http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20060113/...BhBHNlYwM5NjQ-
Forget 64-bit as the new generation, i would love to get my hands on a working version of one of these. (drools puddle on keyboard)
i AM the Pumpkin King!
Quantum Processing
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20060113/...BhBHNlYwM5NjQ-
Forget 64-bit as the new generation, i would love to get my hands on a working version of one of these. (drools puddle on keyboard)
Cookie Thief
Heat. <br>
I don't see how they could trap so many in such a confined space.
i AM the Pumpkin King!
Banned
I can't claim to understand or accept quantam mechanics. But the concept of it being in both places is well...absurd to me. It is either in one or the other. If we haven't look, then it is unknown.
I am presuming this results in some probability density function? Say if it has a 50% probability of being in either place than it is in both?
Jackass Penguin
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/Originally Posted by Xaenn
That will explain it better than I can.
Disciple of Zerthimon
The concept of quantum processing is not that new, it just needs to be put to good use. Without the need of expensive equipment, and then it'll probably be accessible to mere mortals.
Anyhow, the article is a bit... wierd, I don't know. Electrons can't possess a spin of +/- 1/2 at the same time (there's the Pauli-rule stating that two particles can't be in the same quantum state at one time). But they do have a nice wavelength that allows them to be at two places at one time. I wouldn't want to guess what you'd need to read/write quantum states this way, though.
Member
From what I understand: the state of superposition, the ability for a particle to be or do two different things at once i.e. photons being both an energy particle as well as a wave, is exclusive to atomic and subatomic particles under the fundamentals of quantum mechanics.
The reason you may find hard to believe this is that your mind, as well as many others, are so attributed to the laws of Newtonian physics, which occur in our everyday lives and world, that you can not readily grasp the possibility of superposition. Though superposition can not exist in our physics and reality, it is still very much possible at the atomic level. It is just something you have to believe in, which may be tough at first.
As for quantum computing, we will first have to find a way to keep particles, referred to as qubits if I'm not mistaken, to maintain the ability to slip in and out of a state of superposition. This is the core property that gives quantum computing so much for processing power. Qubits, however, are extremely sensitive to each other and the environment. A slight t disturbance will result in discoherence (I think that's the term) which forces a particle to lose it's ability to superposition. This will render the computer pretty useless since it can only process linearly instead of simultaneously. The problem is that we have not yet found a method to ensure the stability of qubits. We have no real way of keeping the qubit processing from discoherence, and we will never have quantum computing until that can be done.
~
So like, my 486DX pwns that stupid quantum CPU.
Banned
Yes I am familiar with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
So the true state of affairs is completely due to the wave particle duality...and thus it could be in the superposition of two states due to its wavelike qualities...Makes sense to me. The article was just wrong then in saying it possessesing two different spins?
Doesn't sound particularly useful for computing as diablo was saying...but time will likely prove me wrong. I'd be putting my chips on biological computing as the future however.
Member
Well I remember reading that qubits can be used to represent binary commands by spinning one way or another, 0 or 1. The state of superposition results in a particle being able to spin both ways at once representing any combination of the 2. If you string together more qubits for processing power, then the benefit of superposition increase exponentially resulting in a far greater processing power compared to silicon chips.
Banned
Yes the increase would result from using a base 3 system as opposed to base 2. And of course 3^10 is greater than 2^10, whereas 3 is not a lot greater than 2. Spin of both directions doesn't quite make sense though. I suppose if you were to look at it in wavelike form it could be half spinning one way and half the other...but it's just strange. I think perhaps I should try and take quantam physics...but it would be just to learn...and not help me graduate.
Posting Permissions
