Talk:Robert Noyce

Archives (Index)

2013 2017 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Investor

Buddy was also an investor, checkout this source: [1] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

'Bell Labs did not ship Gale a transistor until after Noyce graduated' (Berlin, p. 26, line 10)

But they did pore over some Bell Labs monographs: 'Together Gale and Noyce, who was far more interested in the transistor than any other student, pored over the Bell Labs monographs: "The transistor and Related Experiments," "Positive Holes and the Transistor," "Physical Principles Invovled in Transistor Action," "Some Contributions to Transistor Electronics."' (Berlin, p. 26, line 11-5)

So the sentences, 'Gale obtained two of the very first transistors ever produced by Bell Labs and showed them off to his class. Noyce was hooked.', is probably a little misleading. He read about it, he didn't actually see the transistor... OkayLetsGooo! (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"Physicist"?

This seems a weird label. To quote the linked article, "A physicist is a scientist who specializes in the field of physics, which encompasses the interactions of matter and energy at all length and time scales in the physical universe. Physicists generally are interested in the root or ultimate causes of phenomena, and usually frame their understanding in mathematical terms." That's nothing like what Noyce did. He didn't make new science, he found ways to make science useful That makes him an engineer.

"Engineers ... invent, design, analyze, build and test machines, complex systems, structures, gadgets and materials to fulfill functional objectives and requirements while considering the limitations imposed by practicality, regulation, safety and cost." I think that describes a dude who did more than any one person to create our modern wired world. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Just thought of a pop culture reference that might be helpful: Noyce wasn't a Sheldon Cooper, he was a Howard Wolowitz. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Some sites that refer to Noyce as an engineer. One is for Grinell College, his alma mater.

https://www.cs.grinnell.edu/old/drupal6/node/38.html

https://interestingengineering.com/engineers-directory/robert-noyce

https://www.britannica.com/summary/Robert-Noyce

His page on Intel refers to him as a "technologist".

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/history/museum-robert-noyce.html

Gordon Moore, in a tribute to Noyce, did describe him as a physicist. But he did so on the web site of the National Academy of Engineering, to which Noyce was elected in 1969.

https://www.nae.edu/188726/ROBERT-N-NOYCE-19271990 Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article, from the evidence above showing both Physicist and Engineer titles, I'd suggest you list both, eg. "Physicist and Engineer".

Engineers often use physics education extensively in their work, as mentioned above. There may be an arbitrary but strongly-opined distinction between "Physicists" and "Engineers", where (roughly) Engineers attempt to apply their work to solve current problems, whereas Physicists work on "fundamental" problems that may not have immediate applications/commercialization paths. I've found this distinction mostly present in theoretical physics. Because of this, a Physicist might become an Engineer if they apply their work to solving problems! (The hierarchy is mostly fictional in my opinion; different people are useful for different things.) DeminJanu (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, this is ridiculous. The man has a PhD in physics. He has no education in Engineering, and was not certified or licensed as an engineer. Calling him an engineer denigrates his own education as well as the separate licensed profession of engineering. Not all physicists work solely in the theoretical space; many have worked extensively in the practical application of physics. I'll be removing the "dubious" tag, as the article makes very clear that Noyce was a physicist by both education and profession. Risker (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

If you're going by credentials, then Freeman Dyson wasn't a physicist, because he had none, not even a PhD. But he did important work in physics, so everybody acknowledges him as a physicist.

You don't classify people by their training, you classify them by their achievements. Noyce's achievements all had to do with technology (specifically solid-state electronics, not science.

Can I ask you not to be rude? Calling other people's suggestions "ridiculous" is inconsistent with WP:CIVIL and is not helpful. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Here are some of Noyce's achievements:

Co-invention of the integrated circuit (IC).

Development of the planar process for manufacturing transistors8

Pioneering work on silicon-based semiconductors

Improvements in photolithography techniques for chip manufacturing

Contributions to the development of random-access memory (RAM)

Innovations in microprocessor design and manufacturing

Played a key role in the transition from germanium to silicon in semiconductor production

How many of these are "science" and how many are "technology"? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

As I've previously pointed out, "Engineer" is a designated profession; one has to be certified and licensed to be an engineer in the United States, where Noyce spent his entire career. He is not an engineer. He is, in fact, a physicist. I know it boggles the mind, after all those years of The Big Bang Theory, but a lot of physicists carry out practical work based on their education. It should be noted that his colleague in his work was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for the work they did together, several of which you mention in your list above. Don't get hung up on preconceived ideas that "physics" is a theoretical science and "engineering" is the practical application of physics. It's not correct. Noyce was a physicist. He was not an engineer. Risker (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

"Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates."

That's from WP:CIV. Since you're an administrator, you should be familiar with it. If you choose not to follow it, you shouldn't be an administrator. In any case, I'm not going to engage with you further until you grow up a tad. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Licensing/Certification for Engineering only applies to certain specific fields of engineering such as civil engineering, electrician work etc. where public safety is paramount. The lack of a license does not disqualify the title Engineer.

For example look at university's Engineering departments (one example) - they do not provide licenses/certs for the vast majority of Engineering degrees. There is strong interplay and translation between physics and engineering at my university - the distinction is somewhat arbitrary in my opinion, centering on how much "theory" and how much "application" is focused on. We see students & Profs working between both Physics and Engineering depts.

Many "Engineers" and other "Majors" got Nobel prizes in Physics, FYI., for example some I know of:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuji_Nakamura#:~:text=%5B7%5D-,Career,-%5Bedit%5D - BS/MS in Eng.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Strickland#:~:text=Early%20life%20and%20education - Eng

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Hinton#:~:text=%5B35%5D-,Education,-%5Bedit%5D - many majors

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshi_Amano#:~:text=Early%20life%20and%20education - Eng majors

So that may not be a good indicator of which title to use. DeminJanu (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)