Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?

On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 10:47:08 +0000, David Brown wrote:

On 05/10/2024 20:24, Brett wrote:

Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> wrote:

Here is what Sabine Hossenfelder thinks of modern physics, and she makes
money promoting physics to people on YouTube.
>
https://youtu.be/cBIvSGLkwJY?si=USc2fHsaWTJMSDSt
>

>
Sabine Hossenfelder is quite a good commentator, and I've seen many of
her videos before.  Her points here are not new or contentious - there
is quite a support in scientific communities for her argument here.  We
have arguably reached a point in the science of cosmology and
fundamental physics where traditional scientific progress is unavoidably
minimal.  Basically, we cannot build big enough experiments to provide
corroborating or falsifying evidence for current hypothetical models

Based on the success of Webb--we can, we just don't have access to
enough money to allow for building and shipping such a device up into
space. Optics-check, structure-check, rocket-check, where to put it-
check, telemetry and command-check.

that could explain quantum mechanics (known to be an extraordinarily
good model on small scales) and relativity (known to work well on large
scales, and with many aspects confirmed in laboratory experiments).  If
gravity works like a quantum field mediated by a "graviton" boson, we'd
need a particle accelerator the size of the orbit of Jupiter to find it.

I heard closer to Saturn, but you forgot that it would take 5% of the
sun's energy to power it.