Slashdot Mirror
UCLA Chemists Progress Toward Molecular Computers
Concepvelo writes "It is very refeshing to see Professor Stoddart (my organic chem professor last quarter) and Pat Collier making progress toward molecular computers. Stoddart's team has created molecules that can be switched hundreds of times, where before they could only be switched once. They are saying that the creation of Molecular RAM is one step closer because all of this can be done at room temp. The article is here."
These are awesome developments for both molecular engineering and the high tech. Remember, though, that many new developments never see commercialization, because they just can't be made faster, cheaper, better. There are so many dead technologies that were promising once. Memory such as 3d protein gels (read and written with lasers), holograms and others just haven't seen their full potential, and possibly never will.
-- Moondog
Heh... with the numbers of chipsets and sockets et al that motherboards in circulation today have, we 're almost at that point already. ;)
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
The author of the article wrote:
This doesn't necessarily mean that they stop working after that point. It's reasonable to assume that a molecular device that can perform a repetative function can continue to repeat that function.
If I were to say that I've rebooting my computer hundereds of times, you wouldn't assume that I can no longer boot it.
Also, it helps to pay closer heed to the quoted source than the authors text. The author quoted:
Molecules don't break down from wear in quite the same manner as larger scale components. Assuming that such switches are properly housed, there lifespan would be affected by things like changing environmental conditions (EM, temp, etc.) but not repetative use.
The part I objected to is the following:
This just doesn't ring true. First, they are far from actually developing a "molecular computer". How could they be working on one that does anything, let alone a learning one.
This sounds like hype... call it "text-candy" for lack of a better term. The principles for bullding a computer are not really changing here (switches, logic gates, etc.) so developing a "learning molecular computer" has two steps:
They are currently on step one....
Ok, you begged the response:
Only if you were running windows/linux/freebsd/dos/os2.... </joke>
---
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
One thing I noticed about the article is that the term "nanotechnology" or "nanocomputers" wasn't mentioned once.
The closer they got was "nano-sized computers" and an institute called nanosystems.
I don't think this is coincidence. After a lot of media coverage of stories like Bill Joy's paper (which i read and liked very much, but didn't totally agree with) the term nanotechnology has been made to have a negative ring to it.
then you have all the nonesense far less inteligent people have said, plus some very cool renditions like Deus Ex, and what you have is instant holocaust. soon nanotechnology will sound as bad as nuclear reactors and genetic engineering to a lot of people (they all sound fine to me).
anyhow, congrats to the research team.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
This kind of research sounds like a waste of time -- given how fast conventional processors are accelerating (Moore's Law and all), do we even need molecular computing?
Well of course we do. As things get smaller and smaller it's going to get to individual atoms and molecules anyways.
Even if the current silicone transistor technology, can be scaled much further down. It will still take up a lot more molecules than this (possibly in the millions), simply because it's a technology that is not design to work with individual molecules.
My computer is currently not powerful enough to do real time voice and video processing, determine from my tone and facial movements what I want the computer to do, or providing intelligent assistance, or doing even rudimentary AI tasks. All home computers do is flashy graphics - I want the power to HELP me in something IMPORTANT. I want the ability to havea thousands of nano-sized devices implanted in my skin to store critical information. I want my own Personal Area Network (PAN) that is completely secure and stores a record of all my experiences, emotions, health readings, and physical stimulus. I want a complete, real-time searchable, intelligent database system that monitors what I do and prompts me with intelligent and relevent information to help me with the task at hand.
Do we have the processing power to do this? Yes. Could I fit in my pocket? No. That is why this is important - every step towards nano-scale technology is a leap forward towards a future of prevelant, pervasive technology that is much more flexible than what is currently available.
THAT is why this interests me.
Great, now biological and technological warfare can converge :) Nerve gas won't just be for humans! *lol*
I have this theory that with nano, EE/CS will become in less demand, and mechanical engineers will be forced to reexamine rod logic if they want the good jobs. However, we're really moving at a snail's pace here, and haven't had any real developments in a while. nano-saxaphones for Pres. Clinton! ;-)
(Yes, I'll take a couple of those 6.0225x10^23 SIMMs, please...)
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
I agree with you, I just want to expand on something:
And it's the part that can benefit the most from this kind of thing. Not for size, but for speed. The speed of memory access is often the controlling factor in how fast a program runs. It doesn't matter if you just bought a 6000 terahertz CPU; if your memory is slow, your processor only waits more.
Currently CPUs are on the order of ten times as fast as the processor, and the gap is increasing. We need faster memory more than we need faster anything else. (Well, maybe faster pizza delivery.)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
There just seem to be a whole lot of risks involved with molecular computing. Wouldn't it be easy for the molecules to be jarred out of position? If a part of the computer breaks, would all the molecules inside be lost? This kind of research sounds like a waste of time -- given how fast conventional processors are accelerating (Moore's Law and all), do we even need molecular computing?