CricketMX.com

Another update:

NewScientist.com wrote:A device that can hold hundreds of atoms in a 3D array, and image each one individually, has been developed by scientists in the US. The machine is an important stepping stone towards the development of a quantum computer, they say.

Many teams are looking for ways to build quantum computers, which process data using quantum particles such as photons, electrons and atoms.

Each particle carries a single bit of quantum information, or qubit, and the strange laws of quantum mechanics can be used to perform calculations at vastly greater speeds than are possible on conventional computers.

But to scale up these systems so that they can do meaningful calculations, researchers are looking for ways of trapping large numbers of particles and addressing them individually.

Read more...

Looks like quantum physics is coming to computing whether quicks or anyone else likes it or not eh?

As far as the conventiional processor goes, I think they can do one thing to slow down moor's law. make the processors larger.

Likewise I don't think we're going to see faster clock speeds, as higher clock speeds makes more heat. Last I read was that one of intel's keys to making the CPU faster is to use a larger L2 caches. Intead of having 1 MB or whatever using sizes 4-8 maybe 16. The cache memory is the amount of data or instructions that the CPU will deal with for an instance. The speeds of the cache chips as a ballpark figure around 45GB/sec, give or take a few.

Also the other thing is everything in a PC oerates slower than the CPU. So why dont we find ways to make everything run as fast as the CPU.

One nice little innovation is flash hard drives. Which I'm sure most everyone has seen or used or have a flash drive. Samsung and other companies already make them, they're quite expensive and you don't get as much space, but they do operate much faster than the conventional hard drive. Picture this, RAM runs about 4 GB/sec, imagine a flash drive being capable of this? How long would it take to boot windows then? Not very long.

Hell my computer is plenty fast, and I can get the QX6600 (Intel's Quad Core 2.93 GHz) which is 4 times faster than mine, but I don't have $1300 for one. I looked at the stats on this and the quad core does 65,000 MIPS, 65 billion operations a second. There's not much it's not going to handle.

I think in time we're not going to have a whole lot of hardware in these machines, I think everyone is going to push for intergration, after all intergrated stuff is cheaper, and more convienent. I measn don't you like the idea of knowing everything will work without all the hassel?

As much as I hate to say guys. Quantium computing might be a thing of the future, but until we get another einstien quantum computer will not be practicle for the everyday consumer. We'll be seeing plenty of Intel's quad cores, 8 cores and so fourth. Supposedly Intel is supposed to be up to 16 cores by then end of this year, they do have 8 core CPU for servers, I can't even get a price on that. But I can only imagine. I guess if you need to run a website like google i guess that's just what the doctor ordered.

wanabe wrote:Likewise I don't think we're going to see faster clock speeds, as higher clock speeds makes more heat.

Intel are using carbon nanotubes in their newest experimental processors. The tubes dissipate heat much faster and also make the chips more resistant to mechanical shock (dropping them for example).

wanabe wrote:Also the other thing is everything in a PC oerates slower than the CPU. So why dont we find ways to make everything run as fast as the CPU.

Did you read the article immediately above yours? It describes a method for quantum memory circuits.

wanabe wrote:I looked at the stats on this and the quad core does 65,000 MIPS, 65 billion operations a second. There's not much it's not going to handle.

Yeah, and Bill Gates once said nobody would ever need more than the 64K you got in a Commodore 64. Think ahead a little. As soon as all the elements are in place to build a quantum computer, all the arguments for fast electronics disappear. Calculations will run faster than light (especially since it turns out that light can be slowed). Data transmission (and yep even matter transmission) over enormous distances instantaneously. It's a different world. (The matter transport thing - check newscientist magazine - theres a team that has successfully teleported rubidium atoms across space. It's only ever been an entangled photon until now. Star Trek is coming guys.

wanabe wrote:I think in time we're not going to have a whole lot of hardware in these machines, I think everyone is going to push for intergration, after all intergrated stuff is cheaper, and more convienent.

It depends if you care about quality or not. Integrated sound cards, for example, are not great. Gamers will tell you that most on-board graphics cards are way too slow for todays high-end games.

wanabe wrote:As much as I hate to say guys. Quantium computing might be a thing of the future, but until we get another einstien...

Oh dear. You see.... there *are* other einsteins. There are guys who've out calculated him a dozen times over. OK Einstein was a genius and well ahead of his time, but his theories are now full of holes that todays physicists have made. As for the quantum thing.... well, just remember that switching speeds, memory circuits and data transmission are all in the bag already. It really is just a question of time. As for Intel, they're on board and experimenting with nano technology and exotic states of matter already.


Do you ever research what you write?

Do you ever research what you write?

No. I'm not about to spend hours researching something to prove a point to someone halfway around the world. It's just not going to happen.

Of course interngrated sucks, for the average user no one needs a high end video card to sell stocks, or needs 4 GB of memory to do word processing.

Here's my point, even if they do make a quantum computer and find some sort of standard to go by, it will be years before they find thier way into PC's such as mine. I don't think they're going to solve all the problems like memory and storage space. I have no idea how things are going to be. I live in the present because I've found that the past gets better and the future only gets worse, so don't expect me to look forward or do much if any research on this.

Take google earth, if I can pinpoint your house, not necessarly get a detailed image, you know damn good and well uncle sam, the biggest peeping tom in history of mankind, is snooping in on me masturbating in my closet. They might not be, but who knows. The certianly have the capability. I love computers myself. I work with them every day, and that likewise doesn't mean I know ***** about quantium computing. The minute the government tried shoving a chip in my ass I'm taking off to canada, I want no one to have to power to locate me or find out everything about me, where I ate at last wednesday who I've been *****, and whether or not I smoke dope. I'm sure by then they'll be able to have a sensor intergrated to a chip that can detect THC. So the next day you have two officers waiting for you with handcuffs at your front door.

I know that got off on a limb. On the other hand, corporations like to put on a show like they're really doing something, like donations, instead in this case they're doing research on quantium computers, I'm sure they'll exist, but they're not about to stop making thier conventional, they make too much money. How much would it cost intel to produce these quantum CPU's in high volume? In time I'm sure they'll be cheap. Trust me, Intel all of them will take thier sweet ass time switching over. Consider the source, capitalism, it's about being cheap and making money. There are the few who really do have a passion. You think the CEO of intel has a passion for quantium computers and what the future of computers beholds? Hell no, he's amoung other greedy CEO's they just want more money.

wanabe wrote:

Do you ever research what you write?

No. I'm not about to spend hours researching something to prove a point to someone halfway around the world. It's just not going to happen.

Thought not. Now that I think about it, I'm fairly sure I asked you that once before and got a similar answer. Pity.

Wanabe wrote:Here's my point, even if they do make a quantum computer and find some sort of standard to go by, it will be years before they find thier way into PC's such as mine.

I think that's probably not going to be the case. In fact, based on power consumption (much lower), production costs (lower) and operational advantages such as increased speed, I'd say it's fairly likely that the finished article will hit high-street shelves pretty soon after completion (which is still years away).

wanabe wrote:I live in the present because I've found that the past gets better and the future only gets worse

That is terribly sad for you. Still, if you'd prefer to be having this conversation by snail-mail, or watching B&W TV, or maybe ploughing a field by driving oxen, that's just fine. Personally I think progress is a wonderful thing and I love to hear about what's coming next.

wanabe wrote:Take google earth, if I can pinpoint your house,

Mmm well, you can't. My house isn't in Google Earth. In fact, most of Poland is very poorly covered.

wanabe wrote:uncle sam, the biggest peeping tom in history of mankind, is snooping in on me masturbating in my closet.

Naughty. You'll go blind.

wanabe wrote:On the other hand, corporations like to put on a show like they're really doing something, like donations, instead in this case they're doing research on quantium computers

The people doing the experiments are physicists, scientists. I'm a scientist myself and I assure you that research work is not for "show" and it's certainly not to make people think I'm "really doing something". I take that view as a professional slur. Research is what we do. It's our job, our way of life. The stuff we do improves your life continuously and it's going to keep doing that.

Come to think of it, as a person who prefers to live in the past, perhaps what we do isn't an improvement for you.

wanabe wrote:You think the CEO of intel has a passion for quantium computers and what the future of computers beholds? Hell no, he's amoung other greedy CEO's they just want more money.

Finally, a point we can agree on.