Ah, ok. So that's what you meant by (quantum) spin. On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Chuck Bowling < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
