So basically "Less is More" ? and BTW that link to wikipedia made me more confused then when i started
That's about right. Also as hitman012 hints at, the secure encryption possibilites are endless. You send one photon one way, the other the opposite way. Anyone intercepts one of them, you know immediately by the state change of the other. Quantum entanglement seems odd, but can be explained if you think outside three dimensional space. It is possible for particles to move apart in 3D space, but still to be connected in a fourth spatial dimension. Example. Imagine a page, folded in half vertically. Spread it flat. Now imagine two particles moving away from the centerfold, towards the left and right edge of the page respectively. Moving away from each other, right? Now fold the paper up again, so that the two halves touch. Imagine the particles doing the same thing as before, and note that although they both move from the centerfold to the left and right edge of the page, they also move parallel to each other. Thus from a 2D perspective, they move apart, but from a 3D perspective, they stay equidistant to each other.
i think i am getting a basic concept. i think this is why i took a computer systems course at college and not applied theoretical physics at university
From a 3D space perspective, yes, because if you change one photon, you change its entangled twin instantly, no matter where in 3D space they are relative to each other. Basically the entangled photons represent a "shortcut" bypassing 3D space.
As I understand it, the transmission of information faster than light using quantum entanglement is not possible. Here's why: Imagine two entangled particles are linked on different planets, galaxies, or whatever. The distance between them is irrelevant, as when you change one, the opposite must happen to the other instantaneously in order to attain balance. However, until one particle's defining property - I'll use spin for this example - is observed, they exist in a superposition of states, i.e. they are both spinning one way and the other way at the same time. We explain this with probabilities, by saying that there is a 50% chance that it has one attribute and a 50% chance that it has the other (Google for "Schrodinger's cat" for more information). However, when we observe one entangled particle, it obviously cannot be spinning both ways at the same time! To remedy this, it assumes a definite state, and this is called the collapse of the particle's function. Until the function of one entangled particle collapses, both exist in a superposition of states - however, when one collapses, the sister particle must as well because they have to maintain opposite properties. Now, suppose that one particle - call it the transmitting particle - is spun one way. The other particle's wavefunction collapses, and it instantly starts to spin the other way, but herein lies the problem. The people at the recieving end can look at this particle, but they have no way of knowing whether its function has just collapsed and it's spun because they observed it, or whether its function had collapsed due to a spin of its sister particle. Therefore, we can't transmit the information further than the speed of light, even if the quantum states can be.
Or, in other words, you still have to communicate in the traditional way before your quantum signal will make any sense Sam
You also of course have Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to deal with, but thats more the mechanics of it.
I think that is what hitman012 was talking about, Cabe. And he is right. Quickly reading up on the matter, you cannot communicate by quantum entanglement (bummer), thus putting faster-than-light communication out of reach. You can "teleport" quantum states, thus effectively doubling your data rate, but this depends on sub-luminal communication, so you don't communicate faster than light either (although twice as much information can be transmitted).
At the moment they're using 90nm and Intel has just started 65nm processes... Intel reckon they can get to 35nm eventually, and other manufacturers think the same. As Uncle Psychosis said, this will happen around 2010-2015. That'll be the shrinking limit of CMOS, so processors will have to be designed and optimized better from then onwards. Unless of course all this quantum stuff works by then. I don't know how long it'll be before CMOS is replaced with something else. ch424
"The danger from computers is not that they will eventually get as smart as men, but that we will agree to meet them halfway." -Bernard Avishai
I think current manufacturing methods will be sufficient for a long time to come. When they cease to be practical, a new design will be needed, discovered, and implemented -- necessity/mother of invention. I think the major issue is maintaining backward compatibility. Intel tried to get away from backward compatibility with the Itanic, but it hasn't really caught on. I also think the only way this 'new design' will succeed, is if it is an 'open' standard, allowing Intel, AMD (and others) to build the same basic design, as they are able to do with x86. If one company holds the rights, it just won't catch on that well.
Oh how true...as we let them do most of our complex manipulation for us...and then proceed to interpret the data...but if you don't know how the data is achieved to begin with, you cannot interpret it with any accuracy.
Sorry but movies come from man and man does what we please. If it does become possible for man to create AI, we will. Movies will not scare us out of making it as powerfull as possible. Just like when it becomes possible to clone humans, laws will not stop it from happening, someone somewhere will make it happen.
Necessity is indeed the mother of inventions, and necessity is where we're at. At man's current stage in scientific evolution it is imperative that a new computing technology comes to play, we are in the brink of leaving the petroleum-age and soon coming into the hydrogen-age, while the nano-age is only the horizon. All these new technological leaps requires a giant leap in our current computing technology in order to catch up with the ideas that will push the future. As many say silicon tech is at the end of it's cycle, with little more than a decade of possible lifespan. What will come next? Who knows? P.S Cloned babes will kick ass.
I'm not convinced of the 10 yr deadline. Not too many years ago, there were predictions that current technology had reached manufacturing limits. Then, those limits were surpassed. Certainly there is a finite point with this technology and manufacturing, but there may still be room enough at the inn for design improvements.
It's not how far we can push an old square wheel, I'm sure if need be we can keep using current silicon tech for another 50 years, but's its science thats pushing for a quantum leap in processing power. It's development and progression of various sciences such as what I've mentioned above that are calling for not simply a design improvement but a whole new system and method. Like I said you can only push a square wheel so far before the circle comes to play.
Ah, OK. I misunderstood. My main point was that the square wheel will be pushed until it no longer is profitable to do so, or there is a more profitable alternative. That includes fab expenses, etc.
