3 ms·
They're using the wrong units if we need to consider the nanometer as something other than a measure of distance.
by _heimdall 3y ago
They're using the wrong units if we need to consider the nanometer as something other than a measure of distance.
- defrost 3y agoIn some applications it helps to be fluid in exchanging distance as time with time as distance. http://dataphys.org/list/grace-hopper-nanoseconds/ http://dataphys.org/list/grace-hopper-nanoseconds/ and the field of play here isn't 1D linear .. it's somewhere sort of a bit slightly > 2D (elements can be stacked, there are limitations on how much and how close)
- exe34 3y agoWait till you talk to theoretical physicists who set c=h-bar=1.
- _heimdall 3y agoI have more fundamental concerns to talk with a theoretical physicist about first :D Time to kick an ants nest here... Quantum mechanics is a useless study that had no business being a scientific field. The most fundamental principles, like quantum superposition, can never be tested or validated and therefore could never be used to be predictive of anything other than similarly theoretical ideas.
- exe34 3y agoShut up and calculate.
- bee_rider 3y agoI don’t think they drop the dimensions, just the constants.
- exe34 3y agoIt's equivalent to the 1.6nm != 1.6 nm though.
- bee_rider 3y agoI mean, I get that this is a joke so I’m not going to over-analyze it, but using the fundamental physics constants as units is a totally reasonable thing to do, and nothing like using nm as a unit of… area? Density? Marketing term? It is a mess whatever it is.
- SAI_Peregrinus 3y agoThink of them as "node metrics". 1.4 node metrics, not nanometers. They haven't referred to any distance in years, so make up your favorite backronym. Å can be Åwesomes, so 1.4 node metrics = 14 Åwesomes. Embrace nonsense, the chip makers did!