Slashdot Mirror


Quantum Computing and Optically Controlled Electrons

eldavojohn writes "Researchers have released a new paper on quantum computing theorizing how to use optically controlled electrons to make an ultrafast quantum computer. From the article, "Scientists have designed a scheme to create one of the fastest quantum computers to date using light pulses to rotate electron spins, which serve as quantum bits. This technique improves the overall clock rate of the quantum computer, which could lead to the fastest potentially scalable quantum computing scheme of which the scientists are aware.""

74 comments

  1. Ultrfast? by dotslashdot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ultrfast--so fast, there is no time for the "a". Either that, or the "a" is like Shroedinger's ct. What's the likelihood of tht?

    1. Re:Ultrfast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ultrfast--so fast, there is no time for the "a". Either that, or the "a" is like Shroedinger's ct. What's the likelihood of tht? Well, way to change the word by measuring it. Could have been UltrEfast, UltrIfast, UltrOfast, etc. all at once! But nooooooooooooo, you had to go and find out it's actually "Ultrafast" way to ruin it for everyone. Well, at least you've provided us with other words that we might enjoy the duality of.

      Mmmmmm, that is some mutherfuckin fine duality.
    2. Re:Ultrfast? by l0b0 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Lost in computation...

    3. Re:Ultrfast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ultrfast: fast enough to cause spontaneous vowel movements.

  2. Still too slow... by Var1abl3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sorry as I am not "up to speed" on my quantum computing but from TFA "In the article, we give the limit of about 100 GHz, which is assuming a very high magnetic field, which would require superconducting magnets to achieve. "

      and then...

    "Proper error correction may reduce the speed of the quantum computer to 1-10 MHz."
    I already have 3+ GHz machines so why would I want to have the cost of a superconduction magnet and the cooling that goes with it to get a machine that is slower than an Intel P?

    I am number two... sooo close... damn!!!!

    1. Re:Still too slow... by stevelinton · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because a quantum computer does fundamentally more at each clock.
      Factoring an 1000-bigt integer takes CPU centuries on modern procesors but would be just afew million operations for a quantum computer.

    2. Re:Still too slow... by sykopomp · · Score: 1

      Quantum computers are about as fast at usual computer tasks as an average computer... that's not what they're for, that's not what they're made for. Their real power lies in their ability to calculate and analyze certain things - namely, Quantum stuff, which it can do much better than your average pentium.

      At least that's the explanation I got some time ago from a physics-guy friend.

    3. Re:Still too slow... by Spikeles · · Score: 3, Informative

      You wouldn't want a quantum based computer unless you had some type of problem that could be broken down into appropriate search spaces that are compatible with quantum based computing. You won't be seeing massive speedups in Quake 4 with this, you won't see Windows Xp/Vista start up any faster, that's not how they work.

      --
      I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
    4. Re:Still too slow... by someone1234 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Take out the error correction and you'll get an ultrfast Vista compatible computer.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    5. Re:Still too slow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, quantum computation could cause speedups for "regular" software if an exhaustive search is done for most optimized compiler output as performance changing parameters vary.

      This is the main reason I really want a quantum Lisp (or preferably Scheme) machine.

    6. Re:Still too slow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, 4-digit UID and using the antiquated term "bigt..." A master has appeared! Okay, okay, I'll get off your lawn ;)

    7. Re:Still too slow... by baldass_newbie · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Their real power lies in their ability to calculate and analyze certain things - namely, Quantum stuff, which it can do much better than your average pentium.

      At least that's the explanation I got some time ago from a physics-guy friend.

      Your 'physics-guy friend' *cough* faggot *cough* doesn't know shit about systems architecture. Bone up.
      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    8. Re:Still too slow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the tilt-bits being in a superposition - you wouldn't be able to watch anything on it.

    9. Re:Still too slow... by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      you won't see Windows Xp/Vista start up any faster
      So not even quantum mechanics (the fundamentals behind quantum computing) can solve the problems with Windows? Guess Microsoft will have to go live in another dimension to get a good product out the door.
      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    10. Re:Still too slow... by presarioD · · Score: 1

      I already have 3+ GHz machines so why would I want to have the cost of a superconduction magnet and the cooling that goes with it to get a machine that is slower than an Intel P?

      Because that is called progress! Back in the old days, the multiplication tables and a proficient abacus operator could beat any proto-computer out there. Does that mean that we shouldn't even have built them? You seem to forget the direct linage connecting your 3+ GHz computer with Bell's invention of the transistor that could not even calculate anything...

      Primary science does not care about applied engineering, let alone consumer oriented performance. If we demonstrate that the quantum computing idea works in at least one system, the rest will be history within a very short time.

      Ahhhhh, progress!!!

      --
      Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
    11. Re:Still too slow... by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      Half of the times it would work.
      That's much more than with current technology.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    12. Re:Still too slow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You won't be seeing massive speedups in Quake 4 with this

      Be careful, once a real quantum computer is built, coming up with applications just becomes a normal engineering problem.

      Quake N could use a quantum graphics card to do quantum raytracing. Imagine having the pixel's color of each surface being represented as a superposition of colors and then evaluating the reflections of all light points at the same time. Your output qubits will settle into a final color for each pixel.

      (Granted, I have no idea how such an algorithm would work, but don't discount it)

    13. Re:Still too slow... by Spikeles · · Score: 1

      That's not execution. Thats more of using a quantum computer to determine when compiling the best sequence of operations to put out. That COULD indeed be represented as an appropriate quantum algorithm. And in the case of a Hotspot compiler (Java/.NET) it *could* make your programs execute faster at the expense of having to actually recompile every so often to update the performance changing parameters. Of course, since there are only 3 problems(factoring, discrete logarithm, and quantum physics simulations) that have been discovered that have any advantage even compiler output is doubtfull. Having said that though, perhaps Quake4 could use it to run it's physics simulations, but i have a feeling the hardware to do that won't be very cheap.

      --
      I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
  3. Wow by Jugalator · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I for one welcome our new overclocked ultrafast quantum computer overlords.

    The speed at which these may decode jpg images of my hot digital girlfriends! Mmmm...

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:Wow by someone1234 · · Score: 2, Funny

      By the time this comes to life, real time 3d holo movie streams will be common.
      So yeah, we'll need the speed.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  4. Re:just imagine... by mr_mischief · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe the universe is just a Beowulf cluster of these.

    I mean, hell, we use light to transmit information. We use magnets to store and transmit information. We _are_ information stored in DNA. We're could be part of a big genetic algorithm that's been running for millions of years. Maybe Agent Smith was right. Maybe we _are_ a virus, but not in the sense written into the script for the movie The Matrix. Maybe us figuring out how to store and transmit information ever more efficiently by using ever-more basic building blocks of the universe is just like a virus figuring out the system it's inside and using that information for its own purposes.

    Then again, fuck it. I just wanna know if it'll run Supreme Commander at a decent speed.

  5. Did a similar thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    this summer...
    But different. I was working with electron spin resonance in solids. The set up used a superconducting magnet and a microwave source. We could actually measure absorption changes when the microwave energy matched the Zeeman split.
    There was even some talk about using the set up as a component for quantum computers.

    However, the people at the lab have started the discover that the primary relaxation method is fast phonon interactions. This must in fact be the case, otherwise the entire upper band would be overpopulated quicker than detectable. Anyway, as things stood, the materials we worked with proved to be ineffective as quantum switches. The spin property was far too transient.

  6. One of the fastest? by Jartan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Did I miss something? To be one of the fastest that would imply a quantum computer already exists? If that's true why isn't everyone going nuts that the man will be able to read our encrypted email soon?

    1. Re:One of the fastest? by OzRoy · · Score: 1

      It's my understanding they do. Just extremely basic.

      There was one not long ago that was able to do simple arithmetic using 7 atoms. Not exactly code cracking capable, but still interesting.

    2. Re:One of the fastest? by JustinRLynn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, in short they are going nuts because they simply can't do that. While quantum cryptographic analysis can break existing encryption methods that rely on factoring, new methods are being developed that are safe and secure. No system, however sophisticated, can crack the one time pad provided complete shannon security is maintained.

    3. Re:One of the fastest? by schotty · · Score: 1

      Because although the potential is phemomenonally great, it just isnt there yet to kill 1 terabit encryption yet.

      http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb07/comments/1710

      The computer demo aforementioned in the link (quick google search, sorry if its not the best article) is a mere 16qbits. From what I gathered, 256qbits is the minimum for a useful qpc. But I am no professional or even a hobbyist in the field. Talk to one if you want more reliable data.

      --
      Sigs are nice guns ...
    4. Re:One of the fastest? by JustinRLynn · · Score: 1

      or rather, aren't going nuts .. heh, preview is your friend... :)

    5. Re:One of the fastest? by m50d · · Score: 1

      They do exist. If you're using 4-bit keys, better worry, the man's gonna find out that 15=3x5 soon.

      --
      I am trolling
  7. Re:just imagine... by Eighty7 · · Score: 1

    Tell me, Mr. Anderson... what good is a megahurtz... if you don't know where it is?

  8. Re:just imagine... by JazzyMusicMan · · Score: 0

    the framerate you can get playing Quake 3 on this thing...

  9. Re:just imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man, you had it up until the last line. Energy is just matter sped up a *great* amount.

    Or Einstein is the crackpot here.

    Oh yeah, does it run linux?

  10. ... and the case of Missing Flux Capacitor by unity100 · · Score: 2, Funny

    - should have read this article's title. It looks more from a movie thats a crossover between Lex Luthor finally does the superman and Back to the College Dorm 2.7

  11. Re:just imagine... by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

    Actually, I like to think of matter as energy that's mellowed for a while and decided to hang out together.

  12. Re:just imagine... by sound+vision · · Score: 0

    Living energy... the crossbonded plasmate... VALIS...

    3 meth

  13. You are misunderstanding it by aepervius · · Score: 4, Informative

    Quantum Cryptography in that case is using the normal cryptographic method , just use a secure line to exchange the private key. But once the data are stored and the public key is known, it does not matter whether the private key has been transmitted on secure line or NOT. It is only a matter of cracking the crypto-algorithm itself which is then as weak against quantum computer factorisation. The only way to avoid that would be to get ride of public/private key system altogether, and use an OTP as key transmitted on a secure QC line.

    But in the very end, QC is only a way of transmission without eavesdropping. It is NOT an encryption algorithm.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:You are misunderstanding it by JustinRLynn · · Score: 1

      Yes, the use of quantum key distribution to enable the use of the OTP cypher is exactly what I was referring to. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

    2. Re:You are misunderstanding it by UnHolier+than+ever · · Score: 1

      Which is why quantum cryptography uses a one-time pad as an encryption algorithm which, coupled with quantum key distribution, becomes secure. It's not like OTPs are rocket science. It's the QKD part that's hard.

    3. Re:You are misunderstanding it by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Non-quantum ellipsis math is not prime factorization, and theoretically "really tough" to do on a Qomputer.

      Can a regular computer be fast enough so that it can beat a q-computer at its own game?

      --
    4. Re:You are misunderstanding it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding is that the data rate for QKD is too low for practical use as a one-time pad - e.g. this article talks about a system at 13Kbps, which is somewhat slower than the best commercial systems but is hugely slower than the rate of data you would typically want to transmit. You can only transmit a few hundred keys per second, and have to use them in a standard non-OTP encryption algorithm on the non-quantum high-speed data channel.

    5. Re:You are misunderstanding it by UnHolier+than+ever · · Score: 1

      It depends on what you want to transmit. Of course, videoconferencing is kind of out of range, but a lot of very interesting things were done in the age of 14.4kbps modems. In any case, most applications are likely to be of the plaintext type: diplomatic memos, banking info and the like.

  14. Just keep the cats out of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or at least don't look until they are safely back out..

    1. Re:Just keep the cats out of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OK.
      It's complicated, but I think I get it:

          Any story that contains the word "quantum", you post anything containing the word "cat", and the Mods rate it +3 funny.

      Right.

  15. But will it run by AkumaReloaded · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But will it run the new 3d engine of Carmack?

    Seriously, if we ever get as far as a well working quantum computer it would have a huge impact. Imagine IBM super computers that are a hundred times faster then the ones they build now. I wonder what kind of impact it would have on research that needs to calculate lots of huge formulas.

    1. Re:But will it run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean in the way computers we have now are 100 times faster than computers 10 years ago (according to moores law) and computers in 10 years will be 100 times faster than we have now ?

      I guess the important thing to remember is that while raw power may grow exponentially, the apparent power to the user does not seem to improve so much.

    2. Re:But will it run by dido · · Score: 1

      The main use of such a quantum computer, besides the use of Shor's algorithm or the other quantum algorithms known, would be to simulate quantum mechanical phenomena. As you might imagine, simulating complex quantum mechanical systems on a normal computer takes prodigious amounts of memory and processing power (e.g. the gauge quantum chromodynamics simulations used to calculate particle masses and properties in the standard model of particle physics). A workable quantum computer would make such computations a lot easier, and could lead to scientific breakthroughs such as a complete understanding of the phenomenon of high-temperature superconductivity, cold fusion, and perhaps the quantum theory of gravity.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
  16. Optically Controlled Elections by shiva7663 · · Score: 1

    When I saw the title, at first, I misread it as "Quantum Computing and Optically Controlled Elections".

  17. Sadly .... by DerWulf · · Score: 1

    ... there are like two worthwhile comments to this article *sigh*. I'd hope to see an insightful post about how quantum computing will helps as overcome the obstacles posed by the density/heat/energy issues the current techonolgy has. The move to multicore cpus didn't just happen because multithreading is suddenly cool ...

    --

    ___
    No power in the 'verse can stop me
  18. Re:just imagine... by revengebomber · · Score: 1

    Then again, fuck it. I just wanna know if it'll run Supreme Commander at a decent speed. Oh, you bet it will.

    But not if you're running under Vista.
    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  19. Solving NP -complete problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quantum computing would be make our world a different place as solving NP-complete problems would become possible in polynomial time. This means better route planning and scheduling. More compact circuit boards. Less industrial waste because of more efficient raw material usage and much more !
    Mike | Optimalprint

    1. Re:Solving NP -complete problems by Ann+Coulter · · Score: 1

      Quantum computers are not useful for some NP-complete problems.

    2. Re:Solving NP -complete problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Quantum computers are not useful for some NP-complete problems."

      The definition of NP complete means that the fundamental problem can be recomputed into ANY other NP complete problem, and so therefore if quantum computers are useful for just ONE NP-Complete problem, they are useful for them all.

  20. Don't get too excited... by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don't get too excited-- most quantum computing ideas are rather far-fetched-- there are really hard roadblocks that are theoretically and practically very hard to solve. The basic one is you have to keep all the electrons from interacting in ANY WAY with the rest of the universes for a considerable length of time (on the quantum scale). The slightest interaction with anything else and the quantum magic goes *poof*.

    1. Re:Don't get too excited... by mastermemorex · · Score: 1

      Nevrtheless this wonder me some phylosophical questions.

      How the Heisenberg uncertainty affects to a quantum computer?
      What is the minimun energy neccesary to store one bit?
      What it is the maximun speed a bit can travel?
      Do the information can be stored with 100% of efficiency?
      Can the information be processed and transmited with 100% of reliability?

  21. Imagine by crhylove · · Score: 0, Redundant

    a Beowulf clu..... Hey, wait, did we just get lapped? What's today?!? Damn Quantum Physics!!!

    Now I just need this unit to have the AI to know how to control and build my molecular assembler. K thnx!

    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  22. Sadface by AkumaReloaded · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Maybe this will news will turn Einsteins frown upside down.

    But seriously though, I dont have anything insightful to say (ever)

  23. Very Good Stuff coming by dashyaoo · · Score: 1

    its a good R&D will be expect good stuff

    1. Re:Very Good Stuff coming by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      its a good R&D will be expect good stuff

      All your base are belong to us.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  24. Quantum Computer by javalizard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The fully quantum computer probably won't ever exist. An operating system shouldn't be in a fuzzy state... ever. Imagine it, maybe i might be running Photoshop. Anywy, my point is that quntum computers will be auxiliary chips or, when the time comes, it will be in the form of a Quantum Processing Unit (QPU). It would be like the Floating Point Unit (FPU) or the Integer Unit (IU) in a processor. The various units DO run at different speeds. Some operations take 1 cycle and others upwrds of 5 or even 10 cycles. The QPU would just take 1000 cycles for one operation.

    The cycles in a QPU are deceptive because the amount of work it can do is enormous. Where it might take the IU one second to sort a list, it may take the QPU only milliseconds even at such reduced speeds.

    Lastly, the hard part isn't going to be creating the QPU... there are many vectors for its creation and we know we can do it, theoreticlly. The hard part is the programming language of such a unit. Because it's based in physics in the way that it is, it would take a VERY complex and mathematical language to create the instructions for such a unit. The next step to over come is that most programmers think linerly not quantumly. It's a complete mindset change and so finding programmers for such a unit would be extremely hard. Your average joe programmer wouldn't be able to program such a unit.

    There is a dump truck with a pdf white paper floting around on the series of tubes that tells the various qualities that such a quantum languge must possess but it doesn't define any language.

    Or maybe, quantumly, I'm wrong.

    1. Re:Quantum Computer by javalizard · · Score: 1

      I'd also like to point out that the US Military will probably classify such a processor so most people don't have access to it or even know about it. I'd bet my banana that they are doing most of the funding for the QPU.

  25. We might make this work now by Steeltoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    this summer...
    But different. I was working with electron spin resonance in solids. The set up used a superconducting magnet and a microwave source. We could actually measure absorption changes when the microwave energy matched the Zeeman split.
    There was even some talk about using the set up as a component for quantum computers.

    However, the people at the lab have started the discover that the primary relaxation method is fast phonon interactions. This must in fact be the case, otherwise the entire upper band would be overpopulated quicker than detectable. Anyway, as things stood, the materials we worked with proved to be ineffective as quantum switches. The spin property was far too transient.


    In our tests, we have been working with another component. Preliminary tests found the electronic reflection change to be adequately measured within the interaction timeframe. Although none of our instruments were powerful enough to keep up with the fastest cycles, the information bits could be stored in cubic fashion, and then looked-up in strange cubit pairs after the fact. We theorize that a switch can be made, if only the energy is high enough to be reliably detected and stored.

    So if we can somehow correlate the high energy of the absorption and readability of the reflection, we can combine the power of the two methods to enhance eachother and cancel out the negative aspects, I think we can have something that will finally work! When properly set up, it should only be a matter of phase-adjusting the two polarities of the photon switches to be in exact oposition to eachother, while making sure no interference can be made across the photon shields. You may have to distort the angle by a tiny fraction due to stellar polarity in our locality, but that should be easy as pie once you have the two photon switches ready.

  26. Why just one? by rhinokitty · · Score: 1

    If the Internets have taught me anything it is that two is always better than one when it comes to load balancing, bandwidth allocation and processing large computational tasks.

    The Internet itself is a decentralized, node based system. BitTorrent uses this approach to solve many problems. Why are we thinking about one quantum computer? It would be big, ugly and vulnerable, even if it wasn't running Windoze. Spreading the tasks over many computers in a decentralized manner would be a better use of the existing infrastructure, but I guess this sort of mirrors the different philosophies between the work the government has to do and the work that programmers like to do.

    Once again, Skynet is going to strike back.

    1. Re:Why just one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are we thinking about one quantum computer? It would be big, ugly and vulnerable In the (very) long run, we would want many QCs, but if we ever can build them, they will probably go through a "mainframe" stage first, with a few universities (and government agencies) having gigantic labs dedicated to running the things. These things are going to be big, expensive, and require a lot of TLC. In the farther future, we might be optimistic and hope that we will be able to shrink them to smaller, cheaper systems so that "everyone" can have one. But a lot of researchers are pessimistic that we'll get there.

      To answer the other issue implied by your question, I think there are good theoretical reasons to suspect that distributed quantum computing won't be much better than distributed classical computing. In order to unleash the real power of QCs you need to keep all the qubits entangled (two 8-qubit quantum computers are much much weaker than one 16-qubit system). Distributing the computer all over the place would make you more vulnerable than less, because if one part goes down the whole computation is ruined.
  27. What we need is by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

    a really HOT cup of tea. Meanwhile, at http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0708/0708.0681.p df we learn that quantum tunneling really is FTL. I'm feeling very depressed.

    --
    Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
  28. Actually, you've got it backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lastly, the hard part isn't going to be creating the QPU... there are many vectors for its creation and we know we can do it, theoreticlly. The hard part is the programming language of such a unit. Actually, I think you've got it backwards. Building the QPU is really, really hard; even the theory says it's really hard, especially if you want error correction (which is pretty much a necessity). In fact, we *don't* know we can do it, but we don't have any really compelling theoretical reason to think it's impossible. Lots of QC researchers do think it's impossible, though (for technical, not theoretical reasons).

    In contrast, making a programming language for these things really won't be that big a deal; people have already been working on it, and by the time we ever get working QCs quantum programming languages will be old hat. Yes, programmers will have to think a bit differently and learn some quantum mechanics, buit the QM you need to do QC is pretty simple. If the programmers have taken linear algebra and understand linear transformations, they already have the main conceptual skills they need.
  29. Spin State Energy Differences? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is one of the two electron spin states in a higher energy state than the other? In other words, does an electron require more (or less) energy to switch from "UP" to "DOWN" than the reverse flip? Or are both spin energy states the same?

    If there is an energy difference, how big is it (minimum theoretical)? And how much is the minimum (theoretical) energy required to flip the state? I'm not talking about today's first generation flippers, which probably consume much more energy than is theoretically required. And I'm not talking about the typical processes for collecting electrons in one state, which merely sorts the existing electrons by their existing state, and doesn't actually flip them.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Spin State Energy Differences? by fritsd · · Score: 1

      IIRC, not normally, but if you apply an external magnetic field then yes. See the wikipedia article about NMR for a simple explanation (yes I know it's NMR instead of EPR there, but the general principle's the same). Also IIRC the energy difference is tiny (radio wave type frequency as opposed to, say, light). There was a simple explanation what effect this had on the relative populations of the both spins but I've forgotten it. I thought that it didn't cost a lot of energy under normal operation but I'm sure I once felt a sample tube that had become slightly warm (the probe is quite well shielded from the liquid helium temperature around the magnet coils). I thought EPR could only be done with special molecules (paramagnetic metal salts?).

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  30. WTFBBQFISH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, and I thought I had overheating problems now, imagine what kind of water cooling I'd need when that comes out.

  31. This is a small jab, don't kill me or continue it by br4nd0nh3at · · Score: 0

    Playstation 5, the possibilities.