> First of all, quantum mechanics was motivated by the thought of semiconductors.
Excuse me? Quantum mechanics was developed in the 1920s, long before any thought of applying it to any practical problems. Semiconductor research came much later, and that was also largely pure research into material properties carried out at Bell Labs, a facility noted for its isolation from any commercial application of its work.
So, entirely false.
> One of the primary use cases of it was explaining the photoelectric effect [1].
You're confused. Einstein explained the photoelectric effect in 1905, then spent the remainder of his career objecting to the quantum theories that developed from this starting point, all without any practical applications in mind by any of the participants.
> Interestingly, the classical belief that the photoelectric effect proves the quantization of light is wrong.
There is no such belief, so discussing it is pointless.
> Probability and statistics are perhaps the worst possible example of pure research that - purely by chance - happens to be useful later.
They're examples of pure research into mathematical ideas that --purely by chance -- happen to have practical applications. How is that a bad example of the point that pure research is the source of most insights into nature?
Excuse me? Quantum mechanics was developed in the 1920s, long before any thought of applying it to any practical problems. Semiconductor research came much later, and that was also largely pure research into material properties carried out at Bell Labs, a facility noted for its isolation from any commercial application of its work.
So, entirely false.
> One of the primary use cases of it was explaining the photoelectric effect [1].
You're confused. Einstein explained the photoelectric effect in 1905, then spent the remainder of his career objecting to the quantum theories that developed from this starting point, all without any practical applications in mind by any of the participants.
> Interestingly, the classical belief that the photoelectric effect proves the quantization of light is wrong.
There is no such belief, so discussing it is pointless.
> Probability and statistics are perhaps the worst possible example of pure research that - purely by chance - happens to be useful later.
They're examples of pure research into mathematical ideas that --purely by chance -- happen to have practical applications. How is that a bad example of the point that pure research is the source of most insights into nature?