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-22 20:53 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 01:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-23 10:53 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-23 21:39 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture BGB-Alt <bohannonindustriesllc@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 16:00 -0500
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 14:32 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-30 03:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-30 05:42 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 11:49 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-30 17:31 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 11:46 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 20:59 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 14:35 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 21:58 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 15:19 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 22:32 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 15:46 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 15:47 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 00:26 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 19:48 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 03:03 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 20:07 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 15:51 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-24 07:50 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 11:56 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-24 14:14 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2024-09-24 15:45 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-03 00:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-10-02 17:58 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-10-03 10:25 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 12:49 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-09-24 11:45 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-10-12 08:27 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-23 11:33 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:25 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:24 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 13:29 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 23:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 02:57 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 02:12 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 10:34 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 19:44 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:43 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 18:32 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 12:37 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-09-23 16:30 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:46 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 23:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-18 15:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-18 15:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-18 19:04 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-18 16:23 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 22:54 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 00:29 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 04:27 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-19 14:23 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 09:01 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-19 09:26 +0200
Perception of lag (Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?) jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-19 09:00 +0100
Re: Perception of lag (Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?) mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 16:12 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 11:10 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-19 12:54 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-20 09:14 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-20 09:55 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-20 21:33 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 13:19 -0500
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:46 +0000
Local (predictive?) echoing (was: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?) Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-09-20 10:57 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 16:16 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:38 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-20 21:06 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 20:17 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-20 21:39 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-21 15:39 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-21 22:58 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-21 22:42 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 17:29 -0500
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 22:06 -0500
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:18 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 12:46 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-22 02:34 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 16:09 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 20:06 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:37 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 00:58 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-20 04:05 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 06:52 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 02:13 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 02:21 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:16 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 12:18 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 12:12 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-20 21:06 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 23:50 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 17:09 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 16:58 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-23 15:06 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 21:10 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 00:34 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-23 21:51 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 11:44 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-24 14:18 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 17:50 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 22:05 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 11:51 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 01:36 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 02:08 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 03:41 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 15:21 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 18:26 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 22:57 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 20:20 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-29 23:30 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-18 05:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 06:31 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-18 20:09 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 23:47 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-19 10:44 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 08:43 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-19 16:25 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-19 19:29 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-19 19:31 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-20 00:15 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-20 05:46 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-20 09:37 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-09-20 11:18 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-20 15:21 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-20 19:10 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 11:56 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-23 11:44 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 01:05 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-24 08:14 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-24 10:56 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-20 14:24 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-22 02:29 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 18:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 01:06 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 03:17 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 20:30 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 20:21 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 20:33 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-25 00:00 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-28 10:36 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 13:51 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 10:12 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-28 07:48 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-28 17:41 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2024-09-28 13:16 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-28 19:08 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 01:24 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-30 13:23 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 01:22 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-28 19:24 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-28 21:50 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 13:59 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 14:15 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:59 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:55 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-25 10:43 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-27 18:43 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-27 23:00 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-28 02:47 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-28 10:07 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-28 18:05 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-28 23:15 +0300
Re: physics is hard, was Intel exceptionally John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-09-28 21:16 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-27 21:32 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-28 17:46 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-28 19:01 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 14:08 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 01:31 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 02:08 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 04:04 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 14:13 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 14:11 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 18:20 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-29 22:09 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 04:01 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-30 16:35 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 20:13 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-30 03:46 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 04:11 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-30 05:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 19:58 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-01 02:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-01 03:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-01 08:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-01 10:48 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-01 08:57 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-10-01 15:51 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-01 18:20 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-01 20:56 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-01 21:11 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-02 08:50 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-10-01 22:07 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-01 21:09 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-02 09:20 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-02 21:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-03 10:02 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-10-07 12:59 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-08 09:23 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-12 07:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-01 23:33 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-03 00:38 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-03 01:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-03 03:58 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-03 10:23 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-03 19:10 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-04 11:10 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-04 17:59 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-05 11:08 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-05 17:49 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-05 18:24 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-10-06 10:41 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-06 12:47 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-06 23:29 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-10-07 00:39 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-07 01:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-07 11:32 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-07 17:14 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-08 09:17 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-06 20:59 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-06 12:07 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-06 01:12 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-06 22:08 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-10-07 09:29 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-07 12:45 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2024-10-07 19:01 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-07 06:37 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-03 19:10 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-03 00:36 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-01 02:39 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:54 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:42 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-20 00:43 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-21 17:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-21 20:30 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 03:20 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:30 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 16:42 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-28 02:30 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-28 02:44 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-28 10:28 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-28 07:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 11:48 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 12:58 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 14:26 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 14:39 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-23 05:44 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-23 19:12 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-23 10:43 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-23 21:13 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-23 15:53 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 01:01 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-22 06:10 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 18:59 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-23 10:38 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-23 13:59 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:56 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-23 14:24 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-23 12:38 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-23 19:08 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 01:00 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-24 08:17 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-24 17:28 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 18:46 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:51 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 12:14 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-23 05:56 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:23 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 18:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:50 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 00:54 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:49 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 11:35 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-19 12:59 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 16:15 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 16:23 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 20:12 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 20:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 21:35 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:43 +0000
Re: quanta vs AI, not Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-09-20 00:59 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 20:53 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-20 01:08 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-20 21:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 22:07 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 15:33 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:22 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 13:43 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 23:55 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 17:13 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 01:29 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 21:01 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:31 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 13:26 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 01:28 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 21:02 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:21 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-22 12:41 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 13:40 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 12:12 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:20 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Josh Vanderhoof <x@y.z> - 2024-09-20 19:08 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-21 10:40 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 17:08 -0500
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-25 00:08 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 16:18 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 20:15 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-18 02:54 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 00:42 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-09-18 02:41 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 06:45 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-09-18 20:37 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 01:19 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 09:11 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2024-09-19 08:20 -1000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 19:01 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:47 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-20 11:02 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-20 14:50 +0300
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-20 15:35 +0300
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-20 15:33 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:44 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 01:01 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-20 05:53 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:36 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-21 12:19 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-23 10:24 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-23 12:42 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-23 12:32 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-23 16:35 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:53 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2024-09-24 03:34 +0100
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 03:05 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-24 10:58 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 17:17 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 20:28 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 11:15 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 14:11 -0700
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 11:00 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 12:17 -0700
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 01:33 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-24 17:38 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 18:02 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-25 00:16 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 11:38 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-25 18:23 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 21:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-25 19:57 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-25 00:14 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-25 00:12 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2024-11-04 09:43 +0100
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-11-04 15:51 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-20 14:02 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2024-09-20 09:44 -0700
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 17:29 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2024-09-20 12:32 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-18 10:41 +0200
Re: Microsoft financials, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-09-18 20:41 +0000
Re: Microsoft financials, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 23:43 +0000
Re: Microsoft financials, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 09:18 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-18 20:57 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 23:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 09:27 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2024-09-17 21:57 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 06:46 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-18 15:51 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-18 16:28 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-18 17:00 +0000
Page 16 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 22 Next page →
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-28 07:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vd8bik$15in8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109249 |
Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> schrieb: > (Yes, I have seen a Youtube video from a Flat Earth fanatic making that > argument :-( ) The Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe. (Yes, this was on their web site once :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-22 11:48 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20240922114808.000001f9@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #108991 |
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. > 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". >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-22 12:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcot8t$26bt5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109040 |
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". >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-22 14:26 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20240922142617.00007d96@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #109049 |
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. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-22 14:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcp36p$26p7b$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109050 |
On 22/09/2024 13:26, Michael S wrote: > 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. > 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. > OK. Of course, that is entirely normal for science - you regularly use "worse" approximations when they are easier to handle and good enough for the task. Thus Newtonian gravity is used more than general relativity, because it is accurate enough in many circumstances while being a lot easier to understand and calculate. The same is presumably true with QED and other quantum mechanics calculations (not that I know the details of those calculations). Thanks for the extra information and corrections here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-23 05:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <864j668rpt.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #109050 |
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). There are situations where QED is needed to get an accurate numerical result, as for example if we want to know the magnetic moment of the electron, and accurately enough to compare against very sensitive experiments. But until and unless we are confronted with circumstances where those tiny corrections are necessary, which is to say that the differences have measurable consequences, generally it's better to just ignore them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-23 19:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcs7hj$2prkh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109084 |
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. Terje -- - <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no> "almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-23 10:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86v7ym6zbg.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #109090 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-23 21:13 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <lldpeaFk0hqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109091 |
On 2024-09-23 20:43, Tim Rentsch wrote: > 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. If the timer and the stove are at the same altitude, as seems natural, you never have to consider gravity in timing the cooking - any gravity effect on the timer rate is exactly the same as the effect on the heating rate of the water in the pot and the cooking rate of its contents. If it takes 10 minutes by the timer at sea level, it will take 10 minutes by the timer in any other gravity, all other things (such as the air pressure) being the same. However, if you compare two timers (or stoves) at different altitudes, that is where you can see the effect of gravity on time -- and it is of course negligible for practical cookery on Earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-23 15:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86r09a6kyb.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #109092 |
Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> writes: > On 2024-09-23 20:43, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> 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. > > If the timer and the stove are at the same altitude, as seems natural, > you never have to consider gravity in timing the cooking - any gravity > effect on the timer rate is exactly the same as the effect on the > heating rate of the water in the pot and the cooking rate of its > contents. If it takes 10 minutes by the timer at sea level, it will > take 10 minutes by the timer in any other gravity, all other things > (such as the air pressure) being the same. > > However, if you compare two timers (or stoves) at different altitudes, > that is where you can see the effect of gravity on time -- and it is > of course negligible for practical cookery on Earth. Yes, the example was poorly chosen. I hope that doesn't detract from the more important point that in many cases or maybe even most cases there are factors that are ignorable because the impacts of those factors are many orders of magnitude less than those of the primary factors. A lot of what doing science entails is knowing which approximations are appropriate under the circumstances in question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 01:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vct31h$2tic0$15@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109050 |
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 14:26:17 +0300, Michael S wrote: >> 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. Nothing in quantum theory is able to handle gravity. Nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-22 06:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <868qvj96lx.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #109040 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > 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. Quantum electrodynamics, aka QED, is a quantum field theory for the electromagnetic force. QED accounts for almost everything we can directly see in the world, not counting gravity. The original QED of Dirac, as expressed in the Dirac equation, has a problem: according to that formulation, the self-energy of the electron is infinite. To address this deficiency, for about 20 years physicists applied a convenient approximation, namely, they treated the theoretically infinite quantity as zero. Surprisingly, that approximation gave results that agreed with all the experiments that were done up until about the mid 1940s. In the late 1940s, Richard Feynman, Julian Schwinger, and Shinichiro Tomonaga independently developed versions of QED that address the infinite self-energy problem. (Tomonaga's work was done somewhat earlier, but wasn't publicized until later because of the isolation of Japan during World War II.) It wasn't at all obvious that the QED of Feynman and the QED of Schwinger were equivalent. That they were equivalent was established and publicized by Freeman Dyson (while he was a graduate student, no less). The problem of the seeminginly infinite self-energy of the electron was addressed by a technique known as renormalization. We could say that renormalization is only an approximation: it is known to be mathematically unsound, breaking down after a mere 400 or so decimal places. Despite that, QED gives numerical results that are correct up to the limits of our ability to measure. A computation done using QED matched an experimental result to within the tolerance of the measurement, which was 13 decimal places. An analogy given by Feynman is that this is like measuring the distance from LA to New York to an accuracy of the width of one human hair. QED has implications that are visible in the "normal" world, by which I mean using ordinary equipment rather than things like synchrotrons and particle accelerators, and that leaves atoms intact. Basically all of chemistry depends on QED and not on anything more exotic. There are three fundamental forces other than the electromagnetic force, namely, gravity, the weak force, and the strong force. The strong force is what holds together the protons and neutrons in the nucleus of an atom; it has to be stronger than the electromagnetic force so that protons don't just fly away from each other. The weak force is related to radioactive decay; it works only over very short distances because the carrier particle of the weak force is fairly massive (about 80 times the mass of a proton IIRC). For comparison the carrier particle of the electromagnetic force is the photon, which is massless; that means the electromagnetic force operates over arbitrarily large distances (although of course with a strength that diminishes as the distance gets larger). The strong force (sometimes called the color force) is peculiar in that the strong force actually *increases* with distance. That happens because the carrier particle of the color force has a color charge. For comparison photons are electrically neutral. It's because of this property that we never see isolated quarks. Basically, trying to pull two quarks apart takes so much energy that new quarks come into existence out of nothing. Quarks come in three "colors" (having nothing to do with ordinary color), times three families of quarks, times two quarks in each family. The carrier particle of the strong force is called a gluon, and there are eight different kinds of gluons. (It seems like there should be nine, to allow each of the 3x3 possible combinations of colors, but there are only eight.) The corresponding theory to QED for the strong force is called QCD, for Quantum chromodynamics. A joke that I like to tell is because the carrier particle for the strong force can change a quark from one color to another, rather than calling it a gluon it should have been called a crayon. The field theories for electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force have been unified in the sense that there is a mathematically consistent framework that accommodates all three. That unification is only mathematical, by which I mean that there are no testable physical implications, only a kind of tautological consistency. We can see all three field theories through a common mathematical lens, but that doesn't say anything about how the three theories interact physically. The gravitational force is much weaker, by 42 orders of magnitude, than the other three fundamental forces. The General Theory of Relativity is not a quantized theory. There are ideas about how to unify gravity and the other three fundamental forces, but none of these "grand unified" theories have any hypotheses that we are able to test experimentally. It's unclear how gravity fits in to the overall picture. The foregoing represents my best understanding of QED and the other fundamental forces of physics. I've done a fair amount of reading on the subject but I wouldn't claim even to be a physicist, let alone an expert.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-22 18:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a7c643d502d94c5cf51906e4b41fa0ff@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #109057 |
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 13:10:34 +0000, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > >> 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. > > Quantum electrodynamics, aka QED, is a quantum field theory for the > electromagnetic force. QED accounts for almost everything we can > directly see in the world, not counting gravity. > > The original QED of Dirac, as expressed in the Dirac equation, has a > problem: according to that formulation, the self-energy of the > electron is infinite. To address this deficiency, for about 20 > years physicists applied a convenient approximation, namely, they > treated the theoretically infinite quantity as zero. Surprisingly, > that approximation gave results that agreed with all the experiments > that were done up until about the mid 1940s. > > In the late 1940s, Richard Feynman, Julian Schwinger, and Shinichiro > Tomonaga independently developed versions of QED that address the > infinite self-energy problem. (Tomonaga's work was done somewhat > earlier, but wasn't publicized until later because of the isolation > of Japan during World War II.) It wasn't at all obvious that the > QED of Feynman and the QED of Schwinger were equivalent. That they > were equivalent was established and publicized by Freeman Dyson > (while he was a graduate student, no less). > > The problem of the seeminginly infinite self-energy of the electron > was addressed by a technique known as renormalization. We could say > that renormalization is only an approximation: it is known to be > mathematically unsound, breaking down after a mere 400 or so decimal > places. Despite that, QED gives numerical results that are correct > up to the limits of our ability to measure. A computation done > using QED matched an experimental result to within the tolerance > of the measurement, which was 13 decimal places. An analogy given > by Feynman is that this is like measuring the distance from LA to > New York to an accuracy of the width of one human hair. > > QED has implications that are visible in the "normal" world, by > which I mean using ordinary equipment rather than things like > synchrotrons and particle accelerators, and that leaves atoms > intact. Basically all of chemistry depends on QED and not on > anything more exotic. > > There are three fundamental forces other than the electromagnetic > force, namely, gravity, the weak force, and the strong force. The > strong force is what holds together the protons and neutrons in the > nucleus of an atom; it has to be stronger than the electromagnetic > force so that protons don't just fly away from each other. The weak > force is related to radioactive decay; it works only over very > short distances because the carrier particle of the weak force is > fairly massive (about 80 times the mass of a proton IIRC). For > comparison the carrier particle of the electromagnetic force is the > photon, which is massless; that means the electromagnetic force > operates over arbitrarily large distances (although of course with a > strength that diminishes as the distance gets larger). > > The strong force (sometimes called the color force) is peculiar in > that the strong force actually *increases* with distance. That > happens because the carrier particle of the color force has a color > charge. For comparison photons are electrically neutral. It's > because of this property that we never see isolated quarks. > Basically, trying to pull two quarks apart takes so much energy that > new quarks come into existence out of nothing. It does not come out of nothing, it comes out of the energy being applied to pull the 2 quarks apart. Once the energy gets that big, it (the energy) condenses into a pair of quarks which then pair up to prevent the quarks from being seen in isolation. > Quarks come in three > "colors" (having nothing to do with ordinary color), times three > families of quarks, times two quarks in each family. The carrier > particle of the strong force is called a gluon, and there are eight > different kinds of gluons. (It seems like there should be nine, to > allow each of the 3x3 possible combinations of colors, but there are > only eight.) The corresponding theory to QED for the strong force > is called QCD, for Quantum chromodynamics. > > A joke that I like to tell is because the carrier particle for the > strong force can change a quark from one color to another, rather > than calling it a gluon it should have been called a crayon. > > The field theories for electromagnetism, the strong force, and the > weak force have been unified in the sense that there is a > mathematically consistent framework that accommodates all three. > That unification is only mathematical, by which I mean that there > are no testable physical implications, only a kind of tautological > consistency. We can see all three field theories through a common > mathematical lens, but that doesn't say anything about how the three > theories interact physically. > > The gravitational force is much weaker, by 42 orders of magnitude, > than the other three fundamental forces. The General Theory of > Relativity is not a quantized theory. There are ideas about how to > unify gravity and the other three fundamental forces, but none of > these "grand unified" theories have any hypotheses that we are able > to test experimentally. It's unclear how gravity fits in to the > overall picture. Are you not amazed that everything physicists know about the universe can be written in 13 equations. > The foregoing represents my best understanding of QED and the other > fundamental forces of physics. I've done a fair amount of reading > on the subject but I wouldn't claim even to be a physicist, let > alone an expert.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-23 10:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vcrgfg$2lnor$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109064 |
MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> schrieb: > Are you not amazed that everything physicists know about the universe > can be written in 13 equations. Randall Munroe has some comment on that... https://xkcd.com/1867/ (Among thers, he left out turbulence, where we have some understanding, but do not yet understand the Navier-Stokes equations - one of the Millenium Problems).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-23 13:59 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20240923135924.00000b12@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #109077 |
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 10:38:40 -0000 (UTC) Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote: > MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> schrieb: > > > Are you not amazed that everything physicists know about the > > universe can be written in 13 equations. > > Randall Munroe has some comment on that... https://xkcd.com/1867/ > Exactly! Laplace's demon and the whole Reductionist approach to natural science sounds decent (although unproven) as philosophy/program, but very rarely sufficient for solving complicated problems of chemistry, biology, engineering or even of many branches of physics themselves. > (Among thers, he left out turbulence, where we have some > understanding, but do not yet understand the Navier-Stokes > equations - one of the Millenium Problems).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 00:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vct2of$2tic0$13@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109079 |
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 13:59:24 +0300, Michael S wrote: > Laplace's demon and the whole Reductionist approach to natural science > sounds decent (although unproven) as philosophy/program, but very rarely > sufficient for solving complicated problems of chemistry, biology, > engineering or even of many branches of physics themselves. But ... isn’t trying to explain all the limitations of science in terms of one factor (reductionism) itself ... reductionist?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-23 14:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcrmlf$2mul0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109077 |
On 23/09/2024 12:38, Thomas Koenig wrote: > MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> schrieb: > >> Are you not amazed that everything physicists know about the universe >> can be written in 13 equations. > > Randall Munroe has some comment on that... https://xkcd.com/1867/ > > (Among thers, he left out turbulence, where we have some > understanding, but do not yet understand the Navier-Stokes > equations - one of the Millenium Problems). Are you suggesting that "Gifted" was not an accurate documentary? (Thanks to Terje for recommending that film, by the way.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-23 12:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vcrng0$2n9qd$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109081 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb: > On 23/09/2024 12:38, Thomas Koenig wrote: >> MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> schrieb: >> >>> Are you not amazed that everything physicists know about the universe >>> can be written in 13 equations. >> >> Randall Munroe has some comment on that... https://xkcd.com/1867/ >> >> (Among thers, he left out turbulence, where we have some >> understanding, but do not yet understand the Navier-Stokes >> equations - one of the Millenium Problems). > > Are you suggesting that "Gifted" was not an accurate documentary? Hadn't heard about that one before, but it appears not :-) By the way, I personally have no particular objection if the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations turn out to have properties which make them unsolvable (I almost wrote insoluble) in the general case. There is no such thing as an incompressible fluid in nature, and if should turns out that compressiblity is needed to make them mathematically tractable, so be it. It wouldn't be the first time that a simplification turns out badly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-23 19:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vcs7b7$2prkh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109077 |
Thomas Koenig wrote: > MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> schrieb: > >> Are you not amazed that everything physicists know about the universe >> can be written in 13 equations. > > Randall Munroe has some comment on that... https://xkcd.com/1867/ > > (Among thers, he left out turbulence, where we have some > understanding, but do not yet understand the Navier-Stokes > equations - one of the Millenium Problems). > Spoiler alert: I watched "Gifted" on Netflix recently, seems it was solved by a lady who then prompty suicided instead of publishing, just to get revenge on her mother who had pressured her all her life? Terje -- - <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no> "almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-09-24 01:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vct2vs$2tic0$14@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109077 |
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 10:38:40 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote: > (Among thers, he left out turbulence, where we have some understanding, > but do not yet understand the Navier-Stokes equations - one of the > Millenium Problems). I thought the problem with Navier-Stokes is that it assumes infinitesimally-small particles of fluid, whereas we know that real fluids are made up of atoms and molecules. Remember how Max Planck solved the black-body problem? He knew all about the previous approach of assuming that matter was made up of little oscillators, and then trying to work out the limiting behaviour as the size of those oscillators approached zero -- that didn’t work. So his breakthrough was in assuming that the oscillators did *not* approach zero in size, but had some minimum nonzero size. Et voilà ... he got a curve that actually matched the known behaviour of radiating bodies. And laid one of the foundation stones of quantum theory in the process. Seems a similar thing could be done with Navier-Stokes ... ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch
csiph-web