In article <WsE_3.2603$X5.348693 at ptah.visi.com>,
amolitor-at at visi-dot-com.com wrote:
>In article <VmE_3.16949$1C4.163389 at news1.online.no>,
>patrik bagge <patrik-b at online.no> wrote:
>>All sciences so far have boiled down to something
>>useful or deadly, it's not _a_ science if it does not
>>, just another fantasy of mind...
>> Do transistors work without QM? I've never been quite clear
>on this. Perhaps they do. In ehich case, I then ask: does QM play
>a role in getting good yields on high density chips?
>> I'd be rather surprised to find that QM didn't run up
>SOMEWHERE in the path from sand to 21264s.
How could you not be clear on this? Have you made the SLIGHTEST EFFORT to
read a book on solid state physics? The first chapter of pretty much every
such book in existence starts by discussing the translational symmetry of
a lattice, how that affects Schrodinger's equation to generate solution of
the Bloch form, and how those solutions together with Fermi-Dirac
statistics lead to the concept of a band gap, which is the starting point
for pretty much all transistor effects.
Look, you damn idiots. Just because you have read some new-age pop-physics
treatise on how quantum mechanics proves the existence of god does not
make you an expert on physics. And in the absence of being an expert, your
musings on the subject are of little interest to anyone else.
Maynard (who is damn sick of this)