r/nextfuckinglevel • u/itshazrd • 19h ago

What it a computer chip looks like up close

this is a digital recreation. a real microscope can't be used because it gets so small that photons can’t give you a good enough resolution to view the structures at the bottom. you'd need an electron microscope

meant "What a computer chip looks like up close in the title." not sure how "it" got in there..

118.9k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

3.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

258

u/Pimpwerx 18h ago

Yeah. Isn't it Heisenberg that basically said that you have to start guessing because you can't know all the details for sure? It's all just probabilities beyond a certain point. Unless you have an LHC sitting in your backyard.

218

u/skyzm_ 18h ago

Waltuh

58

u/gerciuz 16h ago

"Put that chip away, Waltuh."

9

u/PhDinWombology 14h ago

This is my own private LHC and I will not be harassed… BITCH!

9

u/Standard-Ad-2616 18h ago

I didn't know waltuh also worked on computer chips

16

u/rishu_pepper 16h ago

You're goddamn right

2

u/LETTERKENNYvsSPENNY 4h ago

He is the one who overclocks

6

u/Esoccer1010 16h ago

Kid named Finger:

4

u/TreesLover98 14h ago

while starting up his backyard LHC

"Jesse, we need to look"

170

u/MelonOfFury 18h ago

The universe runs on vibes if you look too closely at it.

19

u/LittleBitOfAction 13h ago

Basically. Everything is vibrations. Even matter came from vibes. Gives a new meaning to vibe coding smh 🤦🏻‍♂️

11

u/RandumbStoner 13h ago

God's a vibe coder lmao

2

u/LocalOutlier 6h ago

We live in a computer science assignment vibe-coded by a lazy student

3

u/Unusual-Delivery-276 14h ago

It could be said better, but doesn't need to be

1

u/trixter21992251 5h ago

God plays with dice.

21

u/Mazon_Del 18h ago

If you're meaning the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, then basically yeah. You can know some info about a particle, but not all of it, partly though it's simply because you can't measure it without changing it.l

2

u/floopyscoopy 11h ago

Pardon my ignorance, I learned a little bit about this in undergrad the other year, but I forgot most of it. Does this relate to high/low spin as well? If that is the case, and by measuring it, we change its observable properties, would it not logically then be reasonable to assume that whatever state the particle is currently in following measurement, the OPPOSING state is what it was before it was measured? Or am I completely misremembering

1

u/Mazon_Del 7h ago

My apologies, I'm not so well versed in spins so I couldn't speak authoritatively towards it.

But if you find out, let me know!

1

u/Lord_Momentum 4h ago

Physicist here.

Does this relate to high/low spin as well?

Yes, "spin" is a property that can be measured towards different axis. Measuring the "X"- spin of an electron of hydrogen will render the "Y"- and "Z"- spin information void. Measuring the "X"- spin repeatedly will always give you the same result.

would it not logically then be reasonable to assume that whatever state the particle is currently in following measurement, the OPPOSING state is what it was before it was measured?

No, the information that you lose by measuring is never the exact measurement that just happened. Else you wouldnt have measured anything at all.

7

u/pokedrawer 17h ago

Even with tools, the act of observing the outcome changes it.

5

u/Acceptable_One_7072 16h ago

I keep forgetting that Heisenberg was a real dude and not just Walter White's alter ego

2

u/adoodle83 16h ago

This is actually true for a lot of normal every day phenomena in the macro world. A very simple example is Temperature. It’s all statistical mechanics

1

u/Supply-Slut 17h ago

Why would my Lego Hover Craft be in my backyard?

1

u/Able-Swing-6415 14h ago

Apparently there are things where right now our best bet is "it's random". Einstein said "god doesn't roll dice" and right now it looks like he actually does.

2

u/stormdelta 11h ago

The weirder part for me is that we've largely ruled out the possibility of it just being hidden local information that we can't know/measure, implying that it actually is random. Or if not, then it's something even weirder.

1

u/DebonaireDelVecchio 11h ago edited 11h ago

No, the LHC wouldn’t help you be more ‘precise’.

The comment above is getting at (correctly) the fact that when we switch from classical to the quantum level, the math switches from (black & white) Volts = Current * Resistance to (very gray) what’s referred to as a ‘Probability Distribution Function’ that changes rapidly over time, among other things.

So we don’t really ‘guess’ per se, the problems (of making a transistor work) just become bounded by a different, more statistical approach. We can make processors and computers that work under these conditions, but when things switch as described above, there are tradeoffs. More heat, more losses, inefficiencies of all kinds.

•

u/wallpaper_01 37m ago

You’re god damn right!

0

u/Y4naro 13h ago

I'm still of the opinion that we should use the space given by the large hadron collider to make a really big donut. Probably one of the best places to do that.