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)."

10 of 418 comments (clear)

  1. 10^16 times faster? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 0, Troll

    Finally, Windows will run fast enough to be useful.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  2. Re:Transistors Per IC and Planck Time by retchdog · · Score: -1, Troll

    How can you have stronger reasoning, than something that's based on the limits of what modern physics can understand (thermodynamics and quantum mechanics)? We have developed quantum computers.

    There's skepticism, and then there is metaphysical woowoo babble. You are generating the latter. Kill yourself.

    --
    "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  3. Re:Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Why does this shit always get +5 insightful? It mostly comes from non-programmers who have no idea what they're saying.

  4. Re:Transistors Per IC and Planck Time by retchdog · · Score: -1, Troll

    That's fine; there might be a revolution in physics, and this incredibly remote theoretical limit may be rescinded. I won't hold my breath.

    I was specifically asking about what argument he was referring to which was stronger. Extrapolating from a naively-fitted curve, for instance, would be an example of an argument which is weaker.

    Is that eloquent enough for you, parasite?

    --
    "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  5. Re:Transistors Per IC and Planck Time by retchdog · · Score: -1, Troll

    As I said above, I'm looking for the strong argument.

    "Limits of physics may be overturned," is not one.

    --
    "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  6. Re:Transistors Per IC and Planck Time by retchdog · · Score: -1, Troll

    It has nothing to do with IC design. It has everything to do with thermodynamics; quantum computation; and information theory.

    I've taken at least one course in each and done graduate research in two topics. I know that you are spouting garbage comparable to the political "analysis" done on cable news channels (fox or cnn, your pick), and I just want you to admit it.

    This ridiculous faith in the magic of human technology, to the point of questioning fundamental physical facts because "they'll probably be overcome later" is personally insulting to me.

    --
    "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  7. Re:What ABOUT Parallelism? by Schnoogs · · Score: -1, Troll

    And your facepalm made me think you're a douchebag

  8. Re:I call BS. by Schnoogs · · Score: -1, Troll

    I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or you're just completely ignorant

  9. Re:What ABOUT Parallelism? by Schnoogs · · Score: -1, Troll

    YES!!!! I was waiting for this!!!! I love how predictable this shithole is.