Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?

On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 01:00:45 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

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.
 

No, the problem (supposing that there is The Problem) is an assumption
of incompressibility. For real liquids this assumption is very close to
truth, but despite the closeness it sometimes leads to very wrong
solutions.

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 ... ?

Equations of aerodynamics that do not suffer from This Problem, are
as well-known as Navier-Stokes itself. But they are more difficult to
solve.

It's pretty similar to non-relativistic QM vs QED.