4 ms·
As a physicist, I really want to argue with that statement. In particular, computer hardware operates (by design) as far as possible from any regimes where the
by neutronicus 15y ago
As a physicist, I really want to argue with that statement.
In particular, computer hardware operates (by design) as far as possible from any regimes where the laws of physics are well and truly complicated. A tokamak fusion reactor, by contrast, although it breaks down into orders of magnitude fewer logical parts, contains a big blob of monolithic, continuous complexity, namely the plasma itself and all its associated electromagnetic fields, which you CS types sell short. :p
- jbigelow76 15y agoLeave it to a physicist to make everyone aware of the gravity of the previous comment. :)
- js2 15y agohttp://xkcd.com/435/ http://xkcd.com/435/
- nl 15y agoIs this actually the case though? Isn't the physics of CPU design (quantum tunneling etc) just as complicated as that of a fusion reactor (or arguably more so?) If you meant that the behavior of the plasma itself is complex from the mathematical point of view.. yes, that is true. But it _is_ modeled (along with nuclear explosions) on one of those computer thing you physics type sell short. :P
- neutronicus 15y agoOh, solid state physics is plenty complicated. But in the regime where computers operate, you can successfully model the chip as a bunch of discrete signals and NAND gates and shit (ignorance showing through here). And, yes, I swept computational physics under the rug. Ironic, really, because that's my niche.