• 0 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 20th, 2023

help-circle



  • No, I am not sure that I am.

    Photonic processing, whilst very cool and super exciting, is not a quantum thing… Maxwells equations are exceedingly classical.

    As for the rest it’s transistor design optimisation, enabled predominantly by materials science and ASMLs EUV tech I guess:), but still exploits the same underlying ‘quantum 1.0’ physics.

    Spintronics (which could be what you mean by 2D) is for sure in-between (1.5?), leveraging spin for low energy compute.

    Quantum 2.0 is systems exploiting entanglement and superposition - i.e. qubits in a QPU (and a few quantum sensing applications).



  • Good question. It would be application specific. I think evanescencnt wave coupling in EM radiation is considered " very classical" (whatever that actually means). But utilizing wave particle duality for tunneling devices is past quantum 1.0 (1.5 maybe?). However, superconductivity tunneling in Josephson junctions in a SQUID is closer to quantum 1.0, but 2.0 if used to generate entangled states for superconducting qbits for quantum computing.

    Clear as mud right?



  • Quantum Physics Postdoc here. Although technically correct this is also somewhat misleading. You need the band structure of solids, which is due to quantization and Pauli exclusion principle. The same quantum mechanics that explains why we did those strange electron energy levels for atoms in highschool. The majority of quantum mechanics, however, is not required: coherence, spin, entanglement, superposition. In the field we describe semiconductors as quantum 1.0, and devices that use entanglement and superposition (i.e. a quantum computer) as quantum 2.0, and smear everything else in-between. This












  • Ok, so I don’t think I explained my thoughts on crushing well. It’s not, in the real world, bludgeoning damage. I can see why they chose to not have a crushing damage type and just use bludgeoning though, as anything susceptible to one would be susceptible to the other.

    Ugh, bringing AC into it is a mess. But I think your approach results in the tennis ball lasting an average of 20 hits in a game between two strong opponents. And less time the better they are at playing tennis?

    I think you’ve moved the goal post, but perhaps in an interesting direction. If the goal is to simplfy the damage types, what do you lose by replacing force attacks with other types? I think you lose an impact type of damage like damage to creatures you can’t hit with a hammer. Magic missle goes from best to worst spell.