Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?

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and hopefully it will one day be superseded by a new theory that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 But then, I am almost 40 years out of date.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".
>