Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Find Flaw in Quantum Dot Construction
ThePolkapunk writes "Scientists have been having problems in predicting the behavior of Quantum Dots, which are considered to be the most likely material to be used to build nanocomputers. Physorg is reporting that physicists at Ohio University believe they've found the problem, and it's with a flaw in the construction of quantum dots. If their theory pans out, "It's one more step towards the holy grail of finding a better quantum bit, which hopefully will lead to a quantum computer."" We first mentioned this about six years ago.
Disclaimer : I know next to nothing about quantum computing.
However, I wonder if we really need quantum bits. Sure, we probably can reproduce the same kind of circuitry that we have now with quantum gates and whatnot, but I fear that would be missing the point, or rather grossly wasting, the capabilities opened by quantum mechanics, by forcing these into our current paradigm. That is, using quantum stuff as a new mechanics for our current paradigm, instead of coming up with a new paradigm that actually utilizes quantum properties fully.
In a word, this looks like evolution - will this cause a revolution?
As I said, I know almost nothing about this, so excuse me if my post didn't make sense at all.
My website
They could be finding cures to cancer, or making better space shuttles, or doing a ton of things with applications that would be useful
Uh.. wow.
The people designing better computers aren't curing cancer because they aren't biologists. It isn't like intelligence is just something you can put in a pipe and direct it whereever you want. Some people are just better at certain things than others. Meanwhile the kinds of people who gravitate toward research fields tend to only be effective when they're doing things they find interesting and exciting. What they personally most enjoy or can best apply their talents toward may or may not be the most important thing in the world, but if it's productive and makes some sort of difference, who are we to question?
And why target the people improving computing power, and not any other "nonuseful" field? In particular, why on earth target people like the ones from this article, who are improving computing power by expanding our understanding of and ability to harness basic physics, and working in an area where discoveries potentially have direct applicability to all kinds of other nanoscale technologies, like, I don't know, smart medicines.
Even if your "couldn't they be doing something more useful" thing made sense, your examples are very poor. Better space shuttles aren't being built for a lack of ingenuity, they're being built for a lack of funding. And curing cancer in particular is a horrible example because much of the interesting expanding work in the medical research field at the moment is in bioinformatics. Meaning that cancer research would directly and seriously benefit from a major jump in the capacity of computing power, such as the one these nanocomputer people could make possible.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
40% of the US economy is dependent on applications of quantum mechanics, and all of the rest of it indirectly feels the effects.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
First a note - All of my experience with quantum dots is at cryogenic temperatures, eg 4.2K and below, so I'm not aware of the behavior of systems at higher temperatures.
It sounds like this author is making very generalized hand-waving explanations about these fairly complex systems. And is vague enough so that if any effect is discovered, he'll claim that he "discovered" it first. But if he did claim that, it would be somewhat disingenuous because it's very difficult to predict what kind of coherent long-range many-body "emergent" patterns would manifest themselves. Ie, the low-level physics is hard, the fabrication is hard, determining large-scale effects is hard, etc. Heck, even describing a simple helium-atom is hard enough (the quantum-mechanical 3-body problem), with three interacting coulomb forces to work with in addition to the nuclear potential. So it sounds like he's handwaving, but in an attempt to claim prediction of any future discovery based on quantum-dots.
On a side note, though, all matter is already programmable by default. Phase transitions, for example, will happen at specific temperatures, or magnetic fields, etc, such that the macroscopic behavior of the material can be 'programmed' by pushing through the phase transition.
make world, not war
"quantum dot" is entirely generic and its use predates any commercial interest by many years.
Does anyone have a *real* reference for this, like a paper on arxiv.org? The popularized description doesn't make any sense to me, since the bandgap of the wetting layer is above that of the dot.
site:slashdot.org "quantum dot"
Backups are for wimps. Real men post their data in comments and have slashdot mirror it
Wrong, viruses have been evolving for millions of years to use other life forms to survive and reproduce.
There is a law of biology that says something like: any parasite evolves to be less harmfull to its host(s).