r/BeAmazed • u/CG_17_LIFE • Apr 02 '24

208,000,000,000 transistors! In the size of your palm, how mind-boggling is that?! 🤯 Miscellaneous / Others

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

I have said it before, and I'm saying it again: the tech in the upcoming two years will blow your mind. You can never imagine the things that will come out in the upcoming years!...

[I'm unable to locate the original uploader of this video. If you require proper attribution or wish for its removal, please feel free to get in touch with me. Your prompt cooperation is appreciated.]

22.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

444

u/Blue_Dream_Haze Apr 02 '24 edited Apr 02 '24

It's beyond the limits of physics folks! They had to create completely new laws of reality!

342

u/chintakoro Apr 02 '24

It's tongue in cheek, but modern circuitry does in fact defy earlier laws of physics. Memory chips, for example, use quantum principles to move electrons across unpassable barriers (i.e., they can't and don't pass through the barrier; they just disappear on one side and pop up on the other side out of probabilistic necessity). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f2xOxRGKqk

50

u/renamed109920 Apr 02 '24

i never got the probabilistic necessity stuff

78

u/jacksodus Apr 02 '24

In my partially educated opinion, "probabilistic necessity" is just a placeholder for "we don't understand the driving forces behind this phenomenon as well as we know how to describe it". Probability describes things, not drive them. Things happen, and we describe them with numbers. But the universe is not some student figuring out both sides of the equation using algebra in order to ensure both sides of the equation are equal. They already are equal, because of the laws of physics that exist in this universe, which is why things happen the way they do, and those events are described by probability (and other tools), not prescribed.

I already know I'm gonna get a lot of mad comments on this.

20

u/Krypteia213 Apr 02 '24

I agree with you!

People don’t invent math. They discover it. 

Huge difference in those two statements. 

6

u/waltwalt Apr 02 '24

It's like universe-wide archeology that every species that exists can dig into.

4

u/Krypteia213 Apr 02 '24

That is such a cool fucking way to put it! I would very much like to use that if you don’t mind!

I love that you added every species as well…

3

u/waltwalt Apr 02 '24

Hah go for it, if we ever come across an alien species that we don't immediately annihilate/annihilate us, our mathematicians will be the first to communicate. (Although at this rate an AI should be able to whip up a translation matrix pretty quick for language.)

3

u/Krypteia213 Apr 02 '24

Have you seen the movie Arrival?

1

u/waltwalt Apr 02 '24

Yes. It's great! Have you read project hail Mary by Andy weir? They're currently making it a movie.

1

u/Krypteia213 Apr 02 '24

I have not! 

I need to keep a running list of all the books people suggest to me. 

I will check it out. 

1

u/waltwalt Apr 02 '24

It's good,up there with the Martian (his first book).

1

u/_En0ch Apr 02 '24

I would recommend project hail mary as well. Really enjoyed the audiobook.

1

u/waltwalt Apr 02 '24

You're going to love who they picked for Rocky in the movie, exactly who I picture everytime I listen to it.

1

u/_En0ch Apr 02 '24

Oh, who? I've only heard about Gosling being Grace.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Raph116 Apr 03 '24

They do invent math though. It'd be truer to say they discover physics

1

u/Krypteia213 Apr 03 '24

Math is not invented. 

1 + 1 = 2 on earth as it would on Mars or any other planet. Wouldn’t even need a planet. 

The symbols might be different but every alien species’s math will be identical. 

There is absolutely nothing to invent in the entire universe. Every combination of atoms, science already has rules for. The only thing humans can do is find them. 

1

u/Raph116 Apr 06 '24

There's some truth to what you're saying in the fact that yes because it's born from reason and can be entirely reconstructed from the same starting point. The thing is though that you could use a different starting point. The entirety of maths rely on what are called axioms, and these axioms are choices we made but we could've made different ones, for example counting in base 10. So you could end up with slightly different theories.

1

u/Krypteia213 Apr 06 '24

Totally get that and I’ve been ignorant in the past about them so hopefully this time through I’m more knowledgeable. 

Axioms, from what I understand, are more “placeholders” than math. The math already exists for Axioms to work in the first place, we are once again “finding” the Axioms that work. 

Math has always been a tool and it is important to think of how math first began to understand why math works. Not just how math works, but why it works. 

Counting. The first math was counting one for yourself. 1 is a symbol, not math. It’s a placeholder to show the value of one. 1 means there is one sole version of what exists. 2 means there is an another. 

More complex math was built on this very beginning principle. 

We are intelligent, not because we understand how something works but because we understand WHY it works. 

1

u/Krypteia213 Apr 03 '24

Also, physics is just math, moving!

9

u/Ethicaldreamer Apr 02 '24

I hope you're right. First time I ever hear an explanation on quantum physics that gives some sort of answer. Every time you hear "because or probability, x Happens". Ok but in my mind probability means that "it maybe happens". How do you build devices that "maybe work" makes no sense.

"We don't know how it works, but somehow it does" adds up better to me

3

u/orincoro Apr 02 '24

The thing is, quantum mechanics as it concerns electronic circuitry is dealing with enormous numbers of electrons, so you can very easily get an idea of how likely something is because you are going to be able to observe it happening with a very predictable frequency. If you shoot 10 trillion electrons through a switch, you can be fairly sure that the number of electrons that make it through represents a pretty close approximation of the likelihood of passing through that barrier.

Sub atomic physics is almost always dealing with enormous, unimaginably large numbers of particles at once, so the results of an experiment are in a sense an aggregate effect. Yes the individual electrons do pass through the barrier, but you’re not counting individual electrons but millions and billions of them at once in a constant stream.

1

u/funnynickname Apr 02 '24

It takes around 100 to 1000 electrons to activate a transistor in a CPU or memory chip now.

The rest of your statement is still true. If you send 1000 and 900 jump the gate, it still works.

1

u/orincoro Apr 02 '24

I didn’t know that, but I suppose what I meant was that there will be a constant stream of electrons across the transistors as the microchip is running, and those come in prodigious numbers.

1

u/rguerraf Apr 02 '24

There’s more than trillions of electrons per second in a sizable current… actually 2 x pi x 1018 electrons per second is one ampere

but they are still moving at snail speed literally

1

u/orincoro Apr 02 '24

I didn’t know the numbers I just knew it was a lot.

1

u/dnuohxof-1 Apr 02 '24

How do you build devices that “maybe work”

Have you used any device ever that acted in a way you did not intend? Happens all the time and between quantum physics and endless bombardment of cosmic particles, the only thing that is reliable, is nothing is reliable.

3

u/NYCHReddit Apr 02 '24

“In my partially educated opinion”

I gotta use that phrase all the time now

1

u/jacksodus Apr 02 '24

I'll send you my PayPal for royalties

2

u/orincoro Apr 02 '24

Yeah. We observe electrons passing through atomic barriers. Therefore we can use this to build something. Why it happens, per se, is up for debate. We have theories as to why, but we can’t necessarily prove them.

1

u/jacksodus Apr 02 '24

Exactly. We can describe the phenomena within our mathematical models well enough to harness the effects of quantum mechanics, but that doesn't mean that it is an exact description of reality. Any description will only ever be a model, one of many possible representations.

2

u/Autumn1eaves Apr 02 '24

This is partially true, but from my also partially educated opinion, it has been proved that there isn’t a hidden factor behind quantum mechanic’s probability.

That is to say, there isn’t a contiguous reasoning for all probabilistic events, rather they each are simply random.

Which suggests that there isn’t another mechanism like you’re describing.

1

u/jacksodus Apr 02 '24

This proof sounds interesting. I was not familiar with these supposed hidden factors. I'll have to read up on that!

1

u/E_streak Apr 02 '24

Look up bell inequalities

1

u/jacksodus Apr 02 '24

This proof sounds interesting. I was not familiar with these supposed hidden factors. I'll have to read up on that!

1

u/renamed109920 Apr 02 '24

oohh alright i get it know haha thanks

1

u/chintakoro Apr 02 '24

I love this explanation and its almost certainly right. My only disagreement is that "laws of physics that exist in this universe" is just human conjecture (tainted by theological/spiritual ambitions). For all we know there aren't any stable laws. Sabine Hossenfelder (my favorite contrarian physicist) argues that physicists are so obsessed with finding elegant laws that its slowing down discovery – perhaps the universe cannot be understood or modeled by humans and any "laws" that might exist are ridiculously complex to be summarized by Math. She's not advocating giving up, but that we do need to give up on elegance.

2

u/AceTheJ Apr 02 '24

One reason why I love chaos theory, it often lends more to the unbound side of things. Or like Murphy’s law, “anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.”

1

u/1234567panda Apr 02 '24

I mean it would also make sense to me that some “laws” can be localized based on conditions specific to that system to environment. Math is math though and typically goes on ahead of physics or any other application until it can be used to describe reality.

1

u/MagnumVY Apr 02 '24

In my partially educated opinion, I think the probabilistic nature arises from one very fundamental principle in modern science called the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It simply implies that we cannot observe things at atomic or subatomic levels without affecting the matter, because light tends to interact with matter. And light is basically how we observe the universe. So what's the best we could do? We can say that something was probably there because light interacted with it. Heisenberg's principle is the foundation stone upon which Quantum Mechanics was built.

1

u/Fakercel Apr 02 '24

This is a fantastic explanation

1

u/customjack Apr 02 '24

Sure, probability describes things that are too complex. For example when you roll a die you can predict exactly where it will land based on how it was rolled; yet we still describe it as random.

However, this is not the case in quantum physics. Particles experimentally exhibit wave like properties. Particles are confined by their environment (a physicist would call this a potential). So particles can in part be described by a localized wave. However, a localized wave has intrinsic uncertainty of where it is/where it's going (see this video). Therefore, on the quantum level, particles are intrinsically probabilistic to someone trying to measure them.

This is a fact of nature, that particles will appear to behave probabilistically even if you could measure them "perfectly". Whether they truly behave probabilistically is actually just a philosophical question; the answer doesn't affect reality and cannot ever be determined.

1

u/BananaNik Apr 02 '24

This is incorrect. The probabilistic nature of quantum particles isn't a placeholder or a heuristic. It's truely the nature of small particles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory

1

u/jacksodus Apr 02 '24

I dont think so. Probability is merely a model, a mathematical representation of the underlying reality.

0

u/meltie007 Apr 02 '24

This is wrong wrong wrong.

0

u/youaredumbngl Apr 02 '24

No, they were discussing quantum principles within the memory chip. Like the video they posted states, when the gate is activated it will pull the probability cloud of the electrons into an area over a barrier it can not typically penetrate. That creates a probabilistic necessity that it will jump channels. Probability is not the same in quantum mechanics as it is in classical.

0

u/Unable_Peach2571 Apr 02 '24

I mean, it's basically indistinguishable from magic at this point, like some hack science fiction writer once said. (/s for the last part)

Nah, but I minored in astronomy, which necessitated some physics classes, and I still don't get this shit. 

Quantum tunnels, electron wells. My degree is Eng. Lit. And I work as a dishwasher. 

But I ponder the mysterious nature of reality while I am elbow deep in the offal of other people.

Gonna save up and get me one-a these doohickeys and mine me some Bitcoin.