Quantum computing hits the rocks, springs leak - bit-tech.net Forums

GreatOldOne · 27th Jun 2005, 13:44

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/06...tum_Computing/

Spaced_invader · 27th Jun 2005, 14:38

well i'm sure someone will find a new gismo that will fix it all, and we can all live in our perfect little polluted world again...

RotoSequence · 27th Jun 2005, 15:32

Well thats annoying. Im sure they'll work through this challenge eventually; after all, its what people do

Firehed · 27th Jun 2005, 18:58

Well hmm... that bit makes quantum computing sound not a whole lot different than multicore processors. But if we can pack 4,000,000,000,000 ones and zeroes in a hard drive's relatively tiny area, sounds like we can fix this.

I mean, just up the mhz! Oh no... that again!

Da Dego · 27th Jun 2005, 19:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firehed

Well hmm... that bit makes quantum computing sound not a whole lot different than multicore processors.

True...not exactly anything 'quantum' about it....? Sounds like just sending two bits at once. Yeah, each one can be on or off, meaning each packet of two can show a total of 4 states, but we can do that with two bits right now. I thought the idea was to try and get computers off of base 2?

Firehed · 28th Jun 2005, 06:33

Well that's what more than two states translates to - 0, 1, and 2. You can do everything 1.5x as fast as you have that third bit you can be in, assuming it translates directly. I think it was just worded poorly, or I need to read up a bit.

I'm just waiting for the 65 (and then 45 I think) nanometer process, bump it up to four then eight cores per proc, by which time we'll all be multithreaded and happy. And Bill will charge more for different versions of windows that support more cores, of course, not to mention make longhorn keep a quad-core chip at 75% load just sitting at the desktop

Da Dego · 28th Jun 2005, 14:07

Firehed,

No, the application of quantum computing is to be able to evolve beyond base2 without new bits. We're still seeing on/off, just two bits being sent at once as opposed to a single bit with four distinct orientations.

Of course, you may be right that the article just explains it poorly to relate it to current computing technologies.

27th Jun 2005, 13:44	#1
GreatOldOne Thoroughbred of Sin Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Evil League of Evil Posts: 10,300	Quantum computing hits the rocks, springs leak http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/06...tum_Computing/ __________________ "The iPhone is like some glorious early-60s sports car. Not as practical, reliable, economical, sensible or roomy as a family saloon but oh, the joy." - Stephen Fry A GOO-ster is Born - Build Diary Electronics Help Needed! RSS Twitter

27th Jun 2005, 14:38	#2
Spaced_invader Supermodder Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: UK Posts: 493	well i'm sure someone will find a new gismo that will fix it all, and we can all live in our perfect little polluted world again... __________________ email me: echo "'1+&9#1)+/6@)0#+/.%20" \| tr "#--/-=" a-z those that should know, know...

27th Jun 2005, 15:32	#3
RotoSequence Lazy Lurker Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: 'States Posts: 4,534	Well thats annoying. Im sure they'll work through this challenge eventually; after all, its what people do __________________ Technology Schmecnology

27th Jun 2005, 18:58	#4
Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match. Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: An hour north of Boston Posts: 12,576	Well hmm... that bit makes quantum computing sound not a whole lot different than multicore processors. But if we can pack 4,000,000,000,000 ones and zeroes in a hard drive's relatively tiny area, sounds like we can fix this. I mean, just up the mhz! Oh no... that again! __________________ hire me @ eric-stern.com - web developer and php ninja pics @ my smugmug :: Twitter @firehed :: blog @ firehed.net 40D\|580EXII\|285HV\|AB800\|70-200f/4LIS\|17-50f/2.8\|150f/2.8Macro\|50f/1.8 MacPro @ 8x2.8GHz, 10GB FBDDR2, 3TB HD :: MBP @ 2x2.2GHz, 4GB DDR2, 320GB HD

28th Jun 2005, 06:33	#6
Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match. Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: An hour north of Boston Posts: 12,576	Well that's what more than two states translates to - 0, 1, and 2. You can do everything 1.5x as fast as you have that third bit you can be in, assuming it translates directly. I think it was just worded poorly, or I need to read up a bit. I'm just waiting for the 65 (and then 45 I think) nanometer process, bump it up to four then eight cores per proc, by which time we'll all be multithreaded and happy. And Bill will charge more for different versions of windows that support more cores, of course, not to mention make longhorn keep a quad-core chip at 75% load just sitting at the desktop __________________ hire me @ eric-stern.com - web developer and php ninja pics @ my smugmug :: Twitter @firehed :: blog @ firehed.net 40D\|580EXII\|285HV\|AB800\|70-200f/4LIS\|17-50f/2.8\|150f/2.8Macro\|50f/1.8 MacPro @ 8x2.8GHz, 10GB FBDDR2, 3TB HD :: MBP @ 2x2.2GHz, 4GB DDR2, 320GB HD

28th Jun 2005, 14:07	#7
Da Dego Brett Thomas Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Cleveland, OH USA Posts: 3,906	Firehed, No, the application of quantum computing is to be able to evolve beyond base2 without new bits. We're still seeing on/off, just two bits being sent at once as opposed to a single bit with four distinct orientations. Of course, you may be right that the article just explains it poorly to relate it to current computing technologies. __________________ "Frankly that seems overkill. iluvtrees2 arguing with spec is the intellectual equivalent of a bunny rabbit taking on a pissed-off lion." - Nexxo