How Small Can Computers Get? Computing in a Molecule 143
ScienceDaily on what the future might bring for atomic-scale computing: "Joachim, the head of the CEMES Nanoscience and Picotechnology Group (GNS), is currently coordinating a team of researchers from 15 academic and industrial research institutes in Europe whose groundbreaking work on developing a molecular replacement for transistors has brought the vision of atomic-scale computing a step closer to reality. Their efforts, a continuation of work that began in the 1990s, are today being funded by the European Union in the Pico-Inside project. ... The team has managed to design a simple logic gate with 30 atoms that perform the same task as 14 transistors, while also exploring the architecture, technology, and chemistry needed to achieve computing inside a single molecule and to interconnect molecules."
well thats more just the processor... (Score:3, Insightful)
How small can computers get? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:well thats more just the processor... (Score:5, Insightful)
Smaller transistors means more efficient transistors. It's not just about size.
Angels dancing on the head of a pin time (Score:2, Insightful)
Really the question is how small becomes impractical? I remember the calculator cold wars. It hit the limit when everyone realized how silly a pen one was when you couldn't read the display or use it without a tiny stylus. Eventually the cost of reducing the size will be astronomical so even if you can what's the point? We can make antimatter fuel it's just so insanely expensive that without a major technical leap you aren't going to be powering a car much less a starship with it. There may be uses justifying continuing to reduce computer size but already they are about as fast as people need for most apps so the biggest benefits would be power useage and cramming more computers into places they don't belong. Expensive doesn't make for good disposables so it'll have limitations. It's exciting stuff but don't hold your breath on having a super computer the size of a pin head. Can it be done? Yes. Will it be practical? Unlikely.
halfway there? (Score:3, Insightful)
The real key to all of these and all non-trivial efforts at Nano technology is for these devices to be self assembling. By non-trivial I mean other than "simple" things like nanotubes or quantum dots. These simple compounds can now be produced in industrial quantities through basically chemical/physical means.
While it is very very impressive that they can do this, in order for this to become practical, they will have to make millions, no billions, no trillions, no quadrillions... of these things at once or they have to be able to duplicate/reproduce themselves. The (self) "assembler" is, of course, the holy grail of nano-tech.
Hope I see it before I die and that it doesn't cause my (and all of our) deaths! :P
Re:well thats more just the processor... (Score:5, Insightful)
OK but what if you want to put them inside nanobots designed to target and kill cancer cells or a zillion other applications that are made possible by smaller and less power hungry computation? Smaller also means more powerful computers at the 'classic' scale, for which we know there is demand for right now by way of the very existence of supercomputers.
Re:How small can computers get? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:well thats more just the processor... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Angels dancing on the head of a pin time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about cosmic rays ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't normal RAM get hit by cosmic rays and radiation? AFAIK it also suffers from bits being flipped incorrectly. Even Flash memory suffers from individual cells dying without much problem.
I am sure there are ways to offer redundancy and failover between molecules, eg. you could create self assembling groups which all do the same calculation, a controller could then decide which ones are right based on probability, dead molecules could be marked in the FAT... err I mean the MAT.
Most of the technology we use today is being bombarded, changed and destroyed by cosmic rays and radiation. The fact that these molecules are smaller means it might be easier to make them more resilient to attack from the cosmos, we certainly will have a lot more to play with.
Re:well thats more just the processor... (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember back in 1984 when the first Mac was released touted at a size of a stack of paper. Considered small and light enough to move anywhere. Then when the laptops (real Laptops, not the luggable) were released while today are considered huge and bulky but at the time they were small enough to carry with your books.
As computing shrinks our idea of size goes down too. The Stack of paper Mac, was considered really small because computing at the time the easiest job for moving anything with computing was the stack of green bar paper to the line printer. Then as they shrunk to the size of laptops and notebooks they are smaller then the books you have to carry (at the time) anyways. So small enough for your needs. But as time progresses the need to carry the books and just your laptop. Now we are starting to get decent performance out of the pocket cellphone size, where it is that much easier to carry. However still you need pockets or some way to keep it attached to your person. I would predict actually stylish warble Computers in the future, just as the bluetooth headsets are becoming today. But perhaps comfortable glasses, or audio based computation. If audio based computation then it may get smaller to say technology that can be implanted in your ear wax, for a semi permeant hold of the technology. The problem is we tend to think of computing as we do now. Such back in 1984 where computing was used in conjunctions with large books, a lot of paper and was used as we use a TI8x series calculator today. But then as their performance increases the way that we do work with computers have changed. And it will change in the future too.
Re:What about cosmic rays ? (Score:1, Insightful)
A bit of radiation whizzing by would not just 'flip a bit' and make the computer/program crash (or even worse - produce an erronious result) but could dislodge a few atoms and physically damage the computer.
So are we going to have to shield tiny computers with an inch of lead ?
Instead they will be like modern computers with fault detection, error correction and automatic rerouting.
Re:In the 1960s (Score:5, Insightful)
Broaden your vision. This is about making smaller components.
What can you do with smaller components? Well, right away, you can put more stuff in the case. Your iphonanopalmtop thing can have a foldout screen and keyboard, or a bigger battery, or it can simply be lighter. I don't know about you, but I find an iPhone a bit hefty.
Now, if you look beyond next week, smaller components let you do entirely new things. You think technology is sufficient now to put a computer in a palmtop? Whatever, dude.
I want a computer in my eyeglasses. Optically corrected screens overlaying my vision. High resolution. And I want them to weigh the same as a normal pair of glasses. Don't forget to throw in a video camera for good measure.
Can we build something like that now? Or course not. That sort of thing today is either a huge bulky piece of headgear, or it's moderately bulky and has a terrible display. We need better components: much smaller, much lower power, faster.
Don't ever say we've reached the limits of useful computer technology. Until you're plugged in directly via your visual cortex and have a robot butler who brings you waffles in the morning, we haven't even reached the limits of uses we can already imagine.
Re:What about cosmic rays ? (Score:1, Insightful)