Having problems with message search?
-----Original Message-----
From: tbhawaiiowan@...
To: hrcfs-l@...
Cc: tbhawaiiowan@...
Sent: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 8:18 PM
Subject: Faster than light travel/computing?
While watching Star Trek Tech on History Channel, I learned this tidbit that--while still far from being possible--at least partially addresses question I was trying to ask about speed of photonic v quantum computing. While it currently seems to be the case that nothing can travel faster than light thru space-time, some quantum and astrophysicists think space-time itself may be able to travel faster than speed of light. (Still trying to wrap my mind around that one!) According to History Ch, this would be necessary to make Star Trek "warp" speed possible. Nevertheless, this still may be irrelevant to computing at any point in future. But perhaps due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP), maybe not?
FYI, some scientists think HUP means Star Trek "teleportation" will always be impossible, but a few think maybe not. However, "real" teleportation might not be based on actual transmission of matter itself and/or literally converting matter to energy (which some think would require heating matter to something like 100 billion degrees), but more on lasers transporting digitized instructions to reassemble atoms and molecules already randomly and/or ubiquitously available at destination to--in a sense--"clone" the transportee (although transportee still would not literally and simultaneously exist in two places). So it actually might be something more like nanotech rather than cloning/biotech combined with IT and lasers that makes teleportation possible? :)
Tom Brandt
PS - after closer review of previous emails, I realized "fentometer" scale is level of atomic nuclei--i.e. smaller than nano-scale.
-----Original Message-----
From: tbhawaiiowan@...
To: tsutsumie001@...; redlectron42@...
Cc: hrcfs-l@...
Sent: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: quantum v photonic v latest Intel+IBM chips
My question about speed of light on quantum level--at least with respect to computing--may be irrelevant, but I asked anyway out of (naive?) curiosity, and in hope someone on list may know more. So, for now, will close with this question to Oren: can u provide simple lay definition of fentometer? Or is reading de Garis essential to understanding?
Thanks again,
TB
-----Original Message-----
From: tsutsumie001@...
To: redlectron42@...
Cc: hrcfs-l@...
Sent: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: quantum v photonic v latest Intel+IBM chips
Hi Aaron,
Of course you're right. Just taking a stab at it. At the time I had thought this would be the way the thing works. This is what makes
it move bits like it does. I was reminded of other quantum stuff and aspects later on. Among all this info on quantum computing I was
looking at ( mind you that is mostly why I answered the e-mail ) at the time, a few presentations by Hugo de Garis as well as his
website. I concentrated on the future configuration of the thing. He was talking about future (speculative) quantum computers. I took
from his lecture that in a world where quantum computers are the norm, we might still feel the pressures to make things even faster.
Since it would be hard to jump to the next scale of the fentometer ( with all that would accompany that ), we would try to manipulate as
many (quantum bits) atoms with their electrons as close as we could near to one another. This would result in them being closer and
closer together, thusly faster, with of course (the way you mentioned ) the further quantum mechanics of it coming into play. The
numbers of them on the chip with the coupling of smaller and smaller tech may make their actual sizes more, and even more
important because they maybe soo close. The space between them would be in the size of less than an atom. I hope it clears up a
little of what I was trying to say.
Thanks a lot, talk to you later,
Oren Tsutsumi
> Gentlemen,
>
> I could be very wrong about this, but i believe that there are a
> couple of differences between quantum computers and our current
> technology.
>
> I had been under the impression that the major benefit to quantum
> computing was the ability of the logic circuits to exist in more than
> two states of being.
> by this i mean that in our current digital formats, swtiches are
> either on or off.
> Quantum computers work theorhetically on switches that can now be on,
> off, or nul.
> this third state allows for a leap fromt he powers of 2 to the > powers of 3.
> (2 squared is four,
> 3 squared nine.)
>
> So really, the benefit of quantum computers does not really have to do
> with the size of quanta, and though nanotechnology can take us very
> far, very fast, because of the new grades of controlling the silicon
> defficiencies, they are essentially seperate developing technologies.
>
> As i say this has been my understanding as to date,
> but maybe this is what you were talking about already,
> just in different terms.
>
>
> Aaron Rosa
>
>
> also,
> Chris Jones,
> also a HRCFS member,
> posted yesterday on the product release of the first
> quantum processor...
> on tuesday a group called D-wave
> openly demonstrated its quantumm processor...
> a scan of google news sci/tech category can provide many articles
> relating to this release, and
> the differnt criticisms it has received...
> apparently there are further approaches to Quantum computing.
>
>
>
>
> On 2/14/07, Oren Tsutsumi <tsutsumie001@...> wrote:
>> Hello again,
>>
>> Perhaps interestingly my source is mostly Hugo de Garis. >> Some of it
>> is an extrapolation upon his theories, an extrapolation,
>>
>> (probably other things would occur first) like lasers being used >> between
>> components on a nucleus scale (fentometer scale) .
>>
>> Oddly enough I was reminded of the threat from an e-mail >> from you
>> to Dr. Dator including of course Hrcfs-1@....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks again,
>>
>>
>> Oren Tsutsumi
>> On Feb 14, 2007, at 11:23 AM, tbhawaiiowan@... wrote:
>>
>> Mr. Tsutsumie:
>>
>> Thanks again. Would also like to know the source/s of your >> thinking on this
>> if any other than Hugo de Garis.
>>
>> Aloha,
>>
>> TB
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tsutsumie001@...
>> To: tbhawaiiowan@...
>> Cc: hrcfs-l@...
>> Sent: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:38 AM
>> Subject: Re: quantum v photonic v latest Intel+IBM chips
>>
>> HI,
>> I assume it could be faster than photonic computing if >> the
>> components are vastly smaller than those of photonic. This goes
>>
>> all out the door if we go to the fentometer scale and use lasers to
>> communicate between components( perhaps ). If the other
>>
>> variables are considered "solved", some of the results of this may >> lead to
>> greater raw computing speed. One of the
>>
>> variables would be heat.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Oren Tsutsumi
>>
>> On Feb 14, 2007, at 9:40 AM, tbhawaiiowan@... wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for input and new info. And yes, it is my understanding that
>> photonic computing--as name implies--is based on light instead of
>> electricity. so that leaves me wondering if quantum computing >> could ever be
>> as fast or faster than photonic based on speed of light alone. >> But I admit
>> that perception may be too simplistic, and that raw computing >> speed may be
>> determined more by other variables. Finally, I agree that >> "quantum" leaps
>> in computing power could have impacts as radical--for better and >> worse--than
>> say for examp, nanotech--and maybe sooner than nanotech. So I >> also agree
>> that we should tread "lightly." :)
>>
>> TB
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tsutsumie001@...
>> To: tbhawaiiowan@...
>> Sent: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 3:04 AM
>> Subject: Re: quantum v photonic v latest Intel+ IBM chips
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I guess quantum is based on the atom using the nano >> scales. That is
>> to say the spaces between components are measured
>>
>> at the nano scale level. A classical computer processor calculates >> one thing
>> at a time. One of the state of the art computer
>>
>> processors calculates at 2 to the 8th power (bit flips per second) >> things at
>> a time. Quantum computer processors could calculate at
>>
>> 2 to the nth power. They might be able to compute at 2 to the >> 100th power if
>> certain theories hold true. Some speculate you could
>>
>> build one of these out of what I take they mean to be solid >> material (
>> the solid state approach, posed by Cane). If this is the case
>>
>> then much of the tech of silicon valley could be used and it maybe >> not too
>> far along untill one of these calculates at 2 to the 1000th
>>
>> power or 2 to the 10,000th power.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what a photonic computer is. Maybe it's one >> which
>> uses lasers which can communicate between components on
>>
>> an even smaller scale. Perhaps you should contact Hugo de Garis or >> look at
>> his work athttp://www.iss.whu.edu.cn/degaris/.
>> He is the author of the "Artilect War" one book of which I'm >> sure you're
>> familiar. I heard him on an
>>
>> audio clip from a DC future salon. I tend to agree with some (a >> small bit)
>> of what he asserts in his work and a a couple of his
>>
>> lectures.
>>
>> We should ere on the side of caution. Also we must try >> to do more
>> productive things or do not a thing at all, instead of
>>
>> developing a tech which can get out of hand soo easily. Lets hope >> we don't
>> go willie nilly into the Fentometer scale which would
>>
>> be capable of 10 to the 40th power bit flips per second. One of >> the clips
>> is at
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/details/DC_Future_Salon_de_Garis_052406
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Oren Tsutsumi
>> On Feb 13, 2007, at 10:47 PM, tbhawaiiowan@... wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Chris. To all:
>>
>> Interestingly (to me), story in today's Advertiser reported that >> Intel has
>> designed chip--but still in research stage--that promises to perform
>> calculations (a trillion per second) as quickly as an entire data >> center,
>> while consuming as much electricity as a light bulb. Both Intel >> and IBM
>> reported last month they had separately devised ways to overcome >> overheating
>> and? leaking too much current as chips get smaller per Moore's Law.
>>
>> TEn yrs ago, same performance took supercomputer requiring 2000 sq >> ft,
>> 10,000 Pentium processors, and 500 kw. This compares? to 64,000
>> calculations simultaneously (in parallel "universes") in PCWorld >> article
>> about Quantum computing Chris sent.
>>
>> Intel or reporter? speculates first uses for new Intel chips would >> likely be
>> in corporate data centers, supercomputers, comm infra, and heavy->> duty fin
>> and sci research, as well as eventually AI, realistic 3D modeling, >> and
>> real-time speech recognition. But Intel also suggested one possible
>> consumer use: "intelligent" monitoring of TV sports that IDs and >> compiles
>> highlights based on spectator pref.
>>
>> Finally, does anyone understand diff between quantum and photonic/>> optic
>> computing and where development of latter is relative to quantum?
>>
>> Aloha,
>>
>> TB
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jones@...
>> To: HRCFS-L@...
>> Sent: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 1:53 PM
>> Subject: the 1st quantum computer
>> ... was supposed to be revealed to the public today:
>>
>> http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;234791681
Of course you're right. Just taking a stab at it. At the time I had thought this would be the way the thing works. This is what makes
it move bits like it does. I was reminded of other quantum stuff and aspects later on. Among all this info on quantum computing I was
looking at ( mind you that is mostly why I answered the e-mail ) at the time, a few presentations by Hugo de Garis as well as his
website. I concentrated on the future configuration of the thing. He was talking about future (speculative) quantum computers. I took
from his lecture that in a world where quantum computers are the norm, we might still feel the pressures to make things even faster.
Since it would be hard to jump to the next scale of the fentometer ( with all that would accompany that ), we would try to manipulate as
many (quantum bits) atoms with their electrons as close as we could near to one another. This would result in them being closer and
closer together, thusly faster, with of course (the way you mentioned ) the further quantum mechanics of it coming into play. The
numbers of them on the chip with the coupling of smaller and smaller tech may make their actual sizes more, and even more
important because they maybe soo close. The space between them would be in the size of less than an atom. I hope it clears up a
little of what I was trying to say.
Thanks a lot, talk to you later,
Oren Tsutsumi
> Gentlemen,
>
> I could be very wrong about this, but i believe that there are a
> couple of differences between quantum computers and our current
> technology.
>
> I had been under the impression that the major benefit to quantum
> computing was the ability of the logic circuits to exist in more than
> two states of being.
> by this i mean that in our current digital formats, swtiches are
> either on or off.
> Quantum computers work theorhetically on switches that can now be on,
> off, or nul.
> this third state allows for a leap fromt he powers of 2 to the > powers of 3.
> (2 squared is four,
> 3 squared nine.)
>
> So really, the benefit of quantum computers does not really have to do
> with the size of quanta, and though nanotechnology can take us very
> far, very fast, because of the new grades of controlling the silicon
> defficiencies, they are essentially seperate developing technologies.
>
> As i say this has been my understanding as to date,
> but maybe this is what you were talking about already,
> just in different terms.
>
>
> Aaron Rosa
>
>
> also,
> Chris Jones,
> also a HRCFS member,
> posted yesterday on the product release of the first
> quantum processor...
> on tuesday a group called D-wave
> openly demonstrated its quantumm processor...
> a scan of google news sci/tech category can provide many articles
> relating to this release, and
> the differnt criticisms it has received...
> apparently there are further approaches to Quantum computing.
>
>
>
>
> On 2/14/07, Oren Tsutsumi <tsutsumie001@...> wrote:
>> Hello again,
>>
>> Perhaps interestingly my source is mostly Hugo de Garis. >> Some of it
>> is an extrapolation upon his theories, an extrapolation,
>>
>> (probably other things would occur first) like lasers being used >> between
>> components on a nucleus scale (fentometer scale) .
>>
>> Oddly enough I was reminded of the threat from an e-mail >> from you
>> to Dr. Dator including of course Hrcfs-1@....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks again,
>>
>>
>> Oren Tsutsumi
>> On Feb 14, 2007, at 11:23 AM, tbhawaiiowan@... wrote:
>>
>> Mr. Tsutsumie:
>>
>> Thanks again. Would also like to know the source/s of your >> thinking on this
>> if any other than Hugo de Garis.
>>
>> Aloha,
>>
>> TB
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tsutsumie001@...
>> To: tbhawaiiowan@...
>> Cc: hrcfs-l@...
>> Sent: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:38 AM
>> Subject: Re: quantum v photonic v latest Intel+IBM chips
>>
>> HI,
>> I assume it could be faster than photonic computing if >> the
>> components are vastly smaller than those of photonic. This goes
>>
>> all out the door if we go to the fentometer scale and use lasers to
>> communicate between components( perhaps ). If the other
>>
>> variables are considered "solved", some of the results of this may >> lead to
>> greater raw computing speed. One of the
>>
>> variables would be heat.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Oren Tsutsumi
>>
>> On Feb 14, 2007, at 9:40 AM, tbhawaiiowan@... wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for input and new info. And yes, it is my understanding that
>> photonic computing--as name implies--is based on light instead of
>> electricity. so that leaves me wondering if quantum computing >> could ever be
>> as fast or faster than photonic based on speed of light alone. >> But I admit
>> that perception may be too simplistic, and that raw computing >> speed may be
>> determined more by other variables. Finally, I agree that >> "quantum" leaps
>> in computing power could have impacts as radical--for better and >> worse--than
>> say for examp, nanotech--and maybe sooner than nanotech. So I >> also agree
>> that we should tread "lightly." :)
>>
>> TB
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tsutsumie001@...
>> To: tbhawaiiowan@...
>> Sent: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 3:04 AM
>> Subject: Re: quantum v photonic v latest Intel+ IBM chips
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I guess quantum is based on the atom using the nano >> scales. That is
>> to say the spaces between components are measured
>>
>> at the nano scale level. A classical computer processor calculates >> one thing
>> at a time. One of the state of the art computer
>>
>> processors calculates at 2 to the 8th power (bit flips per second) >> things at
>> a time. Quantum computer processors could calculate at
>>
>> 2 to the nth power. They might be able to compute at 2 to the >> 100th power if
>> certain theories hold true. Some speculate you could
>>
>> build one of these out of what I take they mean to be solid >> material (
>> the solid state approach, posed by Cane). If this is the case
>>
>> then much of the tech of silicon valley could be used and it maybe >> not too
>> far along untill one of these calculates at 2 to the 1000th
>>
>> power or 2 to the 10,000th power.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what a photonic computer is. Maybe it's one >> which
>> uses lasers which can communicate between components on
>>
>> an even smaller scale. Perhaps you should contact Hugo de Garis or >> look at
>> his work athttp://www.iss.whu.edu.cn/degaris/.
>> He is the author of the "Artilect War" one book of which I'm >> sure you're
>> familiar. I heard him on an
>>
>> audio clip from a DC future salon. I tend to agree with some (a >> small bit)
>> of what he asserts in his work and a a couple of his
>>
>> lectures.
>>
>> We should ere on the side of caution. Also we must try >> to do more
>> productive things or do not a thing at all, instead of
>>
>> developing a tech which can get out of hand soo easily. Lets hope >> we don't
>> go willie nilly into the Fentometer scale which would
>>
>> be capable of 10 to the 40th power bit flips per second. One of >> the clips
>> is at
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/details/DC_Future_Salon_de_Garis_052406
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Oren Tsutsumi
>> On Feb 13, 2007, at 10:47 PM, tbhawaiiowan@... wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Chris. To all:
>>
>> Interestingly (to me), story in today's Advertiser reported that >> Intel has
>> designed chip--but still in research stage--that promises to perform
>> calculations (a trillion per second) as quickly as an entire data >> center,
>> while consuming as much electricity as a light bulb. Both Intel >> and IBM
>> reported last month they had separately devised ways to overcome >> overheating
>> and? leaking too much current as chips get smaller per Moore's Law.
>>
>> TEn yrs ago, same performance took supercomputer requiring 2000 sq >> ft,
>> 10,000 Pentium processors, and 500 kw. This compares? to 64,000
>> calculations simultaneously (in parallel "universes") in PCWorld >> article
>> about Quantum computing Chris sent.
>>
>> Intel or reporter? speculates first uses for new Intel chips would >> likely be
>> in corporate data centers, supercomputers, comm infra, and heavy->> duty fin
>> and sci research, as well as eventually AI, realistic 3D modeling, >> and
>> real-time speech recognition. But Intel also suggested one possible
>> consumer use: "intelligent" monitoring of TV sports that IDs and >> compiles
>> highlights based on spectator pref.
>>
>> Finally, does anyone understand diff between quantum and photonic/>> optic
>> computing and where development of latter is relative to quantum?
>>
>> Aloha,
>>
>> TB
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jones@...
>> To: HRCFS-L@...
>> Sent: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 1:53 PM
>> Subject: the 1st quantum computer
>> ... was supposed to be revealed to the public today:
>>
>> http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;234791681
Offline 
Send Email