Slashdot Mirror


The Ultimate Limit of Moore's Law

BuzzSkyline writes "Physicists have found that there is an ultimate limit to the speed of calculations, regardless of any improvements in technology. According to the researchers who found the computation limit, the bound 'poses an absolute law of nature, just like the speed of light.' While many experts expect technological limits to kick in eventually, engineers always seem to find ways around such roadblocks. If the physicists are right, though, no technology could ever beat the ultimate limit they've calculated — which is about 10^16 times faster than today's fastest machines. At the current Moore's Law pace, computational speeds will hit the wall in 75 to 80 years. A paper describing the analysis, which relies on thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and information theory, appeared in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters (abstract here)."

2 of 418 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Transistors Per IC and Planck Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Dude, look. Einstein "took some observations and extrapolated them to show that modern physics was not entirely correct" and that's all you need to know, apparently. It's weird numbers and stuff, you wouldn't understand!

  2. This is kinda...low-ball, isn't it? by WheelDweller · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    How long has this law been continuing? 30 years? So then to act like journalists and say "one day it'll end" (after the reporter's dead and gone!) is kinda stupid, don't ya think?

    It reminds me of those people, just TRYING to keep a panic: "Eventually our planets will collide!" (Not mentioning it's like 12,000,000,000 years from now, plenty of time to buy off-world tickets.)

    Why do we keep getting these non-news stories? Why must they all be so un-grounded. What happened to fact-checking?

    These guys can't prove this any more than the entire *world* of guys could PROVE an end to Moore's law over the last 30 years. So to say, long after we're dead (and is meaningless) that it will end....so gutless.

    It's just as bogus as this latest round of "Rush Limbaugh is racist" stories lately. Rush is difficult to interview:

    -The second-largest radio show on the planet,
    -Three hours a day
    -Five days a week
    -In it's 21st year of operation
    -Costs nothing to tune in and learn for one's self.

    Yet, the media sources claiming him to be a bastard seem unable to attend a show. These "investigative reporters" and "balanced coverage" and "courage you can count on" guys run like little whiny babies when Rush is on, and don't know anything about him.

    He's the most color-blind person I know. I've listed since about '89. NEVER have I heard him take pleasure in the ills of a black man. In fact, he's one of the biggest cheerleaders of giving them tools to advance with the rest of us....and then to the world!

    Conservatism isn't racial hatred.

    George Wallace wasn't conservative when he stood in that doorway, keeping negros out of college. (Remember Gump?) It wasn't conservatives using attack dogs or firehoses on negros: that was The National Democratic Party. Look it up.

    My closest friend posted to Facebook: Limabaugh's gonna get an all-white team! That should make HIM happy!

    I took him to task: don't make such statements- clearly you've never listened. "Oh, I did- I listen all the time. I listen to him and Ann Coulter on her show, too!"

    [She doesn't have a show: he's just lying because the TV and radio have told him what he's supposed to be like.]

    Whatever happened to skepticism? Whatever happened to "prove it to me"? Can we not think for ourselves anymore? We should be suing people that publish stories like this: media malpractice.

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov