> On 28/04/2014 08:59 AM, scott wrote:
>>
>> You could argue that in some ways things are changing even faster now.
>> Continuing with your plastics example, at the start hardly anyone used
>> plastic and development was slow. Today plastic is used in almost
>> everything and there are millions of different types. I'm sure if you
>> plotted a graph of the number of new plastics invented against time it
>> would be going upwards.
>
> Really?
>
> OK, really ancient plastics weren't very good. But the plastics I see
> today and the plastics I saw 30 years ago seem pretty much identical in
> every respect. What's changed?
>

First, You have a tendency to be totally oblivious to what's around you. 
  You wouldn't see the changes if they hit you in the face (in fact, one 
of those changes is actually sitting right there on your nose!)

Second, you worked in the chemical industry for over 10 years.  I'm sure 
you're familiar with the names 3M, Dupont and BASF, just to name those. 
  Don't think for a second that these companies don't have large R&D 
depts that work round the clock trying to come up with newer compounds 
that are easier to work with, thereby reducing production costs, more 
resitant, less dangerous, or biodegradable, just to name those 
characterisitcs, thereby increasing their marketing value.  They're not 
just sitting there waiting for Nylon(tm), Teflon(tm) or Kevlar(tm) 
royalties to pad their bank accounts.

Many of these plastics will have special medical or industrial 
applications, but here are a few examples of everyday uses that you may 
have seen:

Have you noticed how nowadays most eye glasses are made of plastic? 
Clear plastics with higher IOR (sorry for getting slightly on-topic for 
P.O-T) than glass were unheard of 30 years ago.  The progresses made in 
the domain of contact lenses is even more impressive than that of 
conventional glass lenses.

The same goes for the plastic covers on most car headlights.  The 
average human doesn't often stop to admire the complexity of a car's 
tail lights, - unless you're stopped behind a Lamborghini at a stop 
light - but there's been tremendous developments made in that area, too.

I know you don't have kids, but the plastics used in baby bottles and 
toys have also changed a lot in the last 10 years, due to various "Won't 
anyone think of the children?!?!!!?" reasons.

The "technical" garment industry has also greatly benefited from these 
new polymers.  You're a skier, so you've most certainly seen the 
74732327523 tags that are sewn or attached on a new ski jacket or 
gloves, touting the amazing breathability, yet still impermeable, 
feather light, yet warm as a mammoth pelt, machine washable, yet won't 
fade properties these clothes now offer.

> Then again, we're trying to simulate the interaction of billions of
> photons in a large 3-dimensional space. Maybe there are
> quantum-theoretical reasons why you can't do that any faster than the
> real world can? (At least, not without using a computer many times
> bigger than the real-world system it's trying to simulate!)

To perfectly emulate it, we'd need at least one processor per photon, 
able to do all the physics calculations and share Heisenberg-principle 
violating amounts of information with other processors, in real-time.  I 
think Slatibartfast was on the right track!

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message