Laws By Size Form #87.Doc: Fill & Download for Free

Because Si is lousy material for transistors. But probably the best material for ULSI manufacturing.Yes, despite being the “Holly grail” of semiconductor industry Si have poor electrical properties when compared to Ge or III/V materials. Look on this chart of electrons and holes mobility - Si is the worst materials within the available data set.I’ve written previously why we use Si - you can find it here:Daniel Fishman's answer to Why is silicon a widely used semiconductor material?Daniel Fishman's answer to Why is silicon a widely used semiconductor material?As you can see from the chart Ge and III/V materials can offer excellent device level performance. The true challenge is the ability to manufacture III/V based devices on 300 mm Si wafers.And don’t forget that we are no longer in device limited technology era. All components of the processor - transistors, interconnects and connections lines - are setting the final product performance level.Cheers!

Despite laws of Physics !DESPITE your deploying/employing this phrase “despite laws of physics” in the question, it does nothing useful or meaningful for the question. It seems like a nice phrase to pull out from somewhere to willy nilly add to your question. We encounter this phrase frequently “Despite laws of physics, blah blah blah …”. It’s a nice space filler.Having gotten that useless phrase out of the question, the new and proper question is “My dad argues that we will one day have personal computers the size of a mobile phone. What is the likelihood of this?”But then you contradict yourself. You want a 32 inch desktop screen the size of a palmtop phone? That is like asking “I want technology advancement to one day allow us to have 3 = √2.” This is a bait-and-switch question. There is no “despite laws of physics“ case here.Why box yourself in and restrict it to being a “desktop”. We have goggles. But then you would want to include the goggles as part of the computer - then the palmtop phone-sized computer would no longer be palmtop phone-sized due to the size of the goggles.I guess we could have google glass. And of course we can have useful, palmtop 6-inch phone-sized computer more powerful than the Apple 2e today. In fact, a computer of respectable capability and “power” - so long as you don’t place arithmetically illogical restrictions.Yes, I finally have reached a resolution to rephrasing your question in a way that you should be happy with:Despite the illogical arithmetical restrictions I specify, my dad argues that we will one day have personal computers the size of a mobile phone. What is the likelihood of this?

A lot of gas once did collapse from its own gravity. It wasn't air; it was mostly hydrogen with about 10% helium, and that is exactly how the sun formed.You are right in one sense: the entropy of the gas after it formed the sun was indeed lower than the entropy of the gas at the beginning of the process. But in the process of forming, a huge amount of radiation was emitted, and that radiation carried off more entropy than was lost in the solar formation.Do almost anything, and you increase the entropy of the universe. But that doesn't mean that you can't lower the entropy of an object. Get a hot cup of coffee and let it stand and its entropy will decrease. That's easily calculated, since the change in entropy is heat change divided by temperature, so as long as the coffee is losing heat, its entropy is going down, by -H/Tc where -H is the heat loss and Tc is the temperature of the coffee.But the entropy of the room is gaining thanks to that heat. The entropy gained by the room will be +H/Tr, where Tr is the temperature of the room. Since Tr is lower than Tc, this increase is greater than the decrease in the coffee, so the net entropy goes up.We decrease local entropy all the time, when we turn on an air conditioner, when you make a teacup, when we arrange blocks to build a bridge (lowering the confusion of the bricks). But it is invariably accompanied by throwing off entropy, usually to the atmosphere or sometimes to infinity Local entropy decrease is common, but total entropy decrease is statistically forbidden.