There appears to be some dispute as to whether the Dwave system is actually a scalable qbit system capable of solving real world problems more efficiently than a standard desktop computer.
(warning: geek alert) http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/loser-dwave-does-not-quantum-compute/0 On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 4:17 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
