Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Heisenberg Drive

#391
Neandertal wrote: Well I simply don't agree that micro processors will really get that much better in the future for the simple reason that we are very close to the physical limit of miniaturization for them. I think the limit will be about 4 times better than we have now and then quantum mechanics will begin to interfere and make anything smaller useless because the electrons of nearby atoms will effect the charge in the transistors. effectively making random changes to your data. We should see that still in our lifetimes.

These numbers still seem pretty small to me.
1. Most of my speed is from using higher clock rates and photonics.
Only ~50x increase is from using smaller electronics, which is already proven to work in experimental setup.
and this assumes that the aspect ratios of transistors stay the same when using graphene based electronics.

my educated guesss is that we will at least get another 200x density increase from graphene electronics.

Spintronics will give that another boost, as you can double an single elevtrons information density by (at least) 2 by using not only its charge but also spin

2. As cha0zz already said, quantum computing moves this all to a completely different ballpark, as this will increase computational capacity another few magnitudes.

3.the numbers are close enough by far, compared to your earlier claim that we are of by 1E12 or so.
The small difference there is no fundamental science challenge anymore.
Its only engineering.

Its also completely ignoring any technology we cant even think of now.

Im pretty sure we know nothing in the grand sheme of things.
Last edited by Cornflakes_91 on Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post

Re: Heisenberg Drive

#392
Cha0zz wrote:Your whole reasoning is based on 2 assumptions:
1) atoms only can be moved by a distance the same as their diameter
2) We will still be using silicon chips in the future

Both these assumptions can be wrong
1)Why only with a distance equal to their diameter?
2)Quantum computing would vastly increase the computational power and I think it is reasonable to think that in the future maybe even better and faster ways of calculating things will become possible.
1. The uncertainty of the position of atoms is every small, so how can you conceivably manipulate that uncertainly to move them more that their diameter? I feel that is to big to begin with and would rather use the diameter of the nucleus.

2. Quantum computing will only be better that regular computers for extremely complex calculations that will required a long time to do. But sure, we can use that but then only jump every few seconds and that will give you even slower speeds. I purposefully made the required calculations meaningless per jump to illustrate why I find this system unrealistic.
Post

Re: Heisenberg Drive

#393
Cornflakes_91 wrote: my educated guess is that we will at least get another 200x density increase from graphene electronics.
how would you manage that? The problem is not that we cannot increase the transistor density, the problem is that they start interfering with each other. so there is literally a maximum number you can it into a certain size and we are already getting very close to that. Graphene would not solve that problem. Unless you can turn off quantum mechanics.
Post

Re: Heisenberg Drive

#394
Neandertal wrote: how would you manage that? The problem is not that we cannot increase the transistor density, the problem is that they start interfering with each other. so there is literally a maximum number you can it into a certain size and we are already getting very close to that. Graphene would not solve that problem. Unless you can turn off quantum mechanics.
Im not the one building the circuits (now).

But seemingly electrons can be confined to 15atom wide graphene strips.
Link

The 10000 times higher density is literaric freedom from the writer of the article imo.
(I guess 3000-5000 will be the limit)
But its still a vast improvement in density.
Last edited by Cornflakes_91 on Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron