I'm dissapointed with the lack of technical detail in the article. I'm still trying to figure out what is so novel about this. There has been an aweful lot of work done for years now on trapping and guiding light. The big issue is efficiency. The most promising technology I have seen for photonic computing is guiding along defects of a photonic band-gap in a photonic crystal. This is lossless guiding!!! Thats right, no photons can escape! This research is lead by Joannopoulos at MIT http://ab-initio.mit.edu/photons Pretty interesting possibilities since a photonic crystal restricts photons of a given wavelength range from propagating throught the material. A defect in the 'crystal' allows the forbidden light to be guided along the defect without leaking into the bulk. Light can even be guided around right angles without loss.
So we have the pipes, now we need the light equivolent of transisters. But thats coming.
Agreed. I am having trouble understanding what all the excitement is about considering clones are not duplicates. A clone would be an individual who just happens to be genetically identical.
Frankly I don't see much advantage. Genetic diversity is generally considered good for a species.
I agree, but wouldn't much of the material being drawn toward the observer be located on the oposite side of the event horizon so as to be out of sight. It seams the net affect would be more of the visable acretion disk would be red shifted. Another question: Is the relative velocity of the acreting material with respect to the object great enough to be significant when compared to the expansion of the universe?
Sorry, I should do some research, I'm not much of an astronomer yet...
I agree that you would expect Mindcraft to want to clear their name by performing the test again, but it strikes me that your parenthetical comment, "But since microsoft isn't interested in a real test that isn't going to happen" may have missed the mark. If I were Microsoft, I would be very interested in a second, more fair test. I would be very interested to see that it didn't happen.
Ummm, I'm not sure I would invest any money in anything that claims to be cold fusion. I won't say that it isn't possible, becuase thats always a stupid thing to say, but I don't think any physicists are trying to get "cold fusion" to work. This is merely an improvement in the design of old fusion technology. It still uses more energy to fire this thing up then it produces, so don't get to excited yet. But all improvement are a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm dissapointed with the lack of technical detail
in the article. I'm still trying to figure out
what is so novel about this. There has been an
aweful lot of work done for years now on trapping and guiding light. The big issue is efficiency.
The most promising technology I have seen for
photonic computing is guiding along defects of a photonic band-gap in a photonic crystal. This is
lossless guiding!!! Thats right, no photons can
escape! This research is lead by Joannopoulos at MIT http://ab-initio.mit.edu/photons Pretty
interesting possibilities since a photonic crystal
restricts photons of a given wavelength range from
propagating throught the material. A defect in
the 'crystal' allows the forbidden light to be
guided along the defect without leaking into the
bulk. Light can even be guided around right
angles without loss.
So we have the pipes, now we need the light
equivolent of transisters. But thats coming.
Jeremy
Agreed. I am having trouble understanding what all the excitement is about considering clones are not duplicates. A clone would be an individual who just happens to be genetically identical.
Frankly I don't see much advantage. Genetic diversity is generally considered good for a species.
I agree, but wouldn't much of the material being drawn toward the observer be located on the oposite side of the event horizon so as to be out of sight. It seams the net affect would be more of the visable acretion disk would be red shifted. Another question: Is the relative velocity of the acreting material with respect to the object great enough to be significant when compared to the expansion of the universe?
Sorry, I should do some research, I'm not much of an astronomer yet...
I agree that you would expect Mindcraft to want to clear their name by performing the test again, but it strikes me that your parenthetical comment, "But since microsoft isn't interested in a real test that isn't going to happen" may have missed the mark. If I were Microsoft, I would be very interested in a second, more fair test. I would be very interested to see that it didn't happen.
Food for thought.
Ummm, I'm not sure I would invest any money in anything that claims to be cold fusion. I won't say that it isn't possible, becuase thats always a stupid thing to say, but I don't think any physicists are trying to get "cold fusion" to work. This is merely an improvement in the design of old fusion technology. It still uses more energy to fire this thing up then it produces, so don't get to excited yet. But all improvement are a good thing.