I just wrote this post in another thread, at which I wrote the OP, but I think it
deserves his own thread.

Coming from a reply in:

Still t' = t and x' = x - v.t, for earthly applications. Sorry Einstein, it hurts but.....
https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/mEDstFJqw0c

is this post:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 4:52:57 PM UTC-3, carl eto wrote:

<snip>

> Maybe you should ask physicists what they are doing or why aren't they doing anything beside creating paper. Maybe you could cut
> their spending like NASA for instants and LIGO, particle physics. It's all just garbage. All the scientific accomplishment used today
> came from the past. Absolutely nothing has come from modern theoretical physics. Computers come from circuit and engineering
> not from theoretical physics. Cars and airplanes came from thermodynamics which is 100 years old. The only thing theoretical physics
> has done is create hot air which may be the most damaging to global warming.

Theoretical and "applied" modern physics is working on the upper and lower limits of nature (cosmology and quantum physics), which
served for 20,000 physicists to have a job at everyone's expenses. It's been a long time since real contributions to the advance of
science have been done since relativity poisoned science with the deadly trail of rotten thoughts, disseminating as a fucking virus.

And it's ironical that such limits are defined using newtonian derivations like the principle of least action, which is traced back to the
works of Euler, Lagrange and Hamilton (200 years ago). This paper is an example:

https://www.eftaylor.com/pub/ActionFINAL.pdf

This paper is some of the sources by which the idiot Dork van der Moortel learnt some cutting edge physics, from his beloved E.F. Taylor.
In the paper, where Newton's laws are re-derived as an intellectual exercise, the authors state: "We also briefly discuss the origin of
the principle of least action in Feynman’s sum over paths formulation of quantum mechanics".

I quote Feynman's statement:

"The complete quantum mechanics ... works as follows: The probability that a particle starting at point 1 at the time t1 will arrive
at point 2 at time t2 is the SQUARE OF PROBABILITY AMPLITUDE. The TOTAL amplitude can be written as the sum of the amplitudes
for each possible path [worldline] for each way of arrival. For every x(t) .... we have to calculate an amplitude. Then we add them all together.
The amplitude is proportional to some constant times exp(iS/h_bar), where S is action for that path."

And all of this shit is derived from de Broglie's assumption that mc² = hf (a marriage between relativity output and classic interpretation
of quantums of action by Planck in the BBC problem).

So, with these undulatory and probabilistic behavior of particles, in the quantum world, the degeneracy of thought begin. And this article
appeared on American Journal of Physics, April 2003, Volume 71, Issue 4, pp.. 386-39, as it it has ANY VALUE. An example:

NEWTON LIMITS IN THE DESIGN OF MECHANICAL CLOCKS VS. PENTIUM II MICROPROCESSOR.

-------------------------------- Excerpt using action S ≈ md²/t -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here we give two examples for which the typical magnitude of the action can be successfully estimated from a
procedure based on dimensional analysis. A mechanical wristwatch has moving parts with an approximate
size d ≈ 10–4 m, mass m ≈ 10–4 kg, and typical time t ≈ 1 s. So the characteristic action using dimensional
analysis (the unit of S is J s) is S ≈ md², 1/t ≈ 10E–12, J s ≈ 10E+22.h_bar.

The microprocessor is the heart of every computer. The first Pentium processor (2 x 2 cm) was made using 0.8 um
technology, which means that the thinnest wires were of size 0.8 um (d ≈ 10E–6 m). Because it is an electronic
device, the operation of the microprocessor depends on electrons (m ≈ 10E–30 kg).

The processor executes instructions during clock cycles. So the power of processor is approximately
given by the maximum clock speed, which was 60 MHz for the first Pentium chip, corresponding to the
angular frequency w ≈ 400 MHz. The typical action is represented by S ≈ md²/t ≈ 4 x 10–34 J s ≈ 4.h_bar.

Although these two systems are comparable in size, the result is that the maker of a mechanical watch
needs to know nothing about quantum theory, whereas the creators of microprocessors, the basic
constituents of modern information technology, must use quantum theory to design their chips.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

230 years invested, starting with Newton and his "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", published 5 July 1687 and
the final stroke given by Planck in Dec. 1900 with his fundamental quantum of action "h" and his fundamental amount of
EM energy E=hf, which was brought to QM by de Broglie around 1923.

Since then, everything went down the hill of wisdom in physics, and have produced the modern physics, which is mostly garbage.

But don't blame to Heisenberg and Schrodinger. Blame Born, with his statistical interpretation of Schrodinger's theory and the
autistic mathematician Dirac, a wannabe physicist, who pushed Schrodinger work deeply into a relativistic realm of fairy tails.

And Feynman is just another partner in crime (who enjoyed being an hypocritical while profiting from whom funded that physics).
A long list of smart parasites can be written, exposing the insanity of theories manufactured at expense of real physics since the '60s.

Not to mention the legion of parasites that made a living of Schwarzschild's solution for a narrow field of applicability of GR, a theory
worshipped by most of the retarded relativists at this forum. Not to mention minkowskian relativity and the origin of metrics for
spacetime, which has been proven in the OP here that HAS NO REASON TO EXIST as mathematically true, because Lorentz FAILS
to be applicable withing limits of OUR REALITY.

If you can't sustain Lorentz applicability in the four-vectors Minkowski's theory, SR and GR are both PLAIN DEAD, WRONG, USELESS.

There is no need to dismantle the modern building of physics by retiring windows, doors, furniture, etc.

You just go to the two or three pillars that sustain such building, blow them up and the entire building collapse on its footprint.

And making Lorentz invalid for earthly applications has such effect, even more powerful and efficient than proving the variance of c.

But nobody is willing to risk his way of living and career doing such work, because there is a lot more of milk to be sucked from the
relativity cow, and better to look to other way and collect paychecks and privileges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 3:56:23 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz regurgitated the same imbecilities from another thread:
> I just wrote this post filled with imbecilities in another thread, so I feel like repeating the same cretinisms

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 7:56:23 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> NEWTON LIMITS IN THE DESIGN OF MECHANICAL CLOCKS VS. PENTIUM II MICROPROCESSOR.
>
> -------------------------------- Excerpt using action S ≈ md²/t -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Here we give two examples for which the typical magnitude of the action can be successfully estimated from a
> procedure based on dimensional analysis. A mechanical wristwatch has moving parts with an approximate
> size d ≈ 10–4 m, mass m ≈ 10–4 kg, and typical time t ≈ 1 s. So the characteristic action using dimensional
> analysis (the unit of S is J s) is S ≈ md², 1/t ≈ 10E–12, J s ≈ 10E+22.h_bar.
>
> The microprocessor is the heart of every computer. The first Pentium processor (2 x 2 cm) was made using 0.8 um
> technology, which means that the thinnest wires were of size 0.8 um (d ≈ 10E–6 m). Because it is an electronic
> device, the operation of the microprocessor depends on electrons (m ≈ 10E–30 kg).
>
> The processor executes instructions during clock cycles. So the power of processor is approximately
> given by the maximum clock speed, which was 60 MHz for the first Pentium chip, corresponding to the
> angular frequency w ≈ 400 MHz. The typical action is represented by S ≈ md²/t ≈ 4 x 10–34 J s ≈ 4.h_bar..
>
> Although these two systems are comparable in size, the result is that the maker of a mechanical watch
> needs to know nothing about quantum theory, whereas the creators of microprocessors, the basic
> constituents of modern information technology, must use quantum theory to design their chips.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note the fallacies and idiocies on a paper published 18 years ago in thr American Journal of Physics, April 2003.

To start with, the basics on solid state physics (from 70 years ago) are constructed on the role of majority and minority
charge carriers (holes and electrons, depending on the doping of germanium and silicon crystals).

Holes are a fictional conception with zero mass, so S = 0 when applied to them. But, still, retarded perseveres and keep
calling victory for relativity by using distorted, twisted reasoning. Like Feynman and his conception of "applied QM".

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 8:11:18 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 7:56:23 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > NEWTON LIMITS IN THE DESIGN OF MECHANICAL CLOCKS VS. PENTIUM II MICROPROCESSOR.
> >
> > -------------------------------- Excerpt using action S ≈ md²/t -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Here we give two examples for which the typical magnitude of the action can be successfully estimated from a
> > procedure based on dimensional analysis. A mechanical wristwatch has moving parts with an approximate
> > size d ≈ 10–4 m, mass m ≈ 10–4 kg, and typical time t ≈ 1 s. So the characteristic action using dimensional
> > analysis (the unit of S is J s) is S ≈ md², 1/t ≈ 10E–12, J s ≈ 10E+22.h_bar.
> >
> > The microprocessor is the heart of every computer. The first Pentium processor (2 x 2 cm) was made using 0.8 um
> > technology, which means that the thinnest wires were of size 0.8 um (d ≈ 10E–6 m). Because it is an electronic
> > device, the operation of the microprocessor depends on electrons (m ≈ 10E–30 kg).
> >
> > The processor executes instructions during clock cycles. So the power of processor is approximately
> > given by the maximum clock speed, which was 60 MHz for the first Pentium chip, corresponding to the
> > angular frequency w ≈ 400 MHz. The typical action is represented by S ≈ md²/t ≈ 4 x 10–34 J s ≈ 4.h_bar.
> >
> > Although these two systems are comparable in size, the result is that the maker of a mechanical watch
> > needs to know nothing about quantum theory, whereas the creators of microprocessors, the basic
> > constituents of modern information technology, must use quantum theory to design their chips.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Note the fallacies and idiocies on a paper published 18 years ago in thr American Journal of Physics, April 2003.
>
> To start with, the basics on solid state physics (from 70 years ago) are constructed on the role of majority and minority
> charge carriers (holes and electrons, depending on the doping of germanium and silicon crystals).
>
> Holes are a fictional conception with zero mass, so S = 0 when applied to them. But, still, retarded perseveres and keep
> calling victory for relativity by using distorted, twisted reasoning. Like Feynman and his conception of "applied QM".

Another stupid interpretation for modern advanced processors, with 100 billion transistors, 3 nm lines and 3 Ghz clocks,
at each transistor (a few atoms) electrons have actions S ≈ md²/t < 0.0000001 h_bar.

So, a new theory far beyond QM has to be developed to explain this planckian "impossibility". The fundamental quantum
of action "h" is destroyed within newest chips. Can it be possible?

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 4:50:18 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> So, a new theory far beyond QM has to be developed to explain this planckian "impossibility". The fundamental quantum
> of action "h" is destroyed within newest chips. Can it be possible?

No, it isn't, QED covers the functionality of transistors perfectly. The only reasons cretins like Richard Hertz can showcase their imbecility for the whole world to see, is precisely the validity of QED as applied to transistor functionality. Keep it up, Dickie - boy!

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:16:46 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip imbecilities about QED that the idiot wishes to be used in IC design and manufacturing>

READ THIS SPEC. No place for QM/QFT/QED/QCD/SR/GR/String theories or any similar shit.

QED is limited to try to figure why smashing particles the idiots get 100 more different particles each time. 2,000 and counting.

This is the result of the current limits on engineering in cooperative effort of their branches like solid state, chemistry, mechanics,
EE, metallurgy, optics, nanoengineering, thermal, process, materials, manufacturing, corrosion, computer, software, etc.

But your stupid mind can't understand how such evolution was achieved in the last 50 years of applied engineering, to increase
ICs power by 1,000,000 times and decrease sizes and power consumption by the same factor.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.graphcore.ai/products/ipu

Colossus MK2 GC200 IPU

With 59.4Bn transistors, and built using the very latest TSMC 7nm process, the Colossus MK2 GC200 IPU is the world's most
sophisticated processor. Each MK2 IPU has 1472 powerful processor cores, running nearly 9,000 independent parallel program
threads. Each IPU holds an unprecedented 900MB In-Processor-Memory™ with 250 teraFLOPS of AI compute at FP16.16 and
FP16.SR (stochastic rounding). The GC200 supports much more FP32 compute than any other processor.

* Completely different architecture to today's CPUs and GPUs.
* Almost 1,500 processing units into a single 30 cm silicon wafer, manufactured by TSMC.
* 1472 processor cores running nearly 9,000 independent parallel program threads.
* 250 teraFLOPS of AI computing power at FP16.16 (probably more than 30 Teraflops of FP32 performance)
* MOSFETs with 7 nm process (MOSFET was INVENTED by Mohamed Atalla and Dawon Kahng at Bell Labs in 1959).
* About 800 mm²/chip and 0.14 Fm²/MOSFET.
* 1500 MHz clock and about 300 W power comsuption/IPU (in average, less than 5 nW/MOSFET).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 9:10:07 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz went off the deep end:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:16:46 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip imbecilities about QED that the idiot wishes to be used in IC design and manufacturing>
>
> READ THIS SPEC. No place for QM/QFT/QED/QCD/SR/GR/String theories or any similar shit.

Utter crank,

The functionality of the transistor is KNOWN to be based on QED, no need to put all these FACTS in the chip spec. You have gone off the deep end. You claim to be an EE but you obviously flunked the solid state physics class. You nave no clue how transistors work, you have been exposed as a fraud.

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 2:08:13 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

> The functionality of the transistor is KNOWN to be based on QED, no need to put all these FACTS in the chip spec.
> You have gone off the deep end. You claim to be an EE but you obviously flunked the solid state physics class.
> You nave no clue how transistors work, you have been exposed as a fraud.

DONO, IGNORANT BsC ON MATHEMATICS DROPOUT.

You don't even know what QM is all about, idiot. Much less QFT and much, much less QED. You don't even know what the acronysm
QED means. It could be quantum electron density (QED), for instance?

Now, read and learn. This is a paper written by EE guys, from the IEEE. They can teach you something about MOSFET, using theories
like Poisson distribution and Fermi statistics (which he developed independently from Dirac, with different meanings) but fuckers
insist calling it Fermi-Dirac.

Fermi statistics is mostly what is needed to model potentials and barriers. And is being used since mid 1930s to build germanium
diodes, curiously in pre-war Germany. Allies took from them the whole package of knowledge about semiconductors manufacturing
and gave it to AT&T Bell Labs (under Shockley's supervision, who was commanded to develop MOS transistors). Soviets took its part
too, even when russian physicists were quite advanced in the development of semiconductor models based on minority carriers, way
before WWII. The same knowledge was shared with UK and France agencies, only that they lack the money to invest on pure research,
and ONLY BY THAT US succeeded inventing the bipolar junction transistor (a stroke of luck for Brattain, if you read the history).

And in this simple way, after 1947, the world never would be the same. You know what happened in only 15 years after that, not to
mention what's going on today (as the spec of the MONSTRUOUS CPU that I posted).

It only took me to get into THE FIRST ENTRY by Googling exactly "The functionality of the mosfet is KNOWN to be based on QED", as
you wrote. I only replaced "transistor" by "MOSFET". Your QED came to be quantum electron density (QED). I just had to smile.

Now, read and illustrate yourself (seriously). Download this paper and read it entirely. It's cutting edge, and is free of charge:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Cross-sectional-QED-at-the-middle-of-a-GAA-15-nm-wide-Si-NW-JL-MOSFET-for-three-operation_fig4_253329734

Excerpt from:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Local Volume Depletion/Accumulation in GAA Si Nanowire Junctionless nMOSFETs

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 59, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2012
Mohammad Najmzadeh, Student Member, IEEE, Jean-Michel Sallese, Matthieu Berthomé, Student Member, IEEE,
Wladek Grabinski, Senior Member, IEEE, and Adrian M. Ionescu, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—In this paper, we report, for the first time, corner effect analysis in the gate-all-around equilateral triangular silicon
nanowire (NW) junctionless (JL) nMOSFETs, from subthreshold to strong accumulation regime. Corners were found to accumulate
and deplete more electrons than the flat sides or the channel center, when above (local accumulation) and below (local depletion)
the flat-band voltage, respectively. On the contrary to the corner effect in the inversion mode (IM) devices, there is no
major contribution of corners in the subthreshold current, and therefore, there is no subthreshold device behavior degradation
(only one threshold voltage in the system). N-type channel doping levels of 1 × 1019, 5 × 1018, and 1 × 1018 cm−3 were used for
quasi-stationary device simulations of JL and AMMOSFETs, and corner effect was studied for 5, 10, and 15 nm wide equilateral
triangular Si NW MOSFETs with a 2 nm SiO2 gate oxide thickness (VDS = 0 V; T = 300 K).

While the local quantum and classical electron density peaks are located in the corner regions above the flat-band voltage, reducing
the channel doping and the channel cross-section was found to slightly suppress the normalized total accumulation electron density
per unit length, Nacc/(CWeff ), in strong accumulation regime.
....................
To include the 3-D quantization effects in nanoscale, the density gradient quantization model is coupled to the Poisson equation
[15], [16]. The quantum correction procedure includes modification of the density of states [16]. The semi-classical Slotboom bandgap narrowing model was used for the highly and heavily doped Si channels [16], [17]. The local carrier densities can be computed from the electron and hole quasi-Fermi potentials, considering Fermi-Dirac statistics covering both degenerate and nondegenerate regimes [16].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See, ignorant? No traces of QM/QFT/QED/QCD/SR/GR/String theories or any similar shit.

Just pure solid state physics (and chemistry) keep making the magic even 60 years after, with changes of 10,000,000:1 in the
value of parameters like: lines, density, clocking rate, power consumption/transistor, packaging, etc.

After reading, clean your teeth, drink your milk and go to bed.

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:53:10 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz frothed at the mouth:

> Local Volume Depletion/Accumulation in GAA Si Nanowire Junctionless nMOSFETs
>
> IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 59, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2012
> Mohammad Najmzadeh, Student Member, IEEE, Jean-Michel Sallese, Matthieu Berthomé, Student Member, IEEE,
> Wladek Grabinski, Senior Member, IEEE, and Adrian M. Ionescu, Senior Member, IEEE
>
> Abstract
> While the local QUANTUM and classical electron density peaks are located in the corner regions above the flat-band voltage, reducing
> the channel doping
> ...................
> The QUANTUM correction procedure includes modification of the density of states [16]. The semi-classical Slotboom bandgap narrowing model was used for the highly and heavily doped Si channels [16], [17]. The local carrier densities can be computed from the electron and hole quasi-Fermi potentials, considering Fermi-Dirac statistics covering both degenerate and nondegenerate regimes [16].

I love it when you shoot yourself in the foot, crank. Do it again!

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just wrote this post in another thread, at which I wrote the OP, but I think it
> deserves his own thread.
>
> Coming from a reply in:
>
> Still t' = t and x' = x - v.t, for earthly applications. Sorry Einstein, it hurts but.....
> https://groups.google.com/u/1/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/mEDstFJqw0c
>
> is this post:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 4:52:57 PM UTC-3, carl eto wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Maybe you should ask physicists what they are doing or why aren't they
>> doing anything beside creating paper. Maybe you could cut
>> their spending like NASA for instants and LIGO, particle physics. It's
>> all just garbage. All the scientific accomplishment used today
>> came from the past. Absolutely nothing has come from modern theoretical
>> physics. Computers come from circuit and engineering
>> not from theoretical physics. Cars and airplanes came from
>> thermodynamics which is 100 years old. The only thing theoretical physics
>> has done is create hot air which may be the most damaging to global warming.
>
> Theoretical and "applied" modern physics is working on the upper and
> lower limits of nature (cosmology and quantum physics), which
> served for 20,000 physicists to have a job at everyone's expenses.

I take it you are not happy with tax-funded research. Like NASA space
probes. Or national Laboratories.

What a shame you have no say in that matter, no veto over where your taxes
go.

> It's been a long time since real contributions to the advance of
> science have been done since relativity poisoned science with the deadly
> trail of rotten thoughts, disseminating as a fucking virus.
>
> And it's ironical that such limits are defined using newtonian
> derivations like the principle of least action, which is traced back to the
> works of Euler, Lagrange and Hamilton (200 years ago).

Principle of least action is not at all limited to Newtonian mechanics.

> This paper is an example:
>
> https://www.eftaylor.com/pub/ActionFINAL.pdf
>
> This paper is some of the sources by which the idiot Dork van der Moortel
> learnt some cutting edge physics, from his beloved E.F. Taylor.
> In the paper, where Newton's laws are re-derived as an intellectual
> exercise, the authors state: "We also briefly discuss the origin of
> the principle of least action in Feynman’s sum over paths formulation of
> quantum mechanics".
>
> I quote Feynman's statement:
>
> "The complete quantum mechanics ... works as follows: The probability
> that a particle starting at point 1 at the time t1 will arrive
> at point 2 at time t2 is the SQUARE OF PROBABILITY AMPLITUDE. The TOTAL
> amplitude can be written as the sum of the amplitudes
> for each possible path [worldline] for each way of arrival. For every
> x(t) ... we have to calculate an amplitude. Then we add them all together.
> The amplitude is proportional to some constant times exp(iS/h_bar), where
> S is action for that path."
>
> And all of this shit is derived from de Broglie's assumption that mc² =
> hf (a marriage between relativity output and classic interpretation
> of quantums of action by Planck in the BBC problem).
>
> So, with these undulatory and probabilistic behavior of particles, in the
> quantum world, the degeneracy of thought begin. And this article
> appeared on American Journal of Physics, April 2003, Volume 71, Issue 4,
> pp. 386-39, as it it has ANY VALUE. An example:
>
> NEWTON LIMITS IN THE DESIGN OF MECHANICAL CLOCKS VS. PENTIUM II MICROPROCESSOR.
>
> -------------------------------- Excerpt using action S ≈ md²/t
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Here we give two examples for which the typical magnitude of the action
> can be successfully estimated from a
> procedure based on dimensional analysis. A mechanical wristwatch has
> moving parts with an approximate
> size d ≈ 10–4 m, mass m ≈ 10–4 kg, and typical time t ≈ 1 s. So the
> characteristic action using dimensional
> analysis (the unit of S is J s) is S ≈ md², 1/t ≈ 10E–12, J s ≈ 10E+22.h_bar.
>
> The microprocessor is the heart of every computer. The first Pentium
> processor (2 x 2 cm) was made using 0.8 um
> technology, which means that the thinnest wires were of size 0.8 um (d ≈
> 10E–6 m). Because it is an electronic
> device, the operation of the microprocessor depends on electrons (m ≈ 10E–30 kg).
>
> The processor executes instructions during clock cycles. So the power of
> processor is approximately
> given by the maximum clock speed, which was 60 MHz for the first Pentium
> chip, corresponding to the
> angular frequency w ≈ 400 MHz. The typical action is represented by S ≈
> md²/t ≈ 4 x 10–34 J s ≈ 4.h_bar.
>
> Although these two systems are comparable in size, the result is that the
> maker of a mechanical watch
> needs to know nothing about quantum theory, whereas the creators of
> microprocessors, the basic
> constituents of modern information technology, must use quantum theory to
> design their chips.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 230 years invested, starting with Newton and his "Mathematical Principles
> of Natural Philosophy", published 5 July 1687 and
> the final stroke given by Planck in Dec. 1900 with his fundamental
> quantum of action "h" and his fundamental amount of
> EM energy E=hf, which was brought to QM by de Broglie around 1923.
>
> Since then, everything went down the hill of wisdom in physics, and have
> produced the modern physics, which is mostly garbage.
>
> But don't blame to Heisenberg and Schrodinger. Blame Born, with his
> statistical interpretation of Schrodinger's theory and the
> autistic mathematician Dirac, a wannabe physicist, who pushed Schrodinger
> work deeply into a relativistic realm of fairy tails.
>
> And Feynman is just another partner in crime (who enjoyed being an
> hypocritical while profiting from whom funded that physics).
> A long list of smart parasites can be written, exposing the insanity of
> theories manufactured at expense of real physics since the '60s.
>
> Not to mention the legion of parasites that made a living of
> Schwarzschild's solution for a narrow field of applicability of GR, a theory
> worshipped by most of the retarded relativists at this forum. Not to
> mention minkowskian relativity and the origin of metrics for
> spacetime, which has been proven in the OP here that HAS NO REASON TO
> EXIST as mathematically true, because Lorentz FAILS
> to be applicable withing limits of OUR REALITY.
>
> If you can't sustain Lorentz applicability in the four-vectors
> Minkowski's theory, SR and GR are both PLAIN DEAD, WRONG, USELESS.
>
> There is no need to dismantle the modern building of physics by retiring
> windows, doors, furniture, etc.
>
> You just go to the two or three pillars that sustain such building, blow
> them up and the entire building collapse on its footprint.
>
> And making Lorentz invalid for earthly applications has such effect, even
> more powerful and efficient than proving the variance of c.
>
> But nobody is willing to risk his way of living and career doing such
> work, because there is a lot more of milk to be sucked from the
> relativity cow, and better to look to other way and collect paychecks and privileges.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On October 19, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> Here we give two examples for which the typical magnitude of the action can be successfully
>> estimated from a procedure based on dimensional analysis.
> Another stupid interpretation for modern advanced processors, with 100 billion transistors,
> 3 nm lines and 3 Ghz clocks, at each transistor (a few atoms) electrons have actions
> S ≈ md²/t < 0.0000001 h_bar.
>
> So, a new theory far beyond QM has to be developed to explain this planckian "impossibility".
> The fundamental quantum of action "h" is destroyed within newest chips. Can it be possible?

Dimensional analysis is a magician's trick with numbers; invent
formulas, calculate, see what emerges. Occasionally, it provides
insight. Mostly, it will be nothing useful; garbage in, garbage out.

Action isn't physical, it's a technique for solving problems in mechanics.
It's just math, calculated from real measurable quantities. Big number
or little, it has no significance for evaluating silicon physics.

Conclusion: you're a confused young man.

--
Rich

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 11:24:09 PM UTC-3, RichD wrote:

<snip>

> > Another stupid interpretation for modern advanced processors, with 100 billion transistors,
> > 3 nm lines and 3 Ghz clocks, at each transistor (a few atoms) electrons have actions
> > S ≈ md²/t < 0.0000001 h_bar.
> >
> > So, a new theory far beyond QM has to be developed to explain this planckian "impossibility".
> > The fundamental quantum of action "h" is destroyed within newest chips. Can it be possible?
> Dimensional analysis is a magician's trick with numbers; invent
> formulas, calculate, see what emerges. Occasionally, it provides
> insight. Mostly, it will be nothing useful; garbage in, garbage out.
>
> Action isn't physical, it's a technique for solving problems in mechanics..
> It's just math, calculated from real measurable quantities. Big number
> or little, it has no significance for evaluating silicon physics.
>
> Conclusion: you're a confused young man.
>
> --
> Rich

LOL with the "young man" part!

We are probably in the same age range.

Also, you missed the spirit of the post. I just was trolling with modern attempts to use such principle
at quantum level. In particular, I used this post to ridicule Feynman's synthesis of what QM is.

Of course that the authors are young physicists. Their naivety is shown with the Pentium example,
which I made more silly with new processors. The paper is 18 years old.

On 10/20/21 9:24 PM, RichD wrote:
> Dimensional analysis is a magician's trick with numbers; invent
> formulas, calculate, see what emerges. Occasionally, it provides
> insight. Mostly, it will be nothing useful; garbage in, garbage out.

You CLEARLY do not understand the usefulness of dimensional analysis. It
provides a good check on algebra, as the dimensions (units) of the
result must be consistent.

> Conclusion: you're a confused young man.

So are you. In neither case am I sure about "young"; given this is the
internet, "man" is also suspect. But confusion is very evident.

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 12:00:53 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 10:53:10 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz frothed at the mouth:
> > Local Volume Depletion/Accumulation in GAA Si Nanowire Junctionless nMOSFETs
> >
> > IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, VOL. 59, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2012
> > Mohammad Najmzadeh, Student Member, IEEE, Jean-Michel Sallese, Matthieu Berthomé, Student Member, IEEE,
> > Wladek Grabinski, Senior Member, IEEE, and Adrian M. Ionescu, Senior Member, IEEE
> >
> > Abstract
> > While the local QUANTUM and classical electron density peaks are located in the corner regions above the flat-band voltage, reducing
> > the channel doping
> > ...................
> > The QUANTUM correction procedure includes modification of the density of states [16]. The semi-classical Slotboom bandgap narrowing model was used for the highly and heavily doped Si channels [16], [17]. The local carrier densities can be computed from the electron and hole quasi-Fermi potentials, considering Fermi-Dirac statistics covering both degenerate and nondegenerate regimes [16].
>
>
> I love it when you shoot yourself in the foot, crank. Do it again!

Are you really a fucking retarded?

Of course that the world of quantum is the field of study in solid state physics, imbecile!

What do you think, that electrons and holes are treated as if had a size of billiard balls?

It's the Fermi statistics what was originally used, which is based on statistical mechanics and was DEVELOPED WAY BEFORE
Dirac stuck his nose on other people's business. That was the usual modus operandi the autistic had, guided by his tutors at Cambridge.
Same thing happened with Heisenberg theory. His tutors had to shove the paper on his fucking nose and order him to meddle into such
new topic, which he ignored for months before Cambridge really kicked hard his ass to force him to produce something.

Dirac statistic was developed TIME after Fermi, the champion of solid state and nuclear physics.

It's only the MF historian of physics who named it as Fermi-Dirac, as if Dirac had contributed with some value.

This IS NOT a case like Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, because Boltzmann took the original Maxwell distribution and contributed
to make it better by widening the field of applicability.

Historians are politically biased, TO THE LEAST!

For instance, it's WRONG the name of Planck attached to the BBC radiation. It should be Planck-Wien, to the least.

And actually, the name Planck-Wien-Rayleigh is much better. READ HISTORY OF PHYSICS.

And remember: until 1916, SR was called BY EVERYONE at Europe, US and Japan as Einstein-Lorentz RELATIVITY! Capito, idiot?

I provided the links for this case of MOSFET without hesitation, because it's clear the classical origin of theories initially used.

Fermi did a hell of a job with his non-relativistic, non QM related statistics. Look at applied statistical mechanics for its true origin,
far from the QM band of 10 guys involved.

On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 9:42:38 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz went ballistic:
> Dirac statistic was developed TIME after Fermi, the champion of solid state and nuclear physics.
>
> It's only the MF historian of physics who named it as Fermi-Dirac, as if Dirac had contributed with some value.
>

Easy , dumbestfuck, easy

You are going to give yourself a coronary or a stroke. You are drowning in your spittle again. You see, ALL conductivity (including semiconductor, of course) is explained by the electron band theory which, in turn, is explained by QFT. Every time you open your mouth to spew your imbecilities, I shovel some shit in it.

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 11:30:22 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> You are going to give yourself a coronary or a stroke. You are drowning in your spittle again. You see, ALL conductivity (including semiconductor, of course) is explained by the electron band theory which, in turn, is explained by QFT. Every time you open your mouth to spew your imbecilities, I shovel some shit in it.

How the fuck would you know?

Keep counting burgers, math BsC dropout.

You are the most ignorant person regarding electronics at this forum, and I even include Moroney and Bodin, whom are just
a bit above you in terms of wide spectrum ignorance.

Semiconductors knowledge has been developed since 1880. Had you ever know what Braun, the german physicist, accomplished?

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 8:58:48 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 11:30:22 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > You are going to give yourself a coronary or a stroke. You are drowning in your spittle again. You see, ALL conductivity (including semiconductor, of course) is explained by the electron band theory which, in turn, is explained by QFT. Every time you open your mouth to spew your imbecilities, I shovel some shit in it.
> How the fuck would you know?
>
Well, you are frothing at the mouth, your face is all red, your throat veins are ready to burst and your mouth is full of shit. This is how I know.

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 3:56:23 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> I quote Feynman's statement:
>
> "The complete quantum mechanics ... works as follows: The probability that a particle starting at point 1 at the time t1 will arrive
> at point 2 at time t2 is the SQUARE OF PROBABILITY AMPLITUDE.

Square of the absolute value of the amplitude.

> The TOTAL amplitude can be written as the sum of the amplitudes
> for each possible path [worldline] for each way of arrival.

It's not just a sum, it's a very carefully weighted sum. It looks like you are quoting from
a pop-sci text that Feynman wrote, or some sort of summary.

> For every x(t) ... we have to calculate an amplitude. Then we add them all together.

You don't just add them, it's far more subtle than that. It's so idiosyncratic, in fact, that
it cannot be mimicked by the standard measure theory approach to integrals.

> The amplitude is proportional to some constant times exp(iS/h_bar), where S is action for that path."

Yes. Except, again, it's far more subtle. Feynman is flying high here over the details of the terrain.

> And all of this shit is derived from de Broglie's assumption that mc² = hf (a marriage between relativity output and classic interpretation
> of quantums of action by Planck in the BBC problem).

Well, you are not qualified to call it "shit" or "perfection", sorry.

> So, with these undulatory and probabilistic behavior of particles, in the quantum world, the degeneracy of thought begin.

Again, you are just fantasising here if you think even for a fraction of a second that
you can say anything regarding the quality of the theory. Just pick a different hobby.

--
Jan

On 10/21/2021 11:58 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 11:30:22 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You are going to give yourself a coronary or a stroke. You are drowning in your spittle again. You see, ALL conductivity (including semiconductor, of course) is explained by the electron band theory which, in turn, is explained by QFT. Every time you open your mouth to spew your imbecilities, I shovel some shit in it.
>
> How the fuck would you know?

Perhaps he has an EE degree, or was working toward one?

For my degree, I had to take a course where I had to learn the electron
band gap theory and enough QFT to support it, what makes materials
conductors, semiconductors or insulators, why doping affects
semiconductors etc. The theory behind enhancement mode and depletion
mode FETs, bipolar transistors, diodes and so forth. I didn't care for
that course, as I was more interested in learning how to design circuits
from transistors rather than design transistors from sand.

Why didn't you know of such a course, if you have an EE degree?
Shouldn't you have had to pass such a course for the EE degree? Did you
pay someone to take that course/pass its exams for you? Or are you just
lying about your EE degree?

> You are the most ignorant person regarding electronics at this forum, and I even include Moroney and Bodin, whom are just
> a bit above you in terms of wide spectrum ignorance.

No, you have a huge lead in the ignorance department, as long as you
ignore the ankle biters from the peanut gallery such as Maciej.

> Semiconductors knowledge has been developed since 1880.

And now explained by QFT.

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 11:43:08 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/21/2021 11:58 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 11:30:22 AM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> You are going to give yourself a coronary or a stroke. You are drowning in your spittle again. You see, ALL conductivity (including semiconductor, of course) is explained by the electron band theory which, in turn, is explained by QFT. Every time you open your mouth to spew your imbecilities, I shovel some shit in it.
> >
> > How the fuck would you know?
> Perhaps he has an EE degree, or was working toward one?
>
I took solid state physics. Several courses.

On 10/20/2021 12:10 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:

> But your stupid mind can't understand how such evolution was achieved in the last 50 years of applied engineering, to increase
> ICs power by 1,000,000 times and decrease sizes and power consumption by the same factor.

Thanks to the ability of good engineers to apply QFT successfully!

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 3:43:08 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> > How the fuck would you know?
> Perhaps he has an EE degree, or was working toward one?

LOL! Dono the engineer? Give me a break, please!

> For my degree, I had to take a course where I had to learn the electron
> band gap theory and enough QFT to support it, what makes materials
> conductors, semiconductors or insulators, why doping affects
> semiconductors etc. The theory behind enhancement mode and depletion
> mode FETs, bipolar transistors, diodes and so forth. I didn't care for
> that course, as I was more interested in learning how to design circuits
> from transistors rather than design transistors from sand.

Stop lying and stop googling shit just to learn what to post. You are not an EE!
Not even a technician, for sure. The comment "rather than design transistors from sand" pictures you entirely.
And yet, instead of sand, you choose to became an advocate of the mud that relativity is. Embarrassing.

You couldn't differentiate a transistor from a diode, even if I guide you by telling "one has two and the other has three".

> > Semiconductors knowledge has been developed since 1880.
> And now explained by QFT.

Tell that to Najmzadeh, Sallese, Berthomé, Grabinski, and Ionescu (all of them EE and members of the IEEE)

Local Volume Depletion/Accumulation in GAA Si Nanowire Junctionless nMOSFETs

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Cross-sectional-QED-at-the-middle-of-a-GAA-15-nm-wide-Si-NW-JL-MOSFET-for-three-operation_fig4_253329734

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 2:41:55 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 3:56:23 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > I quote Feynman's statement:
> >
> > "The complete quantum mechanics ... works as follows: The probability that a particle starting at point 1 at the time t1 will arrive
> > at point 2 at time t2 is the SQUARE OF PROBABILITY AMPLITUDE.
> Square of the absolute value of the amplitude.
> > The TOTAL amplitude can be written as the sum of the amplitudes
> > for each possible path [worldline] for each way of arrival.
> It's not just a sum, it's a very carefully weighted sum. It looks like you are quoting from
> a pop-sci text that Feynman wrote, or some sort of summary.
> > For every x(t) ... we have to calculate an amplitude. Then we add them all together.
> You don't just add them, it's far more subtle than that. It's so idiosyncratic, in fact, that
> it cannot be mimicked by the standard measure theory approach to integrals.
> > The amplitude is proportional to some constant times exp(iS/h_bar), where S is action for that path."
> Yes. Except, again, it's far more subtle. Feynman is flying high here over the details of the terrain.
> > And all of this shit is derived from de Broglie's assumption that mc² = hf (a marriage between relativity output and classic interpretation
> > of quantums of action by Planck in the BBC problem).
> Well, you are not qualified to call it "shit" or "perfection", sorry.
> > So, with these undulatory and probabilistic behavior of particles, in the quantum world, the degeneracy of thought begin.
> Again, you are just fantasising here if you think even for a fraction of a second that
> you can say anything regarding the quality of the theory. Just pick a different hobby.
>
> --
> Jan

Now you correct Feynman? How deep are you willing to fall spiraling down to full dementia?

Hubris too much!

On Thursday, 21 October 2021 at 20:58:53 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/20/2021 12:10 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > But your stupid mind can't understand how such evolution was achieved in the last 50 years of applied engineering, to increase
> > ICs power by 1,000,000 times and decrease sizes and power consumption by the same factor.
> Thanks to the ability of good engineers to apply QFT successfully!

And making GPS clocks measuring t'=t, just like
all serious clocks always did.

On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 12:26:48 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 2:41:55 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 3:56:23 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > I quote Feynman's statement:
> > >
> > > "The complete quantum mechanics ... works as follows: The probability that a particle starting at point 1 at the time t1 will arrive
> > > at point 2 at time t2 is the SQUARE OF PROBABILITY AMPLITUDE.
> > Square of the absolute value of the amplitude.
> > > The TOTAL amplitude can be written as the sum of the amplitudes
> > > for each possible path [worldline] for each way of arrival.
> > It's not just a sum, it's a very carefully weighted sum. It looks like you are quoting from
> > a pop-sci text that Feynman wrote, or some sort of summary.
> > > For every x(t) ... we have to calculate an amplitude. Then we add them all together.
> > You don't just add them, it's far more subtle than that. It's so idiosyncratic, in fact, that
> > it cannot be mimicked by the standard measure theory approach to integrals.
> > > The amplitude is proportional to some constant times exp(iS/h_bar), where S is action for that path."
> > Yes. Except, again, it's far more subtle. Feynman is flying high here over the details of the terrain.
> > > And all of this shit is derived from de Broglie's assumption that mc² = hf (a marriage between relativity output and classic interpretation
> > > of quantums of action by Planck in the BBC problem).
> > Well, you are not qualified to call it "shit" or "perfection", sorry.
> > > So, with these undulatory and probabilistic behavior of particles, in the quantum world, the degeneracy of thought begin.
> > Again, you are just fantasising here if you think even for a fraction of a second that
> > you can say anything regarding the quality of the theory. Just pick a different hobby.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> Now you correct Feynman? How deep are you willing to fall spiraling down to full dementia?

I'm not correcting Feynman, only pointing out that what you quoted was
a pop-sci text or some sort of summary by Feynman. You cannot use that
sort of thing to form any valid opinion on the subject's correctness.

> Hubris too much!

No, just pointing out the obvious.

--
Jan