Slashdot Mirror
UO Scientists Get Funding for Quantum Logic Gates
Matthew Crouse sent it in: a PR squib from the University of Oregon that says, "Physicists at the University of Oregon have secured a $1.5 million federal grant to lead a three-university effort aimed at developing an advanced micro-processing device called a 'quantum logic gate.'" Quantum Computing possibilities have been mentioned on Slashdot here, here, and in a number of other articles over the years, but it's nice to see yet another research group working in this potentially exciting field. "Many eyes make all bugs shallow" and all that, eh?
As transistors get tinier and tinier, just like with RAM, one has to worry about stray radiation flipping bits. Error correcting transistors?! And tiny amounts of radiation are EVERYWHERE. In the ceramic cases of other chips. Thorium lenses in cameras. Amercium in smoke detectors. All potassium in your body is unstable (eventually decaying into argon). Even radiating heat sinks which like any black body must emit the occasional x-ray or gamma ray. This is insignificant to living things, but in a computer, even one flipped bit can screw things up bigtime. Lead casings needed? And forget use aboard spacecraft.
Maybe?? I dunno.
Sounds alot like what these guys need to get a quantum computer working. Of course, how do you backup a quantum computer? As soon as you try you compress the wave function of the data and *poof* no more data. Of course, if you're content to never look at your data, it will remain in a perfect state..... =)
That depends... do you believe your kernel exists? There is a probability that the code will compile optimally, but without viewing the results you can't compress the wave function and find out.... *muwhahahahahaahahahahaha!* It's like a Microsoft product: it seems really fast until you look!
And were you, like me, disappointed to find out this story wasn't referring to ultima online scientists?
If you need to know more about this technology, check out this link : http://www.sandia.gov/media/quantran.htm
Josh
XYZ-I finish what I start
1.5 Million in grant automagically has the top half knocked off by the universities themselves for "overhead costs". So, unless they applied for a 3 million dollar grant, they're *really* not going to get very far. Having a professor for a father, i'm all too familiar with the corporate engine known as the university system.
On the contrary, this is exactly where the patent system should be giving motivation to inventors and researchers. Wasn't this the original intent of the patent system -- to motivate people to strive for an achievement, with the temporary reward from the patent system as an incentive?
IMHO this is different from the silly 1-click shopping patents and stuff like that, which are nothing groundbreaking, just greedy hoarding. But in the case of quantum computing, these people are actually breaking new ground, so they should be rewarded.
But of course, with the current state of the patenting system, this could easily be abused... Although in this case I'm more inclined to think that areas like these are where the patent system should be operating -- NOT in areas like marketing, where it's more a matter of greed than innovation. When researchers are making ground-breaking discoveries/inventions like quantum gates, they should be rewarded. But the patent system should NOT be acting as "greed-security" by granting idiotic patents to marketing types (like 1-click shopping).
mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.
In theory atleast, your problem is allready solved "in another universe". This would strike me as an interface problem. I've also read the startling conclusion that a 'quantum computer' would solve many problems without even being turned on! So several could solve most problems even if they don't exist. Ofcourse an infinite number of these machines don't 'exist', so the best i make of it all is that you must be able to build an interface to this strange universe(s) and everything is solved.
I don't think $1.5Million to a university is going to scratch the surface. I suspect a $Trillion or so will be spent before any practical results come of it. All i've seen so far is 'jars' of supercooled matterial that don't really solve anything.
Unfortunately, not enough money is pumped into problems at hand. Yet, 1.5 million, in the cogs of things, is a rather miniscule amount of cash. The fact that the Government is givng that money says alot. Firstly, it shows intrest by the gov. which is a blessing in and of itself. Secondly, its symptomatic of the now common day "lets increase our computing power" disease (this is a good thing for i would be scraed if we were to stop progression and developement). Thirdly and Lastly, there is only so much that we can really do. I seem to have a decent grasp of the need for aide across the nation(let alone the world) but we cant give through the nose. Eventually we will be able to do so...but in good time. I dont expect things to change overnight.
Actually, not really. First, I prefer the term rationale to intent, and, second, the justification for patents is actually a little more complicated (and, not necessarily true, either):
The rationale was that by having a patent system you would be granted a monopoly in order to preserve your profit from innovation while requiring you to disclose your secret.
The patent system was designed in the age of alchemy and craftsmanship, when you would produce products in your underground lair, while jealously guarding chemical secrets to keep your competitive advantage. When you died, your secret died with you. The system of patents was introduced with the aim of furthering the public good by granting you a monopoly for life (yep, 17 on top of age 30 would about cover it) so that you would tell everyone what your secret was.
I think it is important to bear in mind all sides of this rationale, because the premises do not necessarily hold today, especially in academic environments, and perhaps the timescales are all wrong. If geeks are incented to discover things anyway, and academicians to publish, or if reverse engineering is simple, we don't necessarily need patents to encourage innovation or to get public disclosure.
You may believe that extra incentives are necessary, or you choose to believe in patents as part of some libertarian/rationalist religion where you think it is "moral" to be rewarded for being smart, but from the perspective of society at large it may simply have the effect of amplifying rewards to the smart at the expense of the consumer.