Scientists Find Flaw in Quantum Dot Construction

ThePolkapunk writes "Scientists have been having problems in predicting the behavior of Quantum Dots, which are considered to be the most likely material to be used to build nanocomputers. Physorg is reporting that physicists at Ohio University believe they've found the problem, and it's with a flaw in the construction of quantum dots. If their theory pans out, "It's one more step towards the holy grail of finding a better quantum bit, which hopefully will lead to a quantum computer."" We first mentioned this about six years ago.

DUPE!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You reported this six years ag... oh, they pointed it out...

It's STILL a dupe, dangit!

In other news:

[gik]

After painstaking years of testing and research, Scientists have found the source of the problem with malfunctioning Firestone tires: THEY WEREN'T BUILT PROPERLY.

Film at eleven. :)

Quanta

[Anonymous Coward]

I built my caravan from nanoscale quantum dots.
It got rusty really quickly, and the seals on the doors leak.
I would recommend other people avoid using them for building things.

Solution

[Pan T. Hose]

"Scientists have been having problems in predicting the behavior of Quantum Dots"

Couldn't they use the random number generator that sees into the future [slashdot.org] to predict the behavior of quantum dots? It was posted in Slashdot's Science section without the Funny Foot icon so it must be valid, just like the tsunami creatures [slashdot.org]. (Seriously, how can we not be sceptical about anything posted on Slashdot these days? When I read this headline the first thing I did was checking out on Google and Randi.org if quantum dots aren't just another new quack pseudoscience, and before I managed to verify their validity I had no time to read the article in question. Isn't there something wrong with a news source when the first thing I do is a research before I can trust anything I read? Isn't that a job of editors to verify their sources before posting stories? I just don't get it.)

I wonder...

[Concerned Onlooker]

...if this will have an effect on the quantum slash dot effect?

Re:I wonder...

[Concerned Onlooker]

I probably could have worked "effect" in there one more time.

Re:At what point is a computer powerful enough?

[Carlbunn]

Bad, bad geek! There's no such thing as "too much computer power"

Discount Quantum Dots

[EdgeTreader]

"New & used Quantum Dots. aff Check out the huge selection now" ...ebay ad running next to TFA

Re:Do we need quantum bits?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we really need computers at all?
I mean, really, get off your ass and go outside. ;p

Heisenberg

[moof1138]

Heisenberg was driving down the road, and a policeman pulled him over. He asked, "do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replied, "no, but I can tell you where I am."

Re:UO?

[ThatsNotFunny]

Sounds like they OU an apology... ;)

In other news:-Quantum Outsourcing.

[Anonymous Coward]

"After painstaking years of testing and research, Scientists have found the source of the problem with malfunctioning Firestone tires: THEY WEREN'T BUILT PROPERLY."

See what happens when you outsource?

That's the problem! Also, Osama.

[mr_luc]

That's the problem. In this era of budget reduction, our scientists are now forced to buy their Quantum Dots off of Ebay.

Unfortunately, not only have many of these dots been defective, following the installation and usage instructions included with the Dot have left many of our top scientists sterile.

It is possible that this is a plot by Al Queida to weaken the population of intellectuals in the US.

Re:UO?

[B3ryllium]

Would that be in Universe A or Universe 1?

We first mentioned this six years ago...

[jea6]

We first mentioned this six years ago...

How absurd and inanely pretentious. It's astounding that the search engine the editors are using allows them to say "it's a dupe from six years ago" but not be able to recognize the dupe from yesterday. Sheesh.

Quantum Exploit Detected

[StikyPad]

Ads by Goooooogle

----- Technologies
Quantum Cryptography solutions, consulting, and evaluations.
www.-----.com

Quantum Dots
Article in BusinessWeek Read it online. Free Trial!
www.-----.com

You Like Quantum Physics?
Have The Extreme Wealth and Success You Desire In Six Easy Steps!
-----.com

Now somebody's obviously banking on the idea that quantum physicists are most likely to fall for the six step scheme. Perhaps they'll get stuck on "Step 5: ???" and spend the rest of their natural lives trying to solve for ???.

Star Trek?

[jpop32]

Doesn't the article read just like your typical Star Trek plot?

You have a noble experiment:
Nanoscientists dream of developing a quantum computer, a device the size of a grain of sand that could be faster and more powerful than today's PCs.
So, after they have
blasted the quantum dots with light to create the quantum mechanical state
they encounter the problem:
they couldn't consistently control that state
So, the science officers get the work and after some time the find out the cause of the problem:
the wetting layer caused interference, instead of allowing the light to enter the dot and trigger the quantum state

And, after some hard thinking Wesley Crusher...
suggests that scientists could tweak the process by re-focusing the beam of light or changing the duration of the light pulses to negate the effects of the wetting layer!

And the day is saved.

Re:Heisenberg

[mnmn]

The cop must be Officer Newton.

But Heisenberg still wouldnt know where he is, simply since he was 'pulled over' he can be sure hes now driving at 0mph! Which means he can be anywhere.

The only way Officer Newton can catch him is to ticket him while driving real fast along his side... thereby knowing exactly where he is.

But then if Einsteins a passenger, Heisenberg would be doing 0mph if Newton is driving along his side, thereby again not knowing where the heck Heisenburg is. Either way, given Einstein is in the car, Heisenberg can never break the real speed limit from ANYONE's vantage point.

Re:I guess this seems as good a place as anywhere

[lgw]

Actual real-world viruses are genuine nanotechnology. Further, they have been evolving for thousands of years to kill humans. It's believed that actual real-world viruses killed 95% of humans in North America and 90% of humans in Central America soon after the Spanish began exploring. Actual real-world viruses are the best possible human-killing nanotechnology given actual real-world material and energy limitations, the laws of physics, and the fact we don't live in a science-fiction novel.

Anything mankind could come up with would be wimpy by comparison. If you disagree, you clearly haven't been put down by this year's flu. ;)