1 Molecule Computes Thousands of Times Faster Than a PC 246
alexhiggins732 writes with this tantalizing PopSci snippet: "A demo of a quantum calculation carried out by Japanese researchers has yielded some pretty mind-blowing results: a single molecule can perform a complex calculation thousands of times faster than a conventional computer. A proof-of-principle test run of a discrete Fourier transform — a common calculation using spectral analysis and data compression, among other things — performed with a single iodine molecule transpired very well, putting all the molecules in your PC to shame."
Computronium. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we are going to see a lot more of this sort of thing as humans get better and better at organizing matter into computing machines. The future is looking very very bright!
Thats cheating (Score:5, Insightful)
In a way. thats just the same as claiming a laser can caluclate a 2D FFT if you look at the frauenhofer diffraction of an aperture.
Or that single candle can render better than any GPU by the way a room looks like when its illuminated by it.
You just have to redefine a basic property of your system as "calculation"
Re:Quantum computers aren't X times faster. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not unlike comparing a train ride with a flight. Yes, the airplane is faster than the train, but sometimes when you factor in the lenght of time it takes to drive to the airport, board the plane, fly, unboard, drive from the airport to the destination, this can be longer than driving (or walking) to the train station, riding the train, and driving (or walking) from the station to the destination.
Re:Thats cheating (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the current through the transistor is a binary representation of a value, which can be run through arbitrary programs on the same general hardware. This is just using analog resonances to create a dedicated mechanical "FFT device" of actual waveforms, not performing analyses on numeric data.
To use a Car Analogy (TM), this is like saying I've invented a better driving simulation algorithm than Gran Turismo/Forza/rFactor/etc by building & driving a physical car.
Re:Quantum computers aren't X times faster. (Score:3, Insightful)
So in your opinion the question "Is a computer faster than an abacus?" has no answer then?
On many levels, yes. Since the problem you're trying to solve is open ended, there's as many answers to it as their are ends to the question.
it's just to tell that it can do some things much faster and that is why you should care. That's the first thing you should get across in any communication, there's tons of things that are technically correct but uninteresting or useless. If you can't get that across within the first 30 seconds, I got better things to do.
Why does it have to be made interesting to everyone? Most people don't really care anyway that someone might be able to solve some mathematical problem faster than they could before. So why bother trying to jazz it up? If you seriously have to dumb something down so much that you lose the essential principles, then the person is never going to be interested in it anyway. Better just tell the truth and let those not interested in it stay uninterested in it. At least nobody has a false sense of knowing something about the thing.
Re:This could be the breakthrough... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:To understand the implications of Quantum Compu (Score:5, Insightful)
One time pads already are unbreakable.
Re:Quantum computers aren't X times faster. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Computronium. (Score:2, Insightful)
Will these calculations be affected by radiation?
Will one have some sort of error detection in that case?
Re:This could be the breakthrough... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I think reasonable skepticism and questioning of authority is necessary. I will go so far as to say that if I have equal reason to accept or question authority, I will doubtless land on the questioning side. But no further. Unreasonable skepticism is as idiotic as unreasonable faith.
Re:This could be the breakthrough... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thats cheating (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you're looking at it backwards.
Pi and e are our approximations of nature's behaviour. Our laws of physics are modelled on the behaviour of nature as best as we can observe. In fact, you could argue that all of mathematics is the same. We try and shoehorn these natural constants into integer bases, and we're shocked when they don't play nicely.
Nature is not some calculator approximating a physics simulation with some arbitrary level of precision.
In defense of Moore's law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thats cheating (Score:4, Insightful)
The universe is a pattern of vibrations/energy. Physical laws are just representations or patterns we observe that behave in a consistent way, which we have codified in some sort of language (usually maths). There are no "real" laws of physics, just abstract representations of observable phenomena. Some do a better job of representation than others.
Nature doesn't "use" pi or e to do calculations. These symbols are just part of our codification of consistent patterns which we have abstracted and aren't real outside our heads. Nothing "calculates" the physical world, rather, we calculate how parts of it will behave. In other words physics and maths MIMIC the universe; the universe is certainly NOT based on maths or physics. What will calculate the calculator. Don't confuse abstractions with reality.