Slashdot Mirror
New Advance In Quantum Dot Technology
sacremon writes: "An article in EETimes describes research at the University of Nebraska on the development of an improved method for the generation of quantum dots. The researchers invoke the infamous 'five years away from having a small-scale quantum computer in the lab,' but the technique looks promising, particularly for generating a large array of quantum dots."
Personally, I'd like to be able to do something like annotation, or the like, to mark up someone's comments, so there isn't the continually need to re-parse things.
I'd also like to be able to note in my link somewhat automatically that I agree or disagree with the author (a color code)?
Those are some of my thoughts, all put into once nice package.... if you prefer it that way.
Oooh.... let's think of something new, post it to slashdot, and wait and see how long it takes someone to say oohhh... i wish i could have a beowolf cluster of those....
It doesn't make much of a difference how small/fast you make the processor if you can't push the data at it fast enough. So far, there isn't even much theory-ware that can keep up with the speeds of processing this is hinting about.
I need a funny sig
Quantum money? Is that like, the more accurately you know how fast you're spending it, the less accurately you can know how much you have left?
Corollary to Moore's Law: The IQ of new computer owners is declining.
I'll give Craig Bohl one more year to put a decent defense on the field. They need linebackers and defensive backs... now!
NU should do better next year with a nice crop of fast I-Backs. No more of this big, slow, powerful, can't-get-to-the-outside crap.
Jesus, they lost to Kanas State. Yes, Kansas State. How embarassing. KSU, the worst team of all time. But the KSU fans are so stupid, they tore down the goalposts like they've never won a game before.
These guys are not full of shit! The people working on this stuff are way ahead of their time (20 years or so). This is stuff that can be the future if no other things are invented. It doesn't necessarily have to be the future but right now it is what we believe will be the future. Bandy is one of the smartest men I know and his work with Ianno and the other professors is pretty amazing. This research is not bullshit, this is legit and these guys are some of the best in the field.
It's called a "running joke".
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
Cool! If they can put a quantom dot on the spot (no pun intended)... then I do indeed congratulate them. It would be a good way to start building things like gates, and my favorite...RAM. If they can get them to be low noise, and stable, imagine having RAM cells without capacitors... the size could go way down. If they can make them non-volitle (sp?) (as a quantum dot should be able to be)... then that's even better! (I hope I'm not hyping things too much)
Like I said later... (#3)... focus on the positive. (I hope they weren't the victims of a bad reporter looking for hype).
--Mike--
Yes, Bandy is a genius... although when he rattled off some equations in his principles of semiconductors class us up and coming geniuses would've liked more than just "and it's obvious" for an explanation. There is more to UNL than football, thank god.
Mike
Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
That's pretty funny. Someone mod him up.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Is a large array of quantum dots like a small array of normal sized dots, only fiddlier?
Is looks to me like this guy Supriyo Bandyopadhyay really is doing some good work.
I'm a computer science guy, and I'm interested in quantum computers. I'd really like it, though, if people stopped talking about dots and collapsing waves and gives me an example of the O(n) time for an algorithm on an electric computer vs a quantum computer. The lower bound for a sort on an electric computer is O(n log n). What's it on a quantum computer? O(1)? O(log n)? O(n)? Or am I looking at things in the wrong way?
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/quant-ph/9910032 is a link posted by user freeinformation. This is a redirect to a 19 page PDF file by Dr. Bandyopadhyay.
I just saw the "Quantum Dot Technology" and thought oh god not another stupid sun commercial about the great 'dot'.
So what we really have here is a process that just "spontaneously" happens to make a pattern that looks good for storing bits. This is not a process for putting a quantum dot at location X. Stand alone quantum dots certainly have their uses, such as laser diodes, but if there are no interconnects, it's not going to be a computing device.
In order for this to be useful, you have to be able to put a quantum dot where you want it, and be able to get data into and out of it. You also have to be able to do this and to get at least 1% yield for the entire die, in production quantities. This is not the ballpark this research is headed for.
what do you believe you will actually use in the next five years:
Okay, that last one was a little too farfetched... but I do declare Slashdot, you have the vapors!
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Imagine a RIO Quantum, storing every song made in existance over time, plus also every dvd , plus every Ebook.
Mmm, I can just see the HK pirates planning.
tcd004 Tired of Election Coverage? How about some Uncoverage?
I figured I'd try to get at least one of my points into play before the party moved on.
I really like Slashdot, but I think it can be even better... not quite sure how... but I know it can.
--Mike--
Well, assuming quantum data transmission gets anywhere, the opposite will occur. All transmissions will be totally secure. Quantum data transmission would prevent sniffing. It relies on the Hesenberg Uncertanity principle which states we can't observe certain quantum phenomena without changing them. Thus all packet-sniffers and the like would be detected instantly - the message on the other end would be garbled.
So if I encrypt my session key and send it along a quantum channel (encrypted with RSA) it's true that someone can intercept the message and easily decrypt the session key with a quantum computer. But the recipient will know that something's up, and I will never send the actual data.
That's a whole different problem.
while(!done){
}
}
Considering a quantum machine can do a huge number of these checks at one time, breaking down a large number into its two prime constituents is trivial.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
It wont affect steganography, or one-time pad based encryption.
It may make a mess of public key encryption though. You`d need to secretly communicate to your correspondants the page/offset/password you are using for the publicly posted message you are sending. If you could do that then you may as well send the message secretly anyway!
I think this troll has a good point. At least the word "might" should be in there somewhere.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I doubt that it would be released by the NSA... why should they? If the NSA does have quantum computers, they definitely wouldn't tell anyone. Just think of what enemy nations would say: "Oh, they can crack any cipher in current use. I guess we just won't send any secret information for a while", and the NSA doesn't get any information.
Probably more likely is that it's starting to be re-discovered by the public (assuming that the NSA has QCs), just like RSA. If so, we probably won't be hearing anything about it from the NSA for a while.
-----
"But really, I think life is just a game of Mao Nomic." -Purplebob
Well now if they can just develop some quantum dashes, they can build a quantum telegraph!
Quantum morse code...ahhh... It could revolutionize the railroad industry!
Don't quite throw out that "old" binary computer yet - there are certain data types that fit quantum computers, and others that don't. Since QCs work differently, binaries still kick butt in certain areas. If you really want the skinny, try this url - http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/quantum /genious.html. It's very idiot-friendly (I've seen some of these fp's).
:) Just a random thought. Must be getting tired.
Another bit - I was reading the NSA website today, and noticing that they state something about "strategically limiting certain key technologies" in the interests of nat'l security. I have also noticed a lot of recent quantum related breakthroughs (quantum decoherence-free states, quantum cryptography, and easy methods of making entangled states). Not to be paranoid, but could this be a NSA release of technology? Who knows?
Matt
Information about how quantum computers work, from a competing team also hoping to build a quantum computer, is here,
Drag n' Drop DVD Recommendations
Simple...
// add other techniques here as you see fit
while (!confessed) {
beat prime number over the head
tell prime number its partner already confessed
offer prime number a shorter sentence if it
confesses
}
I think Quantum technology will take the biggest step when big scientific computer will get a "boost module", where Quantum calculations could be programmed to do quantum work, as factorisation. As long as the new techlogy will be kept in labs (or at the NSA), the real power of quantum will not give us any power. I suspect first companies like IBM that could loan some quantum cpu time for a lot of companies, for some governement agencies that could not afford one.
This has all probably been said before:
1. Distributed.net: Crack the encryption before you can actually hit the key
2. 3D: Real time rendering in the palm of your hand.
The power of this technology is friggen sick. I hope we put it to a good use, like porn hosting... You can never get enough porn. No such thing as too much porn. Usually.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
I stand by my word. But this algorithm you link to cannot factor a prime number. Nobody can factor a prime number. I posted that because the original poster referred to factoring a prime number and I was just making the point that RSA actually uses composite numbers that are a multiple of two large prime numbers. And the only way you can factor a prime N is N*1, but this doesn't count.
that 7up guy may come back then.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
isn't that the new kind of ice cream being marketed as "the ice cream of the future"? maybe i'm thinking of something else...
-----
# cd /
Researches in Silicon Valley today announced that, within five years, they would be able to produce any number of quantum dot-coms in a small laboratory, at little or no cost. "This redefines the nature of cool," say John Q. Hoper, director of product developement at XOREX, "solving the urgent need for new, turnkey business solutions developed at the quantum pace."
Quantum dots is just the first step in making a quantum computer, which is why the 20 years till desktop line in the article. What is demonstrated is far more modest than the press release SEEMS to say. What was demonstrated is the ability to massively manufacture quantum dots. The next step would be some kind of mask like technology to control exact patterns of the quantum dots. It seems that should be possible since their process require very fine control, a mask should be enough to selectively prevent the growth of quantum dots in places. The next step would to build a quasi-quantum computer, that is a computer whose operation is stilled based on classical information theory, but the physical principals is entirely quantum. Such computer would still be vastly supperior to current computeres in term of power consumption and speed, that is because computers based on quantum dots does NOT need interconnects, because everything is through field effect. The state of a quantum dot affects the one next to it in similar way a atom affect atoms near it. In fact quantum dots often being called artificial atoms because the quantum mechanics of an electron inside a quantum dot is so similar to that of a atom's electrons that they are pratically identical. Only after the quasi-quantum computer is bulit are we likely to be able to deal with the next challenge (unless some surprise discovery/invention changes things) which is coherrance. Quantum computers right now are extremely fragile. After you put the device in a superpositioned state, it doesn't take much to destroy it and have it decay into classical states. However from what I hear the most robust superposition state was achieved in a quatum dot which do raise the hopes. I hope the best luck to these researchers but I am weary of the fact that they patented the process which pretty much prevents others with shallow pockets from perfecting their technique, and slowing down the process of innovation. Hopefully their licensing agreements are generous.
Bullshit! Every time you add a bit of information to a quantum state, you double the number of possible states available, at the cost of doubling the time it takes to determine the state. I don't know about you, but I don't want to wait around for the lifetime of 2^100+ universes just to save a few bits of memory. If anyone gives me grief, I'll be happy to do the math, and show just how absurd the hype is.
> "...but the technique looks promising, particularly for generating a large array of quantum dots."
:)
That's what we really needed - after what Sun did, a large array of quantum dot-com s
--
subject=fp
body=fp
quite honestly, it's getting boring. In the time it takes you to constantly reload the slashdot page waiting for a new story to be posted, you could be looking around the internet for something more creative to post. I'm bored, so when browsing at -1 I'm looking for the funny, creative troll. Is anyone else bothered by this, or is it just me?
This article in eetimes.com is terrible.
Just the type you see in newspapers and magazines all the time: Presenting some major "500%" advance in some area or the other and the corresponding scientists being "20 years ahead of their time". Now I don't say this is all made up, but being a scientist myself I am not ready to believe anything without further proof.
So I am asking: Where can you find more information on the work described in this newspaper article? Have the scientists published their results in one of the well-known journals like PhysRev, APL, etc.?
The second weak point about this article is that the author is mixing different applications of quantum dots without distinguishing them in any way. At least three properties of quantum dots can be made use of - and they are very different:
1) Optical --> Lasers and Detectors
2) Electrical --> Single-electron devices
3) Quantum --> Quantum computers
And each of these properties needs special tweaking for the desired application. It's not like you can produce the perfect quantum dot sample that can be used any application.
So I am asking: What properties are the named scientist actually working on?
My final summary: Unfortunately this article is not presenting anything of value as different aspects are freely intermixed and no clear information is given. Very sad - quantum dots/cryptography is actually an interesting subject.
knutbert
Well, that might be a bit extreme, but wouldn't this render most encryption obselete overnight? This would mean that bank records, cell phone calls, e-business, and who knows what else will be comprimised. I've heard a bit here about "quantum cryptography" but does anyone have any links to info about it?
When I first read the headline, I thought I saw "New Advance In Quantum Dot Com Technology." And I was remarkably confused when I read the caption thereafter.
This guy's got the right idea. Why put all your good ideas in one post, when you can distribute them among *three* posts so as to maximize karma harvest? Brilliant!
[Want to read more about why I think this is a good idea? See my next post]
It's not funny, fools no moderators, and is trivially tested.
I just don't get it. Shouldn't there at least be some small bit of cleverness involved?
Pete
Aside from the misfortune of having a moron run off with your date, what you did back to him was fuckin beautiful.
Oh yeah, nano technology. Very, very cool. It sucks that it's going to take 20 years to get commercial versions of the things that are discovered today.
a/s/l here. Sorry, adding domain tags to your s
This is real and not bullshit. Bandy, Dillon, Ianno, Snyder, and Williams are extremely bright and are not out to try to pull the wool over peoples eyes. This stuff is real and ahead of it's time. You do the math then run it by Dr. Bandyopadhyay and he'll show you the truth. Don't go trolling without the in depth knowledge of the papers they present. It says in the article (done by somebody that might not be as knowledgable) that it is "far from perfect". But don't question the knowledge of the people working on it.
For anyone who's interested in the physics of quantum dot self-assembly, I've posted some papers and presentations on my website. My recent research proposal deals with a physical simulation of quantum dot growth. I try to write without jargon, so they should be understandable to anyone with a science or engineering background.
Rick Wagner
Department of Chemical Engineering
University of Michigan
This article is pretty bad. I was working on this stuff in graduate school nearly two years ago. The info about special current gradients and voltages over time are well known and reasonably well explored.
The patent covers an inexpensive construction method for vast arrays of quantum dots, involving an easy-to-perform electrochemical process on an aluminum substrate. Quantum dots are described as "spontaneously" forming atop the aluminum substrate in a regular array suitable for processing information.
Yes, the electrochemical process is easy. Industry has been doing it for many years -- it's called anodization. Make the aluminum substrate an anode, pass current through it and some sulphuric acid, and you have your quantum dots. Nothing spontaneous there. And they are not formed atop the substrate, but within. Also, the quantum dots are periodically spaced.
This is excellent technology. The application I was working on was ultra-high resolution display technology.
Too bad they are going to tie all of this up with a patent. Maybe some publications can prove prior art!
Madness is only a state of mind
...that they are still working on Quantum Yakko and Wakko technology.
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
I've been reading with interest for some time now the developments in Quantum computing, and it seems that researchers are now faced more with engineering problems rather than theoretical ones. No one is really questioning the computing abilities of quantum devices in theory, we're just waiting to see how they could be built.
My problem is then with the field of computer science in general and why there isn't much computational theory being done with quantum devices in mind. Coming from a comp. sci. theoretical backgground most of the heads in the field are either ignoring quantum computing or scoffing at it, while keeping their heads stuck in the P=NP sand and hoping it will all go away.
Does anyone out there have any info, preferrably links, to theoretical work going on with regard to quantum devices?
Will start-ups taking advantage of this new technology be known henceforth as `quantum dot coms'?
<ducks>
BH
Fools! They laughed at me at the Sorbonne...!
Simple... Set up an array of pixels of arbitrary resolution, then program the quantum computer to search through all combinations of pixels to produce say 2^16 of the best porn pictures possible. Because quantum computers calculate all possibilities simultaneously, you'd have your porn in a femtosecond. And it would literally be the best porn that could possibly ever be made, because the computer went through every possible solution!!
The actual possibilities of a decent quantum computer are so vast, that people either have no way to comprehend them yet, or comprehend enough to be frightened by the power.
Imagine programming a quantum computer to search through every possible combination of a large array of atoms, so that you would have a transwarp engine. Basically, you can set up whatever paramaters you want, and the quantum computer will find for you what you want, or tell you that it doesn't exist.
The examples I used are a bit off, as how do you define for a computer what good porn is? But if you somehow connected an arousal-sensor to the human brain, it could be trivial... Quantum computers will basically answer any question you ask, as long as you ask it properly, and the computer has enough qbits. Near infinite amounts of brute-force computing power is nothing to sneeze at.
Ask and ye shall recieve... scary eh?
Quantumdot.org: News for nodes. Size matters.
i'm still of the belief that we should master our regular computer technology before to moving on to quantum computing-- give ourselves 2 good legs to stand on. but maybe i'm just stuck in the vacuum tube age.
Yes, the decoherence time may be awful if you are using exitonic states or if you are trying to use the orbital states of the electrons, but it may (hedge) not be true for the spin degree of freedom for the electrons.
dabacon
i agree. i do feel proud that my univ. is featured on slashdot
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
The University of Nebraska really does do research, and interesting stuff at that! All this time I have been going here I thought we were just a front for the football team...
:)
I guess I can feel proud now.
Posted from the wireless couch.
I'm much fonder of Steve Howe's Quantum Guitar... its at least useful, in an asthetic way.
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
There are promising designs of quantum computers, but they are not based on a semiconductor design. My personal opinion is that quantum computers will be first be realized in ultra-cold systems such as linear ion-chains. Any design that does not include the concept of a data bus is IMHO worthless.
To conclude, self-assembled quantum dots as described in the article do have their place: in optical devices such as semiconductor lasers, infrared sensors and highly specialized ultra-accurate gauge devices.
Just my 2 nm ...
My favorites are "it is intuitively obvious", and "left as an excercise to the student/reader".
I still don't get it. Roughly speaking Isn't any computation that requires a guess and validation from 2^n possibilibities NP-Complete ?
:)
I can see how N qbits can "represent" 2^N possibilities. What I can't see is how one reads off the correct result
From my limited "getting it" QC is good for geometrically increasing N problems n^3, n^4, but it doesn't solve NP-completeness.
I also know there is something I don't understand in Quantum Entanglement, but I don't think this is a help.
perhaps someone can confirm or disabuse my understanding
Winton
these guys sure seem bent on contributing to military technology. great. just great guys. anything to keep the funding rolling in. To be fair, my impression is based on the article, not the actual research
Seriously...Leave me alone.
Stop saying Bandyopadhyay!
and commercial versions won't be available for at least 20 years I can't wait till the day when these comps come out, it will be nice to have to pay immense amounts for a computing system. Crap, wheres my wallet?