|
Deteriorata posted:You seem to think "particle physics" was invented about 1995. It has a history going back over 100 years, and most of the principles of QM were developed through the study of particle physics in the first half of the 20th century. So if you're conception of particle physics is limited to what the LHC is doing, then you're right. It will be several decades before anything going on there has any practical uses, if ever. The post I edited out was a snarky and relatively worthless comment on this, but most people would not use "particle physics" as broadly as you are. I do not think it is a huge stretch to say that the last 50 years of discoveries in particle/HE physics have not directly led to many new technological innovations. That isn't an argument against reducing the field's funding [edit: not a good argument, I mean]. And as I said in reply earlier, the technological developments that have come as spin-offs* from particle research (PET, MRI, superconductors, WWW, etc.) are huge. *pun intended BRAKE FOR MOOSE fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Nov 14, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
Wait, was this guy seriously arguing we'd have cellphones without a space program?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:To explain almost all of the physics of semiconductors relevant to transistors and lasers, the only thing you need to know about the nucleus of the atoms in the semiconductor is that they have a positive charge equal to the number of protons in the atom. The various exotic particles that particle physicists spend billions of dollars trying to find don't even enter into the theory at all. Not sure what that even has to do with semiconductors, never mind how it explains everything about them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Wait, was this guy seriously arguing we'd have cellphones without a space program? Well, we probably wouldn't have GPS without a space program, I will grant you that, and GPS is kind of a useful feature on smart phones. But cell phone communication does not require satellites or rocket ships. Jarmak posted:Not sure what that even has to do with semiconductors, never mind how it explains everything about them. I'm saying that the theory for the electronic properties of semiconductors that are relevant to transistors makes no mention of exotic high energy particles. Saying that the atoms in the semiconductor are comprised of protons, neutrons, and electrons is way more than enough information for the theory of semiconductors. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I'm saying that the theory for the electronic properties of semiconductors that are relevant to transistors makes no mention of exotic high energy particles. Saying that the atoms in the semiconductor are comprised of protons, neutrons, and electrons is way more than enough information for the theory of semiconductors. Not even loving close dude
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Basic science research of pretty much any kind is incredibly productive. Astrophysics and particle physics are really expensive for a variety of reasons, partially just that they've been super-well-plumbed, but anyone arguing "What is the utility of basic science research" is missing the point by a country mile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Not even loving close dude What is wrong with what I'm saying? I don't think what I am saying there is that controversial. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:What is wrong with what I'm saying? I don't think what I am saying there is that controversial. Modern semiconductor design relies on a lot more than just "yep, got electrons here." Not high energy exotics, but a lot of behaviors that fall into/are derived from the general ambit of particle physics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:What is wrong with what I'm saying? I don't think what I am saying there is that controversial. Proton's have a positive charge, that explains semiconductors! I'm not even sure where to start with that
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:What is wrong with what I'm saying? It's a stupid derail that you reignited after the dust had settled. This is a thread about GMOs, talk about GMOs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Proton's have a positive charge, that explains semiconductors! I'm not saying "protons have positive charge, therefore semiconductors". I'm just saying that transistors are not fruits of particle physics research and to claim transistors as being a technology developed by particle physics research is really misleading. High energy particles don't even appear in the theory for semiconductors or transistors. Kalman posted:a lot of behaviors that fall into/are derived from the general ambit of particle physics. Like what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Well, we probably wouldn't have GPS without a space program, I will grant you that, and GPS is kind of a useful feature on smart phones. But cell phone communication does not require satellites or rocket ships. Hah, yeah, I guess this is true. In my mind, the function of a smart phone is pretty tied in with that though, and I wasn't really thinking of how the "basic" features like calling aren't dependent on it. And a cell phone isn't a smart phone, so my bad. Satellite phones and satellite internet and satellite TV are all pretty big deals though. (Note: Not if you're in Europe or most of the US, admittedly)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Without space travel we would have shittier weather prediction, worse understanding of climate, and a lot worse crop yields and worse harm from storms. That's probably the most straightforward benefit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Particles are a hoax scientists came up with to scam government grant money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I'm not saying "protons have positive charge, therefore semiconductors". I'm just saying that transistors are not fruits of particle physics research and to claim transistors as being a technology developed by particle physics research is really misleading. High energy particles don't even appear in the theory for semiconductors or transistors. Am I missing something where quantum mechanics is not considered particle physics? Jarmak fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Particles are a hoax scientists came up with to scam government grant money. Particlegate. Particles don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:35
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
silence_kit posted:Like what? Tunneling issues in thin film insulators and dielectrics/tunneling limitations on scaling, investigation of TFETs, quantum confinement effects, etc. Basically semiconductor engineering is now at the point where the materials science requires some particle physics (particularly with respect to quantum issues) to actually do any meaningful work. Not high energy particle physics, but the groundwork done earlier is definitely in the category. If you want to limit particle physics to high energy particle physics I guess I would probably agree with you for now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Tunneling issues in thin film insulators and dielectrics/tunneling limitations on scaling . . . quantum confinement effects, etc. Yes, as I mentioned before, people use crude empirically-based models of tunneling to model various non-idealities of the transistor, like as you mention, the current leakage through the gate insulator or current leakage from source to drain in a very short gate length transistor. The quantum size effect (what every physics student learns in intro QM when studying the energies of particles in potential wells) is not that important in silicon except for devices with very small dimensions since the electron effective mass is so high. Although technically, it is responsible for shifting the threshold voltage a little bit in every MOS transistor ever made. The quantum size effect does play an important role in many optical semiconductor devices, though. Kalman posted:If you want to limit particle physics to high energy particle physics I guess I would probably agree with you for now? Yeah, that's what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
You should read the papers coming out as engineers work on 10nm and smaller devices. It's not crude models of tunneling these days - it's very precise modeling of exactly what tunneling effects will screw their transistor up and how (or in the case of TFETs, how they can use it to make a transistor work.) E: I mean, we're talking about devices with physical dimensions measured in single digit numbers of atoms. The behaviors and properties of individual particles becomes important at that scale.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Yeah, that's what I mean. Congrats on using a completely different definition than the entire rest of the world. Now please take this stupid derail somewhere else and talk about GMO's.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Taffer posted:Congrats on using a completely different definition than the entire rest of the world. Lol, that's certainly not true. I've never heard a condensed matter or atomic & molecular physicist refer to themselves as particle physicists, even though the physical objects they study are comprised of particles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Lol, that's certainly not true. I've never heard a condensed matter or atomic & molecular physicist refer to themselves as particle physicists, even though the physical objects they study are comprised of particles. Are you contending that particle physics as a field did not exist before the study of high energy particles?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Are you contending that particle physics as a field did not exist before the study of high energy particles? Apparently only high energy particle physics is valid in his mind....?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Apparently only high energy particle physics is valid in his mind....? I think the issue is he's using the contemporary definition of the field to measure the bounds of its contribution to something that was invented before the contemporary definition existed. edit: In other words, he's correct in his definition of what a modern particle physicist studies, but that doesn't mean historical work done in the field that predated the study of high energy particles was not also particle physics. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
OK lol you guys win. I guess I forgot to put "high energy" in front of "particle physics" in my first post in this thread to appease the pedants who are unable to derive meaning from context on this board.
silence_kit fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:OK lol you guys win. I guess I forgot to put "high" in front of energy in my first post in this thread to appease the pedants who are unable to derive meaning from context on this board. This was your quote: silence_kit posted:Lol, this isn't true. We didn't need particle physics for there to be transistors or lasers or the internet. People, you included, often overstate the applications which come out of this kind of research. People love to also overstate this stuff about what came out of NASA too. I think once on this board, someone claimed that there would be no cell phone or no micro-computer without NASA, which is laughable. It is a bad post. Lasers depended entirely on particle physics research--changing the state of electrons. And a real list of everything NASA has contributed to is immense, because goddamn satellites. Particle physics, both high-energy and the general study of nuclear particles, led to incredible revolutions all over the place and is pretty hard to overestimate scientifically. Furthermore, since high energy physics is still pretty novel, we've yet to see all the applications of it, and what we have already seen is impressive. Why you're putting this much energy into defending a lovely half-assed post I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Silence_kit is using an accurate definition, you gaggle of retards. Particle physics is an actual field, not a catch-all term for everything that involves quantum mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
disheveled posted:Silence_kit is using an accurate definition, you gaggle of retards. Particle physics is an actual field, not a catch-all term for everything that involves quantum mechanics. Particle physics, in the modern sense, usually but not always means looking at the really tiny stuff, but if you're going to talk about lasers, you really are still talking about particle physics. Taxonomy is taxonomy, it's not super-important, if you're talking about the research in the 1960s (like on lasers and poo poo) then those people were working with the smallest units at the time anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
disheveled posted:Silence_kit is using an accurate definition, you gaggle of retards. Particle physics is an actual field, not a catch-all term for everything that involves quantum mechanics. No he's not. "Particle physics" includes the study of all subatomic particles, not just short-lived high energy ones. High-energy physics is a sub-discipline within that field.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
disheveled posted:Silence_kit is using an accurate definition, you gaggle of retards. Particle physics is an actual field, not a catch-all term for everything that involves quantum mechanics. No, he's not. And he's failing to acknowledge the massive contributions of physicists prior to the invention of the transistor, which none the less played key roles in developing the theories for the phenomenon that transistors take advantage of.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Make a fuckin' thread about it, poo poo
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Has anyone else noticed how lovely an argument it is even if the definitions are correct? "Hah, all these incredibly valuable technologies are based on physics fundamentals researched years ago, and this is why we should stop funding physics and focus on things with known and immediate payoff."
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Has anyone else noticed how lovely an argument it is even if the definitions are correct? This is kind of what I was getting at but I got mired in phrasing it in the context of the stupid definitions debate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
I got some crazy anti-GMO anti-chemotherapy rant blog site sent to me on Facebook and I have one question - why the hell are these people so obsessed with the GMO BRAIN NEUROTOXIN CANCER CAUSING MSG?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
As someone with a physics degree, each and every one of you should shut the gently caress up about talk about MonfuckingsantoLuigi Thirty posted:I got some crazy anti-GMO anti-chemotherapy rant blog site sent to me on Facebook and I have one question - why the hell are these people so obsessed with the GMO BRAIN NEUROTOXIN CANCER CAUSING MSG? From what I've seen over the course of the thread, I'm starting to wonder if this stuff is just people finding new names for old fears. Like, start looking at that poo poo and replacing "toxins" with "bad spirits", and "GMO food" with "sinful behavior". Slanderer fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:I got some crazy anti-GMO anti-chemotherapy rant blog site sent to me on Facebook and I have one question - why the hell are these people so obsessed with the GMO BRAIN NEUROTOXIN CANCER CAUSING MSG? For real, a lot of MSG fearmongering comes straight outta racism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:OK lol you guys win. I guess I forgot to put "high energy" in front of "particle physics" in my first post in this thread to appease the pedants who are unable to derive meaning from context on this board. But even if you limited your definition of "particle physics" to only include the LHC and beyond, you'd still be wrong because you don't understand the benefits of basic research. If you were alive in the 1800s then you'd be accusing Faraday of wasting time loving around with magnets instead of doing something really valuable like studying the aether The idea that we should stop funding basic physics research is just as bad as the idea that we should stop funding GMO research, or that we shouldn't plant GMOs at all. History doesn't support any of those conclusions, and it never has. Grafting was probably a pretty freaky concept when it was first being used, but people saw the benefits and eventually grafting became the norm. GMOs are experiencing the same new-thing cycle of "OH gently caress SCARY NEW THING BAN IT BAN IT oh wait it's not so bad" as countless other new things before it
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:For real, a lot of MSG fearmongering comes straight outta racism. Aha, I found the article again. If you eat McDonald's fries, you're actually eating GMO black mold!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:Aha, I found the article again. If you eat McDonald's fries, you're actually eating GMO black mold! The real world is complicated and difficult to understand. This causes a lot of anxiety in some people, who don't have the background or training to figure it out on their own. Conspiracy theories offer a simplistic shortcut to "understanding" that helps these people feel like they know what's going on and thus relieves their anxiety.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
Slanderer posted:As someone with a physics degree, each and every one of you should shut the gently caress up about talk about Monfuckingsanto  I'll have my physics degree....someday...Luigi Thirty posted:I got some crazy anti-GMO anti-chemotherapy rant blog site sent to me on Facebook and I have one question - why the hell are these people so obsessed with the GMO BRAIN NEUROTOXIN CANCER CAUSING MSG? For the same reason that people still buy into chemtrail crap instead of simply accepting that its condensation. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 04:17
|
|