(untitled)
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
37 comments displayed.
#5
-
mienkampf (12/10/2015) [-] The tech to meassure quantum states is too far a way from it being able to analize data on the fly for real-life aplications. i'm more for optical computing, i think it's the step before quantum.
#8 to #5
-
crazypat (12/10/2015) [-] Optical is the new age, but if we can set up the base work for the quantum computers of the future we will give humanity a boost. We have some of the pieces but not the whole puzzle, we can produce (at least we think we can) a working quantum gate based off the fredkin gate, and we might be able to measure larger amounts of stronger data in the future, we have actually reached the ability to measure it at this point (not good enough for computing) plus this also means we will be able to have more control over the super position of the qubits in the future. phys.org/news/2012-10-gently-cubit-superposition.html
The quantum age might have its roots in our timeline, we just have ot work hard for it.
The quantum age might have its roots in our timeline, we just have ot work hard for it.
#6 to #5
-
burnsqc (12/10/2015) [-] I agree. Quantum computing is a real neat idea, but I don't believe we'll see it in action any time soon. Optical computing is more likely to be practical sooner. Even still, refining steps in the CMOS fabrication process is already bringing us faster and faster computers.
However, that is beginning to reach its limits, as the propagation delay which slows computing speed results from namely the capacitance of the oxide layer. The video glossed over quantum tunneling, but that's the issue that limits the minimum thickness of the SiO2 layer. If it gets too thin, electrons can tunnel through the dielectric layer, leaving the channel and entering the gate and vice versa, which results in transistor failure. On the other hand, the thicker the layer is, the more capacitance it creates and the greater the delay. We've pretty much reached the lower limit. I believe (and I may be a bit off here) that the minimum thickness is around 4 atoms thick?
Aside from the fab process, further research into new materials and refining computer architecture allows computers to operate faster as well. We're also stalling out at clock rate, but ultimately the inclusion of (sometimes several levels of) caches is helping to increase computer speed.
However, that is beginning to reach its limits, as the propagation delay which slows computing speed results from namely the capacitance of the oxide layer. The video glossed over quantum tunneling, but that's the issue that limits the minimum thickness of the SiO2 layer. If it gets too thin, electrons can tunnel through the dielectric layer, leaving the channel and entering the gate and vice versa, which results in transistor failure. On the other hand, the thicker the layer is, the more capacitance it creates and the greater the delay. We've pretty much reached the lower limit. I believe (and I may be a bit off here) that the minimum thickness is around 4 atoms thick?
Aside from the fab process, further research into new materials and refining computer architecture allows computers to operate faster as well. We're also stalling out at clock rate, but ultimately the inclusion of (sometimes several levels of) caches is helping to increase computer speed.
#21
-
zomaru (12/10/2015) [-] Teleportation is still a idea I would never enjoy. Because to transfer the data of a person, the person himself would have to be killed off, in one location, to be then recreated as an exact copy in a different location.
But would that person be the same person as the previous one? Think of that rick and Morty episode, where across different time streams, minute differences had large result. The same could be said for a person recreated multiple times, would they really even be themselves any more?
But would that person be the same person as the previous one? Think of that rick and Morty episode, where across different time streams, minute differences had large result. The same could be said for a person recreated multiple times, would they really even be themselves any more?
#26 to #21
-
graboidzero ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-] I think about this too whenever I see teleportation. The way in works in Star Trek, yo'ure ripped appart into billions of atoms and reassembled but EVEN if you're alive at destination, there is absolutely no way to proof it's still "you" and not a copy of "you" who actually thinks he's "you"...
Portals are the future man, **** teleportation!
Portals are the future man, **** teleportation!
#27 to #21
-
greeneyedgamer (12/10/2015) [-] An adult human consists of an entirely new set of atoms about every seven years. You are literally all new matter compared to "you" seven years ago.
#30 to #21
-
nanako ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-] this is a terrifying thought that has kept me awake many nights
There was an episode of star trek that sort of addressed it, but the transporters there are handwaved away as just not doing that
One thing is certain though; If we develop teleporters, we will have also simultaneously invented replicators and instantaneous cloning. The implications of that are pretty staggering
There was an episode of star trek that sort of addressed it, but the transporters there are handwaved away as just not doing that
One thing is certain though; If we develop teleporters, we will have also simultaneously invented replicators and instantaneous cloning. The implications of that are pretty staggering
#29
-
nanako ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-] How the **** does quantum entanglement work
Whatn does "instantly" even mean? Is that an extremely small period of time, or literally simultaneous
how is this even possible
Whatn does "instantly" even mean? Is that an extremely small period of time, or literally simultaneous
how is this even possible
#33 to #29
-
carlonord (12/10/2015) [-] Quantum entanglement works because physics makes two (quarks?) become attached through space time, no matter the distance. These things have multiple states, and can be 'triggered' into an on and off state, much like zeroes and ones of binary language. Meaning data can be transmitted through the alternating of states, whatever you do to one of the two, happens to the other one. This does not change no matter the distance, and it happens instantly, as in no lag what so ever. Why you may ask? Physics, apply today.
ssssssssssssssppppppppppppppuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrdddddddddddooooooooooooo
ssssssssssssssppppppppppppppuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrdddddddddddooooooooooooo
#34 to #33
-
nanako ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-] no, that's largely a description of how it's applied.
I mean, how does it WORK. how can particles communicate information at a theoretically infinite speed
i read it's been tested at 10x the speed of light, and that might just be the limit of instrument fidelity
I mean, how does it WORK. how can particles communicate information at a theoretically infinite speed
i read it's been tested at 10x the speed of light, and that might just be the limit of instrument fidelity
#14
-
phantalice ONLINE (12/10/2015) [-] Quantum entanglement essentially gives us the ability to have instantaneous data to be sent from computer to computer. With the right manipulation and uses (if we ever live to see them), future games could have literally no lag when communicating with servers, essentially allowing us to play games that the only buffer time in between inputs would become key presses and/or the limits of our perception.
#19 to #14
-
boarderlinegreat (12/10/2015) [-] Well, If I'm not mistaken, the speed at witch data can be transferred is still limited to lightspeed, so that's that.
#23 to #20
-
boarderlinegreat (12/10/2015) [-] Or in my word: The entanglement process is instantaneous, not limited to any boundary. The actual measurement of it is still limited to the speed of light.
#22 to #20
-
boarderlinegreat (12/10/2015) [-] For lack of better wording take this as reference:
_
Collapsing an entangled pair occurs instantaneously but can never be used to transmit information faster than light. If you have an entangled pair of particles, A and B, making a measurement on some entangled property of A will give you a random result and B will have the complementary result. The key point is that you have no control over the state of A, and once you make a measurement you lose entanglement. You can infer the state of B anywhere in the universe by noting that it must be complementary to A.
The no-cloning theorem stops you from employing any sneaky tricks like making a bunch of copies of B and checking if they all have the same state or a mix of states, which would otherwise allow you to send information faster than light by choosing to collapse the entangled state or not._
_
Collapsing an entangled pair occurs instantaneously but can never be used to transmit information faster than light. If you have an entangled pair of particles, A and B, making a measurement on some entangled property of A will give you a random result and B will have the complementary result. The key point is that you have no control over the state of A, and once you make a measurement you lose entanglement. You can infer the state of B anywhere in the universe by noting that it must be complementary to A.
The no-cloning theorem stops you from employing any sneaky tricks like making a bunch of copies of B and checking if they all have the same state or a mix of states, which would otherwise allow you to send information faster than light by choosing to collapse the entangled state or not._
#16 to #14
-
carlonord (12/10/2015) [-] I'm more looking forward to the days when we could 'plug in' matrix style and get a truly immersive experience. Imagine a game like fallout, but where each person is a real human, and its as if its real life. The passage of time is false, so you could do all sorts of things in a short time frame. You could feel the rain, you could know the world. Truely immersive experiences.
The majesty of space exploration, the chaos of WWII, imagine it.
Completely interactive DnD, where the game master can literally shape the world for the players during their campaign.
Lagless connections is great, honestly, but there's bigger things I look towards.
The majesty of space exploration, the chaos of WWII, imagine it.
Completely interactive DnD, where the game master can literally shape the world for the players during their campaign.
Lagless connections is great, honestly, but there's bigger things I look towards.
#2
-
imadeafjfornsfw (12/09/2015) [-]
You could also use hexadecimal as opposed to binary. So instead of going from binary, to machine, to assembly, to low, to high languages you could just go from hexadecimal, to assembly, to high. I skipped a few languages in the binary but you get the idea. Using hexadecimal is was faster than binary.
#15 to #2
-
relicfighter (12/10/2015) [-]
I don't see how that would help in computing. It would help with compiling sure, but unless you reinvent the transistor, you are still dealing with binary. I would actually love to see an example on how it would be set up. I have a few ideas, but none that would be practical.
#3 to #2
-
pentol (12/09/2015) [-]
the impracticality here comes in diferentiating each of the 16 values of charge. differentiating 2 values across a spectrum going from zero to one is a hell of a lot easier than meassuring 16 values between zero and one. if you increase the voltage, you end up with more signal noise, and have higher risk of delicate circuitry failing on you. back around the end of the 90's/early 2000's, there were some, i think sony was one of them, who tried a system with three states, 0, 1, and 2. it failed and i assume there is a reason it isn't brought back.
a hexadecimal system is not happening this century.
a hexadecimal system is not happening this century.
#4 to #3
-
imadeafjfornsfw (12/09/2015) [-]
A few teachers and students at my college were trying to last year. Its possible this century.
#37
-
anon (01/08/2016) [-]
Just got out of a 2 day workshop on error correction in quantum computers (one of the google researchers was there, cool guy) and that is really the limiting factor at present. The problem is having a bunch of qubits (we need of order 10^9 to beat current supercomputers) which can randomly stop doing what you want, somewhere in an array of similar qubits, but that still keep doing things and occasionally fix themselves and then another one somewhere else breaks and this plays havoc with the calculation.
Let's just say you don't run the program a few times in order to correct for errors and that is the current limiting factor (anything requiring about 14 hours of discussion with physicists and engineers from 7 countries to reach 'so I think we should try Austin's idea' is obviously not going to be condensed much and still be accurate).
A UNIVERSAL (that is can be given any software to run like your current computer) is 20 years away if we have some magic breakthrough but more likely 50 years away otherwise.
However we can make algorithm-specific (i.e. JUST code-breaking or JUST data lists etc.) architectures and that's what the D-wave does, it does one type of calculation but it does do it well.
Also since this is FJ I will have you know I DID ask but NO a quantum graphics processor is in no way faster than a regular GPU (infact it would be even more of a bitch to cool)
Let's just say you don't run the program a few times in order to correct for errors and that is the current limiting factor (anything requiring about 14 hours of discussion with physicists and engineers from 7 countries to reach 'so I think we should try Austin's idea' is obviously not going to be condensed much and still be accurate).
A UNIVERSAL (that is can be given any software to run like your current computer) is 20 years away if we have some magic breakthrough but more likely 50 years away otherwise.
However we can make algorithm-specific (i.e. JUST code-breaking or JUST data lists etc.) architectures and that's what the D-wave does, it does one type of calculation but it does do it well.
Also since this is FJ I will have you know I DID ask but NO a quantum graphics processor is in no way faster than a regular GPU (infact it would be even more of a bitch to cool)
#32
-
notisac (12/10/2015) [-] if anybody wants to know what a quantum computer looks like heres a pic
and its called dwave
and its called dwave
