Heh you know him, he is lurking near, the very mention of his name will more than likely bring him out!
On May 24, 12:48 am, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > Where's Pat when we need him? > > On 5/23/2011 8:08 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > I'm fairly certian this site is not umm being honest. As far as I > > know we simply have not yet managed to do this. > > > One of the biggest problems in quantum compting is that old quantum > > chestnut of simply by looking we influence the result. > > > With Quantum bit (Qbit) computing, the idea is to make use of the > > verious quantum states of a moclucule, so that a Qbit can hold > > possibly 4 (all to do with spin) pieces of data at the same time. The > > problem comes in retriving this data and ensuring that by 'reading' > > the data it remains unchanged. > > > On May 20, 10:17 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.- Hide quoted text - > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
