Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The Holy Grail - Quantum computing

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 16, 2006 9:18:18 PM

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/16/electron_spin_quantum...

Silicon based quantum computing! There is no longer any reason for this technology not to exist for the masses.... Oh wait I forgot - The powers that be will not let us have this technology.... It might lead to utopia, and then they would loose control of us....
August 16, 2006 9:27:40 PM

Yes, because highly theoretical quantum concepts that are more or less unusable in the traditional sense as a "computer" at this point that was done as a single "transistor" equivalent in a laboratory somewhere is ready for mass production.
August 16, 2006 9:41:28 PM

Quote:
Yes, because highly theoretical quantum concepts that are more or less unusable in the traditional sense as a "computer" at this point that was done as a single "transistor" equivalent in a laboratory somewhere is ready for mass production.


This could easily be developed, and massed produced

The speed of quntum computing can be described as 'instant' - for all pracitcal purposes.... You don't need to put alot of them on a chip to make a quantum computer....

But first we have to play the capitalist game by slowly releasing faster computers 65nm, 45nm, 32nm, 22nm, etc... That way they can sell us new computers every couple of years.... God forbid they smash moores law, and create the final computer for the good of all mankind....
Related resources
August 16, 2006 9:51:19 PM

A Quantum computer would be a crazy thing to have. Just imagine the possibilities. Gaming, cracking codes, encryption...

More advances in this field are readily available here.

I bet the NSA already has a functional one.
August 16, 2006 10:00:00 PM

Quote:
A Quantum computer would be a crazy thing to have. Just imagine the possibilities. Gaming, cracking codes, encryption...

More advances in this field are readily available here.

I bet the NSA already has a functional one.


Great point - no more data encryption.... what would this new world look like? Imagine a completely open society....

I read an article in like 1992, about the first phototronic PC being quietly invented.... So this would explain how the government(perhaps the echelon computer) can monitor all of earths transmisions without a problem - even though 128 bit encryption is supposed to be nearly impossible to crack....
August 16, 2006 10:11:38 PM

Thanks for the info. Though, this is the CPU section, you could take the whole "zomg, capitalist conspiracy!" stuff to Off-Topic, if not elsewhere entirely.
Synergy6
August 16, 2006 10:19:05 PM

Quote:
Thanks for the info. Though, this is the CPU section, you could take the whole "zomg, capitalist conspiracy!" stuff to Off-Topic, if not elsewhere entirely.
Synergy6


We are talking about a quantum CPU.... And it implications....

Take you bad attitude elsewhere, please.... Turn the channel if you don't like what is on.... This is not nearly as OT, as alot of the stuff on this forum....
August 16, 2006 10:19:31 PM

Quantum computing will not be the holy grail, but it might enable it.

The true holy grail will come when AI finally reaches a point that it can understand its own existence and improve upon its own programming.

Then AI will go through rapid advancements by improving its own programs, and will ultimately reach a ceiling of phenomenal intelligence and then will be capable of solving all problems and answering all questions.

And since we already know the answer is 42, it will question its own existence.
August 16, 2006 10:46:49 PM

Quote:

This could easily be developed, and massed produced

The speed of quntum computing can be described as 'instant' - for all pracitcal purposes.... You don't need to put alot of them on a chip to make a quantum computer....


I'm sure that structure could be mass produced, but it wouldn't do anything.

Quote:
But first we have to play the capitalist game by slowly releasing faster computers 65nm, 45nm, 32nm, 22nm, etc... That way they can sell us new computers every couple of years.... God forbid they smash moores law, and create the final computer for the good of all mankind....


Yes, because we all know that a company that could just magically create a computer that would blow everything else away on the market would not patent it and have a monopoly on selling these ungodly powerful computers for twenty years and make untold billions. Yea, that makes sense.

Clearly, you do not understand the implications of building a working quantum computer. Based upon your ludicrous posts, I can only assume that you know nothing about the actual details of a quantum computer.

Building a quantum computer has a lot more involved than simply making a qubit. Mainly, error correction that is needed due to decoherence. Which, incidentally, increases exponentially with the number of qubits invovled.

Currently, the most "advanced" quantum computer ever "built" by man has had 3 qubits (as far as I know), and was able to perform only the most basic set of limited operations. For an equivalent system, make something that works with about 10 transistors.

Even if it was possible to create a useful set of qubits, creating a turing complete set of instructions with current quantum knowledge is more or less physically impossible. Sure, your theoretical quantum computer would be great at factoring, but not useful for a lot of things necessary for a regular computer.

In other words, take your conspiracy bullshit elsewhere. And grow a brain. Sorry to say that, but incompetence and instant "conspiracy" pisses me off.
August 16, 2006 11:25:45 PM

you piss me off, jerk...
August 16, 2006 11:42:16 PM

Quote:
you piss me off, jerk...


Care to elaborate?
Synergy6
August 16, 2006 11:59:16 PM

Quote:
you piss me off, jerk...


I assume you're the original poster, given the use of "0" in your name and the similar use of ellipses.

This being the case, I'm sorry for you being wrong and retarded.
August 17, 2006 12:04:06 AM

Quote:

This could easily be developed, and massed produced

The speed of quntum computing can be described as 'instant' - for all pracitcal purposes.... You don't need to put alot of them on a chip to make a quantum computer....


I'm sure that structure could be mass produced, but it wouldn't do anything.

Quote:
But first we have to play the capitalist game by slowly releasing faster computers 65nm, 45nm, 32nm, 22nm, etc... That way they can sell us new computers every couple of years.... God forbid they smash moores law, and create the final computer for the good of all mankind....


Yes, because we all know that a company that could just magically create a computer that would blow everything else away on the market would not patent it and have a monopoly on selling these ungodly powerful computers for twenty years and make untold billions. Yea, that makes sense.

Clearly, you do not understand the implications of building a working quantum computer. Based upon your ludicrous posts, I can only assume that you know nothing about the actual details of a quantum computer.

Building a quantum computer has a lot more involved than simply making a qubit. Mainly, error correction that is needed due to decoherence. Which, incidentally, increases exponentially with the number of qubits invovled.

Currently, the most "advanced" quantum computer ever "built" by man has had 3 qubits (as far as I know), and was able to perform only the most basic set of limited operations. For an equivalent system, make something that works with about 10 transistors.

Even if it was possible to create a useful set of qubits, creating a turing complete set of instructions with current quantum knowledge is more or less physically impossible. Sure, your theoretical quantum computer would be great at factoring, but not useful for a lot of things necessary for a regular computer.

In other words, take your conspiracy bullshit elsewhere. And grow a brain. Sorry to say that, but incompetence and instant "conspiracy" pisses me off.


I have to say he might be right. Look at ethanol fuel , or Wimax. They are on the same line.

,,
August 17, 2006 12:39:00 AM

While it isn't entirely impossible that Quantum computers are already full working and mass-producable there are other problems with the technology that are more likely to explain its unavailability. I'm no expert on the matter but there's a problem with measuring the states of Quantum physical systems (eg photons & electrons) in that their values are determined based on the point at which they are observed.

Quote Wiki - "The linear combination of two or more eigenstates results in quantum superposition of two or more values of the quantity. If the quantity is measured, the projection postulate states that the state will be randomly collapsed onto one of the values in the superposition (with a probability proportional to the square of the amplitude of that eigenstate in the linear combination)."

Basically the state of the quantum particles used to represent data are determined by the observation of them, Which as far as scientists can see is Random (I believe there is some kind of pattern as nothing like this can be truly random) and will probably change the outcome of whatever that Qubit / whatever was originally intended to be. Therefore the error checking / validation processes would have to be equal to the power of the quantum processor. Which is something that could only be equalled by another quantum processor, which invariably would require its own error checking etc.

Feel free to correct me. As I said, I'm no expert and know I very little about this.
August 17, 2006 12:47:14 AM

Quote:
Quote:
- even though 128 bit encryption is supposed to be nearly impossible to crack....



Wait a second now... Ive had at least 2 generations of computers, with a third now available, P3\Athlon, AMD 64\P4, and the new Pentium Core extrem/Core duo.
So, when running a P3, sure i might say sure, nearly impossible to crack. Then we have AMD 64\P4 with Dual Core... that would cut the time a bit to crack 128 bit. Then the relases of Core Duo= to to up grade if you ask me.
We went from 32 bit cunks of data to 64 bit, if you care for XP 64\Linux\Apple(eek!)
So..... Me thinks we need at least 256 bit encryption to be able to say "nearly impossibel to crack" again.
But i could be full of it.
August 17, 2006 12:48:18 AM

Quote:

I have to say he might be right. Look at ethanol fuel , or Wimax. They are on the same line.


Those are both more examples of lunacy. Ethanol fuel is not a solution - it is just another tool to be used in combination with other solutions (hybrids, plug-in hybrids, hydrogen fuel cells, whatever floats your boat). And ironically, in order to make corn (or soy, or sugarcane) to make the ethanol, you need a lot of.. you guessed it, petroleum-based fertilizers. Plus a whole group of other problems such as the fact that we used (you guessed it) heat from fossil fuels (natural gas) to distill the corn into ethanol in the first place.

Wi-Max sounds good on paper, but isn't all that great in practicality. It sounds good on paper - afterall, with a 30 mile radius of range, all you'd need is one tower for a whole city! Too bad the WiMax protocol only supports a 70 megabit transfer rate to be shared. So, for a city, you'd need to set up a WiMax tower every couple of hundred of yards, just like cell towers are set up in densly populated areas since they can only handle about 64 channels. More lower power towers.. hey, that sounds a bit like WiFi doesn't it? ;) 


Don't get me wrong, both WiMax and ethanol both have their places but it isn't like they are a golden egg solution to everyone's problems.

Sorry for getting off topic..
August 17, 2006 1:04:25 AM

Quote:
- even though 128 bit encryption is supposed to be nearly impossible to crack....



Wait a second now... Ive had at least 2 generations of computers, with a third now available, P3\Athlon, AMD 64\P4, and the new Pentium Core extrem/Core duo.
So, when running a P3, sure i might say sure, nearly impossible to crack. Then we have AMD 64\P4 with Dual Core... that would cut the time a bit to crack 128 bit. Then the relases of Core Duo= to to up grade if you ask me.
We went from 32 bit cunks of data to 64 bit, if you care for XP 64\Linux\Apple(eek!)
So..... Me thinks we need at least 256 bit encryption to be able to say "nearly impossibel to crack" again.
But i could be full of it.

While I would recommend 256bits just to be done with it, 128bits is hardly insecure (assuming the encryption algorithm is strong).

Using a single Core 2 Duo processor, and assuming a full key comparison per clock cycle (that is impossible - it is usually more like 10-20 cycles per key check), it would take (on average, of course) more years to calculate the answer than the age of the universe. By many magnitudes.

To prove the math:
((2^128)/2)/((2.93x10^9)*2) = 2.9x10^28 seconds, or 92,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.

Even if there was a petaflop computer and, once again, it did 1 key check per cycle (which is impossible), then it would still take 540,000,000,000,000 years.

Once again, this is if the encryption method is sound: recent cryptographical work has shown certain methods to reduce the key search on certain modern encryption schemes by as much as 10 magnitudes, which means that it is becoming possible to, if given unlimited resources, crack a 128 bit key in only a few hundred years using current technology. There are also other methods to search for a key, such as sieving or factorization, but they tend to be even more impractical than brute forcing the key if the encryption method is strong.

In other words, it doesn't really matter how much you use. 128 bits is fine, but it isn't like going to 256 bits will really slow down your encryption much, so go ahead and use it if it gives you warm fuzzies.
August 17, 2006 1:23:43 AM

Quote:
Thanks for the info. Though, this is the CPU section, you could take the whole "zomg, capitalist conspiracy!" stuff to Off-Topic, if not elsewhere entirely.
Synergy6



huhummm. are u alive? or just existing with ur rig?

might be off topic. but can u talk which is real?

are u really sure the government is using the same rig as u do?

. quantum computing is not for the masses.period.

i could not imagine what will u do with it.or perhaps when u will have one.

with so much power in your rig ..and lets add your mind and imagination..

got it?
August 17, 2006 2:09:50 AM

Quote:


got it?


I'm quite sure I couldn't afford what you're smoking, so no.
Synergy6
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2006 2:44:10 AM

Any form of utopia is delusion...there are no silver bullets...and the Holy Grail only exists in Monty Python and Indiana Jones movies...quantum computing and quantum processors aren't going to solve any of the world's issues...
August 17, 2006 6:32:23 AM

Quote:

I have to say he might be right. Look at ethanol fuel , or Wimax. They are on the same line.


Those are both more examples of lunacy. Ethanol fuel is not a solution - it is just another tool to be used in combination with other solutions (hybrids, plug-in hybrids, hydrogen fuel cells, whatever floats your boat). And ironically, in order to make corn (or soy, or sugarcane) to make the ethanol, you need a lot of.. you guessed it, petroleum-based fertilizers. Plus a whole group of other problems such as the fact that we used (you guessed it) heat from fossil fuels (natural gas) to distill the corn into ethanol in the first place.

Wi-Max sounds good on paper, but isn't all that great in practicality. It sounds good on paper - afterall, with a 30 mile radius of range, all you'd need is one tower for a whole city! Too bad the WiMax protocol only supports a 70 megabit transfer rate to be shared. So, for a city, you'd need to set up a WiMax tower every couple of hundred of yards, just like cell towers are set up in densly populated areas since they can only handle about 64 channels. More lower power towers.. hey, that sounds a bit like WiFi doesn't it? ;) 


Don't get me wrong, both WiMax and ethanol both have their places but it isn't like they are a golden egg solution to everyone's problems.

Sorry for getting off topic..

That’s not what I am trying to say. Look at what all of them have in common: They will put big corporations out of business and therefore there is no support to adapt them. With Wimax in an ideal situation everybody can set up his own Wimax for Internet and cell phone access within the city- no sharing the bandwidth hassle. No cell phone company wants that. Respectively compare the effort is being done to develop oil refineries and infrastructure, to what is being done for an alternative fuel such at ethanol. The same way, having a computer that does it all and really needs no upgrade will see a huge resistance from a multi-trillion industry.
August 17, 2006 2:08:18 PM

Quote:

I have to say he might be right. Look at ethanol fuel , or Wimax. They are on the same line.


Those are both more examples of lunacy. Ethanol fuel is not a solution - it is just another tool to be used in combination with other solutions (hybrids, plug-in hybrids, hydrogen fuel cells, whatever floats your boat). And ironically, in order to make corn (or soy, or sugarcane) to make the ethanol, you need a lot of.. you guessed it, petroleum-based fertilizers. Plus a whole group of other problems such as the fact that we used (you guessed it) heat from fossil fuels (natural gas) to distill the corn into ethanol in the first place.

Wi-Max sounds good on paper, but isn't all that great in practicality. It sounds good on paper - afterall, with a 30 mile radius of range, all you'd need is one tower for a whole city! Too bad the WiMax protocol only supports a 70 megabit transfer rate to be shared. So, for a city, you'd need to set up a WiMax tower every couple of hundred of yards, just like cell towers are set up in densly populated areas since they can only handle about 64 channels. More lower power towers.. hey, that sounds a bit like WiFi doesn't it? ;) 


Don't get me wrong, both WiMax and ethanol both have their places but it isn't like they are a golden egg solution to everyone's problems.

Sorry for getting off topic..

A fact about makeing ethanol fuel:

Without growing any extra crops - the amount of 'corn stocks' alone(not the corn itself) that are thrown away each year in the U.S. is enough to fuel the entire U.S. All they need to do is build refineries....

p.s. Bill Gates owns almost 25% of the current ethanol business in the U.S. - maybe he has the cloat to finally make something happen....
August 17, 2006 6:59:10 PM

Quote:
A fact about makeing ethanol fuel:

Without growing any extra crops - the amount of 'corn stocks' alone(not the corn itself) that are thrown away each year in the U.S. is enough to fuel the entire U.S. All they need to do is build refineries....


Bullshit. This is even worse than your original conspiracy theory. At least your conspiracy theory would be appropriately considered an opinion. In this case, you are simply shown to be a lying fool.

Here's some simple facts. The average yield per bushel of corn is 2.5 gallons. The US makes about 10 billion bushels of corn a year.

Assuming you converted all of that to ethanol, you would get a meager 25 billion gallons of fuel. The US consumes about 150 billion gallons of gas a year. Assuming you converted all current farmland to corn production (about 280 million acres), you would still be shortchanged by over 50 billion gallons of fuel.

This is all, of course, ignoring the fact that you still need petroleum rich fertilizers, use twice as much energy in the generation of ethanol as to what you get out of it, and deplete farmland and water resevoirs.

I am not against the use of ethanol, but it is not a silver bullet. As another poster has already said, there are no silver bullets to anything. If there was, the bullet would already have been shot from the barrel of the gun.
August 17, 2006 7:44:56 PM

According to the USDA corn ethanol is energy efficient. But then again...it is the USDA.

However I believe ethernalite's math pretty much disproves the claim that without growing any extra crops - the amount of 'corn stocks' alone(not the corn itself) that are thrown away each year in the U.S. is enough to fuel the entire U.S.
August 17, 2006 10:03:32 PM

My apologies - twice as much is probably not an accurate number, as you have shown. Although the real number is obviously a little bit higher than the USDA estimate, it's probably in the right ballpark.

And even if it wasn't energy efficient, it would still have a use. Ethanol and gasoline and the like are used because of their useful properties - high energy densities and combusition properties. Even if it took a net loss to produce, it wouldn't be a bad thing, par se. Electricity can be produced cheaply and compartively cleanly, especially if using green power such as nuclear or solar. A product that is useful for car propulsion is not as easy to make, and is useful for properties beyond its simple energy content.
August 17, 2006 10:18:27 PM

The actual holy grail is the Unified Theory of everything or Super String Theory.

Quantum Computing is a method in which things of the very small are used to process information.

While both use quantum mechanics both have drasticly different goals. One would be a breakthrough in physics so dramatic that it would redefine our paradigm as to what's reality. Quantum computing is just the ability to compute data at the quantum level.
August 17, 2006 10:41:47 PM

No appologies needed. I simply wanted to try to add something useful to the discussion. That and I guess I was more or less just playing devil's advocate. I love how discussions go off into tangents, i.e. from Quantum Computing we get Corn Ethanol. I think it's great.

I hope JumpinJack does research and respond.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 17, 2006 11:05:12 PM

What a useless post.
August 17, 2006 11:08:54 PM

Quote:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/16/electron_spin_quantum...

Silicon based quantum computing! There is no longer any reason for this technology not to exist for the masses.... Oh wait I forgot - The powers that be will not let us have this technology.... It might lead to utopia, and then they would loose control of us....


Have you seen the Ballistic Computing Chips info?

http://www.physorg.com/news74966638.html




Quote:
There's one hurdle the team isn't quite as confident about: "We're talking about a chip speed measured in terahertz, a thousand times faster than today's desktop transistors" Diduck says. "We have to figure out how to test it because there's no such thing as a terahertz oscilloscope!"


Additional Links:
http://www.primidi.com/2006/08/17.html#a1599
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39281145,00.htm
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/17/ballistic_nanotransistors/
August 17, 2006 11:17:26 PM

ethernalite, you're a genius! You're not Neal Stephenson are you?

Anyway, I started reading this post, was about to point out the fact that it is moronic, and saw that you already did for the good of all mankind. Thanks!

Oh, and ren0nie0 is the stupid 10 year old kid that tried to organize a "boycott on Newegg" due to the fact that they were selling core 2 duos at a higher price, then lowered it (somebody call the police!). Then he claimed he was a professor of economics or something. Priceless! :lol: 
August 17, 2006 11:20:36 PM

Quote:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/16/electron_spin_quantum...

Silicon based quantum computing! There is no longer any reason for this technology not to exist for the masses.... Oh wait I forgot - The powers that be will not let us have this technology.... It might lead to utopia, and then they would loose control of us....


One more thing I forgot to point out: somebody that can't spell "lose" probably isn't an authoritative source on quantum computing.
August 17, 2006 11:56:28 PM

Quote:
A fact about makeing ethanol fuel:

Without growing any extra crops - the amount of 'corn stocks' alone(not the corn itself) that are thrown away each year in the U.S. is enough to fuel the entire U.S. All they need to do is build refineries....


Bullshit. This is even worse than your original conspiracy theory. At least your conspiracy theory would be appropriately considered an opinion. In this case, you are simply shown to be a lying fool.

Here's some simple facts. The average yield per bushel of corn is 2.5 gallons. The US makes about 10 billion bushels of corn a year.

Assuming you converted all of that to ethanol, you would get a meager 25 billion gallons of fuel. The US consumes about 150 billion gallons of gas a year. Assuming you converted all current farmland to corn production (about 280 million acres), you would still be shortchanged by over 50 billion gallons of fuel.

This is all, of course, ignoring the fact that you still need petroleum rich fertilizers, use twice as much energy in the generation of ethanol as to what you get out of it, and deplete farmland and water resevoirs.

I am not against the use of ethanol, but it is not a silver bullet. As another poster has already said, there are no silver bullets to anything. If there was, the bullet would already have been shot from the barrel of the gun.

The truth behind the propoganda.
August 18, 2006 1:10:02 AM

Quote:

That’s not what I am trying to say. Look at what all of them have in common: They will put big corporations out of business and therefore there is no support to adapt them. With Wimax in an ideal situation everybody can set up his own Wimax for Internet and cell phone access within the city- no sharing the bandwidth hassle. No cell phone company wants that.



Sorry to reply to this thread yet again, but that is so wrong I don't even know where to begin.

First of all, WiMax isn't something you could just set up in your basement. You can't go out to WalMart and buy a little router-WiMax hybrid and stick it in your room and use. The portions of the spectrum that WiMax will use are licensed. They are not free for anyone to use like the 2.4Ghz spectrum. In addition, the reason why the range of WiMax is up to 25 miles is because it is designed to be placed on a huge antenna (think cell tower) with a comparatively high-powered transmitter.

Even if you pretended for a moment that this was not the case, then you have to understand that you can't have 5000 WiMax towers all running at the same time for everyone's own personal use. There is only so much of the electromagnetic spectrum that exists.

Just so you're aware, the people who are spearheading the implementation of WiMax are.. cell phone companies! Who'd have thought. They already have the infrastrcture in place (cell towers, ground->wired network capabilities). ISP's are also looking at using WiMax as a possible solution for "the last mile" in rural/sparsley populated areas to minimize costs and maximize availability.

WiMax has its place (just like everything else that people have ragged on about in this thread), and it will be deployed in such a way that it is effective. It certainly can provide city coverage, in the same way cell towers do. Same with suburban areas. And phone companies will be the ones that implement it. This is rather opposite to your proposal of corporate sabotage of some grand new idea.


Quote:
The same way, having a computer that does it all and really needs no upgrade will see a huge resistance from a multi-trillion industry.


Multi-trillion dollar industy? Even if you added up all of the companies that could be anywhere near called a "tech company" that deals directly with CPU-related sales, I doubt you would get close to a trillion dollars in yearly revenue, let alone multiples of that. If you're going to spew out statements like that, at least be in the right order of magnitude or two.


Quote:
ethernalite, you're a genius! You're not Neal Stephenson are you?


Oh noes! My terrible secret from space is out.
August 18, 2006 8:00:29 AM

Wow almost instant.

Does that mean I will be able to overclock it and travel back in time?
August 18, 2006 4:21:23 PM

Wow Spud! Nice one.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 18, 2006 4:39:35 PM

Great Posts ethernalite, learned a lot of thing, a bit unexpected =).

I think quantum computer are a really nice scientific subject, but as someone stated, I dont think it's for the masses, period. That's at least for another 50-100years , but that's just my opinion.

We simply dont understand the quantum physic good enough right now. Plus I see many specific application to a Quantum Computer and general, day to day processing is'nt one of them!

Especially for the first quantum computer with say, 50qBits, you could run some specific quantum algorithm superfast and help devellop better computers for the masses with this knowledge but you could'nt use it to browse the internet!
August 18, 2006 5:25:06 PM

Quantum computing sounds nice as the Holy Grail of computing but i think its barking up the wrong tree.

What we need is high density circuitry (and not limitted to a few 2-d layers)
- immune to stray electron flow/tunnelling,
- built-in heat disipation/insulating layers
- an alternate access mechanism (ie light?)
- still usable for generic computing

So what is a possible design?
I saw something in a past SCIAM mag that might be it.

What about a ram chip whose bits are mechanical in design but with electronically induced read/write/modify.

Say we take 2 buckyballs, merged together like a bar bell, with a choke in-between that is electronically relaxable, with ions as inducable magnets on each end, with a large (iron?) ion inside that can be magnetically moved from one sphere to the other when the choke is opened.
Then add a electronic or light based method of reading, say checking if a current can pass through one of the spheres (indicating the iron ion is in that sphere) or if a light beam is blocked by a sphere (also indicating it is filled by the iron atom).

Now organize these bits, each of which is persistent and does not need power to maintain state (ie flash like), into a 3-d layout cube with insulating layers (not that this design would generate much heat).

This would be so dense (a couple dozen atoms in size, maybe 100 including insulation and read/write controls) and allows 3-d layout,
that it would allow maybe Terabytes per cubic mm.
And since it has no refresh cycle, it is independent of frequency, merely a picosecond (?) access time, and would run cool.

I dont know what would be required to turn this into gates (ie OR + AND gates) to also be used as a CPU and not just RAM but i assume its possible.

This i see as being the ULTIMATE possible electronic circuit without something like quark computing (if thats even possible).

Now building the nano scale robot arms/factory needed to assemble this beast may be a century or two from now but i dont see anything that renders this impossible.

What do you think? Can anything beat this? It sure sounds more likely and more stable than quantum computing with q-bits.
August 19, 2006 2:29:27 AM

Quote:
I think quantum computer are a really nice scientific subject, but as someone stated, I dont think it's for the masses, period. That's at least for another 50-100years , but that's just my opinion.

We simply dont understand the quantum physic good enough right now. Plus I see many specific application to a Quantum Computer and general, day to day processing is'nt one of them!


Even 'plain old' CMOS technology seems a bit late sometimes, doesn't it?!
Availability aside (too early for that...), Quantum Computing is an increasingly 'populated' area of intense research, with lots of physicists & engineers entering the field, each year.
Why? Precisely because "we" understand enough Quantum Mechanics to do it; because other areas of research also contribute to this knowledge; because new techniques & technological developments are making it feasible; and, certainly (why not?!) because it has captured increased interest from "the powers".
Major breakthroughs have been done, recently (see, for instance: http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/8/18/5036)
Understanding & Controlling are different matters; fortunately, it seems "we're" being able to deal with the later, knowing Nature's the trickiest place to be in! :wink:


Cheers!
!