Curse

Dark Kal · May 27, 2008, 10:30 AM // 10:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by zamial

BTW I run a pure DDR2 SLI system

DDR3 is the most future prove. It's not the best at the moment but it will most likely be the best in the near future hence it's advisable to go with DDR3 if you can afford it.

Quote:

Your monitor will not display more than it refresh rate.

Only if you enable the "vertical synch" option otherwise screen tearing will occur which might be preferable to some people. Also higher graphic cards will be able to uphold higher FPS during more graphic intense situations (e.g. a lot of action going on at the same time).

Quote:

thus entropy can actually "destroy" the electrons

I don't know of anything that can destroy an electron other than anti-matter.

zamial · May 27, 2008, 11:56 AM // 11:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Kal

DDR3 is the most future prove. It's not the best at the moment but it will most likely be the best in the near future hence it's advisable to go with DDR3 if you can afford it.

I don't know of anything that can destroy an electron other than anti-matter.

DDR3 is far from future proof, this has been readily discussed in these forums. I will not relight that fire here. My comment there was about the motherboard.
*
And you will have tearing yes but more importantly its the refresh rate. This is measured in Mhz. It is also how fast the screen will/can refresh. So, if you force it higher than this, you will have tearing. There is 0 benefit from having a higher FPS than the refresh rate of the monitor. This is why Vsync exists, so that during graphics intensive areas of a game it doesn't drop.
*
As far as that goes we are talking physics here. According to my buddy Al (Einstein maybe you are familiar?) Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, This was also his argument that there was an afterlife. What is being discussed here is our lil electron buddies are getting "lost" and then "reappearing" in other places inside the new computer chips.
IF you have white papers on an anti-matter chip I'm sure we would all love to see it!

Quaker · May 27, 2008, 04:19 PM // 16:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by zamial

DDR3 is far from future proof, this has been readily discussed in these forums.

I'd have to agree. With the rapid speed with which computer stuff changes these days, there's hardly any sense in trying to "future proof" your computer.
For example, if you go with 4 gigs of DDR3 today, by the time the "future" comes around, there'll either be an even newer type of RAM, or 4 gigs will be too little.

Quote:

...but more importantly its the refresh rate. This is measured in Mhz.

Monitor refresh rate is measured in "Hz" (Hertz) not "MHz" (megaHertz). A monitor that refreshes over a million times per second would be really something. (And some people would still turn off Vsync)

Lord Sojar · May 27, 2008, 09:55 PM // 21:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by zamial

As far as that goes we are talking physics here. According to my buddy Al (Einstein maybe you are familiar?) Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, This was also his argument that there was an afterlife. What is being discussed here is our lil electron buddies are getting "lost" and then "reappearing" in other places inside the new computer chips.
IF you have white papers on an anti-matter chip I'm sure we would all love to see it!

Bingo, that is correct. While electrons cannot be destroyed, they can be so compacted inside a transistor cell, that they become chaotic, and are rapidly accelerated. This bumping, acceleration, bumping infinite loop creates a lot of entropy within a given layer of the processor's P1 wafer, and when that happens, you break down SiO2 layers (the primary reason Intel switched to Hafnium technology). This randomization of the electrons can also, at times, push electrons past a gate controller, into another transistor cell (data location), which generates an error. Depending on the severity of degradation, this can cause a simple error that can be corrected by the processors back check systems, or it can create a fatal error, which can cause crashing, freezing, corruption of additional data, etc. One the degradation reaches a critical level, it can result in total hardware failure, usually evident by artifacting, no monitor signal, or total picture corruption (non artifact type). That is why I put the "destroyed" in the quote marks!

Oh, and I deleted the bit about refresh rate, but it is measured in Hz, and that is due to output from the GPU in relation to cycle timing and the monitors ability to re-excite the crystal matrices (when I type or say that, it always sounds like I am from Star Trek... oh well) In their excited state, they emit colored light, which our eyes interpret as a picture when they are placed together, much like a mosaic. There is a benefit to having a higher FPS than your refresh rate of said monitor... however, that benefit is merely that you can turn on VSYNC and hold a steady FPS at that level, rather then it fluctuating below the Hz value, resulting in poorer picture. More is good, less is worse.

Oh, and anti matter cannot destroy an electron per say. Without getting into transitive properties of matter and quantum physics (which I loathe), essentially an electron can never be truly destroyed, only negated and redisposed as a neutral mass of dark matter. In this process however, entropy is created, thus mass is converted, not destroyed. The total chaos of the system rises, but the energy stays the same. Dark matter is an odd cookie. You can NEVER destroy matter, but you can change its form. Always remember that.

For all of you with doubts, you can see this from the formula:

m8%v >~ {[3^4 (pi^2)]/[2^s(g^2)]} x {[h^6]/[(G^3)(R^3)M]}

g = total number of degree of latitude for any given neutrino, inclusive of the helicity state for each particle/antiparticle

m8%v is the phase-space density where v = p/m, being the average velocity of the neutrino in a given space at any given point in time, time being excluded thusly.

If that isn't clear, I wouldn't bother too much to figure it out, I managed a C+ in that course with literally 100's of hours of studying.

zamial · May 28, 2008, 02:33 AM // 02:33

I is soz for the wrong refresh it is Hz not Mhz lol. To little sleep for me.

Lord Sojar · May 28, 2008, 08:55 AM // 08:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by zamial

I is soz for the wrong refresh it is Hz not Mhz lol. To little sleep for me.

Happens to the best of us. Just imagine when you are at a board meeting with people around you that expect you to be intelligent, and you use the wrong term....

Case in point, about 4 months ago, I was sitting in on one of the upper cache engineering teams' meetings, just to gather some insight. They turn to me with a question, and I reply "Around 3GHz." The question, mind you, was "What do you think of a bilayer in [such and such areas]?" To top it all off, I didn't realize my error, so these guys and gals were just staring at me, like WTF is he talking about? So Greg, one of my buds looks at me, and asks "Are you high?" I swear to god, he said that... yeh... this is a corporate meeting with one of the FELLOWS sitting there. If you don't know what a fellow is... well, they are essentially the geniuses that came up with most of what we know modern computing to be today, and they are old and crusty, and mean, and... amazingly smart and make you feel as tall as an ant when they walk through a door in your vicinity, much less listening to you at a meeting. I mean, I love to belittle my interns (I am like the computer engineering version of Dr. House, which isn't a good thing btw), but... Senior Fab Engineer <<<<<<<<<<<< Fellow. I felt like a complete idiot.... oh well, it happens.

Tamuril elansar · May 28, 2008, 09:03 AM // 09:03

DDR3 if you have the money.

Lord Sojar · May 28, 2008, 09:06 AM // 09:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tamuril elansar

DDR3 if you have the money.

Well that was blunt... DDR3 has its drawbacks at this point in time, but I agree, if you have the budget, you will probably have the budget later on to upgrade to a lower latency version of what you buy now.

Or you could buy parallel memory, which installs via.... wait, no...shutting up.

Snograt · May 28, 2008, 10:05 AM // 10:05

Argh, you tease...

Lord Sojar · May 28, 2008, 10:07 AM // 10:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snograt

Argh, you tease...

MUAHAHHA! Vague NDA statements that really mean nothing to anyone, but still manage to drive them nuts. <3 it. I do this to my interns, but with different topics. I am going to hell, I swear it...

Dark Kal · May 28, 2008, 10:27 AM // 10:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by zamial

DDR3 is far from future proof, this has been readily discussed in these forums. I will not relight that fire here. My comment there was about the motherboard.

Nothing is future proof especially in the PC world, but DDR3 is more likely future proof than DDR2 is.

Quote:

There is 0 benefit from having a higher FPS than the refresh rate of the monitor.

No, the benefit is screen tearing which is preferable in first person shooters.

Quote:

This is why Vsync exists, so that during graphics intensive areas of a game it doesn't drop.

No, that's not what Vsync does at all. You can't force your graphic card to do more work than it could possible do. Vsync caps your FPS at your monitors refresh rate (i.e. it wont display more FPS than your monitor's refresh rate but it can display less FPS) and makes sure only one frame is displayed at a time, so screen tearing doesn't occur. That's the reason it exists.

Quote:

As far as that goes we are talking physics here. According to my buddy Al (Einstein maybe you are familiar?) Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, This was also his argument that there was an afterlife. What is being discussed here is our lil electron buddies are getting "lost" and then "reappearing" in other places inside the new computer chips.
IF you have white papers on an anti-matter chip I'm sure we would all love to see it!

An electron is actually matter not energy but it's one of the smallest building blocks in life and therefor extremely hard to devide into even smaller components or convert to energy. So the "lost" and "reappearing" electrons are more sensible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quaker

And some people would still turn off Vsync

Because you have over a million FPS??? There would be no need for Vsync with a refresh rate that fast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

Oh, and anti matter cannot destroy an electron per say. Without getting into transitive properties of matter and quantum physics (which I loathe), essentially an electron can never be truly destroyed, only negated and redisposed as a neutral mass of dark matter. In this process however, entropy is created, thus mass is converted, not destroyed. The total chaos of the system rises, but the energy stays the same.

It depends on your definition of "destroy". When an electron combines with an anti-electron (or positron) they're fully converted to energy. They're however not converted to any other type of mass and dark matter is something completely different. I'm assuming you're confusing things.

Lord Sojar · May 28, 2008, 10:20 PM // 22:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Kal

It depends on your definition of "destroy". When an electron combines with an anti-electron (or positron) they're fully converted to energy. They're however not converted to any other type of mass and dark matter is something completely different. I'm assuming you're confusing things.

No, positron emissions come in trillions of helicity states. Electrons only have 2 helicity states, h/2 and -h/2, , and they only have charge states. Only if the electron and positron are of equal mass, and the positron is in helicity state equal to the electrons (the chances are astronomical), would you get full matter conversion to energy, also known as 100% efficiency.

In all typical electron/positron collisions, some of the matter that is created is indeed dark matter. This isn't the same dark matter you might be acquainted with. This dark matter is laced between a Higgs latice, and thusly, is highly unstable. Typically the positron is much more powerful than the electron, which means you don't get total neutralization, but rather a positive reaction. The amount of energy released is not equal to the mass of the objects because of dark matters properties (it is one of the instances in which E=MC^2 is totally incorrect, because the ToR doesn't take into account dark matter.)

Sorry if this seems like a very cyclic argument. There is no real answer to this question, because we are just now beginning to understand particle physics, especially quarks.

Snograt · May 28, 2008, 10:42 PM // 22:42

You know, Rajah - you could be talking total and utter bollocks and the vast majority of us wouldn't have a clue

Lord Sojar · May 28, 2008, 10:46 PM // 22:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snograt

You know, Rajah - you could be talking total and utter bollocks and the vast majority of us wouldn't have a clue

Oh, I dunno, I really think a lot of people study particle/quantum physics if they are on the geeky side. It is pretty interesting, and some people may have a grasp of the basics. The really really advanced stuff is over my head even, because that isn't where I focused on for my degree or doctrine.

Dark Kal · May 29, 2008, 09:42 AM // 09:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

No, positron emissions come in trillions of helicity states. Electrons only have 2 helicity states, h/2 and -h/2, , and they only have charge states. Only if the electron and positron are of equal mass, and the positron is in helicity state equal to the electrons (the chances are astronomical), would you get full matter conversion to energy, also known as 100% efficiency.

In all typical electron/positron collisions, some of the matter that is created is indeed dark matter. This isn't the same dark matter you might be acquainted with. This dark matter is laced between a Higgs latice, and thusly, is highly unstable. Typically the positron is much more powerful than the electron, which means you don't get total neutralization, but rather a positive reaction. The amount of energy released is not equal to the mass of the objects because of dark matters properties (it is one of the instances in which E=MC^2 is totally incorrect, because the ToR doesn't take into account dark matter.)

Sorry if this seems like a very cyclic argument. There is no real answer to this question, because we are just now beginning to understand particle physics, especially quarks

No, you're wrong positrons and electrons have the same spin (1/2) or helicity states. They both have either the +h/2 or -h/2 state. Electrons and positrons are exactly the same other than that electrons have a negative charge and positrons have a positive charge. (Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_matter)

Electrons (and thereby positrons as well) have a constant mass of 9.109 382 15(45) × 10–31 kg. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron)

Only if the electron and/or positron have significantly high kinetic energies will other particles besides photons be created. None of these other particles refer to dark matter in any way though. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro...n_annihilation)

E=m.c² does apply to electron-positron annihiliation. (Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc)

Although I agree, it's still a relatively new field which still requires a lot of research. But this is how it's understood at this time. If you have (a) source(s) for your theory I'd like to read it/them.

Lord Sojar · May 29, 2008, 03:09 PM // 15:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Kal

No, you're wrong positrons and electrons have the same spin (1/2) or helicity states. They both have either the +h/2 or -h/2 state. Electrons and positrons are exactly the same other than that electrons have a negative charge and positrons have a positive charge. (Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_matter)

Electrons (and thereby positrons as well) have a constant mass of 9.109 382 15(45) × 10–31 kg. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron)

Only if the electron and/or positron have significantly high kinetic energies will other particles besides photons be created. None of these other particles refer to dark matter in any way though. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro...n_annihilation)

E=m.c² does apply to electron-positron annihiliation. (Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc)

Although I agree, it's still a relatively new field which still requires a lot of research. But this is how it's understood at this time. If you have (a) source(s) for your theory I'd like to read it/them.

You are citing understood quantum mechanics... I am stating 4th dimensional theory mechanics, and lesser understood principles. Antimatter in and of itself is erratic, and positrons come in many forms. The standard, understood positron, is predictable. Read up on theory mechanics... I can't really cite sources, don't have copies of my doctoral work lying around, but I had some pretty amazing professors. My education dove into this subject on more than 1 occasion, so I am not misinformed on the subject.

Electron annihilation btw, is not even close to fully understood. Helicity states in our current understanding of dimension are h/2 and -h/2, that is correct. However, if you move into 4th dimensional analysis, you would find that what I said is 100% correct. Wikipedia isn't a good source to cite, especially with all those sourceless pages. I found several errors on the pages, but meh. Wiki isn't an approved source in any university level course, unless the professor is a complete dingbat. While I give you credit for pointing out that my statements are in error in understood 3rd dimensional quantum mechanics and particle physics, my statements were not directed at that. Talking about understood stuff is boring, I like the more interesting stuff. The dark matter I referred to is the leftover matter from the reaction based on dimensional cohesion, not on energy properties. Einstein was wrong on many counts, but his theory holds true in the 3rd dimension we think ourselves to live in.

I am glad to see though, that you are interested in the subject. It is an extremely fascinating field, with many possibilities, theories, and great minds. It also has a lot to do with universal studies, astronomy, and quantum mechanics. The string theory is a fun read; if you have yet to read it, pick a book on it up, and read away. You will be in total awe with some of the stuff. Granted, unless you have gone through some crazy courses such as my personal favorite... physics 663, which is quantum field theory 2... good lord, hard class, got a C in that course, but I did manage an A (probably for effort... lol) in physics 675, general relativity, you probably won't grasp more than 10% of the information, and that is provided you are good at nuclear physics, and understand emission states. Ahhh, I sorta miss university, grad school was a blast.

Snograt · May 29, 2008, 03:20 PM // 15:20

Totally uneducated question here - isn't antimatter a theoretical thing, sort of "we have observed so-and-so happening, we don't understand why, but if we invent something theoretical, all our sums will work"?

The Way Out · May 29, 2008, 03:38 PM // 15:38

Good reading

Rahja, you have two guys here googling what you are talking about (in an attempt to keep up with the conversation and post to your replies)!

"Future proof" isn't a bad way to go if you stick with the next six months as being your "future". DDR2 is standard now. DDR3 is a better performer on the right rigs. I would go with DDR3 until magnetic RAM or a newer technology replaces what we have out now.

Lord Sojar · May 29, 2008, 03:45 PM // 15:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snograt

Totally uneducated question here - isn't antimatter a theoretical thing, sort of "we have observed so-and-so happening, we don't understand why, but if we invent something theoretical, all our sums will work"?

Not completely. Everything has an opposite, both matter and energy. We understand only what our minds can grasp, and that is 3rd dimensional analysis. However, there are conceivably billions of dimensions. In the string theory, each particle of matter and energy is linked to a string that goes through each dimension.

To put it really simply, if I could tap into the string and yank on it, I could be standing in the street in downtown New York, and then be on Jupiter in the flash of an instance, but in another dimension. Time travel, warp technology, all those fantasy things could one day become reality if we can grasp the concept of strings. Creepy eh? It is far far more complex, but this is just a layman's example of it, so that it makes a vague sort of sense.

As far as antimatter is concerned, we barely understand the physics of stars, so truly understanding antimatter is a ways away. Plasma is an interesting thing, and we still don't even fully understand it. We are just now getting good with ion technology. If we survive another 400 years or more (the human race that is), we might begin to grasp antimatter and how to capture and use it. The universe is constantly cooling, constantly breaking down. Eventually the universe will lose the overall energy (which breaks Einstein's theories), and drop into total choas (entropy). When that happens, the universe will become a dead place; no light, no usable energy, no heat, nothing. That is billions of years from now, but it is a fact.

We will meet our end (provided we never leave Earth) sooner because our sun will go into red giant mode, and burn us into oblivion. However, provided we have settled elsewhere in the universe, and survive that long, we and all life in the universe will one day cease to be. There will be nothing left, because there will be no energy, nothing left to react. Dark matter will consume everything, and the only thing that will be in the universe will be roaming black holes, unable to do anything but consume each other until they collapse subspace and the universe itself ceases to exist.

What I said in my previous posts is all related to multi dimensional quantum mechanics, so take it with a grain of salt. Dark Kal linked to some wiki articles that are mostly correct for learning about understood particle physics, but that area is boring and really not that complex. It is what we do not understand that intrigues the greatest minds of our world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Way Out

Good reading

Rahja, you have two guys here googling what you are talking about (in an attempt to keep up with the conversation and post to your replies)!

"Future proof" isn't a bad way to go if you stick with the next six months as being your "future". DDR2 is standard now. DDR3 is a better performer on the right rigs. I would go with DDR3 until magnetic RAM or a newer technology replaces what we have out now.

lol, it comes with the education. Take some cool physics classes in university/college, you won't regret it.

Magnetic RAM will never come to pass, it isn't a viable technology. Parallel RAM will.....oh wait, silly me again.... shutting up. The next really big evolutionary step in RAM is optical RAM (aka light based technology), but that is still in early development. That utilizes 10nm CnToIaC technology (Carbon Nano Tunnel on Interconnect and Chip technology) Carbon nanotubes and organic processing are the next huge steps in technology. An organic processor can do multiple commands at a given point in time, compared with 1 on current chip designs (electrical) The reason? Organic technology uses organic switches which can all be triggered independently without a wait, and all simultaneously.

The Way Out · May 29, 2008, 04:15 PM // 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

Magnetic RAM will never come to pass, it isn't a viable technology. Parallel RAM will.....oh wait, silly me again.... shutting up. The next really big evolutionary step in RAM is optical RAM (aka light based technology), but that is still in early development. That utilizes 10nm CnToIaC technology (Carbon Nano Tunnel on Interconnect and Chip technology) Carbon nanotubes and organic processing are the next huge steps in technology. An organic processor can do multiple commands at a given point in time, compared with 1 on current chip designs (electrical) The reason? Organic technology uses organic switches which can all be triggered independently without a wait, and all simultaneously.

Problem with Carbon nanotubes is they are emitting chemicals that are almost identical to asbestos.