Quantum dots is just the first step in making a quantum computer, which is why the 20 years till desktop line in the article. What is demonstrated is far more modest than the press release SEEMS to say.
What was demonstrated is the ability to massively manufacture quantum dots. The next step would be some kind of mask like technology to control exact patterns of the quantum dots. It seems that should be possible since their process require very fine control, a mask should be enough to selectively prevent the growth of quantum dots in places.
The next step would to build a quasi-quantum computer, that is a computer whose operation is stilled based on classical information theory, but the physical principals is entirely quantum. Such computer would still be vastly supperior to current computeres in term of power consumption and speed, that is because computers based on quantum dots does NOT need interconnects, because everything is through field effect. The state of a quantum dot affects the one next to it in similar way a atom affect atoms near it. In fact quantum dots often being called artificial atoms because the quantum mechanics of an electron inside a quantum dot is so similar to that of a atom's electrons that they are pratically identical.
Only after the quasi-quantum computer is bulit are we likely to be able to deal with the next challenge (unless some surprise discovery/invention changes things) which is coherrance. Quantum computers right now are extremely fragile. After you put the device in a superpositioned state, it doesn't take much to destroy it and have it decay into classical states. However from what I hear the most robust superposition state was achieved in a quatum dot which do raise the hopes.
I hope the best luck to these researchers but I am weary of the fact that they patented the process which pretty much prevents others with shallow pockets from perfecting their technique, and slowing down the process of innovation. Hopefully their licensing agreements are generous.
The implications of this find is actually far more far reaching.
1: lifeforms could be stored for long period of time and then revived and re-released into the ecosystem which reintroduces primitive genes back into the gene pool. A small scale example is the recurrent chloera epidemics of india. One hypothesis is that artic ice actually freezes the pathogens and then rereleases them back to the environment when the ice melts. So there's always the possibility that smallpox is prozen in some ice somewhere out in the wild. (Of course this perticular bacterium have very little chance of harming us. because it missed too many years.)
2. Life forms could go into suspended animation long enough to withstand the trip from one solar system to another.
No problem by that time we'll have magnetic and electronic sensors so sensitive that it could be use to scan the plastic computer and trace every wire in the device without touching one atom in it at all. The wonder of induced magnetic field and current can work miracles!
M$ patent seems so narrowly defined that it makes me think it has only one purpose: Prevent another company from producing another Update service for windows. This way M$ can make sure it won't get any competition in that arena. This speaks volumes about how microsoft deal with innovation: keep it out. But for MS this is just a strategic Bussness move that makes sense for it. Of course this strategy makes no sense if MS is split into separate companies that produce software that is then integrated by third party companies.
Software Carpentry is based on interoperability, open extensibility, open free foundation. I think it is with these in mind that the authors of the competition chose python as the main language. Actually python scritability is enough. Also since this is a contest in ideas, the language offers consistency more than anything else, which simplifies judging. But ultimately what ever the final implementation of winning entries, they should, IMHO, guarentee the three principal at the start.
Think of a expanding circle. (Dropping a few dimmensions makes calculation easy.) Say the ballon adds 33% per second. Now say you are stuck on this circle traveling 3 cm per second. Now if you mark two point that is 3 cm apart on the baloon at time zero. You would expect it take you, one second to traverse between the points if the circle didn't get bigger. But since it does, the amount of time is longer than a second. To calculate how long let's use one more simpifying assumption. That you move for 1/2 second then the baloon expands, then you move, etc. With this assumption after the first 1/2 second. you moved to a place 1.5 cm from your goal but then the circle expands which adds 0.5 cm to your journey. After another 1/2 second. you are 0.5 cm from your goal. but then the circle expands again making you 0.833... cm from your goal. After another 1/2 second you pass your goal. So with this simple modle we have taken probably about 1.3 second instead of 1 second. To do this calculation more correctly we would enploy calculus which is about the same as changing the 1/2 second in the example to an infinitesmal (roughly speeking, without resorting epsilon-deltas) So in conclusion, it takes more time then strait distance speed calculation to figure out how long it takes light to reach us in an expanding universe.
I hope I won't be moderated too far down, but I hope the following is at least somewhat relevant. Does any one have a feeling of dejavu. When IBM disclosed the standards for its base hardware architecture, It paved the road for colones that used an open standards to open shop and give end customer a wide variety of choices, yet at the same time is basically inter-operable. (At that level) Now Linux is the new open standard that is paving the way to new opportunities as evidenced by VA LInux, Red Hat, etc. As for prospect of profit, I think like the colones most will have very low margines. A few will grow fairly large like Dell, Compaq. So, The Linux Revolution is paralleling what happened with the PC revolution. The end result of standardization, lower profit margin, more choices for end user. The next battle field will be next level up. Though it is uncleared what it is. Applications is going to change drastically too
This is Deja vu. If you'll remember the iterated system's founding patent. The patent centered around an alrorithm that transformed an image in to affine transformation coefficients. essentially a fractal transformation. What Barnsley of Iterated Systems found is a fast fractal transformation. Through implementation in software Barnsley (sp?) patented his mathematical insight. In one of the interviews he says that the key insight of the transform has to do with an operation on matrices, which backs up my claim it is mathematics. So I'm not surprised. Hopefully with tempered discussion we can find a succint boundary condition for patentability. (There is one but it was thrown out of the courts sometime ago) Hopefully the courts and patent office will establish new lines in this new age where most products will be intangible. One good step toward that is to contain the possibility of using patents as strategical weapons. Another step would be the banning of patent dumping and broad patents. Again there will be many difficulties.
Slashdot Mirror
Quantum dots is just the first step in making a quantum computer, which is why the 20 years till desktop line in the article. What is demonstrated is far more modest than the press release SEEMS to say. What was demonstrated is the ability to massively manufacture quantum dots. The next step would be some kind of mask like technology to control exact patterns of the quantum dots. It seems that should be possible since their process require very fine control, a mask should be enough to selectively prevent the growth of quantum dots in places. The next step would to build a quasi-quantum computer, that is a computer whose operation is stilled based on classical information theory, but the physical principals is entirely quantum. Such computer would still be vastly supperior to current computeres in term of power consumption and speed, that is because computers based on quantum dots does NOT need interconnects, because everything is through field effect. The state of a quantum dot affects the one next to it in similar way a atom affect atoms near it. In fact quantum dots often being called artificial atoms because the quantum mechanics of an electron inside a quantum dot is so similar to that of a atom's electrons that they are pratically identical. Only after the quasi-quantum computer is bulit are we likely to be able to deal with the next challenge (unless some surprise discovery/invention changes things) which is coherrance. Quantum computers right now are extremely fragile. After you put the device in a superpositioned state, it doesn't take much to destroy it and have it decay into classical states. However from what I hear the most robust superposition state was achieved in a quatum dot which do raise the hopes. I hope the best luck to these researchers but I am weary of the fact that they patented the process which pretty much prevents others with shallow pockets from perfecting their technique, and slowing down the process of innovation. Hopefully their licensing agreements are generous.
The implications of this find is actually far more far reaching. 1: lifeforms could be stored for long period of time and then revived and re-released into the ecosystem which reintroduces primitive genes back into the gene pool. A small scale example is the recurrent chloera epidemics of india. One hypothesis is that artic ice actually freezes the pathogens and then rereleases them back to the environment when the ice melts. So there's always the possibility that smallpox is prozen in some ice somewhere out in the wild. (Of course this perticular bacterium have very little chance of harming us. because it missed too many years.) 2. Life forms could go into suspended animation long enough to withstand the trip from one solar system to another.
No problem by that time we'll have magnetic and electronic sensors so sensitive that it could be use to scan the plastic computer and trace every wire in the device without touching one atom in it at all. The wonder of induced magnetic field and current can work miracles!
M$ patent seems so narrowly defined that it makes me think it has only one purpose: Prevent another company from producing another Update service for windows. This way M$ can make sure it won't get any competition in that arena. This speaks volumes about how microsoft deal with innovation: keep it out. But for MS this is just a strategic Bussness move that makes sense for it. Of course this strategy makes no sense if MS is split into separate companies that produce software that is then integrated by third party companies.
Software Carpentry is based on interoperability, open extensibility, open free foundation. I think it is with these in mind that the authors of the competition chose python as the main language. Actually python scritability is enough. Also since this is a contest in ideas, the language offers consistency more than anything else, which simplifies judging. But ultimately what ever the final implementation of winning entries, they should, IMHO, guarentee the three principal at the start.
Think of a expanding circle. (Dropping a few dimmensions makes calculation easy.) Say the ballon adds 33% per second. Now say you are stuck on this circle traveling 3 cm per second. Now if you mark two point that is 3 cm apart on the baloon at time zero. You would expect it take you, one second to traverse between the points if the circle didn't get bigger. But since it does, the amount of time is longer than a second. To calculate how long let's use one more simpifying assumption. That you move for 1/2 second then the baloon expands, then you move, etc. With this assumption after the first 1/2 second. you moved to a place 1.5 cm from your goal but then the circle expands which adds 0.5 cm to your journey. After another 1/2 second. you are 0.5 cm from your goal. but then the circle expands again making you 0.833... cm from your goal. After another 1/2 second you pass your goal. So with this simple modle we have taken probably about 1.3 second instead of 1 second. To do this calculation more correctly we would enploy calculus which is about the same as changing the 1/2 second in the example to an infinitesmal (roughly speeking, without resorting epsilon-deltas) So in conclusion, it takes more time then strait distance speed calculation to figure out how long it takes light to reach us in an expanding universe.
I hope I won't be moderated too far down, but I hope the following is at least somewhat relevant. Does any one have a feeling of dejavu. When IBM disclosed the standards for its base hardware architecture, It paved the road for colones that used an open standards to open shop and give end customer a wide variety of choices, yet at the same time is basically inter-operable. (At that level) Now Linux is the new open standard that is paving the way to new opportunities as evidenced by VA LInux, Red Hat, etc. As for prospect of profit, I think like the colones most will have very low margines. A few will grow fairly large like Dell, Compaq. So, The Linux Revolution is paralleling what happened with the PC revolution. The end result of standardization, lower profit margin, more choices for end user. The next battle field will be next level up. Though it is uncleared what it is. Applications is going to change drastically too
This is Deja vu. If you'll remember the iterated system's founding patent. The patent centered around an alrorithm that transformed an image in to affine transformation coefficients. essentially a fractal transformation. What Barnsley of Iterated Systems found is a fast fractal transformation. Through implementation in software Barnsley (sp?) patented his mathematical insight. In one of the interviews he says that the key insight of the transform has to do with an operation on matrices, which backs up my claim it is mathematics. So I'm not surprised. Hopefully with tempered discussion we can find a succint boundary condition for patentability. (There is one but it was thrown out of the courts sometime ago) Hopefully the courts and patent office will establish new lines in this new age where most products will be intangible. One good step toward that is to contain the possibility of using patents as strategical weapons. Another step would be the banning of patent dumping and broad patents. Again there will be many difficulties.