Topic: Are we getting close to the dawn of quantum computers?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 started this discussion 15 years ago#897
It seems like existing computer technology is starting to reach it's limits. Most devices can't seem to get past 32nm transistors (AMD is still stuck on 45nm) and I hear that 15nm is hypothetically the smallest that can be achieved. They say that once we reach that limit, we'll have to go to quantum computers to advance any further.
I was also reading up on DDR4, and all the limitations they'll have to overcome to run it at the speeds they want while still getting enough of a performance increase to justify moving from DDR3 to DDR4. They say that a full move to DDR4 probably won't take place till around 2016. With all the talk about quantum computers and all the other changes in computer technology, DDR4 might be obsolete before it even hits shelves.
Thoughts on the state of the technology industry and where it's going?
Falco !MzQCNUfXbc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later[^][v]#17,635
nerd.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 minutes after the original post[^][v]#17,637
I think quantum computers are still a ways off. Who knows. It's impossible to predict. No one saw the transitor even a year before it appeared.
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^][v]#17,642
Quantum computers - aren't those ones which use the spin of atoms or something to perform calculations? If they come, they'll inevitably start out as fickle, clunky things which take up a room and probably use lots of lasers. You'd be looking at 10-30 years before they could be made sufficiently small for desktop use.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^][v]#17,643
@previous (Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG)
From what I understood, the idea is not for them to replace computers. The idea is for them to perform calculations that modern computers cannot compute, like factorization and breaking cryptography.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^][v]#17,646
@17,637 (C)
Well the difference is they've already made very basic quantum computers, and they're constantly putting research and funding into it. They just need to figure out how to go mass scale with it.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 minutes after the original post[^][v]#17,647
I think the most sophisticated quantum computers are no more than 10 quibits? They aren't going to be reaching the capacity of modern computers any time soon, but again, i don't think that's the idea.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^][v]#17,650
@17,642 (Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG)
No, the first quantum computers are going to be exponentially better and faster than the best super-computers we have now because of what this guy said @17,643 (C).
@17,643 (C)
They won't replace computers right away simply because they will be so costly, but they were so differently that they can't be fully integrated with most of today's computer technology. Quantum computers, if possible on a commercial scale, will replace computers as we know them.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 seconds later, 24 minutes after the original post[^][v]#17,651
@17,643 (C)
And figuring out pi to the last digit. I already know that the last digit is 7, though.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^][v]#17,653
@previous (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
Pi doesn't have a last digit. It's an irrational number. Though once you get to the 10,000th digit, you would have to make a circle bigger than the whole universe for it to have an real difference.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[^][v]#17,654
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
pi occurs in other areas of mathematics unrelated to circles.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^][v]#17,655
@17,653 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
That's what you think. But in actuality, the last digit is 7. Quantum computers will probably be able to come much closer to this truth.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 46 seconds later, 52 minutes after the original post[^][v]#17,656
:/ I didn't know trig had anything to do with circles.
OP !OPhereejJA joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#17,986
@17,653 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Actually, only 35 places are required for computing the circumference of a circle the size of the known universe with an error no greater than the radius of a hydrogen atom. Here's why: a reasonable value for the radius of the universe is 2 x 10^34 angstroms. That's just 20 billion years (the time since the big bang) times the speed of light (the upper limit on the rate of expansion). Since pi equals the circumference divided by twice the radius, the uncertainty in pi equals the uncertainty in the circumference (one half angstrom, the radius of a hydrogen atom) divided by twice the radius. That's (1/2 / (2[2 x 10^34]) or 1/(8 x 10^34) or about 10^-35. Knowing pi to 39 decimal places would nearly suffice for computing the circumference of a circle enclosing the known universe with an error no greater than the nucleus of a hydrogen atom, and that's a whole lot smaller than the entire atom. I'm sure you'd want to get a thing like that straight.
The decimal representation of π truncated to 11 decimal places is good enough to estimate the circumference of any circle that fits inside the Earth with an error of less than one millimeter
psychopath !PSYCHOhc32 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#17,989
Pi is exactly 3.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#17,990
@17,986 (OP !OPhereejJA) > That's just 20 billion years (the time since the big bang) times the speed of light (the upper limit on the rate of expansion)
That is incorrect. It is not bounded by the speed of light.
Anonymous C double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#17,997
> While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, there is no such theoretical constraint when space itself is expanding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
OP !OPhereejJA replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#18,003
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#18,035
@17,946 (C)
You know where those functions come from, yeah? You know what words like tangent and secant refer to? You've seen a sine wave? I would hardly call those unrelated to circles.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#18,040
@previous (F)
But their applications are far removed from circles. It's not hard to see the more abstract applications of trigonometric functions.
Anonymous C double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#18,044
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
?
Anonymous C triple-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#18,048
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
All of signal processing relies on trigonometric functions. So knowing pi to high accuracy is relevant, even besides the obvious application of computing the areas and circumferences of your typical spatially defined circle.
If you don't have anything to add or don't have the prerequisite knowledge to understand some basic terminology (trigonometry is commonly a high-school level course) then stop replying.
Anonymous C quadruple-posted this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#18,070
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
Great rebuttal, professor.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#18,083
@18,040 (C) > But their applications are far removed from circles.
I guess we have different definitions of what "far removed" should mean. Angles measured in degrees or radians are based on a circle. The distance from a point in any direction is going to involve a circular or spherical radius from that point.
Whether you are calculating the spherical shape of a field in space, describing the orbit of a planet in terms of its deviance from a circular orbit, describing the curvature of spacetime, breaking a function down into sine waves, or using polar coordinates, you are doing math that relies on the calculation and mathematical description of circles. Pi creeps into a lot of things, but I don't see how it is unrelated to circles at all.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#18,089
@previous (F)
Under the layman's definition of a circle that I was responding to: > Pi doesn't have a last digit. It's an irrational number. Though once you get to the 10,000th digit, you would have to make a circle bigger than the whole universe for it to have an real difference.
I think it's more than safe to say that pi is useful in situations far removed from your standard Euclidean circle...which is and was my point.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 10 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#19,087
@previous (C)
But the major point still stands, as OP!OPhereejJA put it, that knowing pi to 10,000 places, or even 1,000 places for that matter, is completely useless, even to to most advanced computer applications. That's why I said I was just using a circle as an example.