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.

6 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Re:At what point is a computer powerful enough? by Carlbunn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bad, bad geek! There's no such thing as "too much computer power"

  2. Discount Quantum Dots by EdgeTreader · · Score: 5, Funny

    "New & used Quantum Dots. aff Check out the huge selection now" ...ebay ad running next to TFA

  3. What the hell? by mcc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. from the FAQ by wud · · Score: 5, Informative

    How do you verify the accuracy of Slashdot stories? We don't. You do. :) If something seems outrageous, we might look for some corroboration, but as a rule, we regard this as the responsibility of the submitter and the audience. This is why it's important to read comments. You might find something that refutes, or supports, the story in the main. Answered by: CmdrTaco Last Modified: 10/28/00

    --
    wud
  5. Re:Do we need quantum bits? by wass · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    That pretty much is what researchers in quantum computing are trying to do, it's a whole different ballgame. For example, In classical computing, 3 bits lets you put a system into exactly one of 8 (2^3) distinct states. However a quantum computer with 3 qubits will let you put the system into a superposition of these eight states, such that the superpositiong (ie, wavefunction) is properly normalized.

    Quantum mechanics works in a whole different mathematical basis (Hilbert Space or Fock Space). The algebras of these spaces is quite different from classical computing, so yes, it's going to be a whole new way of looking at computing, at least at the lowest level.

    On a side note, it sounds like you have just read some Thomas Kuhn, as per your frequent usage of 'paradigm', along with comparing 'evolution' to 'revolution'.

    --

    make world, not war

  6. Star Trek? by jpop32 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Doesn't the article read just like your typical Star Trek plot?

    You have a noble experiment:
    Nanoscientists dream of developing a quantum computer, a device the size of a grain of sand that could be faster and more powerful than today's PCs.
    So, after they have
    blasted the quantum dots with light to create the quantum mechanical state
    they encounter the problem:
    they couldn't consistently control that state
    So, the science officers get the work and after some time the find out the cause of the problem:
    the wetting layer caused interference, instead of allowing the light to enter the dot and trigger the quantum state

    And, after some hard thinking Wesley Crusher...
    suggests that scientists could tweak the process by re-focusing the beam of light or changing the duration of the light pulses to negate the effects of the wetting layer!

    And the day is saved.