Slashdot Mirror


On Diamond-Based Quantum Computing

Roland Piquepaille writes "Quantum computing is usually associated with extremely low temperatures. Physicists at Harvard University have shown that diamonds can be used to create stable quantum computing building blocks at room temperature. A nitrogen vacancy in diamond could lead to quantum registers able to store or retrieve data. '"The problem is, what makes single nuclear spin so stable - its weak interaction with its surroundings - also prevents us from directly manipulating it," Lukin says. "How do you control something that can't interact with anything?" You do it gingerly and indirectly, the Harvard physicists report in Science. They found that nuclear spins associated with single atoms of carbon-13 - which make up some 1.1 percent of natural diamond - can be manipulated via a nearby single electron whose own spin can be controlled with optical and microwave radiation.'"

18 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. radiation? by ookabooka · · Score: 3, Funny

    optical radiation? so. . like cyclops rays or something?

    --
    If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
  2. New Advertising Campaign by Wicko · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nothing says I love you like a diamond quantum computer.

    1. Re:New Advertising Campaign by Serengeti · · Score: 2, Funny

      Diamonds are a CPU's best friend?

      Sounds like something from Futurama.

    2. Re:New Advertising Campaign by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 4, Funny

      1. Build computer out of diamonds.
      2. ???
      3. Girlfriend!

  3. the problem with diamonds by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe this will help address the problem of diamonds, namely De Beers. The diamond industry is one of completely false scarcity and the result of a monopoly on a natural resource. The effect is not only rediculous prices for shiny rocks, but lots of blood shed. As all diamonds on the market serve to feed this beast, every diamond is a "conflict diamond".

    --
    We are all just people.
    1. Re:the problem with diamonds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      no this will not influence the crap with DeBeers. They have an emotional brand. They took a rock of little interest gem wise and made it into something based on a monopoly and pandering. Diamond good for cpus will have no greater impact on diamond gem prices than synthetic ruby or sapphire has had on prices of those gems. Now business that are into the gem quality diamond business, making better diamonds than the earth does, they might. But seeing as the CPU's will likely be made via chemical vapor deposition, or physical vapor deposition (probably on a Tungston sulfide coated substrate), or whatever, there's not much overlap in the technology.

      You want to kill DeBeers, better education. A diamond from a press isn't any more special than a diamond dug up by an oppressed 3rd worlder. If anything, the ability to customize them makes them more special. But try convincing people raised on a diet of dug up diamonds feel and radiate love.

  4. What the article does not cover by DaveWick79 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is just how much diamond it takes to achieve this. Are they working with microparticles of diamond shavings, or with larger pieces. If they are using some kind of diamond dust, how do you arrange this to get any kind of usable array for storage?

    1. Re:What the article does not cover by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, if they are dealing on the quantum level, we are talking about single atoms which don't take up a lot of space, even on a speck of dust.

      In addition, quantum computing isn't concerned with a large number of bits - although more is still better. I'm not sure if the info is still accurate, but the record number of qubits so far is 7, so even a few hundred qubits would be a huge breakthrough. I guess the question is: How many qubits can spin on the head of a pin (or a speck of diamond dust)?

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
  5. the Moore's Law is eventually invalidated by hackingbear · · Score: 3, Funny

    When computers are built with this technology, their prices will no longer tumble every 18 months! In fact, they will eventually become precious collectibles.

  6. Worst. Idea. Ever. by theTrueMikeBrown · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Haven't you ever played final fantasy? Crystal based computers would be far to powerful, we could never win in a fight against them. If they went haywire, no amount of Will Smiths or Neos could save us.

  7. Re:HARDEST METAL KNOWN TO MAN by ElephanTS · · Score: 2, Insightful

    er? pass the bong d00d...

    --
    spoonerize "magic trackpad"
  8. Re:Slashdot users should be covered in horse semen by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Informative

    Slashdot users should be covered in horse semen!

    Horse semen! Nice try at starting a new meme but Slashdotters prefer hot grits, preferably on Natalie Portman.
    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  9. Re: I'm confused by Dolda2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm afraid you'll have to turn in your geek card. The word "spin" as used in that sentence isn't a verb, but a noun. It refers to a quantum mechanical property.

  10. While it's great news... by Evil+Cretin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    that quantum computer hardware has been making strides recently, I have to think:
    Are we going to be thwarted by the difficult of developing software for quantum computers?

    I'm no expert on quantum computing, but I can imagine there's a huge amount to think about when programming even trivial applications for it - not so long ago we had an article on parallel programming being too hard - this is just with normal computers where everything is clearly defined in ones and zeroes. I certainly can't imagine dealing with qubits to be any simpler... after all, if quantum computing relies on simultaneity, isn't this a vast extension of the parallel programming problem?

    --
    "A deadlock has been reached. One task must die. We must now choose between murder and suicide."
  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Re:Cost... by cp.tar · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, artificially-made diamonds are rather cheap.

    What is more, if the price of 'real' diamonds weren't artificially (sic!) kept high, they too would be cheap as dirt.

    My guess, though, is that only man-made diamonds would be suitable for that, just like rubies for lasers - they're cleaner.

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
  13. How to sell your research by Eukariote · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This story is a classic example of selling your research by pretending it may have a practical application. Do something with a quantum system, and sell it by saying it has a potential quantum computing application. Do something on a nanoscopic scale, and call it nanotechnology. Do something with a semiconductor, and say it is for future chips.

    What these researchers have done is pretty standard fare: the nitrogen vacancy defect in diamond is photo-active center that can and has been studied extensively by optical excitation. The unpaired electron spins of these centres can be manipulated via microwaves. With a low concentration and tight focus, you can study individual centers. Some of these will have and adjacent carbon-13 instead of the more abundant carbon-12 neighbor. Its magnetic moment can be observed through its interaction with the electron spin. Cute, but nothing what so fucking ever to do with any kind of practical application.

    Science has become colonized by hypesters, marketeers, and slick talking band wagon jumpers. All in pursuit of that next bit of funding and fame.

    1. Re:How to sell your research by diqrtvpe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I agree in principle with what you're saying, the fact is that if you don't sell your research to have some type of real-world application, you very likely won't get funded at all. I just finished an undergraduate physics degree, and the research I did there was done purely for the sake of finding out about new materials, how they structure themselves, and how they behave. However, we couldn't write down "science for the sake of science" on the grant proposal, because otherwise we would've been sol. The unfortunate truth is that most sources of funding, at least in my experience, are only interested in things that could have potential foreseeable use (disregarding possible useful advances due to "pure research").