Thanks for providing me with the right key words. And this is the stuff I meant: http://www.dwavesys.com/en/products-services.html
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Chuck Bowling < [email protected]> wrote: > Nanotechnology is used in a lot of places but it's still far from reaching > its full potential. Right now most nanotech is just new applications of > materials science. Potentially nanotech could be used to create robots > smaller than a single human cell or for that matter to create new life. > > As to quantum physics, it provides insight into microelectronics. But the > hope is that one day we will be able to create computers based on quantum > spin. That still hasn't happened yet. > > > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:58 AM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What? I thought nanotech was already in use in the cosmetics industry and >> quantatech (is that how you call it?) in the computer industry. >> >> >> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Chuck Bowling < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I'm in agreement about the radical changes that nanotech appear to >>> promise. Changes that could spell doom or a complete redefinition of what it >>> is to be human. It's about the only thing that makes me want to live longer >>> than my allotted time. Just so that I can see what miracles come next. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Yeah, I was fear mongering Chuck, a political device. ;-) This is a >>>> favorite topic of mine, it is at the axis of many fields. To accelerate >>>> nanotech development I think we should implement rapid prototyping, >>>> experimentation and analysis systems. When I envision man at the beginning >>>> of this revolution I look for tools that would allow an explosion >>>> (figuratively) of development, being able to catalog and operate a >>>> multitude >>>> of experiments in parallel, while building a massive library of modeled >>>> behavior for materials and systems interoperating in the real world to >>>> improve the robustness and diversity of this technology is apparently the >>>> way to go. To think that the behavior of biological systems can be >>>> abstracted and used to formulate dynamic systems guided by expert >>>> algorithms >>>> to solve material challenges in real time guided by people over vast >>>> distances, it goes beyond genetics, I am in awe at the potential universe >>>> we >>>> are venturing toward. We will also be able to make changes to ourselves and >>>> our experience of this world at a similar rate.. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/19/2011 1:41 AM, Chuck Bowling wrote: >>>> >>>> I think that with nanotechnology we will be able to synthesize pretty >>>> much anything we want from raw materials in the future. Assuming that any >>>> alien race capable of traveling the trillions of miles to get here would >>>> have at least the same level of technology my guess is that they wouldn't >>>> need anything we'd have to offer. >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> There is another good reason to develop our technologies as a species, >>>>> think how we are looking at the planets and celestial bodies as vast >>>>> resources. Imagine if something else came through and strip mined the >>>>> resources we would need to develop into a spacefaring species, that would >>>>> suck big time. Like a tribe of humans moving through and picking all the >>>>> nuts we squirrels need, or worse, deciding we were in the way of those >>>>> resources, think what we have done in those situations.. I know it's >>>>> unlikely considering the vast resources out there, but something might >>>>> have >>>>> it's eye on our pale blue dot too, working faster than us at making the >>>>> leap. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5/18/2011 8:37 PM, Chuck Bowling wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think right now the technology will only allow us to tell if a planet >>>>> is rocky or a gas giant. And even then only if it is a relatively massive >>>>> planet. The last time I read anything on the subject the smallest planet >>>>> found was something like 3 times the size of the Earth. >>>>> >>>>> IMO, the analogy with Columbus doesn't hold. 17th century technology >>>>> allowed humans to travel anywhere on the Earth - albeit slow and wrought >>>>> with hazard. If the analogy is that a neighboring star is like a new >>>>> continent then we are more like cavemen discovering that a log can float. >>>>> At >>>>> the rate we're going it might be a thousand years before we can actually >>>>> mount an expedition to another star. >>>>> >>>>> I think the primary reason we are so far from actually exploring other >>>>> stars is mainly political rather than technological. But, I think you are >>>>> right. It is a project worth attaching too. Now if we could just make the >>>>> damn politicians see it that way... ;) >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:58 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure how accurate they can be in revealing planets enough like >>>>>> ours to offer possibilities of a new promised land. They claim there >>>>>> is one 20 light years away, or 300,000 years at current space travel >>>>>> speeds. One can feel that this at least puts us somewhere near the >>>>>> position of 'Columbus'. Our current 'tin-foil' technology won't do, >>>>>> but at this kind of distance we are talking about something other than >>>>>> worm-holes, 'relativity flight' or the kind of physics in which >>>>>> distance is an illusion. >>>>>> >>>>>> For someone like me who can't take god-stories seriously and quite >>>>>> likes the idea of a human future (or at least the idea of evolution >>>>>> not just ending through catastrophe), there is an opportunity to >>>>>> believe in something distant in time and a need for us to direct >>>>>> ourselves towards it. A time, perhaps in which a form of conscious >>>>>> life can live very differently from now, and a project worth attaching >>>>>> to - perhaps a reason for spirituality. Comments on this or the >>>>>> technology welcome. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
