Quantum future

[tw]

It appears Intel is finally hitting the brick wall of silicon based, CMOS transistors. Same problem will be happening for other IC manufacturers.

Innovation is about constantly advancing a technology until it must be obsoleted by a fundamentally new technology. Bipolar was obsoleted by CMOS. CMOS might be replaced by transistors based upon quantum physics.

Same is true of communication. Currently, encryption is based upon factoring technologies. RSM is the benchmark is so many secure transmission. IOW your message is secure because you can prove to the other guy who you are AND you 'hope' your communications are not compromised. Same principles found in Identify Theft protection.

Your communication is secure only if you can prove who you are and DETECT compromised communications. Quantum encryption promised to provide this signifcant advantage.

Currently operating are six nodes in a quantum based system between Harvard, Boston U, and BBN (considered the founders of internet hardware). This demonstraton uses quantum encryption on photons. Unlike conventional encryption, this secure communication should be able to detect if another has accessed (or tried to access) a communication.

Quantum physics was so mysterious that early scientists doubted while continuing work on the science. Even Einstien remained in disbelief. And yet quantum physics may be the next generation of computer and communication science.

Recently demonstrated in both Europe and N America was teleportation - in its simplest form. Again, quantum physics.

[Troubleshooter]

A friend of mine plays with QC as a hobby. He's very, very smart person; smarter than me even, and I don't say that often.

[TheSnake]

Einstein just couldn't believe that physics had a statistical nature to it, but I think he eventually came around.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by TheSnake

Einstein just couldn't believe that physics had a statistical nature to it, but I think he eventually came around.

Everything is statistical.

Is joke. I work at SPSS.

[Beestie]

Thing, is the problem nowadays is not computing speed. The comuters are way ahead of the software so the interesting question is what apps will be developed that take advantage of the new ability. Leave it to gaming to push the envelope.

And "teleportation" as a term is a bit misleading. Matter was not physically moved from point A to point B: a property of a particle occupying point A was conveyed to a particle at point B. Big difference.

But, nonetheless, quantum computing is moving ahead. But, personally, I think light computing is the future. The knowlege of man - all of it - would fit in a teaspoon. And its comprehensible.

But, whoever is right, the future is very exciting.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Beestie

Thing, is the problem nowadays is not computing speed. The comuters are way ahead of the software so the interesting question is what apps will be developed that take advantage of the new ability. Leave it to gaming to push the envelope.

In some ways, software has not yet been able to use computer hardware abilities. For example, software is still too linear making massively parallel processing difficult. However one could argue that the computer hardware has not yet been developed to make effective massive parallel processing possible.

Furthermore, the largest impediment to accurately predicting weather is the processing speed. By the time computers have made a prediction, the weather has already happened. So here is an example of software well ahead of what hardware can accomplish.

A major worry of the supercomputer industry is that virtually all recent advantages have come from stunning speed increases in microprocessors. Now that transistors are constructed with as little as three atom thickenesses, then faster microprocessors may not be forthcoming. IOW the super computer business is worried that their major speed accomplishements may soon diminish to a crawl. As we should all know, most super computing is now performed with literally thousands of interconnected microprocessors.

For the most part, software literally consumes most every advantage created by hardware. Hardware tends to be the limiting factor in the computer industry. This could change if the sofware industry created some massive new breakthrough technology. But that appears neither to be expected nor does the industry have a reputation for such spectaculor breakthroughs. IOW software simply consumes every new Pentaflop we give it as fast as we can provide it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheSnake

Einstein just couldn't believe that physics had a statistical nature to it, but I think he eventually came around.

Einstein had much trouble grappling with the concepts of Quantum Physics. For example, Oppenheimer had to explain Feynman Diagrams to Einstein who for the longest time was not willing to accept them.

Einstein desperately wanted to understand the relationships between electromagnetic and gravity - the unified equation. Much of this still eludes us due to massive ignorance of Quantum Physics. Again, this is why the Haldron particle accelerator in Europe will be so important and why the super collider is TX was even moreso essential to the advancement of mankind. It is why so many robot satellites are necessary to obtain concepts we cannot measure or detect on earth. It is why the redirection of funds for political gain in science (rather than technical accomplishment) is so destructive to mankind advancement.

The point is so much of what we are trying to accomplish - from fuel efficient cars and less pollution, understand the mystery that was once called cold fusion, advanced communication and computing, new supermaterials and super conductors, better application of limited energy reserves, etc all have basic mysteries found in an exotic science called Quantum Physics.

[russotto]

It wasn't the statistical nature of QM which bothered Einstein; it was the probabilistic nature.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by russotto

It wasn't the statistical nature of QM which bothered Einstein; it was the probabilistic nature.

.

[TheSnake]

Originally Posted by dar512

Everything is statistical.

Is joke. I work at SPSS.

I don't quite understand what you said by your incomplete sentences. Look, it's hard to know if the people responding to what I say have a science background or not, but some of what you people say perplex me. Like the post about statistical vs. probabilistic??

This might start a new path of discussion, Einstein was somewhat overrated as a scientist. He had a lot of backup from other prominent scientists at the time. I'm not saying that he didn't have some creative ideas, but much of his historical image has been hyped.

[russotto]

To say that something is probabilistic is to say that it is not deterministic, that it depends on random events. That's what Einstein had a problem with.

He had no problem with physics following statistical laws, provided the individual variations could be explained in a deterministic manner. That is, if half the photons in a particular experiment went one way, and half the other, there must have been something different about those sets of photons in the first place.

As for Einstein being overrated... when I can get my mind around General Relativity for more than a half-second or two, I might consider the possibility. Until then I'm probably not qualified to judge.

[TheSnake]

I understand the difference between stochastic and deterministic problems, I was just using the term loosely in my orignial post, but I had a feeling judging by people's responses that not everyone was clear on everything being said.

If you want a super genius, check out Gauss.

[Bitman]

Originally Posted by tw

Now that transistors are constructed with as little as three atom thickenesses

Um, I think that's only in the lab. Which means that faster processors are coming. And though those atomic chips will be among the fastest MHz chips possible, smarter chips will still provide more usable speed.

Intel's a bad example to use in this comparison; the original mandate for the Pentium 4 was "more megahurtzes at any cost," but the engineers failed. The 130nm chip contained circuits that just barely worked; when they moved to 90nm, they had to overhaul quite alot, doubling the number of transistors required. That alone burned up all the advantage that 90nm brought.

IBM and AMD are getting good results from 90nm, but the % improvement is less than with 130nm despite the higher cost. Same thing will likely happen with every subsequent generation -- more money, less benefit. So we're definitely sinking, but there's no brick wall.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Bitman

Intel's a bad example to use in this comparison; the original mandate for the Pentium 4 was "more megahurtzes at any cost," but the engineers failed. The 130nm chip contained circuits that just barely worked; when they moved to 90nm, they had to overhaul quite alot, doubling the number of transistors required. That alone burned up all the advantage that 90nm brought.

First off, Intel completely bypasssed 130 nm technology - shocking the semiconductor tool manufacturers who were counting on 130 nm sales. Intel went right to 90 nm technology for their future products while other manufacturer's (IBM and AMD) are still trying to develop 130 nm products.

Intel remains ahead of the competition in manufacturing smaller transistors. That was Intel's crown jewel - their semiconductor magic resulted in smaller transistors with less power and higher yields. Now that gates are routinely on the order of as little as three atoms thick, power reduction was obtained by shortening the transistor - requiring lower voltages. Some parts are now running on as low as 0.8 volts. Even that voltage reduction is approaching a limit - another part of the brick wall.

Two technologies that hoped to continue a quest for Moore's Law were strained silicon and high K dielectrics to replace glass - Silicon Dioxide (where the transistor is three atoms thick). (BTW glass is the primary reason why semiconductors are based in Silicon.)

Strained silicon is marching forward slowly and running into manufacturing problems due to mechanical changes in the substrate. The many high K replacement materials have failed. IBM's high K solution (from Dupont) was pealing off - causing a default on an IBM contract. Little has been spoken of Intel's high K material based in a secret halfnium material, even though Intel have successfully built a 40 nm static Ram. Intel microprocessor design always begins with a prototype static RAM.

But these new technologies are not appearing fast enough. Intel has hit a brick wall - probably in part due to their (fortunately outgoing) president who, BTW, is an MBA. Many of Intel's design groups have been doing the safe method rather than what Intel normally does. All symptoms of top management that did not come from where the work gets done. Intel's product line for the next four years may not maintain their previous technology advances. The question why is the question. Without a breakthrough, other semiconductor manufacturers will suffer the same fate.

Why Intel has hit a brick wall is interesting speculation. For example, even with warnings that the next Pentium would clearly have heat problems, Barnett did not encourage (or permit?) a fundamental shift in design objectives. Therefore years of development work were trashed only because Barnett and his top management did not listen to warnings from the little people (a factor common in MBA type managers). Suddenly a multi-chip processor must be rushed into design maybe without the proper architectural evaluation. Itanium group was making promises they could not keep. Top management stifled the Intel 64 bit solution much too long in a blind worship of what they were told. Suspect the current technically less saavy Intel management could not see that technical details did not jibe with summary declarations. Another symptom of MBA management. With management that naive, then what inside the semiconductor process development group was also stifled?

It is quite possible that Intel's stumbles are more due to Barnett - who does not come from where the work gets done and who is being removed rather early. But again the question - has CMOS technology hit a brick wall?

Bottom line is that others (ie IBM and AMD) have yet to use the concentration of technologies that caused so much heat in Pentiums. Competitors also have not succeeded in developing technologies that hopefully avoid these heat and speed problems. All manufacturers will see a sudden increase in heat as they too begin using the same smaller technologies.

Maybe the term brick wall is not appropriate. Maybe mountain is a better term. The mountain has suddenly become very steep and is only getting steeper. We know the CMOS transistor is approaching its limits. Limits imposed by the size of atoms, the amount of quantum tunneling that occurs even through glass, and a lowest limit voltage that a silicon transistor can use. Without some major breakthrough, faster processors based upon speed increase will not be possible. Currently the most promising breakthroughs just are not happening.

BTW you don't have to know about semiconductor technology to appreciate what is being stated. You don't care what quantum tunneling is. Just that quantum tunneling is a problem AND that solutions for that problem are not appearing. You don't care why processors use lower voltages. Just that lower voltages were another solution to the speed / power consumption problem - and voltages are approaching minimum values. Bottom line is that no one in the industry really has succeed in the labs with a solution to these speed and power consumption problems. As we know from previous discussions, everything takes four to 10 years to develop. This suggests a serious problem will be confronted in the next four years if something breakthrough does not happen.

Currently the only promising solution is something called strained silicon. That means less power consumption only when transitor is not on. Less power at the same speed. What then? What comes next?

How does one make money in the stock market? You are seeing it demonstrated here. Place your bets. Select your numbers. The wheel will spin again in January.